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: 4
77
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:48 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.
Sure. That's what you meant.


How can the data set be independent verified without knowing what the adjustments were
That's why independent researchers used different datasets to examine the conclusions of K15.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

K15 was not the final version of the dataset (ERSTT ver. 4.0 and was published prior to the release of the final version and eight other data sets confirmed the pause. K15 did not

Please provide me with links to these independent reviews, who did them and how.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Reviewed by Berkley Earth





“Science is all about uncertainty,” he continues. “The problem in a lot of cases is that people interpret, ‘This is uncertain,’ as, ‘We know nothing.’ Scientists have said multiple times that we're 95 percent certain that the majority of warming in recent years is due to humans. Ninety-five percent is a pretty good number. If 19 out of 20 doctors you talked to said that you had a tumor, you probably would want to do something about that, even if that one out of 20 was less sure.”

John Bates specifically states




I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.
[/quote.


Berkley Earth specifically states that K15 had a 95 % confidence interval. Dr. Bates specifically identifies a 90 % confidence interval.

What data exactly did Berkley Earth review? Obviously one is not like the other?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Berkley Earth has been analyzing land temperature sets for only the last 6 years. They only recently merged ocean data with land data.

Why is Berkley Earth considered qualified to independently review ocean temperatures. They speak of 95 % confidence intervals and never ever speak of K15 having only 90 % confidence intervals (mathamatically speaking, there is a big difference between 90 % and 95 % confidence.

What makes these people qualified to review a yet-to-be-finalized ocean data set and why did they fail to report the deviation in confidence interval. What else did they fail to disclose.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




What data exactly did Berkley Earth review?

They used the raw data.
advances.sciencemag.org...
edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
I hope this story gains traction and an investigation is launched.
I'm betting it will.


… Last night Texas Republican Lamar Smith, US House of Representatives Science Committee chairman thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. …



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yeah. There you go.
You think he's going to ask Bates what he thinks about the AGW hoax?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think he is going to ask Bates about the K15 data set



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Right. And nothing else, probably.

Like what Bates thinks about AGW.

That's what I thought too.


edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




What data exactly did Berkley Earth review?

They used the raw data.
advances.sciencemag.org...


Nope - they used the finalized products




We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

They compared the raw data to the modeled datasets.

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Yeah. There you go.
You think he's going to ask Bates what he thinks about the AGW hoax?

He's gonna say "listen here, we have to get a lid on this climate change hysteria. You need the funding here it is, get to work discrediting the previous administrations work."
Won't be hard to do.

edit on 5-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No they didn't. They compared the finalized set of the Argo Buoys, the finalized set of the ship data etc and compared it to finalized existing data sets. Then they stated that in their analysis, the results of examining the effect of each set separately (argo and ship), instead of the K15 date which adjusted the argo buoy data to the ship data, and arrived at roughly the same conclusion.

They never examined the raw data from K15, which is the data upon which the pausebuster study is based, because the raw data was never properly archived and was unavailable. The Pausebuster study was based on a data set which used only a 90 % confidence interval.

I would say these authors are probably scheduled to testify before Congress at some time in the future as well



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




They never examined the raw data from K15, which is the data upon which the pausebuster study is based, because the raw data was never properly archived and was unavailable. The Pausebuster study was based on a data set which used only a 90 % confidence interval.

They were attempting to replicate the conclusions of K15 using datasets from the same types of instruments (that's what homogeneous means) rather than combining a variety of instruments into a single model. They did so.

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But they only compared ERSST v. 4.0 to a limited number of data sets and never knew that they were working with data that only had a 90 % confidence interval



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

They compared v4 and v3b to the homogeneous datasets and found that they all yielded roughly the same trend. With v4 closely matching and v3b showing a cool bias.
d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net...



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What do you think will happen if Congressman Smith starts looking around?
He's from Texas and a climate skeptic.
I can see some close scrutiny coming down on the scientific community.
I hope they have followed the rules, and this seems to indicate they have not.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




What do you think will happen if Congressman Smith starts looking around?

I think his confirmation bias will not allow him to see the forest for the trees. I think that it will be used as an excuse.

I think that climate science in the US is going to be damaged by this administration far beyond any damage Karl may have done.


edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Earth Sciences budget will be in danger of getting slashed i would think.
When you say climate science will be damaged, can you elaborate?
With an administration change it is to be expected that the direction of research will change.
I have no idea where this administration would be looking to put their research dollars.
Health and medicine?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join