EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Here are a few thoughts.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/ ... -58-years/

Quote:
In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.


https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/ ... tampering/

Quote:
The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century


Quote:
The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/categor ... tampering/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/28/ ... tampering/

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/CATO-D ... id/712153/

Quote:
Approximately 300 people including scientists, engineers and other experts, about half with doctorate degrees, have petitioned U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to carefully investigate suspiciously overheated climate temperature book-cooking by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Signers included 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, and 12 economists.

One was a Nobel laureate physicist, two were Apollo astronauts . . . and another was me.

Referring to a 2015 NOAA study purporting to having eliminated a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” of flat global temperatures, the signatories asked Smith’s committee to ensure that federal agencies observe scientific Data Quality Act (DQA) guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Here are a few thoughts.


and none of them really are applicable if you understand what is being discussed .....

Quote:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Quote:
In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.


Odd that this tries to compare the upper range of the average of the entire column to the individual sections. Not exactly a correct comparison by any means.

Quote:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

Quote:
The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century


The US temperatures to the world average? Not even apples to oranges.

Quote:
Quote:
The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/categor ... tampering/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/28/ ... tampering/


More of the same comparison attempts.

Quote:
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/CATO-DQA-MIT-NOAA/2016/02/01/id/712153/

Quote:
Approximately 300 people including scientists, engineers and other experts, about half with doctorate degrees, have petitioned U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to carefully investigate suspiciously overheated climate temperature book-cooking by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Signers included 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, and 12 economists.

One was a Nobel laureate physicist, two were Apollo astronauts . . . and another was me.

Referring to a 2015 NOAA study purporting to having eliminated a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” of flat global temperatures, the signatories asked Smith’s committee to ensure that federal agencies observe scientific Data Quality Act (DQA) guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.


No data just questions by deniers?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2601
Location: Central Colorado
We are at a point where EVERY year will be a record from the previous year. This is what exponential means, dipwad. Apparently, the temperature rise from the year before was .07*F. Now, compared to PETM's .025*C per century. Convert .07F=.126C, now times 100 years, 12.6*C. Divide by .025 = 520 times the speed of PETM's methane turnover event. Consider the Permian ELE was about 3 times faster that PETM, and you get an idea, Miltie. You have at most 4 years to live, unless you are a billionaire and can afford the 20 year underground ticket. #-o

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], sushilydv and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group