Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[Crick]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And I'm sure it's just sheer coincidence that the adjustments have all been upwards, right?

That's not sheer coincidence. It is just incorrect. And it's not even the denier meme. The denier's claim that the adjustments have lowered past temperatures to make warming look worse. But, in fact, the net results of all adjustments has been to warn the past and cool the present. The total amount of warming has been reduced. And the magnitude of changes is far smaller than deniers would have you believe. The implication one constantly gets is that all the observed warming has been produced by bogus data adjustments. The magnitude of adjustments (which I will repeat have REDUCED total warming) are in the hundredths of a degree.

 

[baileyn45]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And I'm sure it's just sheer coincidence that the adjustments have all been upwards, right?

That's not sheer coincidence. It is just incorrect. And it's not even the denier meme. The denier's claim that the adjustments have lowered past temperatures to make warming look worse. But, in fact, the net results of all adjustments has been to warn the past and cool the present. The total amount of warming has been reduced. And the magnitude of changes is far smaller than deniers would have you believe. The implication one constantly gets is that all the observed warming has been produced by bogus data adjustments. The magnitude of adjustments (which I will repeat have REDUCED total warming) are in the hundredths of a degree.

Again, based on what? Adjusting present data is questionable. Adjusting historical data is beyond questionable, it's guessing. And by what basis do you support that adjustments have warmed the past?

 

[daveman]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

And I'm sure it's just sheer coincidence that the adjustments have all been upwards, right?

That's not sheer coincidence. It is just incorrect. And it's not even the denier meme. The denier's claim that the adjustments have lowered past temperatures to make warming look worse. But, in fact, the net results of all adjustments has been to warn the past and cool the present. The total amount of warming has been reduced. And the magnitude of changes is far smaller than deniers would have you believe. The implication one constantly gets is that all the observed warming has been produced by bogus data adjustments. The magnitude of adjustments (which I will repeat have REDUCED total warming) are in the hundredths of a degree.

You're conflating two different issues.

The past temperature record has been adjusted downward. Current temperature readings are cherrypicked and adjusted upward.

But that's what happens when science is bastardized to support a political position and a pre-determined outcome.

 

[Crick]

This is from post #62 in this thread

This is from Hadley and GHCN

From the Guardian about NOAA

From NOAA

 

[skookerasbil]

Rigging the data is ghey

 

[baileyn45]

This is from post #62 in this thread

This is from Hadley and GHCN

From the Guardian about NOAA

From NOAA

My goodness, you really just don't get it. Your graphs mean nothing. Start at 1880. What is this data based on? Is it the same data set as what the 1930 data is based on? The answer is no. Is the 1930 data based on the same data set as 1970? The answer is no. Is the 1970 data based on the same data set as 2000? The answer is no. You are comparing apples to oranges to limes to bananas.

It's bad enough that new data is adjusted but adjusting data from the past is just incomprehensible. Based on what? You will not answer that question, NOAA will not answer that question, the IPCC will not answer that question. The only answer we get is that the adjustments are made applying present models to the past. The same models that seriously suck now. And we're supposed believe this crap?

 

[Crick]

This is from post #62 in this thread

This is from Hadley and GHCN

From the Guardian about NOAA

From NOAA

My goodness, you really just don't get it. Your graphs mean nothing.

Those graphs indicate that the net effect of historical data adjustments by NOAA and Hadley has been to decrease the magnitude of global warming. The charge that it has had the opposite effect and that this proves the adjustments are false and misleading is a fail.

Start at 1880. What is this data based on? Is it the same data set as what the 1930 data is based on? The answer is no. Is the 1930 data based on the same data set as 1970? The answer is no. Is the 1970 data based on the same data set as 2000? The answer is no. You are comparing apples to oranges to limes to bananas.

You seem to have mixed apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is the validity of historical adjustments to the temperature record, not the propriety of assembling historical data.

The first graph comes from Zeke Hausfather, an UC analyst with Carbon Brief and Berkeley Earth. The land temperatures are from GHCN v3 and the entire span is a single data set. The ocean data comes from HadSST3 and it is also a single continuous dataset for the entire time span. So the answers you have provided to your rhetorical questions are wrong.

It's bad enough that new data is adjusted but adjusting data from the past is just incomprehensible. Based on what?

Various reasons: changes in the time of day readings were taken, changes in station location, urban heat island effects, shading from trees or construction, transition from liquid-in-glass to electronic thermometers, actual thermometer calibrations, switching from buckets to engine intakes, etc.

You will not answer that question, NOAA will not answer that question, the IPCC will not answer that question.

I just did so using publicly-available information from NOAA. All the major dataset holders provide the public with detailed information about their data including adjustments. The IPCC does not collect or maintain climatic data. So, once again, your comment is factually incorrect.

