Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

[mamooth]

jc, it's definitely not fair that you're spamming and derailing threads again. It's all you do, and you need to stop.

This thread is about how the deniers got busted when they attempted their latest fraud. If you'd like to contribute, try reading up on the topic. Here are some links to help you out.

Temperature data is not the biggest scientific scandal ever Ars Technica

Nothing False About Temperature Data

RealClimate Noise on the Telegraph

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

data blog.pageTitle

 

[elektra]

jc, it's definitely not fair that you're spamming and derailing threads again. It's all you do, and you need to stop.

This thread is about how the deniers got busted when they attempted their latest fraud. If you'd like to contribute, try reading up on the topic. Here are some links to help you out.

Temperature data is not the biggest scientific scandal ever Ars Technica

Nothing False About Temperature Data

RealClimate Noise on the Telegraph

Fox News host Climate scientists fabricated temperature data PunditFact

data blog.pageTitle

I did not know you switched sides, so you now agree, that the IPCC and all the climate, global warming scientists are frauds.

 

[edthecynic]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Hey westwall Why are you avoiding this post?

 

[elektra]

You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.

That's not how science works. You presented a new theory that contradicts the currently accepted science. It's an extraordinary claim on your part, so it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.

Previous to this particular conspiracy, it was your side demanding that the raw data not be used, and that more and bigger modifications were necessary. The whole denier community was screaming that more modifications to the raw data were required because of stations moving, construction near stations, changes in instrument types and UHI effects. By doing that, deniers conceded that adjustments to the raw data are necessary for accuracy. Deniers don't get to do a complete flipflop on that issue now unless they can explain why such a flipflop is justified.

Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A false claim. That's not even true for land stations. And for ocean stations, which account for 70% of the surface, the corrections always make the past look warmer.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

Back to your conspiracy theory you go. The only response needed is to point out it's a paranoid fantasy.

Those who created this recent conspiracy theory deliberately left out the oceans, where all the adjustments are to make the past temps warmer, thus making the current warming look smaller. It's a cherrypick so brazen, I can think of no other explanation for it besides deliberate fraud on the part of the conspiracy theory authors.

If zero adjustments were made to the raw data, the current warming trend would look _larger_.

Instead, scientists make those necessary adjustments, and the current warming trend ends up looking _smaller_.

And so your conspiracy theory goes boom.

Deniers, of course, couldn't have known that. Their cult leaders didn't inform them of the fact of the ocean adjustments, and they shun non-cult sources, so deniers had no way of knowing. Now they do know, and they're flailing. They know their cult was wrong, but it's absolutely forbidden for them to say that their cult was wrong. Hence, the cultists are reduced to inventing new ways to deflect from the issue, which is that they were caught red-handed repeating a baseless conspiracy theory.

well, again interesting, here you are in another thread and still no experiment. you come in here and request evidence yet ignore the requests to you. Just curious, do you see this as fair?

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

I was just curious, do you have the actual temperatures or just a crayola crayon colored picture from a "scientist".

 

[edthecynic]

You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.

That's not how science works. You presented a new theory that contradicts the currently accepted science. It's an extraordinary claim on your part, so it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.

Previous to this particular conspiracy, it was your side demanding that the raw data not be used, and that more and bigger modifications were necessary. The whole denier community was screaming that more modifications to the raw data were required because of stations moving, construction near stations, changes in instrument types and UHI effects. By doing that, deniers conceded that adjustments to the raw data are necessary for accuracy. Deniers don't get to do a complete flipflop on that issue now unless they can explain why such a flipflop is justified.

Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A false claim. That's not even true for land stations. And for ocean stations, which account for 70% of the surface, the corrections always make the past look warmer.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

Back to your conspiracy theory you go. The only response needed is to point out it's a paranoid fantasy.

Those who created this recent conspiracy theory deliberately left out the oceans, where all the adjustments are to make the past temps warmer, thus making the current warming look smaller. It's a cherrypick so brazen, I can think of no other explanation for it besides deliberate fraud on the part of the conspiracy theory authors.

If zero adjustments were made to the raw data, the current warming trend would look _larger_.

