Duke Physicists Call Out NASA and NOAA's Adjustments as improbable..

[flacaltenn]

No -- what I'm saying is that YOU flat-out attempted to impeach a scientist you never heard of before with a DENIER blog article that mentions him.. That leads to YOUR credibility -- not mine.. Are you confused about that???

You though are able to impeach the Integrity of the bulk of Climate scientist ....using Climate Truther Blogs ....

No -- I use my brain to impeach SOME of them and to debunk the hype and hysteria that they helped to generate. And some 35 years in science and engineering helps that along greatly..

 

[flacaltenn]

Question: Do you believe the arctic has warmed faster and smoothing the area with the data we do have is more accurate or less?

The entire justification of NASA spending thousands of manhours yearly on the poorly distributed land measurements -- rather than working with space observations falls apart when they RUN to the satellite data to fill in their holes because that data is better behaved and better covers the globe.

Why do you think that everytime they NEED another 0.04degC to make the news with a record --- they turn to the satellite data?

YOU CAN'T "smooth" or redistribute AFRICA or the Arctic without the uniformity you get from sat records. So why does NASA CLING to the 100,000 earth-bound thermometer approach eh??

 

[Crick]

If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

So... it's the global conspiracy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

So... it's the global conspiracy?

It's mostly the AGWCult based in the USA, the rest of the world merely laughs at us. Actually, they're laughing at you

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science is about challenging the norm and working on fitting the theories with reality...More funding helps in doing such.

If there's a strong enough counter-argument then that will become the new respected theory.

Honey Boo Boo, when the facts fail to validate your theory, real scientists get a new Theory; it's only the AGWCult that adjusts the data to fit their theory. Why would any sane person devote another nickel to these fraudsters?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

Only you and the scientist paid for by the fossil fuel Industry are honest and real scientist ...the rest are sell out ...I know your spiel

TyroneW -- Clearly feel sorry that you were so punked by this idiot Climate Denier with a blog beating up on Dr Brown.

NOTHING he quoted from this man was wrong. In case you DOUBT you made an error here, I suggest you read some of the incredibly ridiculous shit this guy tries to pass off to refute Climate Change on said blog..

About Climate of Sophistry Climate of Sophistry

Next time --- you could ask someone to explain it -- before you hurl it as a weapon... This "science thingy" is not as easy as calling me a fuel shill is it??

I understand that only you and a handful of others have the knowledge the integrity that helps you all stand tall against the preponderance of Scientist and Meteorological agencies that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you all are tops ....the last word in the field of Climate science belongs to Lord Mockton and of course all you all who "need to school" everyone else....

That's the same anti-science thinking that kept the Flat Earth Society in business for so long

 

[Crick]

That's the same anti-science thinking that kept the Flat Earth Society in business for so long

That is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sorry but you wing nuts are on the Flat Earth side of things LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That's the same anti-science thinking that kept the Flat Earth Society in business for so long

That is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

These are folks who explain the consensus of Science on Human related Global warming by saying"all Scientist are corrupt except for those with connections to the fossil fuel Industry, Lord Mockton and non scientist at Wassup with that"...

If you do not believe what I wrote above just ask any of them why scientist disagree with them...they themselves will tell you........ they say those who believe in science are "Flat Earthers"...Increible

That is their explanation of why Science disagrees with them.,..its corrupted ...only they are pure..Truthers

 

[Crick]

From Roy Spencer's website:

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

These "Truthers" pull out this Duke Physicist who curiously does not publish a paper for peer review ...no no no ..he goes to the Mecca of Science "Wassup with that" its laughable'...then they say "oh you are trying to slime the expert" ...LOL they whine after they slime the bulk of Scientist claiming that Scientist who agree with Human global warming are simply sell outs corrupted seeking money...its CRAZY

About that consensus on global warming 9136 agree one disagrees. - The Curious Wavefunction - Scientific American Blog Network

It's worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming - more than nine thousand. And that's just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren't even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It's not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like99.99-0.01%.

Isn't it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists who adjust data to get it to fit their theory aren't really scientists

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Scientists who adjust data to get it to fit their theory aren't really scientists

Only Lord Monckton is Science and also anyone else that you agree with...the rest are corrupt...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists who adjust data to get it to fit their theory aren't really scientists

Only Lord Monckton is Science and also anyone else that you agree with...the rest are corrupt...

