USHCN Data

[SSDD]

Bullshit. Your whole tall tale is based on that. Almost every chart you present is a correlational chart showing CO2 rising along with temperatures. Better get your lies straight there....admiral...

They don't understand charts...remember. They post them because they like the colors. They routinely post charts thinking they say one thing when in reality, they say another.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, would you care to discuss lapse rate one more time? Or the ideal gas laws? Or radiative heat transfer?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, would you care to discuss lapse rate one more time? Or the ideal gas laws? Or radiative heat transfer?

Wouldn't do any good. You clearly failed the first time and I am quite sure that you haven't learned anything new since then...dogma isn't known for its rapid change. But just to reiterate my position... If you could read a graph, I would say that you can see the difference between moist tropical air and dry polar air, but since you can't...I won't.

Polar, standard mid-latitude and tropical altitudinal temperature profiles. Data taken from the US Defense Department’s “Non-standard atmospheres” dataset, downloaded from the Public Domain Aeronau- tical Software website (original source: document MIL- STD-210A). Temperatures were converted from degrees Rankine, and altitudes from feet.

 

[Crick]

How quickly you forget.

 

[mamooth]

The whole meme of the CAGW movement is correlation equals causation. Tell me if these look familiar to you!

Nope. I haven't seen those particular graphs before.

Now, let's get back to what you're unsuccessfully trying to evade. You said _I_ posted such graphs. And when I call you on your claim, you don't even try to back it up. Instead, you attempt to change the topic.

So, same old same old. You call me a liar, I ask you to back it up, you slink away with tail between legs. Have you no shame at all?

 

[IanC]

I'd like to point out that this bit of amateur 'analysis' includes not the slightest attempt to ascertain the affect the noted adjustments had on these data's ACCURACY. We are still looking at the assumption that any adjustment must have been made to make a false case for global warming. He spends not one second examining the justifications and explanations that NOAA HAS provided.

the main point of this exercise is to show people how much of the data is fabricated out of the algorithms. how many people would know that >10% of all values presented by USHCN were infilled estimates? how many people know that in 2013, last year!, that more than 20% of the stations that make up the official record had no readings at all!!!

if you wish to believe that poorly sited station data can be mathematically manipulated to produce more accurate data, which is then attributed to a well sited station, then I suppose you dont understand error ranges.

a teaspoon of shit sitting on a gallon of ice cream can be somewhat fixed. but not after you mix it all together. then you just have a gallon of shit

To mimic SSDD, neither interpolation nor extrapolation is fabrication is it, Ian?

To make use of your imagery, you seem to be saying that you would prefer a tea spoon of shit between two scoops of ice cream to two scoops of ice cream with some ice cream spread between them. I guess everyone is entitled to their own tastes.

Nope. My point is that you can remove the turd while it is an individual entity but if you 'homogenize' it into the whole then it is all tainted. Replacing questionable data with even worse data doesn't make the dataset more accurate

 

[Crick]

Your analyses do not demonstrate that has taken place. And the explanations provided by NOAA,NCDC, GISS and CRU show that quite the opposite has taken place. The accuracy of the dataset is improved, not degraded.

All you have is paranoid fantasies here. You're better than this.

 

[SSDD]

Your analyses do not demonstrate that has taken place. And the explanations provided by NOAA,NCDC, GISS and CRU show that quite the opposite has taken place. The accuracy of the dataset is improved, not degraded.

All you have is paranoid fantasies here. You're better than this.

According to the government agency whose continued lavish funding is dependent on a continuing crisis? Riiiiiggggggghhhhhtttt.

 

[Crick]

Your whole case does nothing but tell us that adjustments have been made. You have NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were not needed, NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were made to make global warming look worse. You've got nothing but your paranoia.

 

[daveman]

Your analyses do not demonstrate that has taken place. And the explanations provided by NOAA,NCDC, GISS and CRU show that quite the opposite has taken place. The accuracy of the dataset is improved, not degraded.

All you have is paranoid fantasies here. You're better than this.

How do you know they're more accurate?

 

[IanC]

Your analyses do not demonstrate that has taken place. And the explanations provided by NOAA,NCDC, GISS and CRU show that quite the opposite has taken place. The accuracy of the dataset is improved, not degraded.

All you have is paranoid fantasies here. You're better than this.

How do you know they're more accurate?

Crick obviously realizes they are not. He is playing the same all or nothing game that is so common in climate science propaganda. If you admit that CO2 has some effect on temperatures then he thinks you agree that it is 3 or 5 or 8 degrees worth. If you agree that some sort of TOBS correction needs to be in place then he thinks that all the other arbitrary corrections are valid as well. Fabricating estimates from poor sites that are known to be warming faster than good sites, and then inserting them into the dataset does not make the dataset more accurate. Close to a third of all US readings have been estimated in the last few years.

Also, when obvious mistakes are found Crick just says " so what?" it is hard to improve things when you can't even investigate obvious deficiencies. Many of the algorithms are not working correctly even if they are working as planned.

 

[daveman]

So, in summary, the changes are accurate because they support AGW.

Right, Crick?

 

[Crick]

The changes made the data more accurate. The various agencies making such changes to their data-sets have all explained what they're doing and why. The experts in the field all understand, accept and appreciate these changes. None of them are accusing these agencies of manipulating these data with ulterior motives. You've got nothing. You've never had anything. You're never going to have anything. That's what happens when you try to pick scientific theories by politics.

 

[SSDD]

Your whole case does nothing but tell us that adjustments have been made. You have NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were not needed, NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were made to make global warming look worse. You've got nothing but your paranoia.

Still waiting for a rational, scientifically sound reason for altering temperatures from more than 50 years ago. Got one yet?

 

[Crick]

The source of those adjustments have explained their actions repeatedly. Several have been posted here. Are you going to deny having seen them? That particular practice has become tiresome.

 

[jc456]

The source of those adjustments have explained their actions repeatedly. Several have been posted here. Are you going to deny having seen them? That particular practice has become tiresome.

I thought it was quite clear the comment back to you. Why were they needed back 50 years ago, and like a good soldier you ignored it. LOL. You're such a tool.

 

[SSDD]

The source of those adjustments have explained their actions repeatedly. Several have been posted here. Are you going to deny having seen them? That particular practice has become tiresome.

Ive seen no explanation for adjusting data from more than 50 years ago.

 

[Kosh]

Your whole case does nothing but tell us that adjustments have been made. You have NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were not needed, NO EVIDENCE that those adjustments were made to make global warming look worse. You've got nothing but your paranoia.

Oh my the whole prove a negative argument again from the AGW cult.

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.

 

[Crick]

As you've been told before

1) Vostok ice cores give proxy temperature data for the Antarctic, not the Earth. Whoever labeled your graph (and it was NOT the website listed there) lied to you.

2) No one has ever claimed that current temperatures are "higher than they have ever been in history". Multiple studies shows that current GLOBAL temperatures are the highest that GLOBAL temperatures have been during the entire Holocene, and that could (and has been) be phrased "all of human history" but that's only slightly more than the first eighth of the Vostok record - which, for some reason, is about all your graph shows.

Human culture has never faced higher temperatures. And, of course, as temperatures continue to increase from our increasing greenhouse emissions, that statement will remain fresh and true. OOOoooo how pleasant that will be.

Where did you get your graph and your statement?