NOAA/NASA temperature data ALL FAKE!!!

Definitely not fake anything..
It is fake news from a disgruntled ex-employee. Just like the fake "climategate" hoax.

:biggrin:

As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Read more: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card".. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer". Probably why the Obama awarded him that award. To remind him they were watching him..

All that shit stops right about now.. Just watch what happens when science gets real again..
 
40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card".. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."
I bet you can't even see your own stupidity in discrediting your own "whistleblower"!!!! :cuckoo:
 
40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card".. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."
I bet you can't even see your own stupidity in discrediting your own "whistleblower"!!!! :cuckoo:


s0n.......your side got pwned!!:2up::eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:
 
40 years in the field. Unimpeachable integrity was the OBJECT of his work. And you resort to playing the "disgruntled card".. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You bet your ass he is "disgruntled". He also blows the manufactured consensus myth out of the water. He was MUZZLED because no dissent went unpunished while he was a govt "disinformation officer".
So the person you claim has "UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY" you say was a "government DISINFORMATION OFFICER."
I bet you can't even see your own stupidity in discrediting your own "whistleblower"!!!! :cuckoo:

Just watch. The PUBLIC retractions of fraud and misrepresentation in NOAA/GISS are just less than a year away.. Guarandamnteeit.. Once again the NOAA/NASA data will AGAIN agree with the satellite data.. And AFRICA??? That big damn hole in the middle of it that NASA was making up shit for --- will be gone..
 
An old thread yes, but, I wonder will Trump fire all the lying scientists and or workers at NOAA and NASA. So much of the swamp goes way beyond Washington D.C.
 
Elektra, thanks for bringing this up. I'd forgotten how badly the deniers pooched it here, and it gives me a chance to rub their face in it.

Just watch. The PUBLIC retractions of fraud and misrepresentation in NOAA/GISS are just less than a year away.. Guarandamnteeit..

It's well over a year gone now, and what Flac guaranteed hasn't happened. Flac's conspiracy theory was clearly delusional. And nobody is surprised. Being that "I was wrong" is not in his vocabulary, it means he'll have created a new conspiracy theory to explain why his old conspiracy theory failed.

Meanwhile, here's what Dr. Bates said.
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Oh goody, "20 crucial data storage and handling steps." I'm sure there were also multiple flow charts. That is, Bates is a mid-level bureaucrat who was upset that his own special bureaucratic procedures weren't being followed to the letter. It's how mid-level bureaucrats justify their existence, by creating their own unique system that everyone else has to follow.

The important thing is Bates confirmed no fraud. All the deniers here said Bates was an impeccable source, hence all the deniers have admitted no fraud in the data. So, deniers got some 'splainin to do, as to why they made up all those stories of fraud and repeated them for so many years.
 
Elektra, thanks for bringing this up. I'd forgotten how badly the deniers pooched it here, and it gives me a chance to rub their face in it.

Just watch. The PUBLIC retractions of fraud and misrepresentation in NOAA/GISS are just less than a year away.. Guarandamnteeit..

It's well over a year gone now, and what Flac guaranteed hasn't happened. Flac's conspiracy theory was clearly delusional. And nobody is surprised. Being that "I was wrong" is not in his vocabulary, it means he'll have created a new conspiracy theory to explain why his old conspiracy theory failed.

Meanwhile, here's what Dr. Bates said.
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Oh goody, "20 crucial data storage and handling steps." I'm sure there were also multiple flow charts. That is, Bates is a mid-level bureaucrat who was upset that his own special bureaucratic procedures weren't being followed to the letter. It's how mid-level bureaucrats justify their existence, by creating their own unique system that everyone else has to follow.

The important thing is Bates confirmed no fraud. All the deniers here said Bates was an impeccable source, hence all the deniers have admitted no fraud in the data. So, deniers got some 'splainin to do, as to why they made up all those stories of fraud and repeated them for so many years.

Oh sure. Ignore the new MIT study that says that all the "accelerated, runaway, warming scenarios" are bogus. Or the constantly plummeting "climate sensitivity" variable that puts the warming power of CO2 at about the level I've always contested that it was. Right about at the basic envelope calculation that derives from a doubling with NO feedbacks, NO accelerations, NO scary your pants off embellishments.


