Climate alarmists caught faking sea level rise!!!

[skookerasbil]

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/


And the losing..............continuuuuuuues!!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/


And the losing..............continuuuuuuues!!

/----/ The Enviro Wacko Rapid Response Team reply: "Oh yeah - well to convince everyone that the sea levels are rising this guy had to fake the evidence. He had no choice. So what's wrong with that, you Denier?"

 

[IanC]

I read the story. The adjustments being done to SLR are very similar to the adjustments being done to surface temperature records. And may in fact be an effort to make the two data series closer agree with each other.

While I do not have the expertise to judge the validity of the adjustments there are many examples of unintended results that result in suspicion.

For example...the very long term temperature record for the south of England around London has been showing temperature changes for data going back hundreds of years. How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures? I don't know but it is happening.

 

[skookerasbil]

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/


And the losing..............continuuuuuuues!!

/----/ The Enviro Wacko Rapid Response Team reply: "Oh yeah - well to convince everyone that the sea levels are rising this guy had to fake the evidence. He had no choice. So what's wrong with that, you Denier?"

lol.........these people are frauds from the word go. They pull this shit all in the name of "science" as if it were the law of physics. These progressives will lie right to your face with a big smile and while doing it, project the moral holier than thou attitude. How do you navigate life being such a phony? Whatever fakery they can muster is to them, a noble cause. How fucked up is that? Not an ounce of ethical fiber in any of them.....but they are very, very comfortable being fakes. Could never work even 24 hours in my field!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures?

Have you thought about asking a scientist, instead of asking an idiot denier who knows less than nothing about any of this?

 

[IanC]

How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures?

Have you thought about asking a scientist, instead of asking an idiot denier who knows less than nothing about any of this?

It was a rhetorical question.

The changes were not specifically targeted at a date for a specific reason. They appear to be knock on adjustments that creep into the historical readings through a faulty algorithm.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was a rhetorical question.

So, you don't really care about the answer at all? Or you DO care about the answer, and just didn't expect an answer here?

Faulty algorithm, eh? So, are you accusing the climate scientists and their peer-reviewers of being incompetent, or of being liars? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

 

[skookerasbil]

How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures?

Have you thought about asking a scientist, instead of asking an idiot denier who knows less than nothing about any of this?

lol.......the pattern response for climate crusader k00ks who have been pwned!

 

[SSDD]

How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures?

Have you thought about asking a scientist, instead of asking an idiot denier who knows less than nothing about any of this?

Have you thought that perhaps "scientists", particularly climate scientists, many of which, literally depend on a constant state of crisis for their daily bread might just fudge in an effort to keep those paychecks rolling in? I mean, really, without the climate crisis, how many climate science jobs do you think would disappear overnight? Look at the number of jobs available for climate scientists prior to the onset of the global warming scam and the number of jobs available today. You really think scientists are above a bit of fraud if it keeps the money rolling in and sits right with their political leanings?

If this were the first time climate science had been caught fudging then it would be a different matter, but climate science is routinely being caught using underhanded, disingenuous, and outright fraudulent data in an effort to support the AGW narrative.

 

[skookerasbil]

How can we replace readings written down in history based on adjustments made for recent temperatures?

Have you thought about asking a scientist, instead of asking an idiot denier who knows less than nothing about any of this?

Have you thought that perhaps "scientists", particularly climate scientists, many of which, literally depend on a constant state of crisis for their daily bread might just fudge in an effort to keep those paychecks rolling in? I mean, really, without the climate crisis, how many climate science jobs do you think would disappear overnight? Look at the number of jobs available for climate scientists prior to the onset of the global warming scam and the number of jobs available today. You really think scientists are above a bit of fraud if it keeps the money rolling in and sits right with their political leanings?

If this were the first time climate science had been caught fudging then it would be a different matter, but climate science is routinely being caught using underhanded, disingenuous, and outright fraudulent data in an effort to support the AGW narrative.

Fudging stuff doesn't matter to progressives like FortFun.........not a care in the world for standards of ethical behavior. That's how these far left people operate........its a deep self-righteous thing. Fortunately and as we found out a little over a year ago, we have tens of millions of folks who are sick of this shit and go out and vote against the frauds of our society. And thank God for that..........its why progressives keep getting their clocks cleaned in elections for years now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/


And the losing..............continuuuuuuues!!

