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.

 

More Temperature Tampering Proof

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU
Tony Heller is someone who actually shows how they are both lying and changing temps to fit the global warming agenda.
He actually checks the historical data
youtu.be...




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I think you have something in this Heller report.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy
Probably something they got while watching the “truth behind the moon landing” on sci channel.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU
Your source:

Most of this was accomplished by erasing warm temperatures prior to 1880, cooling the past, and warming the present.

Since both data series begin in 1880, how is it that temperatures before 1880 were erased if they weren't included in the first place? The GISS temperature model is based upon recorded data. There isn't much of that available prior to 1880. Now, if "they" had erased the period from 1940 to 1980 you might have something. But "they" didn't.

Why is the rate of warmer greater in 2017 than in 2000? Perhaps because the rate of warming has increased.

Why is a different anomaly value shown for 2017 and 2000? Perhaps because a different time period is used as the mean. That's what the term "anomaly" means in this context, variation from the mean. Doesn't really matter though, because the trend slope is the same. Except for the fact, as stated, that there is 17 more years worth of data in the more recent chart.

edit on 6/26/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: oldcarpy
Probably something they got while watching the “truth behind the moon landing” on sci channel.

Nah. The OP is based on thinking somewhat more like "Behind the Curve."


NASAlies. Dude.

edit on 6/26/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The two graphs shown in the OP have identical time periods used for the mean. Both are clearly labeled as "Five Year Mean." What has changed are the historic temperature readings, which indicates an adjustment was made to those readings. The pertinent questions include: Why was the adjustment made? What is the realistic expected accuracy of the adjustments? Why are these adjustments not clearly shown in every analysis done?

And a more important question to my thinking: which dataset reflects the actual readings taken?

Until those questions are answered, the models used for climatology might as well be the crayon scribbles of a 5-year-old.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



And a more important question to my thinking: which dataset reflects the actual readings taken?

The answer is that both do but neither relies on observations from any single location. Because there are built in instrumental biases which the model takes into account. I'm sure you're aware of that. Simple things like the time of day the observations are made and relocations of the instruments, as well as more subtle ones.

A more important question is, did the trend slope change from 1880 to 2000 in either dataset? A slightly less important question would be, how well does the GISS model correspond with other models? They aren't all the same and their results aren't identical but they do show pretty much the same trend. So, they are all lying?

Doesn't your local data show a warming trend?


edit on 6/26/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:30 AM
link   
This was noted nearly 7 years ago.

From ATS thread, "1880 IS getting colder!" by PuterMan:


Yes the older data is being changed. Not the data in the archives but on the published report. By comparing the 1880 figures from archived copies of the reports on the Wayback Machine I can see that the older figures are not the same. There are always figures for 1880 onwards as the text file always goes from that date, but each year the early temperatures get progressively cooler and the later years get very slightly warmer. This takes place either side of the base 1950 to 1980 figures.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




This was noted nearly 7 years ago.

Yes. And the reason is that, beginning in 2012 a different model was applied. All it changed was the anomaly value, it did not change the trend. Nor did it include data through 2017.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You don't think the planet is warming?



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

The two graphs shown in the OP have identical time periods used for the mean. Both are clearly labeled as "Five Year Mean." What has changed are the historic temperature readings, which indicates an adjustment was made to those readings. The pertinent questions include: Why was the adjustment made? What is the realistic expected accuracy of the adjustments? Why are these adjustments not clearly shown in every analysis done?

And a more important question to my thinking: which dataset reflects the actual readings taken?

Until those questions are answered, the models used for climatology might as well be the crayon scribbles of a 5-year-old.

TheRedneck

How were those temperature data grabbed?

I suspect the data for Temperature now is a bit better in one sense, we can go to several digits of accuracy but one digit below the whole number is all that could matter.

However, the scientific study of thermometers is a centuries old adventure and the techniques refined long before 1870 to extremely reliable results for the various changes as we grew ideas on how to measure heat energy. Why tweak it now?

Those scientist collected that data like it was their religion to do it properly. In fact most of us who practice Science do it in an almost religious way of following the process that the IPCC failed to do to placate the UN agenda.

ETA
The problem I have the fake spin for the fake predictions is people that look it in the face and go
"yea baby! I am buying the next level BS the UN wants me to or we all DIE!". We have some here now on this thread.

edit on 26-6-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




This was noted nearly 7 years ago.

