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: 7
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes but is the warming significant. I know that the rate of warming in the 80s and 90s was alarming (or so it was said) But the rate did slow down (the "pause")

we have all been repeatly told that the data is impeccable and that scientists everywhere are agonizing over the raw data to make it as accurate as possible. We are told that CACC is inevitable based on the impeccable raw data and that it is the gold standard of 95 % confidence interval.

Now surprise...maybe not. The K15 data set upon which the Pausebuster study was based, the changes to the ERSST v. 4.0 data set, the use of calculations to imply a precision that doesn't exist, the obvious alarmism, the desparate attempts to use RICO to shut people up and on and on....

It is on this basis that the world has invested almost a trillion dollars. Being from Ontario, who chose to be a world leader in combating climate change, I am watching people lose their houses and the province electrical system is in hock for two generations.

I am uncertain now. I now that scientists did not know about PDO and effect of other ocean currents when Jim Hansen testified before Congress

I guess I still believe that there is a warming trend. It seems impossible that the lie was based on fake data. But I still very much question just how sensitive the climate is to CO2




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And you Phage, do you believe is Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change? Do you believe that that there is insufficient evidence to support alarmist claims



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


But the rate did slow down (the "pause")
The "pause" you are talking about was a result of including sea surface temperatures (which carried an uncorrected cool bias) in the models.


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



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And you Phage, do you believe is Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change? Do you believe that that there is insufficient evidence to support alarmist claims
I think that human activity is the primary cause of the observed ongoing warming. I think that CO2 emissions are the primary factor.

As I said before, any claims of any immediate catastrophic effects are not supported by the science. I have not seen evidence of such claims being in the mainstream. I think that in the short term there will be effects which will be, on the whole, detrimental to human civilization. I think that, unchecked, the combustion of fossil fuels will lead, in the long term, to catastrophic effects.

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



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well that is the very subject of this thread now is it not?

If ERSST v. 4.0 had cooled the ship's data to the more accurate buoy data, the the pause would have deepened and lengthened.

I look forward to hearing from both Karl and Bates.

I notice that the propaganda rebuttal attacked the reporter David Rose but not John Bates. Could it be because attacking John Bates would also bring climate data as a whole into question because john Bates worked on it?

Why does Judith Curry, a former proponent of CACC, now has turned in a Luke Warmer and is supporting John Bates.

Both of them are renowned climatologists. Both would be in a position to "know"



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And how much of the warming to you believe man is responsible for? Percentage wise



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Well that is the very subject of this thread now is it not?
Vaguely so. Yes.



Could it be because attacking John Bates would also bring climate data as a whole into question because john Bates worked on it?
Has Bates disputed the conclusions reached in K15?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

50.000000001 %

Idiotic question. Just like your attempt at a strawman with "Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change." I said primary.

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



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Congressman Lamar Smith will get to the bottom of this with a series of Congressional hearings i am predicting.
Who better to get to the truth of the matter than a guy from Texas oil country right?
I'm sure he's been waiting for this opportunity for a long long time.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I believe so, yes.

We both know that it is unacceptable to use a 90 % confidence interval.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kennyb72

That quote has been quoted several times, thanks. I don't see "cudgelling" in there.



And this is the general tone coming from Bates if you read carefully.
Indeed. There is clearly no love lost between Bates and Karl. However, I see no unequivocal statement about data being deliberately distorted.

Do you think that Bates thinks AGW is a hoax?


Lol... So you ask for the quote, he provides it and then you pick at a particular word that he used! Lol

You see no unequivocal statement because you choose not to see one for whatever reason! What do you think the quote means? Particularly these parts...

Thumb on the scale
Pushing for (here is the cudgelling you missed)
Insisting on (more cudgelling just incase you missed the first one, which you did)
Maximize warming
Minimize documentation (hiding/lying)

Seems pretty bang to rights! How on earth could you miss it?

EDIT: This comes as no surprise to most of us, we know this is all a big farce, it was obvious just using logic and reason! Then confirmed with facts that the data IS being manipulated. You have to ask yourself, if the science is so settled, why lie?

EDIT 2: Oh and as for that logic and reason I just wanted to point out the fact that over the past million years there has been a warm period/ice age cycle going every 100 thousand years, pretty much like clockwork! We are at the top of the warm period (not even the warmest btw...), nothing much will change over the next 20,000-30,000 years!

So ridiculous to zoom in on a poxy 100 years and say oh my gosh look at the warmings!!!

EDIT 3: I also want to point out peoples reply when you tell them this... "Erm well yeah I know we had ice ages and warm periods before! But now it is going faster and it's our fault!"

So I ask them how fast did it go before and how fast is it going now? How can you even tell the rate when THIS warm period has not even ended yet!

Of course, they have no answers here...
edit on 6-2-2017 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Believe me the globalist Borg have all the bases covered. ALL the data has been changed unless there is court verifiable evidence with chain of custody documents with the same integrity as employees of the nuclear industry requires.