As for THIS prediction, the federal level of govt moves slower than expected. Not a surprise to a Libertarian. BUT, it was announced last year, that ALL NOAA/GISS algorithms would become public and FULLY DOCUMENTED. And that they would maintained that way.; INCLUDING --- the results of updates and tweaks. NEED A LINK Squidward????

That means that the entire HISTORY of revisions will become "shared science" --- AND THAT -- is a war winning victory.

You can tell.. When was the LAST TIME you saw monthly HEADLINE NEWS from NOAA/GISS about the WARMEST _____________ ever? It's gone. Maybe a couple times in 2018... THe mojo is out of the sauce and kitchen isn't COOKING data like it used to...
 
That's the reason that YOU and CrickHam, and GoldiRocks are not posting TERRIFYING tales of gloom here daily anymore.. Isn't it? Your Grim Fairy Tales Weekly Reader has gone Bye-Bye.. :auiqs.jpg:

Yes, yes, you know you can't discuss science with us, so you deflect by making up stories about what we supposedly say and believe..

What, you thought it wasn't obvious? You've always been helpless with the science. You try to bluff about how brilliant you are, but we've always run circles around you, reducing you to insults and conspiracy theories. Maybe you're smart, but your political cult orders you to get it wrong, so you devote all of your intelligence into being wrong, and you succeed.

Oh sure. Ignore the new MIT study that says that all the "accelerated, runaway, warming scenarios" are bogus.

As we've always said runaway warming is impossible, just what are you babbling about?

Or the constantly plummeting "climate sensitivity" variable

The "constant plummeting" being once going from 2.0-4.5 to 1.5-4.5.

that puts the warming power of CO2 at about the level I've always contested that it was. Right about at the basic envelope calculation that derives from a doubling with NO feedbacks, NO accelerations, NO scary your pants off embellishments.

You're way out of your league here, being how you have no idea that all the recent science flatly contradicts your claims. But then, your conspiracy blogs didn't tell you that, so how could you know?

Shindell 2014, saying the low end is extremely unlikely.
Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity

Kummer & Dessler 2014 puts the range at 1.9C - 6.8C, midpoint at 3.0C
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2014GL060046

Marvel et al 2015 is more complicated, but sort of says aerosols had confused the old low-sensitivity studies, and that the higher estimates are correct.
Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings

Goodwin 2018 puts the range at 1.9C - 4.6C, midpoint at 2.9C
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EF000889

And then there's reality. Half a doubling (logarithm style) of CO2 has brought 1.0C of warming. That means there is an observed TCS of around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS.

As for THIS prediction, the federal level of govt moves slower than expected. Not a surprise to a Libertarian.

And there's the new conspiracy theory to excuse the failure of the old conspiracy theory.

BUT, it was announced last year, that ALL NOAA/GISS algorithms would become public and FULLY DOCUMENTED. And that they would maintained that way.; INCLUDING --- the results of updates and tweaks. NEED A LINK Squidward????

So, what fraud did it reveal? Nothing? Imagine that.

That means that the entire HISTORY of revisions will become "shared science" --- AND THAT -- is a war winning victory.

So you're going with "Well, I failed each time before, but just you wait! Next time, victory will me mine, for sure, guaranteed! And pay no attention to all of the other times I said that!".

Good luck with that.

Like any good conspiracy theory, yours doesn't have a time limit. So, ten years from now, when you've still failed completely, you'll still be able to shout "Any day now, you just wait!". How convenient.

You can tell.. When was the LAST TIME you saw monthly HEADLINE NEWS from NOAA/GISS about the WARMEST _____________ ever?

After 2016, the latest record-breaking year. Yes, NOAA only mentions new record warm years after new record warm years. And you find that to be a conspiracy. How very peculiar.

It's gone. Maybe a couple times in 2018... THe mojo is out of the sauce and kitchen isn't COOKING data like it used to...

2017 and 2018 were dominated by La Nina events, so they didn't break the records. That's how climate works. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it. Given how little you know about the topic, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups here.
 
You're so phony Squidward, that AT&T has a whole exhibit on you in their official corporate museum..

Ain't wasting no time on your sputtering..

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg
 
A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
. In 2001, Harries et. al observed significant increases in greenhouse forcings by direct inter-comparison of the IRIS spectra 1970 and the IMG spectra 19978. We have extended this effort by measuring the annual rate of change of AIRS all-sky Outgoing Longwave Spectra (OLS) with respect to greenhouse forcings. Our calculations make use of a 2°x2° degree monthly gridded Brightness Temperature (BT) product. Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1). Observed decreases in BT trends are expected due to ten years of increased greenhouse gasses even though global surface temperatures have not risen substantially over the last decade.
 
