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: 6
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Did the pause "go away" because of raw data from K15 at a 90% confience interval.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

Alarmists are going to be discredited.
Lamar Smith is going to make the EPA great again.
That pause might be making a comeback.


Invigorated by the new climate change-doubting presidential administration, a Texas congressman known for his ardent skepticism of manmade global warming — and early support for President Donald Trump — has scheduled a committee hearing next week “to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision making activities.”
The hearing, titled “Make EPA Great Again,” will be the first time the committee has met since Trump took office and the 115th Congress convened.
Invited witnesses, including the head of an industry group, “will discuss how EPA can pursue environmental protection and protect public health by relying on sound science,” according to a charter for Tuesday’s hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The committee's chairman, San Antonio Republican Lamar Smith, has been an especially vocal skeptic about widely accepted science on climate change. In a 2015 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he described global temperature increases over the past 15 years as “negligible” and said links between climate change and worsening weather events had been debunked.


a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Neither of you get it.

The 'pause' was dead before the 'pausebuster' paper.

It's hilarious that it's even considered a thing, given that one if its principle points is using the extremely strong '97-'98 El Niño as a starting point, where that year was far warmer than any before.
edit on 15Sun, 05 Feb 2017 15:35:09 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

NOAA manipulated past temperature data to make the new data look like the earth is warming



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I sometimes wonder just how stoopid I am... an intelligent person would have figured out years ago that most people in these threads just don't understand (and don't care to understand) how these things work...

But...

All of the models that have been presented to date are experimental. They are nothing more than complex computer programs that accept data from observations and output information based on experimental algorithms. They are, by every standard used in science, assumed incorrect. To be assumed correct within an acceptable margin of error, a model has to first agree with observational data and second has to make short-range predictions that are observed to be factual, within those margins of error... and it has to do that more than once. The smaller the margin of error, the more the model can be assumed valid.

So far, none have met that bar, although a few have come close and results are getting better.

There is tremendous pressure on researchers to deliver for their grants, and that pressure can make skewing of results tempting... tamper with the results a bit and your funding is assured. It's actually difficult to tamper with the algorithms used (since there will be other scientists analyzing the code), but it would be relatively easy to 'fudge' the target for those results by 'adjusting' observational data. That is easy to cover up once the observations are taken, because typically no other record exists. That in itself tells me this story at least deserves some serious consideration.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Phage

Your lack of respect for Dr Bates is quite surprising Phage, I thought you admired scientists that had reached the pinnacle of their professions.

Well, there is this rebuttal...
More fake news in ‘The Mail on Sunday’



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Now what would a school of economics know about climate data? And the person who wrote the rebuttal is a Communications and Policy Director...again how is he qualified to write a rebuttal and an attack on the reporter for daring to deal with a group of so-called climate sceptics.

This "rebuttal" in no way addresses the issues. He does talk about the Zeke Haufather (Berkley Earth) "independent review" but as already discussed, the paper reviewed ERSST v. 4.0 and not K15, the data upon which the Pausebuster study was based. The paper showed that there was substantail diagreement between ERSST v. 4.0 and two other ocean data sets and decided that ERSST v. 40 was "better" with no real explanation. Again, I point out that raw data K15 was based on a 90 % confident interval and it is likely that this lower quality data made it into ERSST v. 4.0. Berkley Earth likely did not know that.

Looks like spin doctor propaganda to me.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Fine. Forget about v4. You don't like the data. We get that.
Would you care to address the buoy and satellite data presented by Haufather?

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



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I completely agree. When it is published that 2016 was warmer than 2015 by 1/100 of a degree but the measuring instruments are precise to only 1/10 of a degree....well it smells of desperation and propaganda



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Ok. 2016 tied 2015 as the warmest year on record. It was not the warmest.
Happy?

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



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

why would I want to do that?

Is it not up to Karl to address the criticisms of the paper? Should the independent review of Berkley Earth not be asked if they knew that the ERSST v. 4.0 data was based on raw data with only a 90 % confidence interval and what difference it would have made to their analysis?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well thanks for agreeing with me Phage but that doesn't change the climate record and it does not explain how the precision changed in the first place.

If the climate record is calculated to a 1/100 degree and the measurements are to only 1/10 of a degree would there not be large number of rounding errors in the calculation



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Should the independent review of Berkley Earth not be asked if they knew that the ERSST v. 4.0 data was based on raw data with only a 90 % confidence interval and what difference it would have made to their analysis?
All they did was compare their independent datasets to the other ones. Their datasets also showed no "hiatus." Why are you hung up on the fact that they compared their data to ERSST data?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
That would depend upon with the 100ths were applied. If it is in the final average, no.

But I'm curious, are you not only an AGW skeptic? Are you a warming skeptic? Putting aside your concern about 100ths of a degree, do you think the observed trend is bogus?
edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

By the way, Just exactly on what basis did Haufather decide that 2 data sets had inferior data but ERST v. 4.o was correct.

Because it homogenized better?

Well gee...if you don't care if its accurate or not, I guess you can "homogenize" anything in whatever direction you please.

Why was the more accurate buoy data adjusted upward to the less accurate ship data. Should it not have been the other way around? Would ERSST v. 4.0 then not showing more cooling instead of warming??



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But you don't know if its in the final average or if every piece of data from every measurement is calculated to 1/100th of a degree do you?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

After this...I wonder must how much jiggery pokery has been done to the trend line.

Is a line of best fit the best practice or should the trend line be broken into sections depending rate of warming???



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Because it homogenized better?
Are you confusing homogenous with homogenized?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Phage - even you have to agree that alarmist headlines about 2016 being the "hottest year evah" in recorded history based on 1/100 of a degee that was calculated and not measured is alarmist propaganda.

They could have just as easily said that 2015 and 2016 were equal and it was because of a super El Nino and not CO2



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Probably



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Is a line of best fit the best practice or should the trend line be broken into sections depending rate of warming???
Do it how ever you wish. Linear, polynomial...

Even Roy Spencer can't claim that the data doesn't show a warming trend.
www.drroyspencer.com...



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join