Never even heard of him until the AGWCult brought him up.

Can you please explain the concept of "Excess Heat"?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists Global Cooling Is Here

UK swelters in heatwave as hottest July day recorded - Jul 1, 2015

July goes down as hottest month on record in Seattle ...

Hottest July On Record Keeps 2015 On Track To Crush 2014 For Hottest Year ThinkProgress

NASA reports this was the hottest July on record. So we are now in “bet the mortgage” territory that 2015 will be the hottest year in NASA’s 125-year temperature record.

In fact, 2015 is likely to crush the previous record — 2014 — probably by a wide margin, especially since one of the strongest El Niños in 50 years is adding to the strong underlying global warming trend.

Climate expert Dr. John Abraham updated this NASA chart to show how the first seven months of 2015 compares to the annual temperatures of previous years:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Joetmze_W54hq28mN-Hw-A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.eXY

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Greenhouse gas effect is bogus.pdf

Principia is complete crap from a collection of whack jobs.

What do you call people who based AR5 on "Excess Heat" a concept you deride as not having any scientific basis but just two words strung together

Go get it peer reviewed Einstein LOl you have destroyed Science consensus ...a lone Crusader for truth LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists Global Cooling Is Here

UK swelters in heatwave as hottest July day recorded - Jul 1, 2015

July goes down as hottest month on record in Seattle ...

Hottest July On Record Keeps 2015 On Track To Crush 2014 For Hottest Year ThinkProgress

NASA reports this was the hottest July on record. So we are now in “bet the mortgage” territory that 2015 will be the hottest year in NASA’s 125-year temperature record.

In fact, 2015 is likely to crush the previous record — 2014 — probably by a wide margin, especially since one of the strongest El Niños in 50 years is adding to the strong underlying global warming trend.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Joetmze_W54hq28mN-Hw-A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.eXY
Climate expert Dr. John Abraham updated this NASA chart to show how the first seven months of 2015 compares to the annual temperatures of previous years:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Joetmze_W54hq28mN-Hw-A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.eXY

We Know about the 1.79 Deg C adjustment that is giving you this false premise. Karl Et Al is just one more lie in a long string of lies as i pointed out in the OP if you had even read the document.

You are just a propogandist fool... Nothing more..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Poor little libtard... Uses every Adhom he can find, stack-em deep and lie like there is no tomorrow hoping someone will believe the lies he has posted..

It is certainly not me accusing the bulk of Climate Scientists and all those agencies I have listed numerous time from NASA to NOAA who believe in human related warming of being corrupt....those ad hominem accrue to you.........
you accuse them of fraud of lying of everything in the book to disallow Science...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Poor little libtard... Uses every Adhom he can find, stack-em deep and lie like there is no tomorrow hoping someone will believe the lies he has posted..

It is certainly not me accusing the bulk of Climate Scientists and all those agencies I have listed numerous time from NASA to NOAA who believe in human related warming of being corrupt....those ad hominem accrue to you.........
you accuse them of fraud of lying of everything in the book to disallow Science...

You obviously FAILED to read the source material and still dont have a clue...

 

[Billy_Bob]

At the very least there is a substantial burden of proof not just to show that each adjustment made could somehow be justified, but that no adjustments that would have confounded the point being demonstrated were omitted (and that’s a tough one to show, with UHI sitting there all naked and unaccounted for or unbelievably accounted for, and likely other adjustments to consider as well), and how it just so happens that when one adds up all of the corrections, they are in a perfect linear relationship with that primary variable. Correlation may not be causality, but with a correlation this good, you’d better be prepared to prove that it isn’t even inadvertently causal, because the point you want/need to make depends as much or more on the adjustment as it does anything in the unadjusted data!

That’s the killer, right? If half the TCS estimate goes away with unadjusted data, I’d argue that the lower bound of TCS is even smaller than the unadjusted estimate. You just don’t get to adjust and increase precision at the same time, at least not according to information theory or empirical practice. And “scientists” make this mistake all the time, which is why we are just now learning that eating fat and dietary cholesterol doesn’t increase your blood cholesterol, so bacon and ice cream and eggs — in moderation, as there is still a connection to total calories and obesity — is no longer a sin. That’s what happens to an entire branch of science, for as long as decades, once somebody sets out to prove a point and gets to select the data to use to do so.

Excellent summary...