You're so phony Squidward

Notice how I can run circles around you without insults? That's not because I'm especially brilliant. It's because I'm part of the reality-based community. I see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You, you're on your belly in the swamp.

In this case, the topic was a bizarre claim you made about the consensus of climate sensitivity.

I showed the consensus from the organization that summarizes the consensus, the IPCC, plus the modern science from the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals specializing in climate science.

You got your views on it from climastrologist and mathturbator Scafetta, who thinks the orbit of Jupiter controls earth's climate, and who specializes in cherrypicking to get the curves he likes, such as the one you showed. That particular paper was published in the "International Journal of Heat and Technology", an engineering journal. Scafetta really had to shop around to find a journal, any journal, where he could slip his climastrology past the editors.

And you fell for it. You always do.
 
You're so phony Squidward

Notice how I can run circles around you without insults? That's not because I'm especially brilliant. It's because I'm part of the reality-based community. I see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You, you're on your belly in the swamp.

In this case, the topic was a bizarre claim you made about the consensus of climate sensitivity.

I showed the consensus from the organization that summarizes the consensus, the IPCC, plus the modern science from the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals specializing in climate science.

You got your views on it from climastrologist and mathturbator Scafetta, who thinks the orbit of Jupiter controls earth's climate, and who specializes in cherrypicking to get the curves he likes, such as the one you showed. That particular paper was published in the "International Journal of Heat and Technology", an engineering journal. Scafetta really had to shop around to find a journal, any journal, where he could slip his climastrology past the editors.

And you fell for it. You always do.

What consensus are you referring to?

75 Papers: Low Sensitivity

How many of these published papers are from Scaffetta?

Snicker...……………….
 
You're so phony Squidward

Notice how I can run circles around you without insults? That's not because I'm especially brilliant. It's because I'm part of the reality-based community. I see further because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You, you're on your belly in the swamp.

In this case, the topic was a bizarre claim you made about the consensus of climate sensitivity.

I showed the consensus from the organization that summarizes the consensus, the IPCC, plus the modern science from the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals specializing in climate science.

You got your views on it from climastrologist and mathturbator Scafetta, who thinks the orbit of Jupiter controls earth's climate, and who specializes in cherrypicking to get the curves he likes, such as the one you showed. That particular paper was published in the "International Journal of Heat and Technology", an engineering journal. Scafetta really had to shop around to find a journal, any journal, where he could slip his climastrology past the editors.

And you fell for it. You always do.

What consensus are you referring to?

75 Papers: Low Sensitivity

How many of these published papers are from Scaffetta?

Snicker...……………….

It's a "weak" consensual world for some folks.. The actual implication of "consensus" seems to escape them..
 
Obama corrupted NOAA and NASA just like he corrupted the FBI, IRS, Border Patrol, DOJ, CIA, EPA and every other government agency.
 
What consensus are you referring to?

Try IPCC AR5, chapter 12. Hundreds of references there. I'll give you a summary with a picture. After all, it's not like you're capable of actual research.

WGI_AR5_FigBox12.2-1.jpg


I started going down your list. It was hilarious

Let's try the first author. Boris M. Smirnov. No experience in climate science. From "Microphysics of Atmospheric Phenomena". Which is ... not a scientific paper. It's an ebook self-published by Smirnov. In the climate field, Smirnov is cited by ... nobody.

Next author. Florides and Christodoulides, 2009. The title is "Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences". So, a major grammatical error in the title. Yeah, that was reviewed. Another open-access journal. The abstract just throws a whole lot of garbage at the wall, in the hopes something sticks.

No need to keep going. Your conspiracy blog just collected a list of unknowns and cranks.

You might want to look at the real world. Half a doubling of CO2 has brought about 1.0C of warming. That means TCS is around 2.0C. That means ECS has to be significantly bigger. Anyone claiming ECS < 2.5C is not in touch with reality. But then, that's just the real world data talking. What is that to compare with your cult propaganda?
 
Probably the nasa temperature data are not that fake too much, but you must understand that they need to Doctor it a little otherwise how do you make more people buy carbon tax backed bonds?
 

Forum List

Back
Top