Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

[IanC]

T

I love their new meme that they want to get established. "The adjustments actually reduce the warming trend so why dont you trust us?". see?, look at our graph

In the mind of the conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy is always correct, by definition. Therefore, any facts that contradict the conspiracy clearly must be faked data. Therefore, those facts that supposedly contradict the conspiracy theory instead actually prove the conspiracy theory.

And that's why denier conspiracy theorists can't be reasoned with.

any data that isn't corrected is bad data. the true deniers.

The deniers bitch that the data needs to be corrected or removed, like for UHI or bad placement, and when the data is corrected or removed the deniers claim there is a conspiracy to adjust data or remove stations.

There are different problems in different parts of the globe. The USA has lots of stations but a sizeable minority that are used for global use are 'infilled'. Africa has next to no data, so depending on the need it can be adjusted in any direction, and those 'corrections' used to balance the equation so that they can say the adjustments lower as much as they increase temps.

 

[IanC]

What I see is the cyclical trend that correlates to the 160 year solar cycle, Of which we only have about 80% of. Our recent hiatus of warming can be attributed to the top of the cycle as well as the average warmth of our records to date. What we are about to enter is the cooling phase which should last about 60-100 years. You alarmists are in for a really big let down emotionally and physically as the earth cools.

That is the same argument you deniers made in the 1970s with your last Ice Age prediction. How did that work out for you?

As the stop in global warming continues your dire predictions fail over and over again... What are you going to do in 5 years when the cooling trend is solidified and your lie can not be hidden further?

Doesn't it have to start cooling first before you can have a cooling trend? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

14 years is not a trend?

Geezzz, deniers can't even count. Do you actually see 14 years in that graph?

Your graph looks just like the Berkeley Earth treatment of temp series. They chop it into pieces and connect the endpoints. Do you need to see yet another example? It is funny to see your side accuse us of the very thing that you guys actually do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What I see is the cyclical trend that correlates to the 160 year solar cycle, Of which we only have about 80% of. Our recent hiatus of warming can be attributed to the top of the cycle as well as the average warmth of our records to date. What we are about to enter is the cooling phase which should last about 60-100 years. You alarmists are in for a really big let down emotionally and physically as the earth cools.

That is the same argument you deniers made in the 1970s with your last Ice Age prediction. How did that work out for you?

As the stop in global warming continues your dire predictions fail over and over again... What are you going to do in 5 years when the cooling trend is solidified and your lie can not be hidden further?

Doesn't it have to start cooling first before you can have a cooling trend? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

14 years is not a trend?

Geezzz, deniers can't even count. Do you actually see 14 years in that graph?

Let me see.. 2002 through 2014... hmmmmm WOW.. miscounted and it still does nothing to the valid point... and then you post SKS garbage which they misinterpret and cant even see the causation of ENSO and Ocean cyclical cycles... You really are clueless...

 

[IanC]

The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.

 

[edthecynic]

The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.

Another denier who can't tell time yet is a know-it-all.
It would be 14 years if and only if 2015 was complete.
This is exactly how deniers read all data, they see what they want to see and not what is actually there.
Thank you.

 

[skookerasbil]

The graph encompasses 2002-2015, that is 14 calendar years.

Another denier who can't tell time yet is a know-it-all.
It would be 14 years if and only if 2015 was complete.
This is exactly how deniers read all data, they see what they want to see and not what is actually there.
Thank you.

Im laughing..........in the end s0n, nobody cares. The "science" is not mattering in the real world. Renewable's are still laughable, particularly solar.

 

[IanC]

SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.61
After quality control -0.61
After breakpoint alignment 0.54

how does BEST 'pay' for increasing the trend here? they wouldnt want to only have increases everywhere because that would look fishy, wouldnt it?

Africa has, conservatively, a thousand times fewer stations and covers a larger portion of the globe so every station is associated with a much greater impact. A change in an African station balances out a whole lot of stations like Raleigh.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 4.65
After quality control 4.55
After breakpoint alignment 1.74

hmmm, close to 3C/century downward adjustment times the multiplier rate gives a lot of slack in the system to 'fix' other areas.

 

[edthecynic]

SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

 

[IanC]

SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

I can only post up the graphs that BEST produce. They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find, and inserted artificial breakpoints, as shown in the second graph. The third graph (not shown) presents the newly rearranged data compared to the expected local range. The table then states how the trend from raw data has been changed from a cooling trend to a warming trend.

I can understand how people could find that somewhat dishonest on the part of BEST but why do you think I am dishonest for simply posting the information straight from the Berkeley Earth website?

 

[edthecynic]

SkS's bizarre interpretation of the skeptic's position-

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

I can only post up the graphs that BEST produce. They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find, and inserted artificial breakpoints, as shown in the second graph. The third graph (not shown) presents the newly rearranged data compared to the expected local range. The table then states how the trend from raw data has been changed from a cooling trend to a warming trend.

