Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[bripat9643]

I prefer a causation statement on why the adjustments are necessary.

Then why don't you get off your butt and look for it? It's there for anyone who wants to read it.

Start here. As you won't even look at that, I won't waste time giving more examples.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

And sorry, but adjusting is the same as manipulation.

I had an oven that ran hot. Thus, I set the knob to be 25F below what I wanted.

Normal people would say correcting known errors is normal behavior. Odd people would call my action a conspiracy to falsify oven temperature.

How does anyone know if they are errors? What do you compare them with?

 

[skookerasbil]

One will note.......when you look at ALL of the sources provided by alarmists, they ALL come from entities/government agencies all in the tank for clean energy. Which is why the Climategate investigation was such a fraud.......when you have partial entities doing investigations, offuckingcourse the conclusions are going to be biased.

Imagine Borden, the dairy company, being implicated in violating FDA regulations and having KKR ( the parent company ) doing the investigating into the matter. I mean......c'mon now!!

 

[jc456]

I prefer a causation statement on why the adjustments are necessary.

Then why don't you get off your butt and look for it? It's there for anyone who wants to read it.

Start here. As you won't even look at that, I won't waste time giving more examples.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

And sorry, but adjusting is the same as manipulation.

I had an oven that ran hot. Thus, I set the knob to be 25F below what I wanted.

Normal people would say correcting known errors is normal behavior. Odd people would call my action a conspiracy to falsify oven temperature.

From your link,

"2. Source Data The source of the monthly mean station temperatures for the GISS analysis is the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of Peterson and Vose [1997] and updates, available electronically, from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is a compilation of 31 data sets, which include data from more than 7200 independent stations. One of the 31 data sets is the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which includes about 1200 stations in the United States. The USHCN [Karl et al., 1990; Easterling et al., 1996a] is composed of stations with nearly complete records in the 20th century and with metadata that aid homogeneity adjustments. The GISS analysis uses the version of the GHCN without homogeneity adjustments, as adjustments are carried out independently in the GISS analysis. The GISS adjustments consist of data quality control and a homogeneity adjustment applied to urban stations. The data quality control, including comparison of each station with its several nearest neighbors, is the same in the current GISS analysis as described by Hansen et al. [1999]. The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only “unlit” stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments. For USHCN stations the time-of-observation and station history adjustments of Karl et al. [1990] are applied before the urban adjustment is made."

None is from an independent team not funded by government money?
Global Historical Climatology Network (USA Government)
National Climatic Data Center (USA Government) actually goes to the same page as GHCN.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USA Government) actually goes to the same page as GHCN.and NCDC.
GISS (NASA, still government)

hmmmm none of them, and three use the exact same data. too funny two links that make corrections to readings from material no one has ever worked with before and from another database,

from your link

"Some data are more than 175 years old while others are less than an hour old. GHCN is the official archived dataset, and it serves as a replacement product for older NCEI-maintained datasets that are designated for daily temporal resolution (i.e., DSI 3200, DSI 3201, DSI 3202, DSI 3205, DSI 3206, DSI 3208, DSI 3210, etc.)."

National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) goes to the same NOAA,
formerly the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC),
site.

A reasonable person will see this as manipulation.

 

[skookerasbil]

I prefer a causation statement on why the adjustments are necessary.

Then why don't you get off your butt and look for it? It's there for anyone who wants to read it.

Start here. As you won't even look at that, I won't waste time giving more examples.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

And sorry, but adjusting is the same as manipulation.

I had an oven that ran hot. Thus, I set the knob to be 25F below what I wanted.

Normal people would say correcting known errors is normal behavior. Odd people would call my action a conspiracy to falsify oven temperature.

From your link,

"2. Source Data The source of the monthly mean station temperatures for the GISS analysis is the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of Peterson and Vose [1997] and updates, available electronically, from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is a compilation of 31 data sets, which include data from more than 7200 independent stations. One of the 31 data sets is the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which includes about 1200 stations in the United States. The USHCN [Karl et al., 1990; Easterling et al., 1996a] is composed of stations with nearly complete records in the 20th century and with metadata that aid homogeneity adjustments. The GISS analysis uses the version of the GHCN without homogeneity adjustments, as adjustments are carried out independently in the GISS analysis. The GISS adjustments consist of data quality control and a homogeneity adjustment applied to urban stations. The data quality control, including comparison of each station with its several nearest neighbors, is the same in the current GISS analysis as described by Hansen et al. [1999]. The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only “unlit” stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments. For USHCN stations the time-of-observation and station history adjustments of Karl et al. [1990] are applied before the urban adjustment is made."

