Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Hopefulky what most of us already know, that is Lamar Smith(R Texas) is on a witch hunt because he knowd curbing CO2 emissions will hurt his oil buddies profits back in Texas. I see a desperate man grasping at straws in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Don't you find it fishy that Exxon and a few oil companies out of Texas are essentially the only ones to question(or as some see it attempt to manipulate public perception) the valid science behind AGW and the role burning fossil fuels plays?

BP, Chevron, and many other big oil companies accept the science.

True, big oil companies have an undue influence on the public in many areas. They also have a history of fighting regulations which would benefit the public, like reducing the lead content in gasoline which has been shown to have had a great correlation with reducing crime in the time since (counter to the claims it was planned parenthood).

However, whenever something is so politically charged as climate science has become there is really no reason that the raw data and modulation techniques of a publicly funded organization shouldn't be placed in the public domain.

Historically members within the scientific body have frequently made complaints against the scope of investigations mandated by the government bodies or the tribal nature of those within the movement. See Judith Curry (source).

-FBB

That's interesting, because she talks about pollution, something far more important to human life, and I dare say many forms of life on this planet, and something we can do something about, but pollution is a far more equitable expression of what humans can do, as opposed to the forces of nature in a universal manner over which we have no control..well not yet anyway..
Model this and predict that comes down to what, numbers..and where did they come from, and if the numbers don't add up?
Then there is the other thing, take schuyler's super post, totally undeniable, and mentions the Mendenhall Glacier's recedence as a measure of climate change which it surely is, however it's warming could also produce precipitation that could rejuvenate it, all depending on whether a warming is sustained, these are the little bits that are not properly dealt with with the like of the big guys at the IPCC, all they want to do is force feed an agenda of imposition, with tidbits about glaciers and polar bears, and squirrels covering up their nuts...so condescending don't you think?

a reply to: smurfy

It makes far more sense to address in this manner, but as politics encroaches on scientific study the entire subject falls prey to ideology. If you have seen the documentary Human Resources, they outline how specializing workers (a result of behaviorism and application of the social sciences) resulted in a loss of independence and agency/self-reliance. This was especially favoured by the large business interests, but now expresses itself in the government and activist approach in that they are the unquestionable authority who should direct everyone on how to behave.

Really blows my mind how unquestioning everyone has become to their preferred propaganda.

-FBB

//side note:

I am, once again, a university student in a field of study with a very heavy physics focus and supplement my income by tutoring calculus and differential equations. I only note this for background info.

Many in the climate science department, for some strange reason I cannot fathom, do not have to complete all three semesters of calculus (through multivariable calculus). Instead there is a strong focus on statistics and analysis which still makes no sense to me as you cannot do proper analysis of 3 + factors without it.

That is not to say I doubt those with the PhD's because I have access to much of the physics faculty (many of whom I have a great respect for and who also have very solid skills in the field), but the up and coming student body give me the impression of a cult.

Also I have a good friend who switched to journalism that tutors with me, so not ALL of it is the complete joke of my (humanities credit req) experience with that subject.
//end

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy

Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.

Evidence?
The RSS data (satellite data) does not match the "reconstructed data".
The "models" don't work, never have.
I could go on.
Models that don't work and "adjusted data" ( which is done in NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC FIELD), are glaring examples of fraud.

But you already drank the kool aid.....

originally posted by: jrod
Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

NOAA receives federal funding that dwarfs private business. If money corrupts, then NOAA is rotten to the core.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: smurfy

Many in the climate science department, for some strange reason I cannot fathom, do not have to complete all three semesters of calculus (through multivariable calculus). Instead there is a strong focus on statistics and analysis which still makes no sense to me as you cannot do proper analysis of 3 + factors without it.

Oh, they probably do the third and + calculation alright, it's called milking the cow

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?

tell that to the native peoples of the equatorial island nations that have had to relocate, or are in the process of relocating, due to their island nations slowly being flooded

Aren`t those coral atolls?Don`t they degrade by wave action?

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?

A farce from the start?

When do you think it started?

a reply to: M5xaz

Mind linking to a source which shows that the RSS data set and the data set used for the climate models don't match?

-FBB

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?

tell that to the native peoples of the equatorial island nations that have had to relocate, or are in the process of relocating, due to their island nations slowly being flooded

who? where?
I've seen projections but I haven't seen anyone get flooded out yet.
I have family on the Chesapeake Bay. My uncle tells me the islands are the same as they were fifty years ago. if the seas haven't risen in 50 years, how much longer?
the whole problem with the AGW stuff is we just aren't seeing it. extreme weather, sure, but that's not the same as AGW. a lot of us will consider 'climate change', but which way? and how is it man-made, not solar?

originally posted by: schuyler
Two things are certain.

1. Global Warming is real. Take a look at the Menendahl Glacier today versus in 1967. The glacial retreat is amazing and it is indisputable.