Instead, scientists make those necessary adjustments, and the current warming trend ends up looking _smaller_.

And so your conspiracy theory goes boom.

Deniers, of course, couldn't have known that. Their cult leaders didn't inform them of the fact of the ocean adjustments, and they shun non-cult sources, so deniers had no way of knowing. Now they do know, and they're flailing. They know their cult was wrong, but it's absolutely forbidden for them to say that their cult was wrong. Hence, the cultists are reduced to inventing new ways to deflect from the issue, which is that they were caught red-handed repeating a baseless conspiracy theory.

well, again interesting, here you are in another thread and still no experiment. you come in here and request evidence yet ignore the requests to you. Just curious, do you see this as fair?

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

I was just curious, do you have the actual temperatures or just a crayola crayon colored picture from a "scientist".

Gee, what a surprise, NOT!
An illustrated summary of the changes to the data does not persuade a denier that adjustments were made in both directions simply because it has colors.

 

[westwall]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

 

[edthecynic]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

 

[elektra]

You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.

That's not how science works. You presented a new theory that contradicts the currently accepted science. It's an extraordinary claim on your part, so it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.

Previous to this particular conspiracy, it was your side demanding that the raw data not be used, and that more and bigger modifications were necessary. The whole denier community was screaming that more modifications to the raw data were required because of stations moving, construction near stations, changes in instrument types and UHI effects. By doing that, deniers conceded that adjustments to the raw data are necessary for accuracy. Deniers don't get to do a complete flipflop on that issue now unless they can explain why such a flipflop is justified.

Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A false claim. That's not even true for land stations. And for ocean stations, which account for 70% of the surface, the corrections always make the past look warmer.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

Back to your conspiracy theory you go. The only response needed is to point out it's a paranoid fantasy.

Those who created this recent conspiracy theory deliberately left out the oceans, where all the adjustments are to make the past temps warmer, thus making the current warming look smaller. It's a cherrypick so brazen, I can think of no other explanation for it besides deliberate fraud on the part of the conspiracy theory authors.

If zero adjustments were made to the raw data, the current warming trend would look _larger_.

Instead, scientists make those necessary adjustments, and the current warming trend ends up looking _smaller_.

And so your conspiracy theory goes boom.

Deniers, of course, couldn't have known that. Their cult leaders didn't inform them of the fact of the ocean adjustments, and they shun non-cult sources, so deniers had no way of knowing. Now they do know, and they're flailing. They know their cult was wrong, but it's absolutely forbidden for them to say that their cult was wrong. Hence, the cultists are reduced to inventing new ways to deflect from the issue, which is that they were caught red-handed repeating a baseless conspiracy theory.

well, again interesting, here you are in another thread and still no experiment. you come in here and request evidence yet ignore the requests to you. Just curious, do you see this as fair?

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

I was just curious, do you have the actual temperatures or just a crayola crayon colored picture from a "scientist".

Gee, what a surprise, NOT!
An illustrated summary of the changes to the data does not persuade a denier that adjustments were made in both directions simply because it has colors.

I am just asking, do you have the actual temperature data. Changes to the data means nothing, Like what was the temperature in 1850 on this day, what was the temperature in Boston on this day back when Samuel Adams was alive? Or how about just pick any city and post the temperature?

Or maybe somebody has posted the temperatures already.

 

[edthecynic]

You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal.

That's not how science works. You presented a new theory that contradicts the currently accepted science. It's an extraordinary claim on your part, so it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why.

Previous to this particular conspiracy, it was your side demanding that the raw data not be used, and that more and bigger modifications were necessary. The whole denier community was screaming that more modifications to the raw data were required because of stations moving, construction near stations, changes in instrument types and UHI effects. By doing that, deniers conceded that adjustments to the raw data are necessary for accuracy. Deniers don't get to do a complete flipflop on that issue now unless they can explain why such a flipflop is justified.

Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A false claim. That's not even true for land stations. And for ocean stations, which account for 70% of the surface, the corrections always make the past look warmer.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

Back to your conspiracy theory you go. The only response needed is to point out it's a paranoid fantasy.

