Remember me
▼ Content

The Strange Case of the Wandering Data


The Strange Case of the Wandering Data15-05-2017 16:45
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Checking out the entire article posted on https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

We see something very similar to the complaints of http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa-scientists-manipulated-temperature-data-to-make-global-warming-seem-worse/

In https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data we have an explanation from a man who simply cannot believe that NOAA would be open to political pressure. And yet he then says that he prefers to work with raw data.

That is fine as long as the raw data is not purposely tampered with.

NOAA has used the excuse that they have corrected for large urban growth but somehow their records show INCREASING heat rather than the expected lower heat from urban heat islands:

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

If we look at the satellite records for the period of the most rapid temperature growth according to NOAA:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

we see another story altogether. This is an actual representation of the true temperature growth. And it is ZERO.

Has there been some warmer years in the last eight years than previously IN THE SATELLITE RECORD? Yes, but the average temperatures have not changed and the increases in temperature could be expected even using NOAA's claims to the Sun's energy in the upper atmosphere and the emitted radiation from the Earth. There is 0.6 W/m^2 missing which is due to the warming of the continents back to normal temperatures after the Little Ice Age (The Maunder Minimum). The Little Ice Age was followed in rather short order by the Dalton Minimum in which most of Europe had records of cold almost as much as the Little Ice Age.

The Dalton Minimum ended about 1830. So it should have come as no surprise to anyone that the Continents began absorbing slightly more energy than was radiated circa 1896.

So NOAA and NASA is under very questionable science. I do NOT see most scientists as guilty of fiddling with the data but it only requires a few that believe that they are working for the "good of the human-kind" to destroy the reputations of scientists all over the world.

Since the IPCC reports are in large dependent upon the reports from NOAA and from the hands of Obama, the IPCC should no longer have ANY effect on American science or energy policies.
12-06-2017 17:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
I have asked some questions but actually there's no one left on the group aside from a couple of morons that will claim that the fact that Central Park in New York is rather large that there is no urban heat island effect there. The same moron signing on with another name and pretending an opposite opinion tells us that because there is grass between airport runways that there is no urban heat island effect. He also claims that if you have the definition of a non-commercial airport it doesn't, by default, define a commercial airport. Chief litebrain it telling us that the sky is falling because there is less Arctic ice this year than there has been for a last 40 years. That's been the only time that we could make measurements but that makes no difference, proving I suppose that litebrain is a good name.
12-06-2017 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Checking out the entire article posted on https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

We see something very similar to the complaints of http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa-scientists-manipulated-temperature-data-to-make-global-warming-seem-worse/

In https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data we have an explanation from a man who simply cannot believe that NOAA would be open to political pressure. And yet he then says that he prefers to work with raw data.

That is fine as long as the raw data is not purposely tampered with.

Raw data that has been tampered with is no longer data at all.
Wake wrote:
NOAA has used the excuse that they have corrected for large urban growth but somehow their records show INCREASING heat rather than the expected lower heat from urban heat islands:

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
Tampering with data for any reason destroys the data. This includes correcting for any heat island effects.
[quote]Wake wrote:
If we look at the satellite records for the period of the most rapid temperature growth according to NOAA:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

we see another story altogether. This is an actual representation of the true temperature growth. And it is ZERO.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They only measure light. Trying to work the Stefan-Boltzmann law backwards this way is ignoring light from other sources than emitted light, and tends to use emitted light in particular band. You cannot calculate a temperature with this kind of noise in your measurements. You can't separate out the noise because it shares common frequencies with the emitted stuff you are trying to measure.

In addition, we do not know the albedo of Earth. Neither can it be determined without knowing precisely the temperature of the Earth to begin with, which we don't.

It is not possible to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to measure the temperature of any reflective body (such as Earth).
Wake wrote:
Has there been some warmer years in the last eight years than previously IN THE SATELLITE RECORD? Yes, but the average temperatures have not changed

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We do not have the instrumentation for it.
Wake wrote:
and the increases in temperature could be expected even using NOAA's claims to the Sun's energy in the upper atmosphere and the emitted radiation from the Earth.

Circular argument.
Wake wrote:
There is 0.6 W/m^2 missing which is due to the warming of the continents back to normal temperatures after the Little Ice Age (The Maunder Minimum). The Little Ice Age was followed in rather short order by the Dalton Minimum in which most of Europe had records of cold almost as much as the Little Ice Age.

The Dalton Minimum ended about 1830. So it should have come as no surprise to anyone that the Continents began absorbing slightly more energy than was radiated circa 1896.

Energy doesn't go 'missing'. We do not know the emissivity of the Earth in 1896 or now. We don't know if it even changed. It is not possible to determine.
Wake wrote:
So NOAA and NASA is under very questionable science.

They are using no science whatsoever. They also seem to be using bad math.
Wake wrote:
I do NOT see most scientists as guilty of fiddling with the data but it only requires a few that believe that they are working for the "good of the human-kind" to destroy the reputations of scientists all over the world.

A scientist fiddling with the data is committing a math error, pure and simple.
Wake wrote:
Since the IPCC reports are in large dependent upon the reports from NOAA and from the hands of Obama, the IPCC should no longer have ANY effect on American science or energy policies.

Who is copying who? Doesn't really matter in the end, but this stuff is originating from the IPCC, not from NOAA. As long as we have a state sponsored religion in the United States, the government is violating its own constitution.


The Parrot Killer
12-06-2017 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
I have asked some questions but actually there's no one left on the group aside from a couple of morons that will claim that the fact that Central Park in New York is rather large that there is no urban heat island effect there. The same moron signing on with another name and pretending an opposite opinion tells us that because there is grass between airport runways that there is no urban heat island effect. He also claims that if you have the definition of a non-commercial airport it doesn't, by default, define a commercial airport. Chief litebrain it telling us that the sky is falling because there is less Arctic ice this year than there has been for a last 40 years. That's been the only time that we could make measurements but that makes no difference, proving I suppose that litebrain is a good name.


Since you seem to think that trees and grass are urban heat islands, I think it's time you figure out what 'urban' means.

Since you feel you can designate what a commercial airport is, you should go and tell the FAA that you overrule them.

Whether an airport is a commercial airport or not doesn't change the amount of grass acreage there.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate The Strange Case of the Wandering Data:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The case against man made climate change, condensed - 23 mins014-12-2017 04:52
Climate Data 800,000 years18818-11-2017 09:11
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs6629-07-2017 19:34
major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-19982104-07-2017 19:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact