Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

[skookerasbil]

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

 

[skookerasbil]

rigging the data by climate scientists has been going on for a long, long time but especially after the first NOAA report back to the early 90's. Since then..........much rigging going on >>>

Articles: Why Scientists Lie -- and What to Do about It

 

[skookerasbil]

People really need to consider this......if global warming is "undeniable" and the science "settled", why do we see the AGW community, particularly on the internet, fall all over themselves EVERY DAY to provide bomb thrower rebuttles to skeptics?

Why is that??


Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

 

[JimBowie1958]

As JimBowie was just kind enough to show us, those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for a pack of them, so deniers are often involved in other conspiracy cults.

I don't believe the three conspiracy theories that you listed, but in your deluded mind that proves I do believe them?

roflmao

Now, back to the secondary topic. In every branch of science, all the data is corrected and often estimated.

Show me a case where data is corrected and treated as primary data for an experiment, other than AGW.

And finally, the funniest thing. The raw data shows _more_ warming than the corrected data. .

No it does not. If you have proof of that link it. Otherwise since I did provide charts that showed the adjusted data graphed over the RAW unadjusted data, you have no basis for denying the plain truth that the RAW data shows it was cooler in the recent decades and warmer in the years prior to 1940.

Deniers are just claiming the opposite of reality. Lying, that is. They may not realize that they're lying, being their cult has brainwashed them so thoroughly, but rest assured all the scientists know with great certainty that the deniers are lying.

You lied about my take on conspiracy theories, you lied about how scientists always adjust their data and you lied about the raw data showing even warmer temperatures.

But of course, liars like you defend yourself by simply telling even more lies to cover your earlier lies.

Lies, lies and more lies....

 

[JimBowie1958]

As JimBowie was just kind enough to show us, those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for a pack of them, so deniers are often involved in other conspiracy cults.

Now, back to the secondary topic. In every branch of science, all the data is corrected and often estimated. So why the crazy double standard by deniers, where they selectively melt down over it only for one single branch of science? Any real scientist is going to say "So?" when it's pointed out that data is corrected and estimated. Deniers don't seem to understand how science works. Instead of correcting the data to get good results, deniers want the data left with the errors in it, so that it gives bad results. That' is, deniers are the ones essentially demanding that the data be fudged and faked by not correcting for known errors.

And finally, the funniest thing. The raw data shows _more_ warming than the corrected data. That blows the denier conspiracy theory out of the water. If scientists wanted to show more warming, they just had to do what deniers demand, and use only raw data. Instead, the scientists expend great effort to correct the data and make the warming look _smaller_.

Deniers are just claiming the opposite of reality. Lying, that is. They may not realize that they're lying, being their cult has brainwashed them so thoroughly, but rest assured all the scientists know with great certainty that the deniers are lying.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


These people...........they will say and spin anything and everything.

What I want to know is.......if skeptics are so k00ky, why does this ^^ meathead fall all over himself every day to perpetuate the established narrative?

I guess he/she/it gets paid by the word/lie.

 

[mamooth]

Show me a case where data is corrected and treated as primary data for an experiment, other than AGW.

Radiocarbon dating is an easy example.

No it does not. If you have proof of that link it. Otherwise since I did provide charts that showed the adjusted data graphed over the RAW unadjusted data, you have no basis for denying the plain truth that the RAW data shows it was cooler in the recent decades and warmer in the years prior to 1940.

You showed _land_ data. That means you left out 70% of the planet's surface. Rest assured scientists don't make that mistake. That's how your masters lied to you, by deliberately leaving out the ocean data.

The land data has been adjusted a bit to show more warming.

but the ocean data has been adjusted much more the other way.

And when you average them together, as the scientists always do, the total adjustments make for much less warming.

And that means the denier conspiracy theory is a big steaming pile, period. It's just flat out completely contrary to reality.

Now, you have a choice to make. Do you call out your masters and demand to know why they lied to you, or do you play the loyal cultist and smooch their keisters in gratitude for lying to you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Show me a case where data is corrected and treated as primary data for an experiment, other than AGW.

Radiocarbon dating is an easy example.

