Duke Physicists Call Out NASA and NOAA's Adjustments as improbable..

[flacaltenn]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

I will concede that the graph was most likely added, However Dr Brown himself notes that the adjustments and the alignment to CO2 are not plausible. (this is in his following comments within the thread discussion)

The adjustments, some areas affected multiple times are not reflective of any reasonable reasoning. The points lowered do not make sense as the level of CO2 never changed inside that time frame. My question is was there warming that could not be explained by the level of CO2 and it would have raised troublesome questions regarding the theroy?

Every thing they have done puts the warming in line with their 'theroy'. There is no out side of the lines problems to explain once the adjustments are done. This just reaffirms his confirmation bias line of thought. in all experiments there are out side of the lines problems. the lack of them shows just how biased the outcome is. Its not PROBABLE given a chaotic set of systems.

I hope before you shuffle off this mortal coil, it occurs to you that what you ASSUME to be evidence of conspiracy and falsehood is actually simply evidence that the dominant theory is correct.

Really? What's the justification for constantly mucking with thermometer data from the 1920s? Is the data getting more accurate? Finding more reporting stations?

And why then are your heroes trying so hard to revive a larger warming trend over the CURRENT data? To the point where data sets that had MINOR disagreements --- now have SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER ones?

Is it a free for all now? Or is the power of CONSENSUS breaking down? Or what??

 

[jc456]

Scientists who adjust data to get it to fit their theory aren't really scientists

Only Lord Monckton is Science and also anyone else that you agree with...the rest are corrupt...

exactly!! Well said.

 

[IanC]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

I will concede that the graph was most likely added, However Dr Brown himself notes that the adjustments and the alignment to CO2 are not plausible. (this is in his following comments within the thread discussion)

The adjustments, some areas affected multiple times are not reflective of any reasonable reasoning. The points lowered do not make sense as the level of CO2 never changed inside that time frame. My question is was there warming that could not be explained by the level of CO2 and it would have raised troublesome questions regarding the theroy?

Every thing they have done puts the warming in line with their 'theroy'. There is no out side of the lines problems to explain once the adjustments are done. This just reaffirms his confirmation bias line of thought. in all experiments there are out side of the lines problems. the lack of them shows just how biased the outcome is. Its not PROBABLE given a chaotic set of systems.

EXACTLY !!! That's why I gave the example of 6 or 8 "adjustments" to the SAME historical DATE. A SUITE of values ought to show up at each of those CO2 scatterpoints. They don't appear to. So I have no idea what the person was trying to show..

The Goddard graph is using the increasing CO2 concentration as a proxy for time, which adds a twist to the situation.

I don't think CO2 levels have anything in particular to do with the amount of adjustments. The adjustments have simply increased the trend over time to support what they want to find.

 

[IanC]

Global temps are given as anomalies. This allows for easier manipulation of the trend. Both cooling the past and/or warming the present increase the trend.

That is why Crick and mamooth find it so convenient to bring up sea surface temps being adjusted downwards pre-WWII. It has all the benefits of increasing the trend with the bonus feature of being able to state that TOTAL adjustments are not necessarily upwards.

 

[mamooth]

There's no debate among the actual scientists. The total past adjustments aren't "necessarily" upwards. The total past adjustments are upwards, period. That's the point. If a conspiracy theory states the total past adjustments are downwards, that conspiracy theory is therefore a big steaming pile.

Goddard's stuff, which is what Brown quotes, is dishonest crap. Moyhu ripped it apart in detail here, back when Goddard first trotted out the fraud. It's highly technical, which is what Goddard counts on, nobody being able to understand exactly how he's pulling off the fraud.

moyhu USHCN adjustments averages getting it right.

and the update.

moyhu USHCN again - adjustments breakdown

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's no debate among the actual scientists. The total past adjustments aren't "necessarily" upwards. The total past adjustments are upwards, period. That's the point. If a conspiracy theory states the total past adjustments are downwards, that conspiracy theory is therefore a big steaming pile.