Those who created this recent conspiracy theory deliberately left out the oceans, where all the adjustments are to make the past temps warmer, thus making the current warming look smaller. It's a cherrypick so brazen, I can think of no other explanation for it besides deliberate fraud on the part of the conspiracy theory authors.

If zero adjustments were made to the raw data, the current warming trend would look _larger_.

Instead, scientists make those necessary adjustments, and the current warming trend ends up looking _smaller_.

And so your conspiracy theory goes boom.

Deniers, of course, couldn't have known that. Their cult leaders didn't inform them of the fact of the ocean adjustments, and they shun non-cult sources, so deniers had no way of knowing. Now they do know, and they're flailing. They know their cult was wrong, but it's absolutely forbidden for them to say that their cult was wrong. Hence, the cultists are reduced to inventing new ways to deflect from the issue, which is that they were caught red-handed repeating a baseless conspiracy theory.

well, again interesting, here you are in another thread and still no experiment. you come in here and request evidence yet ignore the requests to you. Just curious, do you see this as fair?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

I was just curious, do you have the actual temperatures or just a crayola crayon colored picture from a "scientist".

Gee, what a surprise, NOT!
An illustrated summary of the changes to the data does not persuade a denier that adjustments were made in both directions simply because it has colors.

I am just asking, do you have the actual temperature data. Changes to the data means nothing, Like what was the temperature in 1850 on this day, what was the temperature in Boston on this day back when Samuel Adams was alive? Or how about just pick any city and post the temperature?

Or maybe somebody has posted the temperatures already.

Don't try to change the subject. The false claim was made that ALL the adjustments in the change from V2 to V3 were in only ONE direction, when in actuallity the changes were in both directions, which the third column which charts only the changes clearly illustrates.
Get it?

 

[westwall]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

Based on what trends ed?

 

[edthecynic]

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

Based on what trends ed?

The same exact trends you claim were in ONLY gone direction.
You are obviously not man enough to admit your claim had no basis in fact!
Thank you.

 

[jc456]

Still cooling....

Satellite Data shows the CAGW fraud really well...

So your an ENSO DENIER... you think that the step increases are from man when they can be shown empirically to be caused by the ENSO, ADO, PDO and its warm phases.

Your sooooo predictable. And addicted to Skeptical Science lies..

But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?

well the previous cooling phase before the current one was 1940 to 1970. I believe that to be under 100 years.

 

[jc456]

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

Based on what trends ed?

The same exact trends you claim were in ONLY gone direction.
You are obviously not man enough to admit your claim had no basis in fact!
Thank you.

right, in 1950 the trend was down in the 2000s the trend is up. Yep got that, makes for a real nice trend upward.

 

[mamooth]

Once more, with feeling, let's go over what the deniers keep running from, over and over, every last one of them.

All the temperature adjustments combined make the past look _warmer_, and thus make the current warming look _smaller_.

If scientists wanted to make the warming look bigger, they'd simply have to do nothing. They'd just use the raw data with no adjustments at all. But instead, they deliberately use adjustments that make the current warming look _smaller_, the exact opposite of what the denier conspiracy theory claims.

That means this latest denier conspiracy theory fails hard. Deniers, you got some splainin' to do, concerning why you all fell so hard for the scam, and why most of you still choose to push the scam -- that is, deliberately lie -- long after it's been debunked. If deniers will lie so brazenly about this, isn't it logical to assume every that every denier is deliberately lying each time they post anything?

 

[jc456]

Once more, with feeling, let's go over what the deniers keep running from, over and over, every last one of them.

All the temperature adjustments combined make the past look _warmer_, and thus make the current warming look _smaller_.

If scientists wanted to make the warming look bigger, they'd simply have to do nothing. They'd just use the raw data with no adjustments at all. But instead, they deliberately use adjustments that make the current warming look _smaller_, the exact opposite of what the denier conspiracy theory claims.

That means this latest denier conspiracy theory fails hard. Deniers, you got some splainin' to do, concerning why you all fell so hard for the scam, and why most of you still choose to push the scam -- that is, deliberately lie -- long after it's been debunked. If deniers will lie so brazenly about this, isn't it logical to assume every that every denier is deliberately lying each time they post anything?

so the issue with me, is why they feel the need to touch historic records?