None is from an independent team not funded by government money?
Global Historical Climatology Network (USA Government)
National Climatic Data Center (USA Government) actually goes to the same page as GHCN.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USA Government) actually goes to the same page as GHCN.and NCDC.
GISS (NASA, still government)

hmmmm none of them, and three use the exact same data. too funny two links that make corrections to readings from material no one has ever worked with before and from another database,

from your link

"Some data are more than 175 years old while others are less than an hour old. GHCN is the official archived dataset, and it serves as a replacement product for older NCEI-maintained datasets that are designated for daily temporal resolution (i.e., DSI 3200, DSI 3201, DSI 3202, DSI 3205, DSI 3206, DSI 3208, DSI 3210, etc.)."

National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) goes to the same NOAA,
formerly the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC),
site.

A reasonable person will see this as manipulation.

Hey JC....how proud to be a knuckledragger today huh?

But again....data manipulation is not even debatable given the Climategate debacle as has been demonstrated in this thread with numerous links.

 

[mamooth]

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming?

The fact that there's another cooling period afterwards pounds in the coffin nails on that theory.

Miraculous, that "LIA recovery". By your standards, it explains the post-LIA warming and the post-LIA cooling. As your theory there is unfalsifiable, it's pseudoscience nonsense.

He's talking about the real ice age, not the LIA, dumbass.

No, he said "little ice age" specifically. It's still right up there.

Have you thought about suing your teachers for malpractice? We could present your posts here as evidence.

 

[mamooth]

None is from an independent team not funded by government money?

Well no. Why is that a problem, outside of the conspiracy theory world? There's no profit in running weather stations, so it's a government job.

Also note that BEST did the same analysis independently, and came up with the same results, even though it set out with the assumption it would find fraud.

A reasonable person will see this as manipulation.

Why? That crazy statement makes no sense at all, except to mouthbreathing "I HATE THE GUBMINT!" kooks.

 

[mamooth]

But again....data manipulation is not even debatable given the Climategate debacle as has been demonstrated in this thread with numerous links.

By numerous links, you mean debunked hysteria from conspiracy blogs.

Sucks to be you. Conspiracy kookery is all you'll ever have, so you'll always look crazy.

 

[bripat9643]

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming?

The fact that there's another cooling period afterwards pounds in the coffin nails on that theory.

Miraculous, that "LIA recovery". By your standards, it explains the post-LIA warming and the post-LIA cooling. As your theory there is unfalsifiable, it's pseudoscience nonsense.

He's talking about the real ice age, not the LIA, dumbass.

No, he said "little ice age" specifically. It's still right up there.

Have you thought about suing your teachers for malpractice? We could present your posts here as evidence.

Why, yes, I believe you were finally right about something.

 

[bripat9643]

None is from an independent team not funded by government money?

Well no. Why is that a problem, outside of the conspiracy theory world? There's no profit in running weather stations, so it's a government job.

Also note that BEST did the same analysis independently, and came up with the same results, even though it set out with the assumption it would find fraud.

A reasonable person will see this as manipulation.

Why? That crazy statement makes no sense at all, except to mouthbreathing "I HATE THE GUBMINT!" kooks.

There's plenty of profit in being a "climate scientist" sucking on the government tit, especially when you're a 2nd rate intellect who can't perform any kind of serious mental tasks.

 

[mamooth]

There's plenty of profit in being a "climate scientist" sucking on the government tit, especially when you're a 2nd rate intellect who can't perform any kind of serious mental tasks.

Yet you're the moron who couldn't understand UHI, and then power-sulked when his cult propaganda there was debunked by hard science. Your knowledge level was so low, you couldn't even grasp your crap had been debunked.

Like almost every denier, you're just not very bright. That's why you got sucked into the cult. Don't feel too bad about it. I'm sure you're a nice boy, and good looking, so you don't need brains.

 

[daveman]

This is what I said. You really aren't very good at this.

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.
The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.
Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

I said "in our environment" which would include our pre-industrial atmosphere, our sun and our land and sea absorbing SW radiation. Under those circumstances, CO2 DOES generate heat.

and

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

My apologies; it was mamooth who said, "The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says."

