So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

[flacaltenn]

Because the Watt site is fastidious with posting retractions and corrections, I wanted to test my trust in it.

Trakar -- I worked hard to do this --- there will be QUIZ tomorrow morning on the contents. Since it was SUCH an issue that you see the paper for yourself.. Now remember -- don't be ironic --- read the WHOLE THING and show up for the quiz...

And READ MY FOOTER again...

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

The precision achieved by the most advanced generation
of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary en-
ergy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds
and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et
al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of
6.5 W m−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implau-
sible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to
reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate
models, 0.85 W m−2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421–13449, 2011

 

[Trakar]

Because the Watt site is fastidious with posting retractions and corrections, I wanted to test my trust in it.

Wow, first time you test the statements made and it fails so utterly that the mistake is reposted across the web repeatedly in an uncorrected manner,...how embarassing! I wonder how often that happens? Probably why its not a good thing to try and get your science understandings from a political activism blog.

Trakar -- I worked hard to do this --- there will be QUIZ tomorrow morning on the contents. Since it was SUCH an issue that you see the paper for yourself.. Now remember -- don't be ironic --- read the WHOLE THING and show up for the quiz...

LOL, ((psst, making it sound like you had a hard time digging up the truth from a site like WUWT supports my case more than it does yours )

Seriously, though, I just wanted to read the context surrounding the quote in the original paper, that is the only way to ever really understand the information in any scientific paper. It surprised me that the given link didn't contain the quote. It is common the quotes are misrepresented outside the context of their statement, it is rare that attributed quotes are completely fabricated. I'll credit you with a conditional save until I review the paper and we can find a concensus on how distorted deliberate misrepresentation stacks up against wholesale fabrication.

And READ MY FOOTER again...

((Seeing as how you are claiming that the majority of scientists on this planet are lying in an attempted conspiracy to deceive everybody,...probably not the best way to draw support for your cause, remember what I said about the corn - free tip.))

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i





"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

What page in the linked pdf can I find those quotes? They aren't coming up in "search"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

Tell me then, what exactly is the blue highlighted section saying.

You tell us, you're the OP.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

He's saying they didn't get the result they wanted so they "adjusted" the instrumentation until they did get the result they wanted.

No he isn't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

I don't pretend to understand the science of this, but that except above says that the real world results are being changed to match the results predicted by a model.

I just don't understand if the instruments are any good, why they would collect the data then throw it out in favor of a conclusion that is not supported.

That is the stuff of politics, not science.

Hansen and cronies should be arrested and charged with fraud for stuff like that. he just admitted he's doctoring the data to put a hoax over on the American public.

He's not even talking about his own data you moron. He's talking about a calibration another group did on their satellite. What do you think the (Loeb et al., 2009) means after the statements? You really are a complete imbecile.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

This thread is 8 months old, but you should recognize that it IS a nasa.gov link..

More probably, it was an embarrassment to the priesthood and was exorcised...

Yeah - they censored it. Removed it and hid it away in something called "the internet". No one will ever find it there.

Let me google that for you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Wow. You really think you're important.

The quoted phrase isn't even about his own work you addleplate. It should abundantly obvious by the citations that he's talking about someone else's work.

The AGW denialists are among the most dimwitted moronic imbeciles this great country has to offer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Wow. You really think you're important.

The quoted phrase isn't even about his own work you addleplate. It should abundantly obvious by the citations that he's talking about someone else's work.


HERE
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf

PAGE 13433 last paragraph. Would you like I wipe your ass, too?
The denialists are among the most dimwitted moronic imbeciles this great country has to offer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

Temp? Funny I had no idea temperature was measured in watts per meter squared. Some reason I thought it was Celsius or Kelvin or Farhenheit.

 

[westwall]

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Please provide a reliable source for the quoted material, can't believe that you would actually post something like that without referencing back to the original material yourself?! All I want is a link to the same material so I can see what the context of those few sentences were. You didn't get suckered in by a blog source did you? Seriously!?

((hey it happens, that's one of the reasons I don't go to blogs for my science!))

Let me know if you find something.

When I posted it it was complete. Take your complaint up with hansen, he's the one who changed it not me.

