NBC decides to censor truth of atmospheric temp data being fudged in 2005

[EMH]

Typical...

Why would NBC not want anyone to know that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere for decades despite rising Co2 in the atmosphere???

Why would NBC want to censor the truth that the atmospheric temp data was FUDGED in 2005 with laughable excuses???

This article is now censored by NBC...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

But it still exists on USMB here... cited by EMH and others dozens of times...

Search results for query: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8917093

www.usmessageboard.com

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT WE HAVE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES, SATELLITES AND BALLOONS, and BOTH SHOWED NO WARMING, the satellites since the 1970s, and the balloons for more than 100 years. IF the "theory" is that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes "warming," then THAT THEORY should have been REJECTED, since there is ZERO DATA to support it. BUT that did not stop the Co2 FRAUD, which fudged both in 2005. NBC knows that, supports it, and has engaged in censorship to protect the Co2 FRAUD and allow it to continue to bilk the taxpayer and misdiagnose these fires.

 

[Crick]

Typical...

Why would NBC not want anyone to know that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere for decades despite rising Co2 in the atmosphere???

Why would NBC want to censor the truth that the atmospheric temp data was FUDGED in 2005 with laughable excuses???

This article is now censored by NBC...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

But it still exists on USMB here... cited by EMH and others dozens of times...

Search results for query: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8917093

www.usmessageboard.com

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT WE HAVE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES, SATELLITES AND BALLOONS, and BOTH SHOWED NO WARMING, the satellites since the 1970s, and the balloons for more than 100 years. IF the "theory" is that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes "warming," then THAT THEORY should have been REJECTED, since there is ZERO DATA to support it. BUT that did not stop the Co2 FRAUD, which fudged both in 2005. NBC knows that, supports it, and has engaged in censorship to protect the Co2 FRAUD and allow it to continue to bilk the taxpayer and misdiagnose these fires.

Do you have a macro to type the string "highly correlated satellite and balloon data" and if not, why not?

 

[EMH]

Do you have a macro to type the string "highly correlated satellite and balloon data" and if not, why not?

Go sign a sworn affidavit that is not correct...

There used to be many "news" links to the 2005 atmospheric temperature FUDGE JOB. Now, the last one got censored by NBC.

WHY?

Why censor the truth that the two and only two readings of atmospheric temps showed NO WARMING for 30+ years despite rising Co2?

LOL!!!!

 

[EMH]

LOL!!!!

NBC put it back up!!!!

 

[EMH]

Aug. 11, 2005, 4:51 PM CDT / Source: LiveScience
By Ker Than
For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.
Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.
"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.
Oops!
Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.
But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.
Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.
"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Recommended​

WESTERN WILDFIRESWith a fire burning just miles away, residents of a Washington town dig in​

SPACENASA weighs Boeing vs. SpaceX choice in bringing back Starliner astronauts​

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.
The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.
"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.
Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.
But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.
After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.
Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.
"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need

 

[Crick]

Aug. 11, 2005, 4:51 PM CDT / Source: LiveScience
By Ker Than
For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.
Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.
"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.
Oops!
Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.
But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.
Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.
"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.
The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.
"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.
Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.
But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.
After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.
Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.
"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need

Did you actually intend to post material that refutes your fundamental claims?

 

[EMH]

Did you actually intend to post material that refutes your fundamental claims?

There is DATA and there is SPIN.

The DATA from the TWO AND ONLY TWO SOURCES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE READINGS = NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE DURING DECADES OF RISING CO2


The SPIN is from the TAXPAYER FUNDED FRAUDULENT FUDGEBAKING LIARS who FUDGED THE DATA.

 

[Crick]

There is DATA and there is SPIN.

The DATA from the TWO AND ONLY TWO SOURCES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE READINGS = NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE DURING DECADES OF RISING CO2


The SPIN is from the TAXPAYER FUNDED FRAUDULENT FUDGEBAKING LIARS who FUDGED THE DATA.

Actually, what you just posted made reference to three independent studies that all came to the same conclusion; conclusions that YOUR author, Roy Spencer, eventually accepted as valid. Did they hold a gun to his head Einstein?

 

[EMH]

Actually, what you just posted made reference to three independent studies that all came to the same conclusion; conclusions that YOUR author, Roy Spencer, eventually accepted as valid. Did they hold a gun to his head Einstein?

You could have 300 "independent (taxpayer funded) studies" and nobody cares.

There is DATA and there is FUDGE.

The FUDGE JOB on the atmospheric temps is completely laughable.

"Orbit wobble" would not change the IR readings at all

"Shade issues" would be a one time constant change for the whole series, yet your side changed a flat line to an upward slope.

Your side has NO DATA, ZIP, ZERO, NADA that indicates increasing atmospheric Co2 warms anything.... NOTHING BUT FUDGE.

 

[Crick]

You could have 300 "independent (taxpayer funded) studies" and nobody cares.

There is DATA and there is FUDGE.

The FUDGE JOB on the atmospheric temps is completely laughable.

"Orbit wobble" would not change the IR readings at all

"Shade issues" would be a one time constant change for the whole series, yet your side changed a flat line to an upward slope.

Your side has NO DATA, ZIP, ZERO, NADA that indicates increasing atmospheric Co2 warms anything.... NOTHING BUT FUDGE.

Isn't it stunning how all the people that disagree with you have no problem whatsoever finding valid science references to back up their positions and you can't find jack shit?

 

[EMH]

Isn't it stunning how all the people that disagree with you have no problem whatsoever finding valid science references to back up their positions and you can't find jack shit?

There is NO VALID SCIENCE REFERENCE to justify the 2005 atmospheric temp fudge job.

A slight "wobble" in satellite orbit would not change the IR readings at all.

A "shade" issue is a ONE TIME CONSTANT change that should not change a FLAT LINE into a SLOPE.


YOUR SIDE FUDGES DATA and the only "evidence" of "warming" in Earth's atmosphere is 100% PURE FUDGE.

 

[Crick]

There is NO VALID SCIENCE REFERENCE to justify the 2005 atmospheric temp fudge job.

A slight "wobble" in satellite orbit would not change the IR readings at all.

A "shade" issue is a ONE TIME CONSTANT change that should not change a FLAT LINE into a SLOPE.


YOUR SIDE FUDGES DATA and the only "evidence" of "warming" in Earth's atmosphere is 100% PURE FUDGE.

Unfortunately for you, you have ZERO evidence that any such thing ever took place while the rest of the world has oodles and oodles of evidence supporting the positions of mainstream science. And then there's the point that you seem to be a fucking Nazi.

 

[EMH]

Unfortunately for you, you have ZERO evidence that any such thing ever took place while the rest of the world has oodles and oodles of evidence supporting the positions of mainstream science. And then there's the point that you seem to be a fucking Nazi.

The link is back up. Your side had NBC delete it, but EMH made a fuss, and it appears EMH has quite a following, since NBC was forced to put back up the truth of the atmospheric temp fudge job of 2005....

LOL!!!

 

[Crick]

The link is back up. Your side had NBC delete it, but EMH made a fuss, and it appears EMH has quite a following, since NBC was forced to put back up the truth of the atmospheric temp fudge job of 2005....

LOL!!!

NBC must know that EMH is smarter than Einstein and went to 25 top universities. So what was the subject of your doctoral dissertation?

 

[EMH]

NBC must know that EMH is smarter than Einstein and went to 25 top universities. So what was the subject of your doctoral dissertation?

NBC, you, and the "top climate scientists" cannot answer any of the most basic climate questions....

Jeopardy! music still playing...

Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?

Apparently not. Not on Faux Not on RAV or OANN What questions will the media never ask? 1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other? 2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Crick]

NBC, you, and the "top climate scientists" cannot answer any of the most basic climate questions....

Jeopardy! music still playing...

Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?

Apparently not. Not on Faux Not on RAV or OANN What questions will the media never ask? 1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other? 2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska...

www.usmessageboard.com

Surely you can tell that people don't bother answering your questions because it's blatantly obvious you're a, ignorant, sociopathic whack job.

 

[EMH]

Surely you can tell that people don't bother answering your questions because it's blatantly obvious you're a, ignorant, sociopathic whack job.

Translation - the Co2 FRAUD will not even attempt to answer the most basic climate questions like

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?

because to do so truthfully would be to ADMIT Co2 DOES NOTHING and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE

 

[ding]

Translation - the Co2 FRAUD will not even attempt to answer the most basic climate questions like

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?

because to do so truthfully would be to ADMIT Co2 DOES NOTHING and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE

The reason the northern hemisphere glaciates and deglaciates is because heat is either circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't. Say it with me.

 

[EMH]

The reason the northern hemisphere glaciates and deglaciates is because heat is either circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic or it isn't. Say it with me.

LOL!!!

How much land within 600 miles of a Pole is not in ice age?

How much land outside of 600 miles of a Pole is in ice age?


Answers are your IQ and credibility aka ZERO and ZERO.

 

[ding]

LOL!!!

How much land within 600 miles of a Pole is not in ice age?

How much land outside of 600 miles of a Pole is in ice age?


Answers are your IQ and credibility aka ZERO and ZERO.

I think you have the intelligence of a 4 year old.