Goddard's stuff, which is what Brown quotes, is dishonest crap. Moyhu ripped it apart in detail here, back when Goddard first trotted out the fraud. It's highly technical, which is what Goddard counts on, nobody being able to understand exactly how he's pulling off the fraud.

moyhu USHCN adjustments averages getting it right.

and the update.

moyhu USHCN again - adjustments breakdown

Bull Shit meter just pegged..

I really dont know where to start.. Refuting this Karl Et Al crap is getting really old..

 

[mamooth]

Billy, you've never refuted anything. You've just parroted conspiracy theories.

Here's an idea. Go discuss the algorithms there on Moyhu's blog. Show them where they got it all wrong. Conclusively demonstrate your professed technical brilliance for all to see. Consider it your big chance to make a name for yourself.

Now, do be aware that mindlessly spouting unsupported propaganda will not be tolerated. You will be required to actually back up your claims, and to directly answer the questions posed of you. As I recall, you haven't fared well under such rules elsewhere.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's no debate among the actual scientists. The total past adjustments aren't "necessarily" upwards. The total past adjustments are upwards, period. That's the point. If a conspiracy theory states the total past adjustments are downwards, that conspiracy theory is therefore a big steaming pile.

Goddard's stuff, which is what Brown quotes, is dishonest crap. Moyhu ripped it apart in detail here, back when Goddard first trotted out the fraud. It's highly technical, which is what Goddard counts on, nobody being able to understand exactly how he's pulling off the fraud.

moyhu USHCN adjustments averages getting it right.

and the update.

moyhu USHCN again - adjustments breakdown

Swing and a miss.. The blogjerk is scared to graph the resulting DIFFERENCES that ARE the adjustments. Insteads plots them NOT AS anomalies, but as temperatures. On a scale the MINIMIZES the adjustments overall.

And his BS about "averaging adjustments within a year" results in almost invisible differences in the plots..

As evidenced by the F1 and SG plots.. Furthermore -- WHATEVER the fuck he's alledging that SG did is not what appears in the ACTUAL Goddard plots. Because there is clearly UP corrections in the later parts of the temp records apparent in the Goddard data..

 

[IanC]

Stokes and others complain about Goddard's simplistic compilation of actual data without complicated algorithms for weightings and such. Again we are told not to believe the actual measurements but the specific way of organizing the data which gives a favoured result.

In the 90's the amount of stations being used dropped precipitously. As usual the trend jumped upwards. Sceptical concerns were ignored with the usual claim of 'trust us, we're experts'. How much change can be accomplished by dropping 2/3s of the stations? What artifacts are produced by the choice? Judging by other studies such as boreholes, a lot. Compare Huang's pre-MBH borehole paper which matched Lamb's graph, using thousands of data points to the spaghetti graph borehole using only a few hundred, and then his more recent one using about half of the original study. Three papers, three wildly divergent results. All coming from the same overall dataset.

 

[jc456]

Billy, you've never refuted anything. You've just parroted conspiracy theories.

Here's an idea. Go discuss the algorithms there on Moyhu's blog. Show them where they got it all wrong. Conclusively demonstrate your professed technical brilliance for all to see. Consider it your big chance to make a name for yourself.

Now, do be aware that mindlessly spouting unsupported propaganda will not be tolerated. You will be required to actually back up your claims, and to directly answer the questions posed of you. As I recall, you haven't fared well under such rules elsewhere.

Billy, you've never refuted anything. You've just parroted conspiracy theories.

Here's an idea. Go discuss the algorithms there on Moyhu's blog. Show them where they got it all wrong. Conclusively demonstrate your professed technical brilliance for all to see. Consider it your big chance to make a name for yourself.

Now, do be aware that mindlessly spouting unsupported propaganda will not be tolerated. You will be required to actually back up your claims, and to directly answer the questions posed of you. As I recall, you haven't fared well under such rules elsewhere.

what a hoot, back up your claim comment. When in the time I've been on here have you ever backed up your claim about climate. Once, just once, let's see your evidence. Hey tooth, back up your claim big mouth.

 

[mamooth]

The adjustments make the total warming look smaller.

The conspiracy theory claims the opposite.

Therefore, the conspiracy theory is nonsense.

It all comes back to that basic fact, no matter how many deflections and cherrypicks are attempted. That's why all the rational people correctly recognize the conspiracy theory as nonsense.