Another lie. The raw measurements are not adjusted, or at least yo have failed to show where they are adjusted. The raw measurements of radioactivity is interpreted mathematically into a range of likely age, and that is about all the 'adjusting' that is done to dating using radio carbon.

No it does not. If you have proof of that link it. Otherwise since I did provide charts that showed the adjusted data graphed over the RAW unadjusted data, you have no basis for denying the plain truth that the RAW data shows it was cooler in the recent decades and warmer in the years prior to 1940.

You showed _land_ data. That means you left out 70% of the planet's surface. Rest assured scientists don't make that mistake. That's how your masters lied to you, by deliberately leaving out the ocean data.

It doesn't matter that it showed land data because it showed how the numbers were fudged. The code AGW Warmistas used at Hadley were padding the temperatures too and that is proven fact with links.

The land data has been adjusted a bit to show more warming.

but the ocean data has been adjusted much more the other way.
And when you average them together, as the scientists always do, the total adjustments make for much less warming.
And that means the denier conspiracy theory is a big steaming pile, period. It's just flat out completely contrary to reality.

You really think that I am going to buy your unreferenced bullshit? Link or it is more of your lies.

Now, you have a choice to make. Do you call out your masters and demand to know why they lied to you, or do you play the loyal cultist and smooch their keisters in gratitude for lying to you?

You mistake me for a libtard. I have no masters, moron.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Fun, you go onto one website which is quite right wing, which sources a website which is a climate change denial site.

You forgot that those sites have FACTS and you refuse to refute them because all you have is made up crap from models that you left wing zealots worship. Science is about FACTS not what makes you left wing fools feel good.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, Billy Bob, science is about facts, and the reasons those facts exist. How's your El Monkey coming there, old boy? LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the Watts Up With That? website

The blue line shows the number of stations that are taking recordings. The red line shows where there is data missing. Usually this data is between 1 and 9 days. So in theory ALL of them could be one day missing something. Making assumptions that the temperature in Singapore was 35C degrees every day of the month except the one day they forgot to measure because it was at -50C degrees simply isn't going to happen.

All in all, if you look at the last 15 years you're looking at less than 1/4 of the data is missing possibly 1 day, and not more than 9 days.

Now this chart, they've gone from less than 25% where they have to fill in data because it's not been recorded, for whatever reason, such as electricity failure in third world countries etc. And they've got the purple line where the records are "estimated", as far as I can make out because a little bit of the information is missing.

This would be potentially 1/30th of 1/4 of the information. So, 95% of the data isn't 100% complete.

And again, how wild are the temperatures we're looking at. If you have temperatures for the month that range between a few degrees, and then they have to estimate a temperature one day, and it's the same as the 10 days before, chances are the temperature is going to be pretty close.

So say 95% of the data is wrong is misleading. 95% of the data, based on 1/120th of the information being estimated, which might be out by a small amount, shows how you can make statistics say what you like.

Is 95% of the data wrong or is less than 1% of the data slightly out? There's a big difference between the two.

Their conclusions is:

"The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates."

So, the US makes up 39% of the data means what? Does it mean that 39% of the data is being used equally with the other data, or does it mean that they adjust the data to make it fit? Well they sourced their own previous article and it doesn't say. So.... they're making a claim and not backing it up.

The point here should be that many third world nations are third world nations and can't always collect data as well as a first world country. Their data might not be 100% perfect, that doesn't mean that all the data around the world is wrong. It also doesn't mean that 95% of data, or 99% of data is irrelevant.

Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values

The previous article suggests that 66% of data contains some estimates. So they can't even decide if it's 66% of 99%.

Even the 66% of data with estimates doesn't mean it's wildly wrong. It means that some of the data is estimated. It's not hard to estimate the data in many cases. If you look at the weather for 4 days and then not the fifth and the temperature feels about the same, then look on the 6th day and it's about the same and feels the same, you could pretty much guess what the temperature on the 5th day was.

So while they make valid points that the data is 100% reliable, there is nothing to suggest the data is too unreliable in order to change global temperatures massively. You're talking about 1% of data being estimated and it's probably not being estimated outside of a 1C degree of inaccuracy.