Yes. And the reason is that, beginning in 2012 a different model was applied. All it changed was the anomaly value, it did not change the trend. Nor did it include data through 2017.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You don't think the planet is warming?


The trend is still not going very close to the predictions of repeatedly failed models.


The trend is also that the data never was meaningful and is being misused by YOU as DOOM porn.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The answer is that both do but neither relies on observations from any single location.

You are not getting my point.

Somewhere there is a collection of data: temperature readings from multiple locations at multiple times. This data is exact... it is not relative, and it is not subjective. Yet, we have at least two different graphs for the same time period that show different temperatures for the exact same time. What is the difference? Location? I was under the impression that the graphs were global, meaning all locations should be used according to a particular algorithm. So how is it that, using one position in time, the reading can be two different values?

If the algorithm has changed, then it should be clearly specified how it was changed and why. If the algorithm has not changed, then the data is in question.

That tells me there is a discrepancy between how the data is being used and/or manipulated. I see nothing that clearly explains why the datasets are different. Therefore, the possibility exists that the datasets are not accurate and have been adjusted using unknown methodology to arrive at the conclusions.

2+2=4. 2+2=4 today, 2+2=4 yesterday, 2+2=4 a year ago, 2+2=4 in twenty years. Math does not change. If it does, it is not math; it is propaganda.


Doesn't your local data show a warming trend?

Yes it does, but it is also based on NASA/GISS data. This report makes me question the veracity of that data. I was able to verify that the data I used correlates with known time periods in my lifetime (those times when the weather was memorable), but I cannot use that to verify exact temperatures, only trends. I might know that a certain January was much colder than normal, or remember the year we had that big ice storm in February, or maybe recall that summer when the temperatures were so hot for so long, but I cannot say that I remember the exact temperature on any given day... heck, I cannot trust my memory on exact temperatures a week ago!

If the data cannot be trusted, then all information obtained from the data must be thrown out as unreliable. Yes, that includes my analysis.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh dear Phage you really need to do more research on the recorded history of weather. If you think weather history began in 1880 then bow out now. Recorded weather goes back as far as ancient Egypt. The majority of weather recorded worldwide has been in the form of personal diaries kept by farmers and amateur weather watchers. Never shared and never aggregated for study. But ironically you're proving the point "climatologists" really have no clue what they are talking about because prior to 1870 we (the US) never had a national weather service whose sole purpose was to collect and analyze weather patterns. And that's just the US. I'm not even taking into account the rest of the planet had ZERO national weather services.

In the 1600s to 1700s weather data was kept using a Florentine calendar which does not correlate to today's. Measurements had to be converted from the Galileo scale. All of which leaves plenty of room for translation error.

There's two arguments here. One of those arguments is easy to prove and the other argument is impossible to prove.

1st argument is around the facts that weather data has been manipulated to serve a political agenda. I'm not even going to debate this and candidly for anyone to refute this signifies their compete willingness to be called ignorant.

The 2nd argument (which can never be proven) is the debate around "man-made" global warming. If you think for a second climatologists have collected ALL relevant data that can single handedly point to a single primary source for why the Earth's cycles heat and cool then you are lying to yourself.

This entire debate is fueled by political ideologies which is the first indication deception is going to occur.

A thinking man would put aside his ego and definitely cast aside a political ideology when considering the legitimate causes of climate change and simply admit to himself we have no real basis for making any claim in one direction or another.

Unless of course it's simply to deceive.

Which is the best answer yet.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


How were those temperature data grabbed?

That is a fair and reasonable question that keeps getting swept under the rug.

Even today using state-of-the-art sensor technology, it is quite difficult to get an exact reading. Not only is there often a bias built into the sensors through random minor deviations in construction, but the temperature can vary over a span of a few feet. Especially when we are talking about scientifically accurate readings, which should be at least to the nearest 1/10 of a degree C to give the type of predictions we are hearing, simply moving the sensor 10 feet to one side or another, or changing the orientation can cause shifts in temperature.

Right now as I type this, the thermometer in my home,which is advertised to be extraordinarily accurate, shows an inside temperature of 79.0 and an outside temperature on my porch of 71.8 F. Take that sensor towards the treeline and the temperature will drop. Take it farther toward the highway and it will rise. Just move it along the length of the porch and it will change. So is the temperature 71.8 F or not?