/----/ The Enviro Wacko Rapid Response Team reply: "Oh yeah - well to convince everyone that the sea levels are rising this guy had to fake the evidence. He had no choice. So what's wrong with that, you Denier?"

Actually there are AREAS of oceans where sea levels are quite flat for the past 10 years or so. It's areas like those that are temptations to "adjust". And any ole excuse will usually suffice. Because the raw data now is INCREASINGLY under lock and key.. To prevent open scientific inquiry..

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

 

[IanC]

45% of the data shows warming a rise at 0.6mm/yr, 45% of the data shows a fall at 0.7mm/yr, and the last 10% is a gap with a blob of data at the end.

Through creative splicing they have combined the first two chunks (that should have averaged out to zero or less rise) to produce a rising trend of almost 0.7mm/yr. A higher trend than only part that showed a rise!!! Amazing!

Then when they added the gap of data and a very short record it added another 0.1mm/yr, to the WHOLE record!

I would be shocked and appalled if I hadn't see the same huge changes made for every station in the Berkeley BEST dataset. Now I'm just appalled.

 

[flacaltenn]

45% of the data shows warming a rise at 0.6mm/yr, 45% of the data shows a fall at 0.7mm/yr, and the last 10% is a gap with a blob of data at the end.

Through creative splicing they have combined the first two chunks (that should have averaged out to zero or less rise) to produce a rising trend of almost 0.7mm/yr. A higher trend than only part that showed a rise!!! Amazing!

Then when they added the gap of data and a very short record it added another 0.1mm/yr, to the WHOLE record!

I would be shocked and appalled if I hadn't see the same huge changes made for every station in the Berkeley BEST dataset. Now I'm just appalled.

And ANOTHER..

I don't mind the adjustments for TimeofDay and coastal subsidence at all. Stuff like that NEEDS be used. But when the RESULT reverses a continuous trend line (like in Ian's example) over a contiguous 50 year period, (1940 to 1990) the monkey business is very easy to spot..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

might just fudge in an effort to keep those paychecks rolling in?

So, I have you as saying they are liars. Good for you. You were "almost honest", but not quite. As expected.


No, the idea of giving that nonsense ('they're all just fudging') any credibility does not occur to me. The accusation is preposterous, and I am certain you have absolutely no idea of how many people you are accusing of fraud. And to imply that a person would get paid more via research grants than they would shilling for energy companies (which have been racking up record profits, as it turns out) is also absurd. You said "follow the money", and the fossil fuel industry has the money. Where are the studies they are funding? You know, since science can be bought, by your estimation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

 

[skookerasbil]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact they need to doctor the facts prove global warming is true!

No it doesn't. That's absurd. You would get laughed out of any lab for such a goofy statement. It's especially untrue of ideass like "the temperature for 6 hours", or sea level. This is noisy, analog data that has to be treated using techniques like running means, walking, smoothing, finding outliers, etc.

I'm sorry but adjustments were being made DAILY on observations from the 30's and 40's. There's not a lot of filtering, walking, smoothing on a ONE YEAR AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.. And they correct year by year. Almost CONSTANTLY over the entire record. Or they DID. When they needed to make a news headline about the warmest 2nd of January in 2007. Which USUALLY got "revised" in the news a week later and the data returned to it's previous state. Or damn NEAR the previous state.

Frequency of THOSE occurances were VERY HIGH for the past 10 years or so. Not so much anymore. Did it stop WARMING? Or did the fudging slow down?

I look forward to your published paper. When will it be published? When will you be speaking to a scientific society soon?

Now, I know you think that's bully-ish, but it's not. These are not hard questions for climate scientists to answer. They would not be offended by those questions. They would point me to their papers and speaking. Why is it that the arguments you possess are not swaying the climate scientists? Explain.

lol........nothing sways the "climate scientists". Doesn't matter what it is........ever. Raises the radar of anybody with half a brain........but not members of the religion.

Scams are ghey

Nothing sways the scientists, eh? Said every failed scientist and ignorant, uneducated fool, ever.