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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Don't be too hard on the Universities... some are not yet fully into the progressive mindset. But they can only work with what they have to work with. If someone is indoctrinated cradle onward with progressive ideals, the acquisition of knowledge is not going to change that.

Now, a degree from UC Berkeley or Yale... yeah, that's just a paper proving indoctrination.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

Don't be too hard on the Universities... some are not yet fully into the progressive mindset. But they can only work with what they have to work with. If someone is indoctrinated cradle onward with progressive ideals, the acquisition of knowledge is not going to change that.

Now, a degree from UC Berkeley or Yale... yeah, that's just a paper proving indoctrination.

TheRedneck


It's really hard not to be. I'm in college right now after getting out of the Air Force. It's a joke. The standards are so low it's embarrassing. I honestly don't know how some of these kids finished high school. They can't write or do high school algebra, but they're passing college English and Math classes somehow. It's shocking to me.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



You are not getting my point.
I'm quite familiar with your point.


I see nothing that clearly explains why the datasets are different.
How hard have you looked? www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Yes it does, but it is also based on NASA/GISS data
Please explain how your analysis is based on NASA/GISS data. GISS is a global temperature model. Did you mean GHCN? The GISS model uses monthly averaged data from GHCN for land data. Do you also use GHCN? Why not use the actual station data if that is what you are concerned with? It's readily available.


If the data cannot be trusted, then all information obtained from the data must be thrown out as unreliable. Yes, that includes my analysis.
The data can be used as long as the known biases are accounted for. That is the point of the adjustments. But you aren't alone in being skeptical about both the adjustments and the global models. So, why not follow the example of Richard Muller. Try to show them wrong.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

www.nytimes.com...

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



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




It's plenty close enough for me... but not for a prediction of a few degrees global temperature rise over the next few decades.
GISS is not a prediction model. It is a historical model of global average temperatures. On average, global temperatures have risen. That is what GISS (and other models) tells us. Other climate models provide predictions, based a wide number of factors, of what is likely to happen in the future.
They are doing a pretty good job, for the most part.

www.realclimate.org...

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



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Hey, I worked my way through my Associates as a math tutor; I know all too well of which you speak. But get deeper into some of the STEM majors in the schools not yet infected, and the high standards are still there. It just depends on the school and the major.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Bluntone22

"N ever
A
S trait
A nswer"

Really?

Plenty of straight answers to stuff on their website:

NASA



Like UFOs caught in their cameras and telescopes? They never give a straight answer on that.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


How hard have you looked? www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Nothing in your link explains how raw data is changed.

Adjustments to data are typically used in the models themselves to correct for anomalies. That preserves the dataset for future analysis. We're discussing adjustments allegedly made to the raw data itself; there is never, ever, a good reason to do that. It destroys the integrity of the dataset permanently. Of course, in doing so, it would also skew any future models... might that be the reasoning?


Please explain how your analysis is based on NASA/GISS data.

I already did in the original thread where I published my work. The source for my data, which is mirrored from NASA, is stated and the exact weather reporting stations used are also specified, along with my reasoning for using multiple stations. I hid nothing. The exact same dataset can be used by anyone at any time to duplicate my work and make any adjustments they might feel are necessary.

That is not possible if the original dataset is "adjusted."


The data can be used as long as the known biases are accounted for.

No, they cannot, and that is my point. If the raw data is adjusted, then the original readings are gone; they do not exist any more. It is therefore impossible to use the original readings for anything; any analysis is based on adjusted data, which could have been adjusted incorrectly. That would invalidate any study done on the data, because the data itself is no longer presumed accurate.


So, why not follow the example of Richard Muller. Try to show them wrong.

There is no need to do so. If the original data has been adjusted from the original readings, it is garbage, by definition. I do not need to prove that data is inaccurate; those who use the data must prove it is accurate. That's how it works. In my case, I cannot prove the data is accurate, especially in light of this, so I simply reference my source and leave it to the owner of the dataset to do so.

My analysis is also not yet complete; i have not yet had time to run a thorough numerical analysis. However, that might wind up indicating discrepancies in the data. We'll have to see. I kept all original data here on my local machine so I know it cannot be changed on a whim by anyone.


GISS is not a prediction model. It is a historical model.

Which is used to make predictions based on the data therein and the Global Warming theory.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing in your link explains how raw data is changed.
Raw data is not changed. The methods of analysis have changed as well as the number of data sources.



We're discussing adjustments allegedly made to the raw data itself; there is never, ever, a good reason to do that.
Of course there is good reason to make adjustments when using vast amounts of data from varying sources in order to produce a model for an average global temperature. Some data is unreliable so must be rejected. Some has known biases which can be corrected before being used for that global model.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


If the original data has been adjusted from the original readings, it is garbage, by definition.
The original data is readily available. Muller used it, you can too. You can obtain it (including the adjusted GHCN data) here:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...



Which is used to make predictions based on the data therein and the Global Warming theory.
Currently, global warming theory is based primarily upon rising CO2 concentrations, not historical data.


The source code for the GISS temperature model is available here, btw.
data.giss.nasa.gov...
edit on 6/26/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Raw data is not changed.

That is the premise of the OP as I understand it.


