The scandal of fiddled global warming data (US actually cooling since 1930s)

[Anti Federalist]

And I used to swim in that shit,, before I knew any better.

I got spoiled swimming in warmer waters.

And yes,, That is a Foosball Table.

Looks like Wisconsin numbers on that boat.

Is that one of the icebergs that were floating around just up to a couple weeks ago in Green Bay?

 

[libertyjam]

Curious why the chart in the blog link only looks at temperatures for three weeks out of the year- June 1st thorugh June 21st- and ignores what are typically the hottest months of the year.


https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Trying to rebut showing the fraud in NOAA data with more discredited and fraudulent NOAA data, how does that work?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaa-and-nasa-data-alterations-are-global/
NOAA And NASA Data Alterations Are Global


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

 

[Zippyjuan]

What is the source of data for the Gif? (nothing at the link)

 

[Lucille]

What is the source of data for the Gif? (nothing at the link)

You'd have to actually click the link to see it. RTFA for once.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see it. Perhaps you can share it with us? Thanks!

 

[libertyjam]

In the comments, and found elsewhere in other posts at S. Goddard's site,

Source link for NASA graph B of US temps?
Reply

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:57 am

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

More data:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...data-doesnt-match-the-theory-change-the-data/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/nasa-hiding-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/when-did-noaa-get-taken-over-by-a-crime-syndicate/

 

[erowe1]

Movie idea- a conspiracy of 97% of the world's scientists is cooked up for thirty-plus years. Only a gallant alliance composed of oil executives and billionaires can stop their apocalyptic plot.

Source for "97%"?

 

[Zippyjuan]

In the comments, and found elsewhere in other posts at S. Goddard's site,

Source link for NASA graph B of US temps?
Reply

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:57 am

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

More data:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...data-doesnt-match-the-theory-change-the-data/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/nasa-hiding-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/when-did-noaa-get-taken-over-by-a-crime-syndicate/

Thanks. Didn't dig though all of the comments- link should have been with the GIF. NOAA on the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

GHCN contains reports from several sources, so there often are multiple records for the same location. Occasionally, a single record was divided up by NOAA into several pieces, e.g. if suspicious discontinuities were discovered. USHCN and SCAR contain single source reports but in different formats/units and with different or no identification numbers. For USHCN, the table "ushcn2.tbl" gives a translation key, for SCAR we extended the WMO number if it existed or created a new ID if it did not (2 cases). SCAR stations are treated as new sources. Adding SCAR data to GHCN: The tables were reformatted and the data rescaled to fit the GHCN format; the new stations were added to the inventory file. The site temperature.html has not been updated for several years; we found and corrected a few typos in that file. (Any SCAR data marked "preliminary" are skipped) Replacing USHCN-unmodified by USHCN-corrected data: The reports were converted from F to C and reformatted; data marked as being filled in using interpolation methods were removed. USHCN-IDs were replaced by the corresponding GHCN-ID. The latest common 10 years for each station were used to compare corrected and uncorrected data. The offset so obtained was subtracted from the corrected USHCN reports to match any new incoming GHCN reports for that station (GHCN reports are updated monthly; in the past, USHCN data used to lag by 1-5 years). Filling in missing data for Hohenpeissenberg: This is a version of a GHCN report with missing data filled in, so it is used to fill the gaps of the corresponding GHCN series. Result: v2.mean_comb Step 1 : Simplifications, elimination of dubious records, 2 adjustments (do_comb_step1.sh) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The various sources at a single location are combined into one record, if possible, using a version of the reference station method. The adjustments are determined in this case using series of estimated annual means. Non-overlapping records are viewed as a single record, unless this would result introducing a discontinuity; in the documented case of St.Helena the discontinuity is eliminated by adding 1C to the early part. After noticing an unusual warming trend in Hawaii, closer investigation showed its origin to be in the Lihue record; it had a discontinuity around 1950 not present in any neighboring station. Based on those data, we added 0.8C to the part before the discontinuity. Some unphysical looking segments were eliminated after manual inspection of unusual looking annual mean graphs and comparing them to the corresponding graphs of all neighboring stations. See CLEANING NOTES for further details. Result: Ts.txt Step 2 : Splitting into zonal sections and homogenization

More a link (which is a mess to try to read through)

 

[PRB]

US = not global.

 

[Danke]

 

[PRB]

Source for "97%"?

not 97% of scientists, as people can have opinions, but 97% of all applicable published literature.

Of course, they could all be looking at a common source data, but dissenting papers are free to point to a better set of data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

[Zippyjuan]

US = not global.

From my USGS link:

whereas the corrections have little impact on the GLOBAL temperature trend, the US covering less than 2% of the globe.

 

[libertyjam]

Thanks. Didn't dig though all of the comments- link should have been with the GIF. NOAA on the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html



More a link (which is a mess to try to read through)

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:37 am

The fact that have documented some issues which can influence temperature readings, is light years away from demonstrating that what they are doing with their software is legitimate.

You do understand that they are turning a measured cooling trend into a warming trend?

 

[erowe1]

not 97% of scientists, as people can have opinions, but 97% of all applicable published literature.

That's a totally different thing.

 

[PRB]

Trying to rebut showing the fraud in NOAA data with more discredited and fraudulent NOAA data, how does that work?

Tell us whose data we should actually trust.

I'm listening.

 

[PRB]

That's a totally different thing.

It is. Which is why it's important to know what the claim actually says.

Now, does anybody care to challenge the validity of the claim?

Or more importantly, if it wasn't 97%, and in fact 70%. What does the remaining papers ACTUALLY SAY?

 

[libertyjam]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

 

[libertyjam]

From my USGS link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

 

[erowe1]

It is. Which is why it's important to know what the claim actually says.

Now, does anybody care to challenge the validity of the claim?

Or more importantly, if it wasn't 97%, and in fact 70%. What does the remaining papers ACTUALLY SAY?

The thing is, these are journal articles reporting on the results of research, most of which is funded by government grants are only awarded to research designed to support anthropogenic global warming and not oppose it.

They mention how global warming skepticism is pushed by money connected to the fossil fuel industry (without actually backing up that claim), as though that mitigates what they say. But they don't seem to recognize any conflict of interest in the connection between their side and the very governments whose power they want to increase.

I notice that the link you gave starts right out by mentioning the 31,000 scientists in the petition project, and nowhere in it does it actually address that. Nor does it actually back up its claim that there is a consensus among scientists.

 

[HVACTech]

temperature and heat (enthalpy) are not the same thing. (trust me)

if one believes that "ice ages" are real, true and have happened. then, it can clearly be seen that we are not in one.
and, if that is real, true and correct. then it follows that both "climate change" as well as "global warming"
are real, true, and correct.