NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[IanC]

some of the posters on the skeptical side of the argument has turned into kneejerk Deniers. they spout illogical crap that simply makes no sense.

eg. I agree that the IPCC uses awkward language when they say back radiation heats the surface. the Sun heats the surface, the back radiation only reduces energy loss which indirectly heats the surface by changing the equilibrium. temperature is a function of both energy in and energy out. change either side and the temperature changes. that does not mean that the exaggerated feedback multipliers are valid.

the skeptical side has a hard enough job just trying to thwart the exaggerations of the warmers. when deniers act like idiots it paints the whole skeptical side as idiots, worthy of being ignored.

learn some science and make principled statements that can be logically defended, or just shut up and go back to name calling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

some of the posters on the skeptical side of the argument has turned into kneejerk Deniers. they spout illogical crap that simply makes no sense.

eg. I agree that the IPCC uses awkward language when they say back radiation heats the surface. the Sun heats the surface, the back radiation only reduces energy loss which indirectly heats the surface by changing the equilibrium. temperature is a function of both energy in and energy out. change either side and the temperature changes. that does not mean that the exaggerated feedback multipliers are valid.

the skeptical side has a hard enough job just trying to thwart the exaggerations of the warmers. when deniers act like idiots it paints the whole skeptical side as idiots, worthy of being ignored.

learn some science and make principled statements that can be logically defended, or just shut up and go back to name calling.

I'd be delighted for the Warmers to present one single experiment that controls for a 120PPM increase in CO2

 

[SSDD]

eg. I agree that the IPCC uses awkward language when they say back radiation heats the surface.

It isn't awkward language...they are expressing the greenhouse hypothesis. If they meant something else, I suppose they would have said something else. You are big on interpreting what people and physical laws say rather than simply accepting what is said if it doesn't jibe with your view.

 

[mamooth]

Are you saying that the instrument only measures energy moving towards it?

Well, yes. Kind of hard to measure energy that doesn't reach the instrument.

Are you aware that the number you get on the instrument is the result of a mathematical function and not any directly measured energy?

So, by the SSDD standard, almost no measurement instrument of any sort can be trusted.

Are you really aware of anything.

Are you capable of acting like a grownup?

When I have time I will explain what is actually being measured...suffice it to say that the supposed back radiation you are seeing on the instrument is the result of a detected voltage and the temperature of the instrument itself passed through an equation...there is no actual measurement of DLR.

When you have time, explain your flagrant double standard. Why is it that you're fine with every other lab instrument in the world, even though any instrument with a digital output has to process data before displaying it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yet another analysis of the fraud that is Karl Et Al and my how those steps are so pronounced without justification..

The fraud is so stunning that it baffles my mind how any reputable scientist can lend any credibility to it..

Source

The CRN data shows the fraud outright...

 

[Crick]

From Judith Curry's website

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on July 7, 2014 | 2,044 Comments
by Zeke Hausfather

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.




Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hiding the decline and good faith are mutually exclusive

 

[jc456]

From Judith Curry's website

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on July 7, 2014 | 2,044 Comments
by Zeke Hausfather

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.




Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

so she is asking us to be nice when we say they cook the books. But me, I'll just say it, they cook the books. Fraud, money hungry asses. I will say it to their faces as well.

 

[Crick]

That was not written by Judith Curry, simply hosted by her. And the article says no such thing. Thus you are lying.

 

[jc456]

That was not written by Judith Curry, simply hosted by her. And the article says no such thing. Thus you are lying.

dude, you're remarkable. I think you should learn how to read. I'll acknowledge I didn't look at the author, You posted Judith Curry and I took it as such. Now that makes me stupid. However, one should actually read what was written, here:

"Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done."

Now you misled the board a bit and i did bite. shame on me, that will be the last time. Now, tell me i was wrong in my analysis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From Judith Curry's website

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on July 7, 2014 | 2,044 Comments
by Zeke Hausfather

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.




Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

Zeke is a luke-warmer, always has been. His appeal to authority hits me with no force at all. With so much deception coming from those people their "Good faith" is long gone and it is blatant fraud at this point.

 

[Crick]

The problem is that you decided they had been deceptive, that the were guilty of "blatant fraud" and that you had no "faith" in mainstream climate science on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 

[jc456]

The problem is that you decided they had been deceptive, that the were guilty of "blatant fraud" and that you had no "faith" in mainstream climate science on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

Exactly, they nor you have provided any evidence. Spot on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The problem is that you decided they had been deceptive, that the were guilty of "blatant fraud" and that you had no "faith" in mainstream climate science on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

They lack any evidence! That is precisely the point. Models are not empirical evidence of ANYTHING!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

Are you saying that the instrument only measures energy moving towards it? Are you aware that the number you get on the instrument is the result of a mathematical function and not any directly measured energy? Are you really aware of anything.

When I have time I will explain what is actually being measured...suffice it to say that the supposed back radiation you are seeing on the instrument is the result of a detected voltage and the temperature of the instrument itself passed through an equation...there is no actual measurement of DLR.

When I have time I will explain what is actually being measured...suffice it to say that the supposed back radiation you are seeing on the instrument is the result of a detected voltage and the temperature of the instrument itself passed through an equation

Oh, they aren't measuring the temperature of CBR, they're measuring its voltage? LOL!

 

[jc456]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

 

[mamooth]

According to jc and frank, all CAT scanners are hoaxes, because they use equations to manipulate the data before presenting it. Any smart person should know it's a hoax, because you can't really look inside someone's head.

You two run with that, okay?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

 

[jc456]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist?

Lots of idiots out there. SSDD comes to mind.

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists. I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

So that would imply there's no factual data to prove it exists.

What are you talking about? It's measured everyday. With actual scientific instruments.

I have zero faith any evidence exists to prove it.

I'm not surprised. You make SSDD look smart.

You have anything but a mathematical equation?

You don't believe the equation either?

Fact is you don't have evidence ! Facts