 

[westwall]

Because the Watt site is fastidious with posting retractions and corrections, I wanted to test my trust in it.

Wow, first time you test the statements made and it fails so utterly that the mistake is reposted across the web repeatedly in an uncorrected manner,...how embarassing! I wonder how often that happens? Probably why its not a good thing to try and get your science understandings from a political activism blog.

Trakar -- I worked hard to do this --- there will be QUIZ tomorrow morning on the contents. Since it was SUCH an issue that you see the paper for yourself.. Now remember -- don't be ironic --- read the WHOLE THING and show up for the quiz...

LOL, ((psst, making it sound like you had a hard time digging up the truth from a site like WUWT supports my case more than it does yours )

Seriously, though, I just wanted to read the context surrounding the quote in the original paper, that is the only way to ever really understand the information in any scientific paper. It surprised me that the given link didn't contain the quote. It is common the quotes are misrepresented outside the context of their statement, it is rare that attributed quotes are completely fabricated. I'll credit you with a conditional save until I review the paper and we can find a concensus on how distorted deliberate misrepresentation stacks up against wholesale fabrication.

And READ MY FOOTER again...

((Seeing as how you are claiming that the majority of scientists on this planet are lying in an attempted conspiracy to deceive everybody,...probably not the best way to draw support for your cause, remember what I said about the corn - free tip.))

There you go with that "majority" of scientists meme. They aren't. It's the climatologists who make that claim and based on the poor quality of their work I could quite honestly care less what they say.

They are a pox on science and scientists everywhere.

 

[westwall]

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Wow. You really think you're important.

The quoted phrase isn't even about his own work you addleplate. It should abundantly obvious by the citations that he's talking about someone else's work.

The AGW denialists are among the most dimwitted moronic imbeciles this great country has to offer.

Nope, not at all. However, in all my years of working in the scientific field I NEVER altered data to suit my hypothesis. That is academic fraud. Something I am sure you will be quite conversant with.

 

[westwall]

So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

Temp? Funny I had no idea temperature was measured in watts per meter squared. Some reason I thought it was Celsius or Kelvin or Farhenheit.

Oh, I don't credit you with thinking all that much to be honest.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because the Watt site is fastidious with posting retractions and corrections, I wanted to test my trust in it.

Wow, first time you test the statements made and it fails so utterly that the mistake is reposted across the web repeatedly in an uncorrected manner,...how embarassing! I wonder how often that happens? Probably why its not a good thing to try and get your science understandings from a political activism blog.

Trakar -- I worked hard to do this --- there will be QUIZ tomorrow morning on the contents. Since it was SUCH an issue that you see the paper for yourself.. Now remember -- don't be ironic --- read the WHOLE THING and show up for the quiz...

LOL, ((psst, making it sound like you had a hard time digging up the truth from a site like WUWT supports my case more than it does yours )

Seriously, though, I just wanted to read the context surrounding the quote in the original paper, that is the only way to ever really understand the information in any scientific paper. It surprised me that the given link didn't contain the quote. It is common the quotes are misrepresented outside the context of their statement, it is rare that attributed quotes are completely fabricated. I'll credit you with a conditional save until I review the paper and we can find a concensus on how distorted deliberate misrepresentation stacks up against wholesale fabrication.

And READ MY FOOTER again...

((Seeing as how you are claiming that the majority of scientists on this planet are lying in an attempted conspiracy to deceive everybody,...probably not the best way to draw support for your cause, remember what I said about the corn - free tip.))

What an incredible buffoon you are BullWinkle.. Does this link look like a link to the WATT site?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13...13421-2011.pdf

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

It is EXACTLY what you were requesting. A link to the published paper with the Journal citation below it.. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421–13449, 2011

DID NOT find it on the Watt Site, did not trace it FROM the Watt site -- but the quote matches EXACTLY with what appeared there. No fabrication, no embellishment. You need to go yell for an UnderGrad intern to show you how to paste the quote in question into google and find shit for yourself. And then FLOG them for doing what you wanted instead of what you needed.

