16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

so why would your fraud team cool down past data and warm up recent data?


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ccused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming



U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Written by Alex Newman


font size decrease font size increase font size Print E-mail
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Multiple U.S. government bureaucracies including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are again being accused of inappropriately manipulating temperature data — or “adjusting” it, as officials at the agencies implicated in the scandal put it — to show global warming. While the accusations are not new, the latest scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at Real Science, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.

Numerous scientists and experts confirmed Goddard’s explosive findings, but in separate responses to The New American, both NOAA and NASA attempted to downplay the significance of the accusations. The major problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records of federal bureaucracies relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.

“Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.” Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.










futurecurrents said:
We are currently experiencing global warming. If an increased greenhouse effect is a significant part of this warming, we would expect to see nights warming faster than days. There have been a number of studies into this effect, which confirm that this is indeed the case. One study looked at extreme temperatures in night and day. They observed the number of cold nights was decreasing faster than the number of cold days. Similarly, the number of warm nights was increasing faster than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006).

At nighttime, the surface cools by radiating its heat out to space. Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process.
More...
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html


Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
 
jem said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html


Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
More...


Who is Steve Goddard again?

and why did he choose the pseudonym of "Goddard"?
 
gwb-trading said:
Once again, FC is posting charts with Y-axis improvisions that attempt to show a minor temperature increase of below 0.07 degrees C change in ocean temperature over the past 10 years as a hockey stick end of the world.

The ocean warming is much less than the 'climate change models' have proposed. As noted by ARGO, the measured ocean warming is less than the instrument error. Effectively this means there is no meaningful warming from 1960 to 2012.

The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to one septillion (10^24) joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius.

The axis scale of your chart is in 10^22 joules. The chart demonstrates an increase of under 0.17 yottajoules - worst case over time. This would represent a temperature incease of 0.17 °Celsius.

The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error, and much less than the proposed models on your fabricated chart.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in both the 0m to 700m and the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

Why don't you plot your chart using temperature as a scale on the axis. Looks far less scary and alarmist. You can go to the ARGO website to generate graphs of actual data.

This is the original chart from ARGO of ocean temperature using default axis units

5dpzx2G.jpg


THIS is your chart on alarmism.

PIxJyDO.jpg


This wikipedia link includes a complete summary about ARGO (Array for Real-time Geostrophic Oceanography) and includes links to the ARGO website that provides raw data and charting capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
More...

Thank you for pointing out the amount of y-axis mischief that has crept into the pseudo science surrounding global warming hysteria . (I needn't point out that a Joule is a tiny amount of energy, so global energy changes, in Joules, on the order of 10<sup>22</sup> are entirely reasonable. (In a similar, equally ridiculous, vein, I once reported, as a joke, that a worthless photogalvanic cell was producing 50,000 femto watts!)

What we haven't got, not yet anyway, are reasonable explanations for the inconsistencies in the arguments being used to bolster the AGM hypothesis. The latest data and analysis suggests that warming is well within the naturally occurring temperature range experienced by the Earth. If, indeed, man's CO2 producing activities have any discernible effect on warming it is most likely negligible compared to that of natural phenomena that we, as yet, have little control over. Sadly, it is not uncommon for even the most intelligent among us to confuse strong correlation with cause. In the present case, however, to be trapped by such a novice error is inexcusable, because the independent variable has been confused with the dependent. Apparently, until very recently, no one thought to look and see which was which. :D
 
Oh!! Look which liar is back!!!


Hey Piehole

I thought I sent you off with your tail between your legs last time when I pointed out that your logic is non-existant and all your sources are frauds or incompetents or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top