edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
Now that I have caught the deniers lowering the temperatures from the raw data, future blink graphs will delete the ID code number at the top!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And it is you dishonest deniers who did the mislabeling. Clearly the "adjusted" mislabeled graphs came earlier in the series than the mislabeled "raw" graphs. Admit it, you deniers got caught lying yet again. When will deniers admit the truth to the public?ed- you should get up to speed on this story.
homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w
Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.Nope. Those graphs all come from the NASA website. Just follow the links and you'll see.
For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"
If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!
"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"
that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is
Ed- the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.
You are simply mislabeling the raw as adjusted. Nothing at either link indicates raw or otherwise.Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.
And it is you dishonest deniers who did the mislabeling. Clearly the "adjusted" mislabeled graphs came earlier in the series than the mislabeled "raw" graphs. Admit it, you deniers got caught lying yet again. When will deniers admit the truth to the public?ed- you should get up to speed on this story.
homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w
Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!But the "adjusted" graph has a LOWER number, meaning came first, than the "raw" graph.
For example, the Puerto Casado "raw" graph has 308860860004 0 km at the top and the "adjusted" has 308860860000 0 km. Why would the "adjusted" have a lower number if it came after the "raw?"
If anything GISS is lowering the numbers!!!
"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"
that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is
Ed- the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.
raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
You are simply mislabeling the raw as adjusted. Nothing at either link indicates raw or otherwise.Ed never follows through on his thoughts. He declares 'anomalies' as the only 'scientific' way to deal with temperatures. and that is true when you are adding together trends from different stations to get a regional or global trend.
And it is you dishonest deniers who did the mislabeling. Clearly the "adjusted" mislabeled graphs came earlier in the series than the mislabeled "raw" graphs. Admit it, you deniers got caught lying yet again. When will deniers admit the truth to the public?ed- you should get up to speed on this story.
homogenization has turned a cooling trend into a warming trend. Cowtan says its because of a calibration error. Zeke says the BEST breakpoints are necessary, GISS doesnt answer inquiries from peons. at least watch Cowtan's video at Skeptical Science, if only to find out that the w
Then the changed last digit means you deniers are dishonestly comparing different "kinds" of data as if they are the same. Why am I not surprised?!!!"
Station ID Codes
GHCND PA000086086
GHCNM 30886086000
GSOD 860860-99999
HADCRU 860860
ICAO SGLV
USAF 860860
WMO 86086
WMSSC 860860
WWR 86086
"
that number is a station code. the last digit probably describes which kind of data it is
Ed- the graphs clearly state raw and adjusted. The question here is whether the homogenized adjustments are justified, and when will the public get the explanation.
raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.
The only scandal is that people in this nation are so scientifically illiterate that they will accept WUWT and Briebart over real scientists.
Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2
Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!
It is interesting that they make the data available. The question is, is the data the adjusted temperatures or the observed and recoreded temperature? I don't know, do you?Paraguay is much smaller than the US, even if the data is off there, the overall warming in the world put 2014 in the top four warmest years on record. 1998, super El Nino, 2005, seven years later, moderate El Nino, five years later, 2010, moderate El Nino, four years later, ENSO neutral, 2014.
The only scandal is that people in this nation are so scientifically illiterate that they will accept WUWT and Briebart over real scientists.
is it even possible to find enough mistakes, inconsistencies, glaring errors, etc to get you off your excuse of 'it's only small piece of the puzzle, it doesnt matter'.
NASA/NOAA actually thinks Pilar Paraguay is in Argentina! it's right on their website! how bad does the mistake have to be before you think it is worth investigating the cause?
Why? The link you provided as "raw" ending in ID 4 didn't go out to 2014, it went only to 2011. Why can't you admit your sources lied to you? I could put it back on you to show a "raw" data set ending in ID 0 going to 2014 that matches your "raw" graph.Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2
Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!
all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014
Why? The link you provided as "raw" ending in ID 4 didn't go out to 2014, it went only to 2011. Why can't you admit your sources lied to you?Here is the ACTUAL "adjusted" temperature analysis for the link you call "raw" with the ID 308860860004 comparing apples to apples, or in this case comparing adjusted and raw data from the ID ending in 4 for both cases.raw- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
adjusted- Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
why don't you check any of this out for yourself?
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
You get there for both graphs by using this link below and selecting the second pull down for your "raw" link and the third pull down for my "cleaning and homogeneity adjusted" link for the Puerto Casado station.
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data Based on GHCN v2
Now admit your fellow deniers were being completely dishonest when they claim that the graph with the ID ending on 0 was the adjusted version of the raw data ending in ID 4.
And ask yourself, why does your side have to ALWAYS lie?!!!!!
all you need to do to get me to apologize profusely is to show me a graph that looks like that with data going out to 2014
No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?
When dead grass/weedy fields burst into flames from spontaneous combustion we'll realize there may be some global warming happening....IF we are still alive at that point. Otherwise, we've already known those phony ass numbers have been literally CREATED from scratch by the agoreist society.
You'll notice that the holy brethren of the AGW cult never respond to threads like this one, but they'll start a parallel thread saying 2014 was the third warmest year on record..
I'll respond. You and anyone else that expects to find objective science or accurate, factual information in Breitbart is simply fooking stupid.
Need to make one thing perfectly clear.............
Every single one of the AGW devotee's in here is also a hard core progressive!! No matter what information comes out...........NO MATTER WHAT.......they will stick to the established narrative.
Why?
Because the entire environmental movement has always been devoted to one thing and one thing only = destroy the capitalistic system. AGW has never been about the "science". Anybody with half a brain and the ability to connect the dots will see that all their shit is anything but science. The bold predictions, based upon bogus models that fAiL ALL THE TIME!! The data manipulation. The rejection of ANYTHING that does not conform with the established narrative.
Think about it......if the science is so "settled"..........why are these people always changing the dynamics within the established narrative? The continuous bomb throwing ( the latest: global warming causes volcanos to erupt ).....the rigging of the data.
Does that sound like "science" to any of you??
Sustainable development is the goal, ie: wealth redistribution.........on the backs of the middle class by the way!!!
The Green Agenda
so fucking ghey
Because even after adjusting the temperatures DOWN, as the number sequence at the top of the graphs show, 2014 was still the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. If the "real" raw data were used, it would be even warmer!!!Well if that is the case then how do they keep going up when reported by the AGW loyalists?
No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?
No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?
Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.
Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!
Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?
No, we are arguing over comparing two different data sets with different ID numbers. At least I am, you are desperately trying to muddy the waters rather than to admit the dishonesty in comparing data sets with different ID numbers.I am not sure how to respond to you. are we arguing over the definition of 'raw' or the definition of 'adjusted'?
Are you saying we are comparing two different weather stations? Both graphs are from the same weather station as you can easily see by thee embedded ID number.
Are you complaining about the fact that the 2011 version is different than the 2014 version? That is the point we are trying to make!!!!!!
Would you be happier if we labeled the two graphs by the year of their origin rather than raw and adjusted? Even though the graphs themselves are from options labeled 'raw' and 'adjusted'?
Ed is in denial. He simply can't admit to himself that the cult priests he worships have doctored the data, lied and conspired to perpetrate a giant hoax.