The only answer we get is that the adjustments are made applying present models to the past.

You have never seen such an answer. If you disagree, provide the link.

The same models that seriously suck now. And we're supposed believe this crap?

You should.

I suggest reviewing the article at Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records | Carbon Brief

 

[bripat9643]

This is from post #62 in this thread

This is from Hadley and GHCN

From the Guardian about NOAA

From NOAA

 

[mamooth]

The past temperature record has been adjusted downward. Current temperature readings are cherrypicked and adjusted upward.

No, the data says that's not true. You fell hard for conspiracy blog propaganda.

 

[mamooth]

As accurate as possible? So basically you are saying "we've taken a guess". So 25% of readings above the arctic circle is reduced to 3%, and the obvious bias this would create is replaced by a guess. And just think that's only Canada. Globally an inordinate amount of stations that have fallen off of the grid since the early 90s were soviet high latitude stations. More guesses. In the realm of science, this sucks.

Where do you get this stuff?

If you eliminate 90% of the present stations, you'll get the same average. What's there now is extremely redundant.

 

[Crick]

Arizona? Iceland? Well, there's the world in a teacup.

 

[daveman]

The past temperature record has been adjusted downward. Current temperature readings are cherrypicked and adjusted upward.

No, the data says that's not true. You fell hard for conspiracy blog propaganda.

You mean the data skewed by people with a vested interest in "proving" their pre-conceived conclusion to take advantage of suckers like you to push the political agenda?

You're gullible. Not everyone is.

 

[bripat9643]

The past temperature record has been adjusted downward. Current temperature readings are cherrypicked and adjusted upward.

No, the data says that's not true. You fell hard for conspiracy blog propaganda.

I just posted tons data that says it is true.

 

[mamooth]

You mean the data skewed by people with a vested interest in "proving" their pre-conceived conclusion to take advantage of suckers like you to push the political agenda?

You're gullible. Not everyone is.

Flat-earthers tell me that as well. It's very difficult to tell deniers apart from flat-earthers, as all cultists sound alike.

How do we know you're the cultist, and not us?

We just ask "What hard data could conceivably falsify your beliefs?".

No denier has ever answered that question with anything except evasions. There is literally no data that could falsify their beliefs, because those beliefs are religious and faith-based.

In stark contrast, we've made long lists of the hard data that could falsify our beliefs. That's how hard science works.

 

[bripat9643]

As accurate as possible? So basically you are saying "we've taken a guess". So 25% of readings above the arctic circle is reduced to 3%, and the obvious bias this would create is replaced by a guess. And just think that's only Canada. Globally an inordinate amount of stations that have fallen off of the grid since the early 90s were soviet high latitude stations. More guesses. In the realm of science, this sucks.

Where do you get this stuff?

If you eliminate 90% of the present stations, you'll get the same average. What's there now is extremely redundant.

It depends on which stations you eliminate, rural stations, which show the least warming, were the ones eliminated.

 

[mamooth]

I just posted tons data that says it is true.

No, you posted a couple cherrypicks of dubious origin from a conspiracy blog.

 

[mamooth]

[It depends on which stations you eliminate, rural stations, which show the least warming, were the ones eliminated.

No, that's not correct. There are no significant trend difference between urban and rural stations. The urban stations actually show very slightly less warming.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean the data skewed by people with a vested interest in "proving" their pre-conceived conclusion to take advantage of suckers like you to push the political agenda?

You're gullible. Not everyone is.

Flat-earthers tell me that as well. It's very difficult to tell deniers apart from flat-earthers, as all cultists sound alike.

How do we know you're the cultist, and not us?

We just ask "What hard data could conceivably falsify your beliefs?".

No denier has ever answered that question with anything except evasions. There is literally no data that could falsify their beliefs, because those beliefs are religious and faith-based.

In stark contrast, we've made long lists of the hard data that could falsify our beliefs. That's how hard science works.

What hard data would make a cult member like you drop your beliefs? Toms and tons of hard evidence has been posted which directly discredits all your claims. None of your predictions have come true. Yet, you stubbornly continue to defend the one true faith.

 

[Crick]

No, I think he means the fossil fuel industry who have billions and billions in income at risk.

 

[bripat9643]

[It depends on which stations you eliminate, rural stations, which show the least warming, were the ones eliminated.

No, that's not correct. There are no significant trend difference between urban and rural stations. The urban stations actually show very slightly less warming.

You lie like a rug. You know that's not true. Urban area are heat islands. As they grow, they get warmer. Even school children know that.

You just made the cause of the AGW cult explicit: You simply refuse to accept facts.