2. Scientists have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers. "Hide the decline" is real. That's what they did. They hid tree ring cores which showed a reduction in temperature today. They hid it because they would have had to explain it. The reason is because they used tree ring cores to establish temperatures in the past and if they don't work now, there's no good reason to think they did then. The numbers they have used to establish global warming are on very shaky ground. And we know they have cheated. This is also indisputable.

3. They just found a tropical forest buried in the Arctic. This is indisputable. The Earth used to be warmer--a LOT warmer than it is today. That's when your typical bracken firm was 60 feet tall. CO2 is plant food. It makes plants grow. That is indisputable.

4. Al Gore got his graph wrong. He said an out flow of CO2 resulted in higher temperatures. That was when the granularity of his data led him to think that, trained climate scientist that he is. However, refined techniques show that he got it backwards. In truth warming temperatures created an outflow of CO2, perhaps out gassed by the oceans as they warmed up.

5. The hockey stick temperature graph is BS. The input of ANY "red noise" creates a hockey stick in the program they used. "Red noise" is like stock quotes, where the next number depends on the last. "White noise" is entirely random.

6. Temperature is rising compared to what? Compared to the "Little Ice Age" of the last 1700's it IS warming. That's when you could ice skate on a frozen River Thames. Compared to the Medieval Warming Period it isn't. That's when you could grow wine grapes in Scotland and raise cattle in "Green"land which used to be green before all the snow fell on it.

Bottom line is that the numbers have been intentionally fudged. If the globe is warming anyway, the question becomes, why did they feel it necessary to do this? Why couldn't they let the real numbers speak for themselves? Why did they "hide the decline"?

That they are forcing NOAA to come clean is a good thing. If you are so certain they are correct, then you have nothing to fear because all the internal emails and numbers will support what you believe. Rather than criticize it, let it happen so that you can be entirely vindicated and trumpet your success to the rest of us.

What are you sacred of?

Have you read the Climategate emails? If you have, why AREN'T you scared of what they have been doing?

1. Yep.

2. Here's what "hide the decline" means. It is not a nefarious remark. Read it.

3. Continents move and so do the Earth's poles. More CO2 does not necessarily mean more growth. CO2 is not the only food plants need. They need various minerals and nutrients to survive and grow.

4. Historically (a.k.a. recorded history), you're completely wrong - CO2 leads temperature. Prehistorically, it's more complicated... notice this critique of a study talking about that:

And, one of the first things I noticed over this first glance was that indeed the global temperature appears to lag the CO2 variations, however, if you look at each hemisphere separately, it appears that the northern hemisphere lags the CO2 by 720±330 years, but the Southern hemisphere temperature leads the CO2 variations by 620±660 years.

Now, look at those margins of error for a second: 720±330 years means CO2 in the northern hemisphere leads temperature by 390 to 1050 years, while 620±660 years means CO2 in the southern hemisphere leads temperature by 40 to 0 years OR lags temperature by 0 to 1280 years. As you can see, the higher margins of error mean much more uncertainty.

Here's why there's such uncertainty: CO2 does not freeze on Earth - it remains a gas. It shows up in ice cores when snow sufficiently traps it (when there's enough snowfall). Therefore, it might move around in what eventually is drilled to produce an ice core - and it would have moved up. This is something legitimately SCIENTIFIC that SKEPTICS used to latch on to - to call into question CO2 dating from ice cores. When someone realized they could instead use it to discredit global warming, they conveniently forgot about that old argument:

The depth at which the pore space in the firn closes off and traps gas can vary greatly… So the delta between the age of the ice and the age of the air can vary from as little as 30 years to more than 2,000 years.

5. Here, have an easy source:

New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, though it used different methods and covered a different area. Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.

6. Medieval warming period, huh? That was cooler than today, sorry.

zzz Climategate zzz:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.

Boring allegations and claims.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Hopefulky what most of us already know, that is Lamar Smith(R Texas) is on a witch hunt because he knowd curbing CO2 emissions will hurt his oil buddies profits back in Texas. I see a desperate man grasping at straws in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Don't you find it fishy that Exxon and a few oil companies out of Texas are essentially the only ones to question(or as some see it attempt to manipulate public perception) the valid science behind AGW and the role burning fossil fuels plays?

BP, Chevron, and many other big oil companies accept the science.

From my research, oil is not from fossils and Global Warming, D.B.A. Climate Change is based on modeling that is so far fetched from reality, that projections they conjure up predict such nonsense regarding sea level rise, drought, flooding, famine, super storms; extinction if we don't put a tax on carbon emissions. Pay to breathe and they will chuckle having food, water and your every life's breath under boot.

And, worst still, some, you included, believe that garbage and call people who have critical thinking skills and fight against the psychopaths and their hoaxes and false flags, witch hunter.

a reply to: jrod

A complete lie on your part about WUWT? Surely you wish to revise or retract your accusation? The video you posted is about heartland institute and how Anthony Watts was a keynote speaker at an event. You got duped.

a reply to: raymundoko

You've been duped.