You missed that the data and stations are being changed, deleted, or simply manufactured. You misrepresent what the article states. By the time they make a final temperature "determination" less than 1% of the data is EMPIRICAL..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why yes, Billy Bob, science is about facts, and the reasons those facts exist. How's your El Monkey coming there, old boy? LOL

NO.. you dont have facts, you have worthless models that tell you we are all going to burn while the well sited and maintained equipment finds no CO2 warming signal despite its continued rise for over 18 years 8 months and a cooling trend going on now for over 14 years..

 

[Old Rocks]

Bet you are just as accurate on this as you are on the El Nino, Billy Bob.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bet you are just as accurate on this as you are on the El Nino, Billy Bob.

Just WHO has been accurate more than Billy b in regard to el ninos?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why yes, Billy Bob, science is about facts, and the reasons those facts exist. How's your El Monkey coming there, old boy? LOL

Now this is FACT, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE from the US-CRN. Not some mad up climate model... Funny that it also follows the RSS and UAH data sets as well.

And what do you have... 136 broken models.. ones that has no predictive power and fail in less then a week...

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, Billy Bob, science is about facts, and the reasons those facts exist. How's your El Monkey coming there, old boy? LOL

NO.. you dont have facts, you have worthless models that tell you we are all going to burn while the well sited and maintained equipment finds no CO2 warming signal despite its continued rise for over 18 years 8 months and a cooling trend going on now for over 14 years..

A cooling trend for 14 years? LOL Ten warmest years on record. Now the caveat here is that the first four are close enough together that differant agencies of differant governments have them in differant orders, but they are still there as the first four.
1. 2014
2. 2010
3. 2005
4. 1998
5. 2013
6. 2003
7. 2002
8. 2006
9. 2009
10. 2007

Note that 9 of the ten are in the 14 years that you claim for cooling. Not only that, this year is going to eclipse all the rest, with no doubt that it is warmer than 2014, 2010, 2005, and 1998.

Billy Bob, you are one silly person.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bet you are just as accurate on this as you are on the El Nino, Billy Bob.

Just WHO has been accurate more than Billy b in regard to el ninos?

Mathew, Crick, Oraginicman, and the whole of the scientific community.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Bet you are just as accurate on this as you are on the El Nino, Billy Bob.

You couldn't find you ass if I placed it in both hands for you.. YOU have predicted NOTHING.. so all you got is NOTHING..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why yes, Billy Bob, science is about facts, and the reasons those facts exist. How's your El Monkey coming there, old boy? LOL

NO.. you dont have facts, you have worthless models that tell you we are all going to burn while the well sited and maintained equipment finds no CO2 warming signal despite its continued rise for over 18 years 8 months and a cooling trend going on now for over 14 years..

A cooling trend for 14 years? LOL Ten warmest years on record. Now the caveat here is that the first four are close enough together that differant agencies of differant governments have them in differant orders, but they are still there as the first four.
1. 2014
2. 2010
3. 2005
4. 1998
5. 2013
6. 2003
7. 2002
8. 2006
9. 2009
10. 2007

Note that 9 of the ten are in the 14 years that you claim for cooling. Not only that, this year is going to eclipse all the rest, with no doubt that it is warmer than 2014, 2010, 2005, and 1998.

Billy Bob, you are one silly person.

The old rocks fucktard doesn't have a clue about cycles and tops of cycles.. Tell me old fucktard, since we have never before recorded the top of a 360 year cycle, how do you know this is unusual?

Oh and your made up data is kind a cute... all kinds of frilly and way off the mark in relation to the US CRN data set that shows it fake.. And how do you get your "estimations" as the man stated from NOAA, to be accurate to 100ths of a degree? This ought to be good... I am all ears fucktard!

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Billy Bob is incapable of reading what the scientists have found out about the past climate.

http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/1

Of course this is only a publication of the National Academy of Science, and not the ranting of a fake English Lord, or the flap-yap of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, or even the blubbering of an obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Muhammed]

Threads like this should be in the conspiracy theory folder, but denier cult raving is protected by a shield of political correctness. Deniers make much less sense than Antivaxxers or Birthers or 9/11 Truthers, yet they still don't get correctly classified as conspiracy theorists.

That's hilarious coming from a genuine doomsday cultist.