 

[westwall]

Show us a measurement then.

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

Based on what trends ed?

The same exact trends you claim were in ONLY gone direction.
You are obviously not man enough to admit your claim had no basis in fact!
Thank you.

No, I'm looking at what you present and the presentation I see is a global climate model. I see nothing that has to do with the adjustments of the weather stations. We are talking about the local station data that is being altered. Not the global that you present here.

 

[edthecynic]

But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?

well the previous cooling phase before the current one was 1940 to 1970. I believe that to be under 100 years.

Not a cooling phase at all. A flat phase, yes, but not a cooling phase. A warming phase started in 1910 and flattened out by 1940. The "cooling" you claim never got near the 1910 low and by 1980 was at about the same place where the warming flattened out in 1940. We are flat again now with no cooling in sight, especially to the 1910 levels. In fact this flat cycle is even flatter then the previous flat cycle.

 

[edthecynic]

Here you go lazy bones, the blue to purple areas in the third column are the changes from V2 to V3 that were adjusted down, the yellow to red were adjusted up, the white areas were unchanged. Now man up and admit you lied when you parroted your denier source who fed you the bullshit that all the adjustments were in one direction.

This was your exact quote:"Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction."

Data.GISS GISTEMP Analysis Updates GHCN-M V3 vs. V2

Describe what you see in these graphs ed.

Geeezzzz, how thick are you, I already spelled it out for you, what do you not understand????? I've just highlighted it in red to help you!

Based on what trends ed?

The same exact trends you claim were in ONLY gone direction.
You are obviously not man enough to admit your claim had no basis in fact!
Thank you.

No, I'm looking at what you present and the presentation I see is a global climate model. I see nothing that has to do with the adjustments of the weather stations. We are talking about the local station data that is being altered. Not the global that you present here.

You "see" only what you want to see. Those charts are not models, they are the actual local station data from V2 and V3. It was the change from V2 to V3 that you deniers falsely claim is what altered the data in ONE direction ONLY. The left chart is V2 for the indicated years local data, the middle chart is V3 for the same years, and the third chart is the amount of change and in what direction positive or negative from V2 to V3 for each locale across the globe for the same years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?

well the previous cooling phase before the current one was 1940 to 1970. I believe that to be under 100 years.

Not a cooling phase at all. A flat phase, yes, but not a cooling phase. A warming phase started in 1910 and flattened out by 1940. The "cooling" you claim never got near the 1910 low and by 1980 was at about the same place where the warming flattened out in 1940. We are flat again now with no cooling in sight, especially to the 1910 levels. In fact this flat cycle is even flatter then the previous flat cycle.

What I see is the cyclical trend that correlates to the 160 year solar cycle, Of which we only have about 80% of. Our recent hiatus of warming can be attributed to the top of the cycle as well as the average warmth of our records to date. What we are about to enter is the cooling phase which should last about 60-100 years. You alarmists are in for a really big let down emotionally and physically as the earth cools.

 

[edthecynic]

But aren't there also supposed to be cooling phases? There has been no real cooling phase for the past 100 years. There are warming phases followed by flat phases followed by warming phases starting just about where the previous warming phase left off. Something is interfering with the cold cycle the last 100 years. What do you suppose it is?

well the previous cooling phase before the current one was 1940 to 1970. I believe that to be under 100 years.

Not a cooling phase at all. A flat phase, yes, but not a cooling phase. A warming phase started in 1910 and flattened out by 1940. The "cooling" you claim never got near the 1910 low and by 1980 was at about the same place where the warming flattened out in 1940. We are flat again now with no cooling in sight, especially to the 1910 levels. In fact this flat cycle is even flatter then the previous flat cycle.

What I see is the cyclical trend that correlates to the 160 year solar cycle, Of which we only have about 80% of. Our recent hiatus of warming can be attributed to the top of the cycle as well as the average warmth of our records to date. What we are about to enter is the cooling phase which should last about 60-100 years. You alarmists are in for a really big let down emotionally and physically as the earth cools.

That is the same argument you deniers made in the 1970s with your last Ice Age prediction. How did that work out for you?