My comments were to test the veracity of the Watt blog. Which BTW has a correction note at the bottom of entry CLARIFYING

UPDATE: Some commenters have noted that my article implies that Hansen used those CERES satellite results in the study in question. Hansen did not use them, stating correctly that the uncertainties were too great for his purposes. —w.

NOW THAT's rare and genuine AGW honesty in my opinion.. NOT a source that misses the marks and never prints a retraction.. But the fact that Hansen's impulsive solution was to CORRECT the sensor to the model -- tells us volumes about the thinking of this man. Actually quite disturbing when you consider the importance of getting this stuff right.

You owe me and Watt an apology for being such a pompous aggressive ass.
But of course -- that doesn't matter to you does it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Wow. You really think you're important.

The quoted phrase isn't even about his own work you addleplate. It should abundantly obvious by the citations that he's talking about someone else's work.

The AGW denialists are among the most dimwitted moronic imbeciles this great country has to offer.

Nope, not at all. However, in all my years of working in the scientific field I NEVER altered data to suit my hypothesis. That is academic fraud. Something I am sure you will be quite conversant with.

Data was not altered to suit a hypothesis. You're very stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because the Watt site is fastidious with posting retractions and corrections, I wanted to test my trust in it.

Wow, first time you test the statements made and it fails so utterly that the mistake is reposted across the web repeatedly in an uncorrected manner,...how embarassing! I wonder how often that happens? Probably why its not a good thing to try and get your science understandings from a political activism blog.




LOL, ((psst, making it sound like you had a hard time digging up the truth from a site like WUWT supports my case more than it does yours )

Seriously, though, I just wanted to read the context surrounding the quote in the original paper, that is the only way to ever really understand the information in any scientific paper. It surprised me that the given link didn't contain the quote. It is common the quotes are misrepresented outside the context of their statement, it is rare that attributed quotes are completely fabricated. I'll credit you with a conditional save until I review the paper and we can find a concensus on how distorted deliberate misrepresentation stacks up against wholesale fabrication.




((Seeing as how you are claiming that the majority of scientists on this planet are lying in an attempted conspiracy to deceive everybody,...probably not the best way to draw support for your cause, remember what I said about the corn - free tip.))

What an incredible buffoon you are BullWinkle.. Does this link look like a link to the WATT site?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13...13421-2011.pdf

It is EXACTLY what you were requesting. A link to the published paper with the Journal citation below it.. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421–13449, 2011

DID NOT find it on the Watt Site, did not trace it FROM the Watt site -- but the quote matches EXACTLY with what appeared there. No fabrication, no embellishment. You need to go yell for an UnderGrad intern to show you how to paste the quote in question into google and find shit for yourself. And then FLOG them for doing what you wanted instead of what you needed.

My comments were to test the veracity of the Watt blog. Which BTW has a correction note at the bottom of entry CLARIFYING

UPDATE: Some commenters have noted that my article implies that Hansen used those CERES satellite results in the study in question. Hansen did not use them, stating correctly that the uncertainties were too great for his purposes. —w.

NOW THAT's rare and genuine AGW honesty in my opinion.. NOT a source that misses the marks and never prints a retraction.. But the fact that Hansen's impulsive solution was to CORRECT the sensor to the model -- tells us volumes about the thinking of this man. Actually quite disturbing when you consider the importance of getting this stuff right.

You owe me and Watt an apology for being such a pompous aggressive ass.
But of course -- that doesn't matter to you does it?

Hansen didn't correct the sensor to the model, Loeb et al. did. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Seriously, stop being a retard.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i





"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

You didn't find this excerpt on your own, you pulled it from one of the blogs that tells you what to think. Which one is it?


BTW - the link you posted isn't even the right paper you fucking moron.

 

[westwall]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i





"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

You didn't find this excerpt on your own, you pulled it from one of the blogs that tells you what to think. Which one is it?


BTW - the link you posted isn't even the right paper you fucking moron.

Oh, I think you have the market cornered on moronism there spidey toober. Yep, you're much higher on the scale.

 

[flacaltenn]

You just requoted the post I made with the CORRECT link in it..

What are you -- a baby??
You want mommy to show you where you left your binkey?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf