'World's' Most Fake News EXPOSED...AGAIN

[flacaltenn]

Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse

NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse

"A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.

“Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,”

Scientists have been debating over the so-called “pause” in global warming since at least 2013, referring to the period from 1998 to 2014 without any significant rise in global average temperature.

Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

The usual braindead denier cult fraudulent drivel, based only on the stupidity, ignorance and gullility of the rightwingnuts.

In the real world....

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

Bottom line line is -- the data USED to produced "PauseBuster" paper was never properly vetted by NOAA'S OWN internal data handling and archiving standards that the whistleblower helped to create. AND most importantly -- it's GONE -- not archived in digital form ANYWHERE on the planet.

Not to mention the fact that virtually ALL the land/sea based temperature studies GLOBALLY START with the most recent NOAA SSurface data. So "all the other papers" are just parroting the gimmicks and throwbacks to 19th century sea surface temperatures that Karl resurrected to create this farce.

Just use the fucking satellites. And make the NOAA/NASA data AGREE with the satellite data like it DID for 25 years before the "PAUSE" forced them to commit fraud.

 

[edthecynic]

Bottom line line is -- the data USED to produced "PauseBuster" paper was never properly vetted by NOAA'S OWN internal data handling and archiving standards that the whistleblower helped to create. AND most importantly -- it's GONE -- not archived in digital form ANYWHERE on the planet.

LIAR!
Admit it!
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief
NOAA did make their data available
In his article, David Rose relies on reports from a researcher at NOAA who was unhappy about the data archiving associated with the Karl et al paper. While I cannot speak to how well the authors followed internal protocols, they did release their temperature anomalies, spatially gridded data land and ocean data, and the land station data associated with their analysis. They put all of this up on NOAA’s FTP site in early June 2015, at the time that the Karl et al paper was published.

As someone who works on and develops surface temperature records, the data they provided would be sufficient for me to examine their analysis in detail and see how it compared to other groups. In fact, I used the data they provided shortly after the paper was published to do just that.

 

[edthecynic]

Just use the fucking satellites. And make the NOAA/NASA data AGREE with the satellite data like it DID for 25 years before the "PAUSE" forced them to commit fraud.

More lies!
Admit it!

 

[flacaltenn]

Bottom line line is -- the data USED to produced "PauseBuster" paper was never properly vetted by NOAA'S OWN internal data handling and archiving standards that the whistleblower helped to create. AND most importantly -- it's GONE -- not archived in digital form ANYWHERE on the planet.

LIAR!
Admit it!
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief
NOAA did make their data available
In his article, David Rose relies on reports from a researcher at NOAA who was unhappy about the data archiving associated with the Karl et al paper. While I cannot speak to how well the authors followed internal protocols, they did release their temperature anomalies, spatially gridded data land and ocean data, and the land station data associated with their analysis. They put all of this up on NOAA’s FTP site in early June 2015, at the time that the Karl et al paper was published.

As someone who works on and develops surface temperature records, the data they provided would be sufficient for me to examine their analysis in detail and see how it compared to other groups. In fact, I used the data they provided shortly after the paper was published to do just that.

Not lying. The RESULTS of their modeling were "spatially gridded land/ocean data", the type of results they ALWAYS make in biblical law for others to use. What was MISSING was the validation of using their NEW RAW ocean ephemeral data as inputs into their models to PRODUCE those results. NOW --- all unreplicatable..

The objection was to accepting modeling results from NEW sources of data without using the proper documentation and validation procedures..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just use the fucking satellites. And make the NOAA/NASA data AGREE with the satellite data like it DID for 25 years before the "PAUSE" forced them to commit fraud.

More lies!
Admit it!

Look Genius -- I don't know where the Guardian got that crap data, because the RSS/UAH satellite record indicates a CLEAR PAUSE from 1998 to 2014. So clearly a "pause buster" paper which is what Karl attempted to do cannot POSSIBLY show "agreement" during that period. It either BUSTED the pause -- or it did not. But the satellite record shows a trend LOWER than the data confidence and approaching ZERO during the pause .. Simple fact -- that graph appears to NOT confirm that fact.

And -- what Karl came up with were "corrections" that were in the range of 0.06 for ocean data and 0.01 for land data during that "pause" period. If they show on a comparison as AGREEING with the sat data --- and they would be hard to see AT ALL -- then that graph is garbage.

We are all arguing about LESS THAN 0.1 degree trend over 15 years. And the argument is NOT REALLY very significant to ANY graph. It's an argument about PROCESS and going back to 19th century ocean SeaState temperature collection methods to INVENT a correction that wasn't documented and recorded for reproducibility. It's about the loose and fast DAILY corrections that are made to CONFOUND the public and release press disinformation.

IN FACT -- the corrections made by Karl didn't CHANGE the current sea state measurements. They changed the NORMALIZER USED in calculating the ANOMALY values. And the BULK of those corrections were to data in the 1930s and 1940s to LOWER the anomaly normalizer -- thus producing a SLIGHTLY HIGHER current anomaly values. 99.9% of the media and normal people ARGUING about this have NO fucking idea that you can change a temperature ANOMALY in 2012 by fucking with temperatures from the 1930s and 40s. Not YOU, Not the Guardian, and the activists in labcoats who USE that ignorance to unleash mighty torrents of disinformation on the public.

There has not been a SINGLE STATISTIC that has come from Fed Govt in the past 15 years or so that hasn't been "cooked, diced and sliced" for political impact. Not the numbers on employment, the economy, Obamacare enrollment, or Global temperature. Numbers DO LIE when you misuse them, reinterpret definitions and methods CONSTANTLY to the advantage of agendas.

 

[edthecynic]

Not lying. The RESULTS of their modeling were "spatially gridded land/ocean data", the type of results they ALWAYS make in biblical law for others to use. What was MISSING was the validation of using their NEW RAW ocean ephemeral data as inputs into their models to PRODUCE those results. NOW --- all unreplicatable..

As usual, when caught lying, the Right simply continues lying!!!

From the same link:

NOAA’s results are independently verified
The new NOAA record published in Karl et al primarily updated their ocean temperature record. While they also released a revised land record based on data from the International Surface Temperature Initiative (and the related Global Historical Climatology Network version 4 beta product – GHCNv4), the land record was largely similar to their prior record and was responsible for relatively little of the increase in warming they showed.

I recently led a team of researchers that evaluated NOAA’s updates to their ocean temperature record. In a paper published last month in the journal Science Advances, we compared the old NOAA record and the new NOAA record to independent instrumentally homogenous records created from buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats. Our results, as you can see in the chart below, show that the new NOAA record agrees quite well with all of these, while the old NOAA record shows much less warming.

This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally). You can read more about the study in Carbon Brief’s article.

The fact that the new NOAA record is effectively identical with records constructed only from higher quality instruments (buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats) strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.

John Kennedy, a researcher at the UK’s Met Office in charge of their ocean temperature product, agrees that NOAA’s new record is probably the most accurate in the last two decades, remarking: “At a global scale, those adjustments really do seem to work and the ERSSTv4 adjustments [NOAA’s new record] work best of all.”

Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.

 

[edthecynic]

Look Genius -- I don't know where the Guardian got that crap data, because the RSS/UAH satellite record indicates a CLEAR PAUSE from 1998 to 2014. So clearly a "pause buster" paper which is what Karl attempted to do cannot POSSIBLY show "agreement" during that period. It either BUSTED the pause -- or it did not. But the satellite record shows a trend LOWER than the data confidence and approaching ZERO during the pause .. Simple fact -- that graph appears to NOT confirm that fact.

And -- what Karl came up with were "corrections" that were in the range of 0.06 for ocean data and 0.01 for land data during that "pause" period. If they show on a comparison as AGREEING with the sat data --- and they would be hard to see AT ALL -- then that graph is garbage.

I knew you would never admit the truth and just continue to lie.
The graph did not come from the Guardian, but from a Link I have already provided that you obviously ignored!

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief
This is a guest post by Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth, an independent temperature analysis project.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Arguing with climate change deniers is about as productive as arguing with the folks who pay money to go through the creationist museum in Kentucky.