Also chain of custody proof of the training delivered to the employees that take or handle the numbers.

Also chain of custody proof of the credentials of all that have access to the changed data including programmers and data stowage.

Also chain of custody proof of the calibration of every instrument used world-wide over every time-span in question.

Also chain of custody proof of the training and qualifications of all the equipment calibrators of all the equipment.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The "pause" you are talking about was a result of including sea surface temperatures (which carried an uncorrected cool bias) in the models.


There seems to still be confusion about what the adjustments to the sea surface temperature data-sets implicate for assessments of recent global mean trends. I've seen you repeating that claim a couple of times now, but as it is stated in the quote or the alternative version - global surface temperatures have changed exactly as expected from climate models- it is simply wrong.


You're conflating separate issues. The key questions for climate scientists has always been why global surface temperatures have warmed at a significantly slower rate in last two decades than expected from simulations.

The bias corrections to NOAA's sea surface temperature data did not close the gap between observations and models.

The Karl study concluded that after adjustments of the ERSST data set, there is no significant difference in recent warming rates compared to previous decades. That conclusion is directly contradicted by trend analyses published in follow-up studies.



Recent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the surface air temperature record is of high scientific value. Investigations have also identified non-climatic artefacts in tropospheric temperatures inferred from radiosondes and satellites, and important errors in ocean heat uptake estimates.

Newly identified observational errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s.

Link


But that point is separate from questions about the reasons for the different observed and simulated warming rates.

The discrepancy between modeled and observed trends also exist in the satellite data. I saw your comment in a recent thread that temperature data for troposphere is generally less reliable or are considered separately in data-model comparisons. That is nonsense, the whole point of creating fully coupled atmosphere-oceans climate models is to have the closest possible approximation to the real climate system. The models consist of a horizontal and vertical component, a virtual surface and atmosphere. The exact same models (CMIP) are used to compare surface and tropospheric temperatures to simulations.



not addressed at you directly-

With regards to John Bates criticisms of how Karl et al. handled established NOAA data archiving protocol and have possibly circumvented the quality control process, it mainly refers to the new version of the GHCN-M data set, not to the publication of ERSST.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR




With regards to John Bates criticisms of how Karl et al. handled established NOAA data archiving protocol and have possibly circumvented the quality control process, it mainly refers to the new version of the GHCN-M data set, not to the publication of ERSST.


Can you expand more on this part. What is the GHCN-M data set?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Hi TiredofControlFreaks,


GHCN-M (Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly) is source data set for land surface temperatures used in NOAA's global temperature index.

I wrote a thread about temperature station data, for a more detailed overview of GHCN-M skip to the "World of Stations" part.

The part i was referring to is in the quote below and the previous and following sections in Bates article.




In August 2014, in response to the continuing software problems with GHCNMv3.2.2 (version of August 2013), the NCDC Science Council was briefed about a proposal to subject the GHCNMv3 software, and particularly the pairwise homogeneity analysis portion, to a rigorous software rejuvenation effort to bring it up to CMMI level 2 standards and resolve the lingering software errors. All software has errors and it is not surprising there were some, but the magnitude of the problem was significant and a rigorous process of software improvement like the one proposed was needed.

However, this effort was just beginning when the K15 paper was submitted, and so K15 must have used data with some experimental processing that combined aspects of V3 and V4 with known flaws. The GHCNMv3.X used in K15 did not go through any ORR process, and so what precisely was done is not documented. The ORR package for GHCNMv4 beta (in October 2015) uses the rejuvenated software and also includes two additional quality checks versus version 3.

Read more



In summary, while ERSSTv4 went through an operational readiness review (ORR), the GHCN-M version used in the Karl paper did not.

Sorry for the brief reply, but i'm currently still working. Let me know if i can help with any additional info.
edit on 6-2-2017 by ArtWillR because: sp



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR

What do you think of something like this?

This went on for a week at least, is there any chance that bad data can get averaged in?




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR




The bias corrections to NOAA's sea surface temperature data did not close the gap between observations and models.

When I was referring to models I did not mean climate models. I was referring to the temperature analysis methods being discussed. I will be more careful in the future.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



When I was referring to models I did not mean climate models. I was referring to the temperature analysis methods being discussed. I will be more careful in the future.


I understood what you meant, i thought that was clear from the link included in my reply.





edit on 6-2-2017 by ArtWillR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR

I must have misunderstood this:

You're conflating separate issues. The key questions for climate scientists has always been why global surface temperatures have warmed at a significantly slower rate in last two decades than expected from simulations.


It seemed that you thought I was conflating observations and climate models. Once again, I was not.

edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

That seems to be a display error on the side of the TV network, not an actual measurement error. I don't think errors of that magnitude would go overlooked for long in quality controlled data sets.




top topics



 
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join