Clearly you did not watch the entire clip. I was waiting for someone to watch the first minute and think its a pro Watts clip.

About 5:20ish in the video is a good spot to pay attention.

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
From my research, oil is not from fossils and Global Warming, D.B.A. Climate Change is based on modeling that is so far fetched from reality, that projections they conjure up predict such nonsense regarding sea level rise, drought, flooding, famine, super storms; extinction if we don't put a tax on carbon emissions. Pay to breathe and they will chuckle having food, water and your every life's breath under boot.

And, worst still, some, you included, believe that garbage and call people who have critical thinking skills and fight against the psychopaths and their hoaxes and false flags, witch hunter.

Interesting - care to share your research that oil is not from fossils?

As to your 'climate change is based on modeling' assertion - um... maybe you missed this thread about research in 1965:

Working that out, for each of the three atmospheric CO2 scenarios by 1999, that's ~354.76 ppm, ~394.16 ppm, and ~440.78 ppm respectively. The actual annual CO2 ppm for 1999 as measured was 368.33 ppm, a 32.65% growth in atmospheric CO2 over 1950
....
"We may compute from his data that with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C, depending on the behavior of atmospheric water vapor content."
GISTEMP for annual (J-D):1950 (-0.18°C) and 1999 (+0.42°C)... looks like a 0.6°C difference on the button, albeit for a 32.65% growth rather than a 25% growth in CO2 ppm.

Still not sure what taxes or politics have to do with science, but whatever!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Hopefully some other posters who have a much better understanding of the actual climate science than I do will post on this thread and shed some light on the actual science and the political posturing that Lamar Smith is engaging in.

And thus us exactly what is wrong with AGW proponents.
You openly admit you don't understand the science, but everyone else is stupid and ignorant...
Indeed.

a reply to: Greven

Oil isn't from fossils.
It's a misnomer.
Fossils don't break down into anything but dust.
The theory us that oil formed from rotting biomass under incredible heat and pressure millions of years ago.
I call bullsquat on that.
If that were true, then reproduce it in a lab.
Never been done as far as know.
And if its true, and can be reproduced, the oil is a renewable resource after all.
And if hydrocarbons are formed this way, how do they explain titan?
Seas of hydrocarbons.
Must have been a lot if dead dinosaurs and ferns there millions of years ago...

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

I studied meteorology in college. Kind of naive for you to proclaim I do not understand the science. I do admit there are other members of this board who understand the science better than me.

So instead of trying to belittle my understanding of science, care to offer any science that disputes AGW and man's role in the changing climate?

a reply to: Greven

sure/
Regarding abiotic oil...

Why Does Abiotic Oil Theory Ignite Peak Oil Theorists' Fulminations??

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an
extensive body of scientific knowledge which covers the subjects of the chemical
genesis of the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the
physical processes which occasion their terrestrial concentration, the dynamical
processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum,
and the location and economic production of petroleum. The modern Russian-
Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a
primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth.
In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection
with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or
anywhere else)...

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring

Abiotic Oil Formation

and last but huge archive of research, articles, essays, and info on this site
www.gasresources.net...

Therefore, although the articles on these pages have been contributed by more than a dozen authors, the majority have been written or coauthored by Dr. J. F. Kenney, of both the Russian Academy of Sciences and Gas Resources Corporation. It deserves to be recognized that all of the contributors to these articles that deal with petroleum science and petroleum operations are all highly competent oil and gas men and women. All have extensive experience in discovering and producing petroleum.
In the pages containing articles connected with petroleum economics, there are several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which address directly the myth of “oil exhaustion.” There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics.

One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. During the half century between 1951-2001, there have been thousands of articles published in the mainstream Russian scientific journals on the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and many books and monographs. For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? Why has there not been appointed to the faculty of a single department of Earth sciences, at any university in the U.S.A., a petroleum scientist competent to teach modern petroleum science ? In short, why have persons in the U.S.A. never heard of this body of knowledge ?
Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. As the reader may surmise, this dysfunctional behavior has been a rather typical manifestation of the purveyors of quackery, desperately striving to preserve their self-image, conceits, and jobs. In short, there has been at work the Wizard of Oz chicanery, – before the little dog Toto snatched away the curtain.

want my research on climate? check my thread on global warming hearing in Wa. state.

So what's your research? Fox and friends? I'd like to quid pro quo and see your links/w/e

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Several of your links come up as 404.

a reply to: jrod

I did watch the entire clip, and I never once thought it was a pro Watts clip. You linked it, why would anyone think that? 5:20 of the clip has nothing to do with ANYTHING about your claims that WUWT gets money from Exxon. The video does a good job of showing that Heartland gets money from Exxon, and that Anthony Watts (the Person not the website) was associated with them (digging shows only as a speaker at an event) and then goes on to show that Watts arguments agree with the thing he is arguing against. So the video tries to associate Watts and WUWT with Exxon, which there is no link between them financially.