Global Warming HOAX Unravels

Hot or cold, just as long as the conversation is confined to warming or cooling. The toxins in your body aren't the issue, its how the climate is changing. Just like the con chem trails, its about condensation, not jet exhaust pollutants, the price of gold, the nuclear weapons, the unjust endless war and debt, corruption at all levels of government.

Oh, terrorism and mass shootings…

stay focused, sheep.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hah. No shaky statistics. They match wiki. Don't be upset you've been fooled by propaganda. Just accept the education.

Cute with the peer reviewed paper about a population. I don't think you know how that works.

Source

Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.

originally posted by: Gemwolf
I'm just curious... Does anyone ever look outside their windows and think to themselves... Woah... Am I breathing thàt? Surely that can't be healthy for me, my pets or plants...?

Let's say that global warming is complete and utter BS... Should we just shrug and say "Hey, the earth isn't heating up, so all is good! No problem."?

Ask someone living in Beijing if they can remember what the sun looks like... But it's fine. Let's do nothing.

What a crock, everybody knows that smog has been there for millions of years, it has nothing to do with the millions of vehicles and dozens of power plants. Smog is a natural process.

a reply to: raymundoko

Actually I'll take that source over your first one. I just highly distrust blogs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This doesn't disprove Climate Change either. Correcting data? What's wrong with making sure the data is correct?

I don't know man...what would you think if I gave you "adjusted" data? What IF you didn't know how or why it was adjusted?

Any data that is changed is corrupt and unusable...with very few exceptions.

The fact that this NOAA data is "adjusted" invalidates it...

Do you even know what that means, or the reasons for the adjustment? Or are you just saying that JUST because the data needed adjusting that makes it obsolete? Because that is a very unscientific position you are adopting there.

Do I know what WHAT means? Do I know what "adjustment" means? Yes...the data value has been changed...probably by some preset algorithm.

Lets see; the reasons for adjustment...from a data analysis view point, I can think of no reasons to adjust base data of that nature. In fact, for data like that "adjustment" is the same as corruption. It destroys the data's value, and makes it impossible to construct any kind of meaningful report.

Data is rarely "adjusted" and is typically adjusted only when the acquisition system has some sort of bias (bias affects all data equally), its usually a hardware thing. However, if we look into the hardware used to collect the temperature data we find that many instruments were used. And, even though all of the several instruments used have a range of error, or tolerance, the amount of error is different in each instrument. Thus, "adjustment" becomes the same as corrupting the data since no single value can be used...we can assume that each instrument has its own calibration.

Sorry man, but with data of this nature; only raw, untouched data values will work...and since NASA and NOAA have decided that we are better with their corrupt (adjusted) data...then we have no choice but to decide that all their reports are equally corrupt and meaningless.

My position is definitely NOT unscientific...but,, I won't hold it against you for not understanding the Science of Data.

I did not say anything about the data being obsolete...you imported that bit from a post else where in space and time.
Lets at least try to remain relevant...

originally posted by: tanka418
Do I know what WHAT means? Do I know what "adjustment" means? Yes...the data value has been changed...probably by some preset algorithm.

Lets see; the reasons for adjustment...from a data analysis view point, I can think of no reasons to adjust base data of that nature. In fact, for data like that "adjustment" is the same as corruption. It destroys the data's value, and makes it impossible to construct any kind of meaningful report.

Did you read the reason why the data was adjusted? Did you look at the old data then the adjusted data to see if the accuracy improved or wasn't improved? Or are you just writing it off because science was wrong in the past and attempts to self-correct itself?

Data is rarely "adjusted" and is typically adjusted only when the acquisition system has some sort of bias (bias affects all data equally), its usually a hardware thing. However, if we look into the hardware used to collect the temperature data we find that many instruments were used. And, even though all of the several instruments used have a range of error, or tolerance, the amount of error is different in each instrument. Thus, "adjustment" becomes the same as corrupting the data since no single value can be used...we can assume that each instrument has its own calibration.