Of course there is good reason to make adjustments when using vast amounts of data from varying sources in order to produce a model for an average global temperature. Some data is unreliable so must be rejected. Some has known biases which can be corrected before being used for that global model.

That is far different than what I am discussing here. Of course models adjust their input data, but the dataset must remain pristine.


The original data is readily available. Muller used it, you can too. You can obtain it (including the adjusted GHCN data) here:

If it differs from the data that was there previously, what is the point?

How much of that "original" data has been adjusted? If the answer is anything greater than "none whatsoever," the dataset is corrupt.


Currently, global warming theory is based primarily upon rising CO2 concentrations, not historical data.

Every single study makes an assumption that carbon dioxide levels are increasing global temperatures. They are all based on observational data, which is what we are discussing.

I don't know whether you are being purposely obtuse or just had a stroke, but the Phage I know is much, much better than this.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Still less than 2 Degrees means INSIGNIFICANT Change to historical patterns. Period Phage, period.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
GISS Models are used by my outfit to forecast based on the model of actual historical data and comparing current atmospheric conditions. Usually reasonably close "now casts" they are good. Only for a short range of time, They will always become inaccurate if reaching out too many days in my observations.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


That is the premise of the OP as I understand it.
Yes. And the premise is wrong. The OP is showing GISS model runs for the global average temperature. It is not showing raw data nor does it claim to.

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. This, we rely on data collected by other organizations. As of June 2019 and the release of GISTEMP v4, we use NOAA/NCEI's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), version 4, adjusted monthly mean data and also NOAA/NCEI's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v5 data. Before June 2019, in GISTEMP v3, we had been using NOAA/NCEI's GHCN version 3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for land meterological station input.

data.giss.nasa.gov...




How much of that "original" data has been adjusted? If the answer is anything greater than "none whatsoever," the dataset is corrupt.
None. It is the raw data from the observation stations. There are cases when prelimary data is replaced by validated data or erroneous data is corrected but the datasets are not adjusted. Apparently you really haven't really looked into it much. The information is not hard to find.



Every single study makes an assumption that carbon dioxide levels are increasing global temperatures.
They are based on the physics of radiative forcing. Something that was being looked at before there was much of anything in the way of a global temperature model.

How's about you leave the ad homs out of it?

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



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Still less than 2 Degrees means INSIGNIFICANT Change to historical patterns. Period Phage, period.

That 1.5º increase in average temperatures is hardly insignificant over such a short period of time. It represents an enormous amount of heat energy. Heat that is being retained, not emitted into space.
edit on 6/26/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yes. And the premise is wrong. The OP is showing GISS model runs for the global average temperature. It is not showing raw data nor does it claim to.

It shows the averaged data as well as a 5-year mean. One graph showed the historical global temperature as reported in 2000, the other shows the exact same historic global temperature as reported in 2007. They are different. Did history change between the year 2000 and 2007? What mechanism could account for historical records changing over 100 years after they were recorded?


None. It is the raw data from the observation stations. There are cases when prelimary data is replaced by validated data or erroneous data is corrected but the datasets are not adjusted.

So you're saying there is no NASA/GISS data. It's all stored elsewhere?


They are based on the physics of radiative forcing. Something that was being looked at before there was much of anything in the way of a global temperature model.

OK, Phage, you win this one. The reason I acquiesce this point is that the next time you even mention warming as a result of radiative forcing, I will call you out on it. You just stated that Global Warming has nothing to do with global temperatures.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




Still less than 2 Degrees means INSIGNIFICANT Change to historical patterns. Period Phage, period.

That 1.5º increase in average temperatures is hardly insignificant over such a short period of time. It represents an enormous amount of heat energy. Heat that is being retained, not emitted into space.

Bogus 1.5% is bogus.

Data is not 1.5 % of scale on average temperature it is 1.5% of raw readings. Meaning that data equals nada damn thing. Due to margin of error that is built into the uncertainty quality control oriented data.
edit on 26-6-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)


(post by Phage removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Data is not 1.5 % of scale on average temperature it is 1.5% of raw readings.


Not 1.5%, 1.5º.
The global average temperature has risen 1.5º

The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

Not from NASA


Due to margin of error that is built into the uncertainty quality control oriented data
The uncertainty values are provided in the link (as is the source and output data, as well as the source code for the model). For data prior to 1900 uncertainty is pretty high. After that, it's quite low. Better data, more of it.

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


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




Data is not 1.5 % of scale on average temperature it is 1.5% of raw readings.


Not 1.5%, 1.5º.
The global average temperature has risen 1.5º

The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

Not from NASA


Due to margin of error that is built into the uncertainty quality control oriented data
The uncertainty values are provided in the link (as is the source and output data, as well as the source code for the model). For data prior to 1900 uncertainty is pretty high. After that, it's quite low. Better data, more of it.


Ok I missed that.

1.5 is their opinion, but we know it is bogus data due to what?

Manipulation of the past record.

As the Red has stated altered data is not usable because of uncertainty. Once the data integrity is lost it is weakened to the point it is always discarded until Man Made Global Climate Change phrase was implanted in the vernacular of the MSM propaganda machines.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I don't know whether you are being purposely obtuse or just had a stroke, but the Phage I know is much, much better than this.


It's the Trump effect. Most of our formerly respectable left-wing members have really gone downhill the last 2 years. I blame the media.







 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join