New research debunks GW adjustments

Discussion in 'Environment' started by task0778, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,682
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,567
    For the past 150 years or so global temperature readings have been recorded at various stations and sites around the world. Obviously the situation for these sites and stations change as urban sprawl occurs or sea levels change where those temps are recorded. So, 'adjustments' have to be made, otherwise the data becomes inaccurate. NOW - one might think that such adjustments might raise the temp values in some places but lower them in others. But here comes the problem: as each adjustment is made, the newer version of temp data is almost always showing a steeper warming linear trend upward. So, how can this be? Answer: the data was fudged. Consider this from a new study, done by respected and credentialed scientists and experts:

    Using the government's own data. the researchers showed that government agencies were able to "prove" that the Earth is warming simply by leaving out vital information.

    While the notion that some "adjustments" to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

    The scientists are not arguing that adjustments to temperature data are not necessary. Over the 160 years or so of recorded temps, the weather stations where the data is gathered sometimes move, or a city grows up around them, or there is a change in sea levels where the temps are recorded. All of these factors and more would make the data useless without "adjustments."

    The professors argue – and skeptics have been saying this for years – that it is just too convenient for these "adjustments" to almost always show an increase in temperature over the unadjusted data. This is statistically impossible and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the books are being cooked.


    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  2. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    9,880
    Thanks Received:
    1,992
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +7,198
    IF you dig deep into the paper you will find they got access to the UNADJUSTED data and verified it. It pretty much lays the MMGW hypothesis dead as it exposes the methods and adjustments to be unwarranted and always in one direction.. they simply pulled the whole AGW narrative apart with empirically observed evidence and real science.

    Its refreshing to see actual science being done..
     
  3. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    17,725
    Thanks Received:
    3,084
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +10,581
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    9,880
    Thanks Received:
    1,992
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +7,198
    Spamming the same old bull shit isn't helping your case.. The new study specifically tears apart your graph and its source Karl et al.

    Don't go away mad, just go the fuck away.. Your schitick is has been show a fraud...
     
  5. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    17,725
    Thanks Received:
    3,084
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +10,581
    Your lies keep getting dumber.

    First, that graph had nothing to do with Karl et al,

    Second, the propaganda piece mentions Karl et all in passing once, and doesn't even pretend to "tear it apart".

    Your propaganda never actually references Karl et al, and instead only links to another denier blog that mentions it. That means your propaganda authors didn't even read Karl et al. They just took the word of another conspiracy blog. They didn't read any studies at all, which is why they have zero references to any peer-reviewed paper or anything at all.

    And that's your "science".
     
  6. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    9,880
    Thanks Received:
    1,992
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +7,198
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    9,880
    Thanks Received:
    1,992
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +7,198
    Again, you stupid alarmist drone, the cited paper SHREDS the adjustments and their reasoning as NOT BASED IN SCIENCE OR FACT. IT violates the laws of basic distribution. It always goes up and that is not natural. They produced the UNALTERD data sets showing how it can not be true and why it cant. They used science to show it...

    Your lies and delusions keep getting grander and grander... YOUR A DELUSIONAL leftwing fool.
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,857
    Thanks Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,722
    [​IMG]

    Sorry that the dateline at the bottom is cut off. My phone doesn't rip graphs from PDF files and this was the best I could find on Google. Check out the original paper.

    GISS increased the trend since 1980 predominantly by cooling the past since 1960, as can be seen in this overlay of five versions.


    I have actually seen climate scientists, like Gavin Schmidt or V Venama, use a graph that normalizes the temperature pre-1900 so that it looks like raw temperature data were COOLED IN RECENT TIMES!!! Talk about misdirection! Notice the extra adjustments in the middle portion that smooth out warming/cooling by natural variation during 1930-1970.

    [​IMG]

    I could go on and on and on about how these govt agencies have continued to add more and more adjustments to bring the data into line with climate model expectations but I will leave it at that for now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,857
    Thanks Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,722
    [​IMG]

    This chart shows a large upwards correction for pre-1940 temps. It is driven almost exclusively by an adjustment for ocean temperature because of the change from measuring by bucket to engine intake. A semi reasonable adjustment. That had to be made for climate model hindcasts to work.

    This one large upwards adjustment does not excuse the hundreds of adjustments since then that invariably increase the trend by lowering the past and increasing the recent.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,857
    Thanks Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,722
    [​IMG]

    An ocean only graph to compare with the above. This shows an even larger adjustment before it is reduced by adding in the land mass. 71% ocean, 29% land.
     

Share This Page