NOAA Caught changing temp data...........AGAIN.

According to rules which are set across the board before an adjustment is made and which have been demonstrated to result in a repeated confirmation that they work in practical applications across the board, but not frivolous and often ignorant and serving a preset result interpretations, not even speaking about the straightforward bulling and deceiving brainwashed masses : http://politicalforum.com/index.php...rgan-interview.524924/page-21#post-1068623858

 

Yeah they tell you they are lying to you. Look at the article. They have disappeared 2 of the biggest gold snaps in recent memory.

If they can get away with this with stuff everyone remembers imagine what they get away with when no one remembers.

 

Al Gore, IPCC and Mann shared exactly the same Nobel price for exactly the same idea – as the man makes CO2, temperature goes up and hurts the mankind.

The IPCC, Mann and the idea still are making hundreds of $billions profit , but all over suddenly only Al Gore with a few hundreds of $millions profit from the same hoax is a scumbag?

You have a crooked tape measure and looking in different directions eyes.

 

I feel like we're talking in circles. Let me be perfectly clear. I agree that some climate change is natural. I do not agree that all climate change is natural. I literally have no idea what more I can say to make that any more clear. You're either going to understand it or you're not.

 

Here are things computer models got right...

The troposphere would warm.
The stratosphere would cool.
Higher latitudes would warm more than lower latitudes.
The diurnal temperature range would decrease.
Warming would not be homogenous.
The oceans would warm.
WV mixing ratios would increase.

...and many others.

And let me be perfectly clear. Models are not perfect. They have not predicted everything with perfect precision. Climate scientists acknowledge this and talk about their shortcomings openly. But, they are orders of magnitude better than what deniers have predicted. That is a fact.

 

No they didn't. You can download the data and verify this yourself. Both raw and adjusted are freely available. Or you could take the word of a known fraudster. It's up to you.

 

Yes - what are the odds of that ?? They appear to be 100%.

 

What is your definition of a denier expressed with respect to the climate sensitivity of CO2 ??

 

And that is exactly why the so-called measurement of global average temperature is meaningless.

 

AGW fanatics believe one tenth of a degree of change, somewhere to something, means the world will catch on fire.

 

Reanalysis computes a true global mean temperature. Proxy datasets are just another line of evidence which happens to agree with reanalysis. The various proxy datasets like NASA GISS, NOAAGlobalTemp, HadCRUT, Berkeley, etc. are in excellent agreement with each other and with the dozen or so commonly used reanalysis datasets.

 

Deniers believe the climate sensitivity of CO2 is 0 W/m^2 or 0C. Easterbrook is an outspoken denier who has predicted that the Sun is the only driver of the global mean temperature and has been predicting cooling for decades. He can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. There are many in the blogosphere that share this misinformed position.

Skeptics, on the other hand, use science to show that the warming will not be as much as what alarmists or even just consensus conforming types claim, but acknowledge that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas and that humans can and do influence the climate. I lean skeptical because I believe the climate sensitivity will be 2C or less and I can present evidence that backs that up.

 

You understand that this is insanity. Their reconstruction for North East temperatures is clearly flayed and you choose to believe what you know for a fact is wrong.

 

This is not s global reconstruction genius. It's the American North East.

 

Yes it is. A true global mean temperature requires summing up equally spaced measurements over the entire Earth and dividing by the number measurements. That's what my comment was in reference to.

At any rate there's no mysterious removal of the North East cold snap in the North East per reanalysis either. Here's is the CFSR for Dec. 29th as an example. As a side note notice that despite the NE being really cold that day the rest of the Northern Hemisphere was well above normal with the Arctic running +2.9C. The Arctic has been really warm this winter which explains why Arctic sea ice extents are on pace to shatter the lowest wintertime maximum record. Stay tuned for that.

 

Jesus ****ing Christ you didn't even read the article in the OP. Did You? Did You? Did You?

 

Yes. I did. I also read Paul Homewood's blog...the source of the misinformed claim. I also downloaded the raw data and the adjusted data in question. Oh, you didn't do that?

 

I don't give a **** what you think about him. I don't respect you either.

I don't give a damn that you downloaded the raw data. Show us how he is wrong in the North East or zip it.

His graph of the Januarry North East was pulled straight from NOAA

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

It's s simple graph. Notice the missing recent cold snaps. Why aren't they there?

Now address the issue of the North East or leave the *******n thread. Right now you are just obfuscating and spinning.

 

Something must have gotten lost in translation I guess so let me be absolutely clear. There is no removal of the any of the cold snaps in the North East this winter. I've looked at several datasets today and all of them accurately represent the cold and agree with each other (within a reasonable margin of error). How about this...since I posted Dec. 29th (because I know it happened to be within a brutal cold stretch in the NE) find me a dataset that erased that cold snap. Remember, all of the GISS inputs and algorithms are public domain. Give it a shot. Did GISS miss it? Spoiler...I checked. It's there.

 

Right here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

NOAA calls a two record cold snaps that we all experienced ' a little below average'.

You have yet to address this graph and you won't because you cant!

 

That's a monthly mean. Not only does it contain the days in which there were cold snaps, but it also contains days in which there were warm streaks. Paul didn't tell you that the Northeast had multiple days in January in which multiple record highs were recorded? Some of those record highs in New York (the state Paul was focused on) got absolutely destroyed. That's the thing about monthly means. You don't get to cherry pick the days that support your preconceived conclusion. You have to consider all 31 days both highs and lows for each day.

By the way Paul makes some pretty stupid arithmetic mistakes in his blog as well. Did you spot them?

 

So, would you prefer they didn't adjust for time of day, elevation, topography, and so forth?

 

No sequitur same thing applies to every other monthly average. Why are the are the 2013 and 2017 Januarrys not reflective of what was experienced and reported.

 

It's 22 degrees in the mountains of Southern California.........it's freezing because it's warming!

 

And yet when they get caught changes temp readings by 3 degrees their reaction is "Nothing to see here, science".