If conspiracy cultists want their theory to gain any traction outside of the cult, they have to explain why anyone should believe a theory that claims the direct opposite of reality.

But if the conspiracy cultists are satisfied with preaching to the choir and accomplishing zilch, while the science happily moves on without them, they should keep on doing exactly what they're doing.

And if you have trouble with Nick Stokes, go debate it over there. If you're so sure of yourself, have the courage to run with the big boys.

(And jc? Stop whine-stalking me. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually Mammy's hero criticizing Goddard is just changing the subject. There are 2 different methodologies that point out different things..

If you only take FINAL adjustment for each date -- you simply get a SNAPSHOT of the MULTITUDE of corrections that has been visited upon that year or month.. Doesn't show anything about the PATTERN of corrections that has been applied over time. So for instance -- the Prez is gonna speechify on CC in a week and the movement needs a scary press release on some mundane JULY all time record. You boost the adjustments by a couple hundreths of a degree in order to make that record -- and week later -- you can put it back where it was.. Think that CAN'T happen??? GISS has acknowledged revising down "records" after those all important press releases.. And/or "lowering their confidence" in the fact the record really occurred.

Meanwhile, Goddard wants to show the total range of corrections applied to a date -- like Jan 1939.. So that he averages ALL the corrections for that date to show general bias in the correction history..

Two different goals. I want to know more about what Goddard is after. And couldn't care less about what the adjustments show TODAY or yesterday. Because they are CONSTANTLY being fillet'd, cooked and fricassee'd.

 

[jc456]

Actually Mammy's hero criticizing Goddard is just changing the subject. There are 2 different methodologies that point out different things..

If you only take FINAL adjustment for each date -- you simply get a SNAPSHOT of the MULTITUDE of corrections that has been visited upon that year or month.. Doesn't show anything about the PATTERN of corrections that has been applied over time. So for instance -- the Prez is gonna speechify on CC in a week and the movement needs a scary press release on some mundane JULY all time record. You boost the adjustments by a couple hundreths of a degree in order to make that record -- and week later -- you can put it back where it was.. Think that CAN'T happen??? GISS has acknowledged revising down "records" after those all important press releases.. And/or "lowering their confidence" in the fact the record really occurred.

Meanwhile, Goddard wants to show the total range of corrections applied to a date -- like Jan 1939.. So that he averages ALL the corrections for that date to show general bias in the correction history..

Two different goals. I want to know more about what Goddard is after. And couldn't care less about what the adjustments show TODAY or yesterday. Because they are CONSTANTLY being fillet'd, cooked and fricassee'd.

so I have to go search, but yesterday or Monday one of these fools stated something about the hottest it's ever been in recorded history on the West Coast. I asked for the historical records for that city that month, July, and do you know, I got nothing.

Hmmmm....smells fishy to me. My nose is really good too.

 

[IanC]

The adjustments make the total warming look smaller.

The conspiracy theory claims the opposite.

Therefore, the conspiracy theory is nonsense.

It all comes back to that basic fact, no matter how many deflections and cherrypicks are attempted. That's why all the rational people correctly recognize the conspiracy theory as nonsense.

If conspiracy cultists want their theory to gain any traction outside of the cult, they have to explain why anyone should believe a theory that claims the direct opposite of reality.

But if the conspiracy cultists are satisfied with preaching to the choir and accomplishing zilch, while the science happily moves on without them, they should keep on doing exactly what they're doing.

And if you have trouble with Nick Stokes, go debate it over there. If you're so sure of yourself, have the courage to run with the big boys.

(And jc? Stop whine-stalking me. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it.)

One large sea surface temperature adjustment for the switch over from wooden buckets to canvas is the only bullet in your arsenal. And you have refused to discuss it.

Land station temps have been repeatedly adjusted to show an ever increasing trend. The adjustments actually make up a large percentage of the warming. Some of the adjustments are necessary, similar to the bucket adjustment to SSTs, others are very discretionary and suspicious. UHI causes temps to be cooler? Rightttttttt.

 

[mamooth]

And Ian tries his bucket red herring again, and both he and flac continue with the land-station-only cherrypicking. They just don't want to address the basic issue.

