It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Justoneman
yea, the part where all the anomalies trend upward leads me to think it's not an honest mistake, but an orchestrated plan.
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Their official name is “Environment and Climate Change Canada”. They have to live up to the name somehow!
originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: GeorgeVanTassel
I guess that's how they dance at the government.
originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Justoneman
yea, the part where all the anomalies trend upward leads me to think it's not an honest mistake, but an orchestrated plan.
These "scientists" go into any experiment, study, or analysis with the intention of finding evidence to support "climate change."
That's not how science is supposed to be done. You may have a hypothesis (climate change) but you're supposed to go into your work with an open mind and go wherever the data takes you.
If you don't, you'll find yourself cherry-picking or manipulating data to fit your conclusion, as these people do. That's not science, that's propaganda.
originally posted by: Justoneman
These fake scientists are ruining Science for people like me who make a living analyzing data, using the degree I worked to earn. Abusing the trust of the people so bad, they will never trust Academia again as long as they live. Perhaps another reason the elite want us all dead, apparently.
originally posted by: CosmicFocus
a reply to: leongrad
Has anybody else notice that the TV weather people seem to grind into our brains that every aspect in our weather prospects these days is supported first off with the term "severe?"
I argue that is purposely done to make us fearful of weather features if not more dependent upon the proper authorities for information and, thus, control.
originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: GeorgeVanTassel
I guess that's how they dance at the government.
originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
What I'm thinking is they have a weather station, it measures the temperature, electronically, it pings back a value every minute, say, and that is recorded. it it's higher than the previous highest value that day, then the highest valued changes, the same for lowest. Every hour, on the hour, a value for the temp is recorded for that specific hour.
now here's the thing, it could be 6.1 at 12:00, and it could be 6.1 at 13:00, but if the cloud cover lifter slightly, and the sun came out and warmed the sensor up, then for several minutes between 12 and 13, the temp could have gone up to 7.6, say, and that would be the highest temp recorded, and the clouds come back over, and the temperature drops, and the hourly figures are only as high as 6.1, but the max reached was 7.6 - I don't see why that's not a possible explanation here.
originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
originally posted by: JPRCrastney
Has anyone actually proved that the data was falsified? manually adjusted? or not correct according to data captured?
What I'm thinking is they have a weather station, it measures the temperature, electronically, it pings back a value every minute, say, and that is recorded. it it's higher than the previous highest value that day, then the highest valued changes, the same for lowest. Every hour, on the hour, a value for the temp is recorded for that specific hour.
now here's the thing, it could be 6.1 at 12:00, and it could be 6.1 at 13:00, but if the cloud cover lifter slightly, and the sun came out and warmed the sensor up, then for several minutes between 12 and 13, the temp could have gone up to 7.6, say, and that would be the highest temp recorded, and the clouds come back over, and the temperature drops, and the hourly figures are only as high as 6.1, but the max reached was 7.6 - I don't see why that's not a possible explanation here.
originally posted by: leongrad
That's a fine theory and a very good one a that.
But it doesn't actually explain the discrepancy.
If your theory is right, then we'd see instances when the Daily Announced Temperature would sometimes be lower than the hourly stream. Because, as you say, maybe sometimes a cloud passes in between hours.
But that's not what the data presents. Starting on March 3, all adjustments are always upwards.
Also, there are "control" events. Prior to March 3, and in some instances after March 3, the daily announced temperature is announced exactly as recorded by the hourly data. The match is exact, no discrepancy. This is despite the fact that on some times the temperature would change rapidly with the hours, and some other times very slowly. In any of those cases, which act as "control events" to show us how data is actually treated in a normal scenario, the hourly data was taken as the refence data and presented as such in the Daily Announcement (hottest hour reported as-is, no adjustments made).
originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: WaESN
Calling everyone "stupid" on a public thread is interesting.
Your theory is fine but it's incompatible with the day's warming rate. In turn, your theory violates basic physics.
If you truly analyze the data, the day's warming/cooling rates, and if you know a minimum of physics and thermodynamics, then you'll immediately notice that your theory doesn't quite explain the whole thing.
Your theory also doesn't explain why there were no discrepancies between hourly data and daily announcement, prior to March 3, and even in several instances after Mar 3.