 

[daveman]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

See, the problem here is your inability to use language correctly. Is English perhaps your second language?

And what error do you see in my language Dave?

So, Dave, it seems the problem all along was either your faulty memory or your own poor command of English. Are you getting back to this topic (ie, changes in UHI and CO2 trends) or have you run away?

I have a job, genius. You might want to try one someday.

 

[Crick]

I tried it. After 43 years I had to just give it up. Nowadays I just sit in front of my computer and muck with you lovely folks.

Okay. Sorry about the "run away" crack.

 

[SSDD]

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming?

The fact that there's another cooling period afterwards pounds in the coffin nails on that theory.

Miraculous, that "LIA recovery". By your standards, it explains the post-LIA warming and the post-LIA cooling. As your theory there is unfalsifiable, it's pseudoscience nonsense.

And you have what sort of evidence that places such constraints on warming and cooling periods? Anything at all other than your based cult opinion?

Then there is the fact that we never got up to the temperature of the period before the LIA began...we have no idea what brings on warming or cooling periods and paleoclimatology has shown us that there is little rhyme or reason to the period or magnitude of either warming or cooling periods...

I doubt that you wouild be interested...cult dupe and all, but I just perused a recent paper on a revaluation of some alarmist pseudoscience regarding TSI and for those who actually are interested in science, it is a real eye opener on the bullshit that is happening within climate science... It shows, as I have already stated that most of the warming that we have experienced is due to changes in TSI of the sun...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/

Clips:


“The PMOD rationale for using models to alter the Nimbus7/ERB data was to compensate for the sparsity of the ERBS/ERBE data and conform their gap results more closely to the proxy predictions of solar emission line models of TSI behavior.”

“PMOD’s modifications of the published ACRIM and ERB TSI records are questionable because they are based on conforming satellite observational data to proxy model predictions.”

“The PMOD trend during 1986 to 1996 is biased downward by scaling ERB results to the rapidly degrading ERBE results during the ACRIM-Gap using the questionable justification of agreement with some TSI proxy predictions first proposed by Lee IIIet al.(1995).”

“PMOD misinterpreted and erroneously corrected ERB results for an instrument power down event.”

“The dangers of utilizing ex-post-facto corrections by those who did not participate in the original science teams of satellite experiments are that erroneous interpretations of the data can occur because of a lack of detailed knowledge of the experiment and unwarranted manipulation of the data can be made based on a desire to support a particular solar model or some other nonempirical bias. We contend that the PMOD TSI composite construction is compromised in both these ways.”

“[O]ur scientific knowledge could be improved by excluding the more flawed record from the composite. This was the logic applied by the ACRIM team. In point of fact PMOD failed to do this, instead selecting the ERBE results that were known to be degraded and sparse, because that made the solar cycle 21–22 trend agrees with TSI proxy models and the CAGW explanation of CO2 as the driver of the global warming trend of the late 20th century.”

“The consistent downward trending of the PMOD TSI composite is negatively correlated with the global mean temperature anomaly during 1980–2000. This has been viewed with favor by those supporting the CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesissince it would minimize TSI variation as a competitive climate change driver to CO2, the featured driver of the hypothesis during the period (cf.: [IPCC, 2013, Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2008]).”

“Our summary conclusion is that the objective evidence produced by all of the independent TSI composites [3,5, 6, 9] agrees better with the cycle-by-cycle trending of the original ACRIM science team’s composite TSI that shows an increasing trend from 1980 to 2000 and a decreasing trend thereafter. The continuously downward trending of the PMOD composite and TSI proxy models is contraindicated.”

Soon et al., 2015

“ACRIM shows a 0.46 W/m2 increase between 1986 and 1996 followed by a decrease of 0.30 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. PMOD shows a continuous, increasing downward trend with a 1986 to 1996 decrease of 0.05 W/m2 followed by a decrease of 0.14 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. The RMIB composite agrees qualitatively with the ACRIM trend by increasing between the 1986 and 1996 minima and decreasing slightly between 1996 and 2009.”