Data is rarely adjusted? How do you know this? How many peer review papers have you read, peer reviewed, then followed up on to see if data adjustments were ever made?

Sorry man, but with data of this nature; only raw, untouched data values will work...and since NASA and NOAA have decided that we are better with their corrupt (adjusted) data...then we have no choice but to decide that all their reports are equally corrupt and meaningless.

I'm pretty sure you don't care about the raw numbers either.

My position is definitely NOT unscientific...but,, I won't hold it against you for not understanding the Science of Data.

Lol. Right.

I did not say anything about the data being obsolete...you imported that bit from a post else where in space and time.
Lets at least try to remain relevant...

Says the guy who won't even bother to educate himself on the reasons the data was adjusted to see if there was a good reason for it or not.

a reply to: tanka418

Lets see; the reasons for adjustment...from a data analysis view point, I can think of no reasons to adjust base data of that nature.

Placement- heat island effect- if it is close to equipment that puts off heat.

There are just a couple reasons, but if you are really interested each station that adjustments are made for various reasons have made those reasons publicly known.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Did you read the reason why the data was adjusted? Did you look at the old data then the adjusted data to see if the accuracy improved or wasn't improved? Or are you just writing it off because science was wrong in the past and attempts to self-correct itself?

ETA: One does not "self-correct" by changing the data...One self-corrects by better understanding the data.

No...I didn't look at the old data, nor compare it to the corrupted values...in as much as this kind of data cannot be adjusted to reflect greater accuracy; there seemed to be little need. We are talking about temperature sensors here, and depending on how new they are...it boils down to the amount of current flowing through a solid state device...there is no "soft" adjustment that can make the "reading" more accurate.

Data is rarely adjusted? How do you know this? How many peer review papers have you read, peer reviewed, then followed up on to see if data adjustments were ever made?

How do I know this...did you miss the part where I related that I'm a computer scientist? How about the 20+ years experience with data acquisition, management and analysis?

How do I know this...how about the idea that I'm a data professional and unlike a meteorologist, geologist, geophysicist, I'm very likely to have a better understanding of Data, in general.

Peer reviewed papers...yes I've read a few, reviewed some, and written others...As I said; I'm a Computer/Data Scientist...how about you?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: tanka418

Lets see; the reasons for adjustment...from a data analysis view point, I can think of no reasons to adjust base data of that nature.

Placement- heat island effect- if it is close to equipment that puts off heat.

There are just a couple reasons, but if you are really interested each station that adjustments are made for various reasons have made those reasons publicly known.

I am presuming, for the moment, that both NASA and NOAA are a bit more intelligent than that...you know, not using inappropriate data in their analysis. They did state that the data consisted of a "subset" of all data, so we should be able to presume that they didn't include data known to be artificially offset from the ambient. Otherwise both NASA and NOAA are even bigger frauds in this than is currently suspected, or just plain stupid.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Did you read the reason why the data was adjusted? Did you look at the old data then the adjusted data to see if the accuracy improved or wasn't improved? Or are you just writing it off because science was wrong in the past and attempts to self-correct itself?

ETA: One does not "self-correct" by changing the data...One self-corrects by better understanding the data.

What if the data is collected poorly, or better methods of data collection are invented? No need to correct the data then either huh?

No...I didn't look at the old data, nor compare it to the corrupted values...in as much as this kind of data cannot be adjusted to reflect greater accuracy; there seemed to be little need. We are talking about temperature sensors here, and depending on how new they are...it boils down to the amount of current flowing through a solid state device...there is no "soft" adjustment that can make the "reading" more accurate.

So to sum up you've rationalized away the reasons for quality peer review work because you are already convinced that AGW is fraudulent.

How do I know this...did you miss the part where I related that I'm a computer scientist? How about the 20+ years experience with data acquisition, management and analysis?

