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.

 

High ranking Global Warming scientist whistleblows on manipulated data ...

page: 3
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kennyb72

You know that the NOAA results were independently verified, right?
No? You didn't? I guess Bates didn't know that either.
www.pri.org...


Also, isn't the credibility of the Daily Mail considered somewhat lacking?


Stunning Phage absolutely stunning
Attack the mirror, attack the poster yet ignore the data

Bait and switch, go after the man and not the data, that's petty

Want to throw your hat in the ring, want to out muscle everyone?
Prove the information wrong




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kennyb72




that he cudgelled researchers and scientists to provide the figures he wanted.
Can you point out where that claim is made?


cudgelling, is a word often used to describe the act of coercing someone to provide something the perpetrator wants, in this case "insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation"



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Phage is doing his usual thing of asking questions on minor details to avoid dealing with the issue. This issue has been building for a long time. I don't think it is going away because the final version of the data set is "different" than the unverified data set.

Others are already picking up the story. Congressman Lamar Smith is already involved.

Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Attack the mirror, attack the poster yet ignore the data

At the time, no data had been presented.
How did I attack the poster?
edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Hopefully Mr. Smith will speak directly to Dr. Bates in order to determine what the issue actually is, before declaring AGW a hoax.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It's hard to trust climate scientists when there is so much money at stake.

For example, the assumption that cumulonimbus clouds are temperature forcing neutral.

So.. if the whole Earth was wrapped in a permanent 10 mile thick layer of clouds, there would be no change in temperature.

We could sit here in total, endless pitch blackness, and stay warm?

I think the average temperature would be well below zero. Am I wrong?

Does anybody know what Leonardo DiCaprio's position is on the subject? He's kind of my "go to guy" when it comes to sciencey stuff.

edit on 4-2-2017 by AutonomousMeatPuppet because: Fun



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Good post here about surface air temps over land. Very well done.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

For example, the assumption that cumulonimbus clouds are temperature forcing neutral.
Citation to demonstrate that is an assumption which is used?



So.. if the whole Earth was wrapped in a permanent 10 mile thick layer of clouds, there would be no change in temperature.
There would be, indeed. However, since cumulonimbus clouds are the result of convective activity from the surface, what mechanism would result in permanence?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And that, my friend is the exact problem. The raw data for the "pause buster" data set was never archived properly and is not available for "independent" review. It has not been replicated and duplicated as you state because the raw data was never available.

There are 8 data sets that show a pause in the rise of global temperature over the last 18 years. There is only one data set that shows no pause. and the raw data was never available for independent review.

This is east angalia all over again with the loss of the raw data (actual paper documents) for verification of the data. (Yes there was an inquiry after Climategate but the inquiry only investigated why Phil Jones refused to respond to FOI requests. He was found to be negligent but the issue had passed prosecutible dates so nothing could be done about it. The inquiry never addressed Phil Jones losing the raw data. The purported data that is available to the public is in electronic form and cannot be verified with the original paper form)

The only difference here is that there is a sheriff in town (Trump) and it is unlikely that this story will be lost and that the MSM will refuse to publish data that refutes catastrophic anthropogenic climate change as the Washington Post just did.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. It was a good primer.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




The raw data for the "pause buster" data set was never archived properly and is not available for "independent" review.

What is your source for this claim. It is not Bates.

If you had read Bateses article you would know that he is talking about datasets produced by temperature models. There are flowcharts and everything. The problem is that those datasets were not archived in the proper format nor were they always properly notated as to which model they were produced by.

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am sure that Dr. Bates will be invited to be interviewed by Congress.

I don't think that AGW is a hoax as it is entirely possible that man's activities may have some small effect but I sure do think that Catastrophic Antropogenic Climate Change has been exaggerated by alarmist beyond reason.

But hey that is just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I would agree that anyone who claims immediate catastrophic consequences is an alarmist.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

I'm not saying it's technically possible to have 100% cumulonimbus cloud cover. It's just the endpoint on a graph of temperature vs cloud cover. At 0% cloud cover the average temperature would likely be very high, right? Draw the slope line and cumulonimbus clouds are not neutral forcing, they are very much negative.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My source for my statement is Dr. Judith Curry (a source I a have already linked)

judithcurry.com...



It is clear that the actual nearly-operational release of GHCN-Mv4 beta is significantly different from the version GHCNM3.X used in K15. Since the version GHCNM3.X never went through any ORR, the resulting dataset was also never archived, and it is virtually impossible to replicate the result in K15. At the time of the publication of the K15, the final step in processing the NOAAGlobalTempV4 had been approved through an ORR, but not in the K15 configuration. It is significant that the current operational version of NOAAGlobalTempV4 uses GHCN-M V3.3.0 and does not include the ISTI dataset used in the Science paper. The K15 global merged dataset is also not archived nor is it available in machine-readable form. This is why the two boxes in figure 3 are colored red. The lack of archival of the GHCN-M V3.X and the global merged product is also in violation of Science policy on making data available [link]. This policy states: “Climate data. Data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases”. Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?


Without proper archiving, in a machine readable version, we have absolutely no idea what data exactly was "independently verified.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

You said that it is assumed that cumulonimbus clouds are "temperature forcing" neutral. I asked for a citation (ignoring your error that the term is radiative forcing) that is the assumption which is used.
edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




My source for my statement is Dr. Judith Curry (a source I a have already linked)

You know that's a quote from Bateses article, right? You know it's not about "raw data", right?

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sorry i agree its Dr. Bates being quoted by Judith Curry




and it is virtually impossible to replicate the result in K15.


And again I state (independently reviewed) is not replication or verification. and Dr. Bates specifically states that K15 cannot be replicated. We don't know what the raw data is.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The raw data in this case would be the "adjustments" and how and why the original raw data was adjusted. How can the data set be independent verified without knowing what the adjustments were



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

You said that it is assumed that cumulonimbus clouds are "temperature forcing" neutral. I asked for a citation (ignoring your error that the term is radiative forcing.


I've read it several places this evening..



As a consequence, overall, the cloud greenhouse and albedo forcings almost balance, and the overall effect of cumulonimbus clouds is neutral-neither warming nor cooling.







 
77
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join