It's close. Assuming perfect accuracy from my sensor, it is 71.8 F at that exact point in space at this exact time. It may be 71.4 ten feet away as air masses flow through the area. It's plenty close enough for me... but not for a prediction of a few degrees global temperature rise over the next few decades. Too many people just don't get that.


Those scientist collected that data like it was their religion to do it properly. In fact most of us who practice Science do it in an almost religious way of following the process that the IPCC failed to do to placate the UN agenda.

Data must be handled religiously. Right now, I am designing a specialized power supply to further some of my projects... and 90% of what I design into it is based on making absolutely sure that any readings I use are exactly accurate to the very best of my capability. If it is not accurate, it is worthless.

The same goes for temperature readings, wind speed readings, etc. The raw data is sacred and must be treated as such.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Absolutely spot on Red.

ETA

I too am very concerned with accuracy of temperature and accuracy of raw values for the various pollutants I measure each day and collect the minute data every hour.
I need accurate Temperature and pressure data to calculate the value of flows and their impact on particles. We keep the inner workings of the UV Spectrometers and other techniques at various temperatures and must be sure of our values within one decimal.


edit on 26-6-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I really just don't get it. If I measure a voltage in a circuit and I get 2.3 volts, then 12 hours later I measure it again and get 2.4 volts, it doesn't mean it is linearly increasing by 0.08333 volts per hour. My measurements are to the nearest 0.1 volt, so I have a tolerance of 0.05 volts. My first reading was between 2.25 and 2.35 volts, and my second reading was between 2.35 and 2.45 volts, so it might have only changed 0.01 volts or it might have changed by 0.2 volts. I don't know and I can't make predictions based on that. I also don't know that the progression is linear, but even if I made that assumption, my next reading in 12 more hours could be expected to be 2.4 volts or 2.6 volts.

And all that is still assuming my readings are perfectly accurate. They never are.

The amount of assumptions relied on by Global Warming are literally astronomical, far, far beyond what any responsible scientist would make.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: uncommitted
Yet interestingly no one ever seems to know what questions they didn't give a straight answer to, only ones where they don't believe/like the response.


How about the topic of UFOs?


What's the question and what's the given answer? If it is along the lines of there is a possibility of extra terrestrial life but we cannot firm, do you see that as a straight answer or not? Again, is it people don't think that's a straight answer because it's not one they believe or want to hear?



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman

I really just don't get it. If I measure a voltage in a circuit and I get 2.3 volts, then 12 hours later I measure it again and get 2.4 volts, it doesn't mean it is linearly increasing by 0.08333 volts per hour. My measurements are to the nearest 0.1 volt, so I have a tolerance of 0.05 volts. My first reading was between 2.25 and 2.35 volts, and my second reading was between 2.35 and 2.45 volts, so it might have only changed 0.01 volts or it might have changed by 0.2 volts. I don't know and I can't make predictions based on that. I also don't know that the progression is linear, but even if I made that assumption, my next reading in 12 more hours could be expected to be 2.4 volts or 2.6 volts.

And all that is still assuming my readings are perfectly accurate. They never are.

The amount of assumptions relied on by Global Warming are literally astronomical, far, far beyond what any responsible scientist would make.

TheRedneck


Everything you just said is too complicated for most AGW alarmists to understand. Science is hard. Doctoring data to match your failed models so you can keep getting government funding is much easier.

The amount of denial in this thread is stupefying. Changing data to match your model is not science. How can anyone with a brain argue this?



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I honestly think most people see the word "scientist" and equate it with the older term "soothsayer." Science seems to many to be this mystical thing that only a few divinely chosen people are allowed to see and understand. A "scientist" says the world will be destroyed in 12 years, scientists are mystical and have foresight beyond mere mortals, so therefore the world will end in 12 years. Only heretics would dare question a "scientist"!

It's really nothing like that. Scientists are just people who (theoretically) want to understand how things work. They have regular lives, they want the same things others want, they just do a different job. Some do it very well, some do their best, some are goof-offs. There's no divine choosing; anyone can be a scientist... all it takes is a keen mind, a sincere desire to understand, and a willingness to work long, boring hours gathering data just so you can spend more long boring hours playing with equations in an attempt to understand it, all for that one glorious "a-ha!" moment of realization.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Don't forget about a worthless piece of paper from one of our dumbed-down "universities" that tells other people they're smart.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join