Yea I did. Sorry I could care less about memorizing your life history. It's unimportant to me. Though computer science isn't the same as climatology as far as data acquisition goes. I don't ask a biologist how the sun works.

How do I know this...how about the idea that I'm a data professional and unlike a meteorologist, geologist, geophysicist, I'm very likely to have a better understanding of Data, in general.

That doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore it.

Peer reviewed papers...yes I've read a few, reviewed some, and written others...As I said; I'm a Computer/Data Scientist...how about you?

How many about climatology? I read climatology reports about once a month. I don't have any subscriptions so I can't access too much, but I read what I can.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What if the data is collected poorly, or better methods of data collection are invented? No need to correct the data then either huh?

Poorly collected data...would probably be considered corrupt, and thus not used.

Better methods of collecting...you mean what I do...design better, more accurate acquisition systems...and absolutely no...no reason to deliberately corrupt the data.

So to sum up you've rationalized away the reasons for quality peer review work because you are already convinced that AGW is fraudulent.

Have you been reading what I've said? Kind of makes me wonder, because, I've rationalized nothing, I have applied tried and true data analysis method, and based on the available data; find it fraudulent...

And, truthfully, I was still on the fence until I learned about the "adjustment" of the data...that was a tipping point. This whole argument is based on corrupt data, and NASA, and NOAA need to be sent back to re-do their work...maybe get it right...

[quoteYea I did. Sorry I could care less about memorizing your life history. It's unimportant to me. Though computer science isn't the same as climatology as far as data acquisition goes. I don't ask a biologist how the sun works.

No computer science isn't the same. Tell me; what makes a climatologist better at designing data acquisition systems? Answer, nothing! In fact most "scientists" should keep their grubby hands out of the hardware, as well as the software, and leave it to those who have made it their passion to know such things...you know people like electrical engineers and computer scientists...

Sorry man but you are grasping at straws...you are trying to defend something you have no understanding of; either the method or the data. Logic would indicate that you seek additional wisdom, yet you reject it...that, I'm afraid; is your bad!

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Smog is not co2 and the makeup of Smog has very low shelf life. If you can see it, it isn't co2...

a reply to: tanka418

Yet you continually tell me that finding out why the data was altered is unnecessary. Like I said, unscientific. Do you even know what data was altered? Or where it was altered?

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming

Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.

"Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.

In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

As of this source I'd day that you haven't actually looked at the data and are just believing what the media (in this case Fox News) is telling you.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: tanka418

Lets see; the reasons for adjustment...from a data analysis view point, I can think of no reasons to adjust base data of that nature.

Placement- heat island effect- if it is close to equipment that puts off heat.

There are just a couple reasons, but if you are really interested each station that adjustments are made for various reasons have made those reasons publicly known.

I am presuming, for the moment, that both NASA and NOAA are a bit more intelligent than that...you know, not using inappropriate data in their analysis. They did state that the data consisted of a "subset" of all data, so we should be able to presume that they didn't include data known to be artificially offset from the ambient. Otherwise both NASA and NOAA are even bigger frauds in this than is currently suspected, or just plain stupid.

Have you ever considered that the areas around temp stations may change over time? Probably not.

But they do. You can control the property you own, but you can not control the property you don't. Many of the stations are small areas of land especially in more commercialized cities. Cuts down on waste tax money.

You are correct NASA and NOAA are intelligent. They even explain to the less intelligent in detail why they make certain adjustments. That is well documented, but there will still be those who do not read the explanations and ignorantly claim they are frauds because they don't understand the reasons.

There even those who stick to that mantra even when they have been informed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As of this source I'd day that you haven't actually looked at the data and are just believing what the media (in this case Fox News) is telling you.

Actually...some of the data I've reviewed has been; Northern Hemisphere historical mean temperature, Southern Hemisphere historical mean, and of course a combined report showing the historical mean on a global basis. There is, in reality, not quite enough data there to determine much, especially on a long cycle, and while the mean temperature is indeed increasing slowly, there is not enough data to determine if it is natural or artificial...the proper default view would be; natural.