“ACRIM composite trending is well correlated with the record of global mean temperature anomaly over the entire range of satellite observations (1980–2018) [Scafetta. 2009]. The climate warming hiatus observed since 2000 is inconsistent with CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) climate models [Scafetta, 2013, Scafetta, 2017]. This points to a significant percentage of the observed 1980–2000 warming being driven by TSI variation[Scafetta, 2009, Willson, 2014, Scafetta. 2009]. A number of other studies have pointed out that climate change and TSI variability are strongly correlated throughout the Holocene including the recent decades (e.g., Scafetta, 2009, Scafetta and Willson, 2014, Scafetta, 2013, Kerr, 2001, Bond et al., 2001, Kirkby, 2007, Shaviv, 2008, Shapiro et al., 2011, Soon and Legates, 2013, Steinhilber et al., 2012, Soon et al., 2014).”

“The global surface temperature of the Earth increased from 1970 to 2000 and remained nearly stable from 2000 and 2018. This pattern is not reproduced by CO2 AGW climate models but correlates with a TSI evolution with the trending characteristics of the ACRIM TSI composite as explained in Scafetta [6,12, 27] and Willson [7].”

Smith, 2017



Here is some more...

The science is out there hairball...and at long last, it is getting through the gatekeepers...their influence is in steep decline and the rats are jumping ship...soon your priests are going to be thrown under the bus...what will you do then?

 

[mamooth]

My apologies; it was mamooth who said, "The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says."

And for some reason, that statement of fact causes you to start babbling that asphalt was heating up less now.

Can you go into detail about your asphalt not heating up as much anymore" theory. What physical factor do you say is causing the asphalt to heat up less? Have you considered writing a paper on this?

Normal people would point out that UHI is highly localized, hence an additional piece of asphalt 10 miles away will have no effect on a weather station. As the hard data bears that out, it's not a controversial topic.

 

[mamooth]

And you have what sort of evidence that places such constraints on warming and cooling periods? Anything at all other than your based cult opinion?

You don't seem to get it. Screaming "But can you absolutely disprove my magical theory, can you, huh, huh?" is not science. The burden is not on us to disprove your odd supplositions, the burden is on you to prove them.

Then there is the fact that we never got up to the temperature of the period before the LIA began...

Well, that's an insane statement.

So, I see you found something from denier climastrologist Scaffeta, who is now saying the rest of the planet is totally wrong, and that TSI has actually been increasing instead of decreasing.

Good luck with that.

we have no idea what brings on warming or cooling periods

Wait, didn't you just tell us it was all TSI-based?

_You_ have no idea. Other people aren't so handicapped.

 

[SSDD]

You don't seem to get it. Screaming "But can you absolutely disprove my magical theory, can you, huh, huh?" is not science. The burden is not on us to disprove your odd supplositions, the burden is on you to prove them.[/uote]

So that's a no...you have nothing but your unsupportable cult opinion...The temperature still hasn't reached the temperature from before the little ice age began, but somehow you think it is supposed to end at a cooler temperature than it was and then hold steady....for how long? Forever? Was it ever supposed to get warmer or cooler or just remain static till the end of time?

Well, that's an insane statement.[/uote]

What is insane is denying the literally hundreds of studies that have found that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature....you name the region of the earth and I will be happy to provide you with peer reviewed studies finding that the MWP was warmer than the present.

So, I see you found something from denier climastrologist Scaffeta, who is now saying the rest of the planet is totally wrong, and that TSI has actually been increasing instead of decreasing.

Typical pseudoscientific response...rather than discuss the science you attack the source. And in case you have never looked at the history of science...that is how the group think consensus has been overturned over and over and over...and it isn't as if he were by himself...how many links to papers with similar findings did I provide in that single post?

If you can disprove his findings, help yourself...appeals to a questionable authority, and attacks on the author only demonstrate that you are playing politics and aren't interested in the science at all...but then we already knew that...didn't we hairball?

 

[mamooth]

Typical pseudoscientific response.

Flat-earthers give that same speech.

 

[Crick]

This is what I said. You really aren't very good at this.

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.
The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.
Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

I said "in our environment" which would include our pre-industrial atmosphere, our sun and our land and sea absorbing SW radiation. Under those circumstances, CO2 DOES generate heat.

and

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

My apologies; it was mamooth who said, "The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says."

And I believe him

 

[daveman]

This is what I said. You really aren't very good at this.

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.
The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.
Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

I said "in our environment" which would include our pre-industrial atmosphere, our sun and our land and sea absorbing SW radiation. Under those circumstances, CO2 DOES generate heat.

and

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

My apologies; it was mamooth who said, "The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says."

And I believe him

Of course you do.