For the purposes of debunking the basic denier conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter at all why the ocean adjustments were made. They could be completely faked, and it wouldn't matter a bit. And it doesn't matter why the land adjustments were made, being that they're overwhelmed by the ocean adjustments. The only thing that does matter is that the total adjustments make the total warming look smaller, and that all those adjustments are always deliberately added in. That means scientists are always deliberately working to make the total global warming look smaller.

And that's all you need to know, for purposes of debunking the conspiracy. The conspiracy theory claims the direct opposite of reality, hence the conspiracy theory is nonsense.

 

[jc456]

And Ian tries his bucket red herring again, and both he and flac continue with the land-station-only cherrypicking. They just don't want to address the basic issue.

For the purposes of debunking the basic denier conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter at all why the ocean adjustments were made. They could be completely faked, and it wouldn't matter a bit. And it doesn't matter why the land adjustments were made, being that they're overwhelmed by the ocean adjustments. The only thing that does matter is that the total adjustments make the total warming look smaller, and that all those adjustments are always deliberately added in. That means scientists are always deliberately working to make the total global warming look smaller.

And that's all you need to know, for purposes of debunking the conspiracy. The conspiracy theory claims the direct opposite of reality, hence the conspiracy theory is nonsense.

let's see your evidence that shows what you state. that linky thingy would be nice.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually Mammy's hero criticizing Goddard is just changing the subject. There are 2 different methodologies that point out different things..

If you only take FINAL adjustment for each date -- you simply get a SNAPSHOT of the MULTITUDE of corrections that has been visited upon that year or month.. Doesn't show anything about the PATTERN of corrections that has been applied over time. So for instance -- the Prez is gonna speechify on CC in a week and the movement needs a scary press release on some mundane JULY all time record. You boost the adjustments by a couple hundreths of a degree in order to make that record -- and week later -- you can put it back where it was.. Think that CAN'T happen??? GISS has acknowledged revising down "records" after those all important press releases.. And/or "lowering their confidence" in the fact the record really occurred.

Meanwhile, Goddard wants to show the total range of corrections applied to a date -- like Jan 1939.. So that he averages ALL the corrections for that date to show general bias in the correction history..

Two different goals. I want to know more about what Goddard is after. And couldn't care less about what the adjustments show TODAY or yesterday. Because they are CONSTANTLY being fillet'd, cooked and fricassee'd.

I believe what Steve is trying to do is show that the adjustments are done with forethought and malice. The compiled adjustments are so massive that no one with a lick of common sense would believe them.

The historical record is so badly screwed up that it is no longer fit for any use, public, private, or policy making. And that is very sad indeed.

 

[flacaltenn]

And Ian tries his bucket red herring again, and both he and flac continue with the land-station-only cherrypicking. They just don't want to address the basic issue.

For the purposes of debunking the basic denier conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter at all why the ocean adjustments were made. They could be completely faked, and it wouldn't matter a bit. And it doesn't matter why the land adjustments were made, being that they're overwhelmed by the ocean adjustments. The only thing that does matter is that the total adjustments make the total warming look smaller, and that all those adjustments are always deliberately added in. That means scientists are always deliberately working to make the total global warming look smaller.

And that's all you need to know, for purposes of debunking the conspiracy. The conspiracy theory claims the direct opposite of reality, hence the conspiracy theory is nonsense.

Show me a chart of Ocean adjustments that MATCHES the kind of analysis that Goddard did on USHCN. One that includes A HISTORY Of ALL the adjustments -- and not just the LATEST adjustment..

 

[mamooth]

As Goddard hasn't looked at oceans, I don't think there is a fraudulent analysis of them. So no, you won't find an analysis that matches.

 

[IanC]

The recent Karl2015 paper smeared some of the 80's and 90's SST warming into the 00's and 10's to even out the warming and make the Pause less pronounced. It followed the usual pattern of cooling past temps while warming more recent ones.

Flac- I'll bump up an old thread that shows a 2011 version change to HADCru SSTs. Same pattern. Cool the past, warm the more recent, smooth out inconvenient bumps that are hard to explain with CO2 theory.