Oh...the source of the data I viewed: NOAA...

So...how was that straw? Did that work for you?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As of this source I'd day that you haven't actually looked at the data and are just believing what the media (in this case Fox News) is telling you.

Actually...some of the data I've reviewed has been; Northern Hemisphere historical mean temperature, Southern Hemisphere historical mean, and of course a combined report showing the historical mean on a global basis. There is, in reality, not quite enough data there to determine much, especially on a long cycle, and while the mean temperature is indeed increasing slowly, there is not enough data to determine if it is natural or artificial...the proper default view would be; natural.

Well I just posted a link that explained why the data was altered (surprise! it aligned with what I was saying, better data acquisition became available). You ignored it of course.

So the trends we are seeing of increasing temperatures at an unprecedented rate for the time we've been keeping track is just benign? The trends of Antarctica and Greenland melting away aren't happening either? The fact that we've broken heat records or been in the top ten of heat records since the 90's means nothing?

I mean you know there is more than just one or two things that confirm AGW? There is a LOT of precise calculations, predictions, models, and tests performed that line up and further confirm this is happening.

Oh...the source of the data I viewed: NOAA...

So...how was that straw? Did that work for you?

I dunno. You didn't post any links backing up what you were saying.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Have you ever considered that the areas around temp stations may change over time? Probably not.

Why yes I have! They also move to new locations, get replaced, all sort of thing. But, nothing that would indicate that "adjustment" (intentional corruption) of the data is necessary.

And, did you see that wee bit about a sub set? The raw data can be filtered to provide a mean that is not influenced by your "heat islands" or other things that may bias a sensor.

You are correct NASA and NOAA are intelligent. They even explain to the less intelligent in detail why they make certain adjustments. That is well documented, but there will still be those who do not read the explanations and ignorantly claim they are frauds because they don't understand the reasons.

There even those who stick to that mantra even when they have been informed.

Yes it is, reasonable well documented; I find it absolutely incredible that they admit to deliberately corrupting the data! And then they expect it to be accepted...course, they are right, many have bought into this open fraud without question.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I just posted a link that explained why the data was altered (surprise! it aligned with what I was saying, better data acquisition became available). You ignored it of course.

No, I saw that, and recognized it for the BS that it is...One doesn't "adjust" historical dat because they now have better equipment. The values in the existing dataset cannot be changed, to do so is corrupting that data.

So the trends we are seeing of increasing temperatures at an unprecedented rate for the time we've been keeping track is just benign? The trends of Antarctica and Greenland melting away aren't happening either? The fact that we've broken heat records or been in the top ten of heat records since the 90's means nothing?

I didn't say that, and you know it! I said the temperature increase is natural. And, last I heard; ice in the Antarctic was increasing, while Greenland slowly melted.

And yes I know about, and have recently experienced, record heat, and record cold as well, record dry, and now record rain. But, ya know, after all the dust settled with the record heat...the record wasn't very significant...it was mostly local and wasn't a record after all (in a more global sense).

Since the 90's you say...I've seen records that were made before my time that still stand...I'm 68.

I mean you know there is more than just one or two things that confirm AGW? There is a LOT of precise calculations, predictions, models, and tests performed that line up and further confirm this is happening.

Yes I'm sure that all of that 'lines up"...very easy to do with "cooked data".

originally posted by: CB328
So how does he explain the heat island effect? Cities are up to 10 degrees warmer than other areas, I suppose that's a natural cycle too??

No that is called tonnes and tonnes of concrete soaking up the heat during the day, and then trying to release it all at night. It is hotter in cities because of concrete. This is no secret.

a reply to: Metallicus

Here's where your thread unraveled...

" The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists. "

Global warming trend data is garnered from ice core samples....