I can understand how people could find that somewhat dishonest on the part of BEST but why do you think I am dishonest for simply posting the information straight from the Berkeley Earth website?

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

 

[IanC]

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend.

so what is my lie, specifically?

 

[skookerasbil]

mUcH bIgGeR

 

[IanC]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

 

[edthecynic]

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend.

so what is my lie, specifically?

I notice you dishonestly change the label from "regional average" which is actual data, to "expected result" which is nonexistent data fabricated by lying deniers so it can be anything a liar wants it to be.

BTW, they didn't convert anything to anomalies, the raw data was in anomalies to begin with, and again clearly labeled as such.

They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find,

 

[edthecynic]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

 

[IanC]

Berkeley Earth's data for Raleigh

they then chop it into little pieces and realign the graph and the trend has turned from cooling to warming. (as an aside, did the station really stop taking readings in 2005?)

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend.

so what is my lie, specifically?

I notice you dishonestly change the label from "regional average" which is actual data, to "expected result" which is nonexistent data fabricated by lying deniers so it can be anything a liar wants it to be.

BTW, they didn't convert anything to anomalies, the raw data was in anomalies to begin with, and again clearly labeled as such.

They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find,

The second chart is anomalies away from expected results(regional averages), otherwise it would match the first graph. How would they 'discover' the breakpoints without comparing the raw data to something else?

 

[edthecynic]

The two Raleigh charts are from two completely different data sets, and clearly labeled as such, not a reassembled version of a chopped up data set, as you dishonestly claim. The top is the raw data and the bottom "chopped" chart is a plot of the deviation of the raw data from regional data, not a chopped version of the raw data.
Why are deniers so dishonest???

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend.

so what is my lie, specifically?

I notice you dishonestly change the label from "regional average" which is actual data, to "expected result" which is nonexistent data fabricated by lying deniers so it can be anything a liar wants it to be.

BTW, they didn't convert anything to anomalies, the raw data was in anomalies to begin with, and again clearly labeled as such.

They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find,

The second chart is anomalies away from expected results(regional averages), otherwise it would match the first graph. How would they 'discover' the breakpoints without comparing the raw data to something else?

Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie. Regional averages are MEASURED results, not "expected" results which can be anything lying deniers want them to be.

 

[IanC]

You deniers just can't stop yourselves from lying. The second graph you posted is clearly labeled and it says nothing about the raw data being "compared to what they expected to find."
Do you really think people are incapable of reading the labels on the graphs simply because you choose to ignore them and relabel them yourself?

I notice that you dont quote the label of the graph

"Difference of Station Temperature Data from Regional Average"

how is that different than what I said? they converted the data to anomalies from the expected result (regional average), then add breakpoints and rearrange the trend so that it matches the regional trend.

so what is my lie, specifically?

I notice you dishonestly change the label from "regional average" which is actual data, to "expected result" which is nonexistent data fabricated by lying deniers so it can be anything a liar wants it to be.

BTW, they didn't convert anything to anomalies, the raw data was in anomalies to begin with, and again clearly labeled as such.

They produced the presumably raw data in one graph. They then produced a graph of the raw data compared to what they expected to find,

The second chart is anomalies away from expected results(regional averages), otherwise it would match the first graph. How would they 'discover' the breakpoints without comparing the raw data to something else?

Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie. Regional averages are MEASURED results, not "expected" results which can be anything lying deniers want them to be.

Regional averages are measured result? Not really. They are certainly not just the average of raw data (cleaned and weighted). The kriging and jack kniving only work once you have determined a baseline. Once the baseline is set everything gets adjusted to match it. Circular reasoning.

 

[IanC]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

 

[edthecynic]

version 2 GISS graph

version 3 GISS graph

notice the y axis. it is 0.5C higher in version 3 but graph is identical pre-1915, and almost identical pre-1970. what would cause an across the board increase of older temps? remember the version 2 numbers are already cleaned up and homogenized, just not by the version 3 algorithms. UHI and TOBS were already correct for. the trend doesnt look a whole lot different but still.....

PS- this is not the same Raleigh station that is mention by BEST in my previous posts, it is the only one available off the GISS station selector.

This lie has already been rebutted in this very thread earlier. Repeating it does not suddenly make it valid.

Hahahaha. The first 40 years are an exact match, less the 0.5C offset but Eddie says they are different stations. How desperate. It's not unlike Crick saying that the Mythbuster's experiment that showed a CO2 reading of 7% must have been measuring something else unrelated to the experiment.

You were already linked to the differences between V2 and V3 and why V3 is more accurate. I will remind you that there were also adjustments in the opposite direction from V2 to V3, but the deceivers who feed you misinformation leave that out because they know you will ignore it even though I linked to it earlier in this very thread.