74
75

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)

narcedmonkey が 投稿

全 50 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]kriegson 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here's USCHN for the last couple decades of the "pause".

You can adjust it back to 1920 as well. There's no warming in the atmosphere (See RSS, UAH) and none on the surface unless you include Ocean temp data. The kicker on that though is that they took Karl's paper which used SST data (ship data ranging from measuring water temp being taken in to cool the engine, to slopping water in a bucket and dropping a thermomiter in) with a massive range of potential temperature (about .12c) to adjust the recent ARGO data (Buoys that float in place, sink a temp gauge about a hundred meters and then come back up. So basically "The ships show warmer temps, so the buoys must be wrong. Adjust them up") resulting in their warmer temps, then applied that to surface data.

Granted there's only about 1000 argo buoys, so claiming they can measure the temp of the entire ocean is like dropping a thermometer in an Olympic sized pool with a living ecosystem and claiming it can properly measure the temp of the pool.

To boot, heat in the ocean is generally considered to be 100-300 M below the surface because heat should cause expansion in the cooler depths has not been found below 2000m for deep sea, or below 700m as detained in the indo-pacific paper. Also, sea level rise has been consistent for the century, even slowing in the last couple decades, which would indicate there isn't enough heat in the ocean to cause any significant effect.

[–]SentientPenguin 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It doesn't matter if the bouys or ships read warmer than each other as long as a bias correction is used for the entire data set... Which it is.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

Continuing, these charts don't let on much slowing in the sea level rise.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Also, heat causes expansion at the cooler depths? What does that mean? Raising the temperature of the sea causes expansion at any depth.

[–]kriegson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's a dissemination of the problems with Karl et al 2015

Here's a blog covering various papers (linked in the article) on sea level rise (or lack therof) and what conclusions can be drawn from them.

Excerpt from Baur, O., Kuhn, M. and Featherstone, W.E. 2013. Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002-2011 and its impact on sea level. Journal of Geodesy 87: 117-125.

What it means

The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that "sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years," as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air's CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!

Covering the slowing

Excerpt from Ocean Sci. Discuss., 6, 31-56, doi:10.5194/osd-6-31-2009, 2009 Authors: M. Ablain, A. Cazenave, G. Valladeau, and S. Guinehut

Abstract. A new error budget assessment of the global Mean Sea Level (MSL) determined by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 altimeter satellites between January 1993 and June 2008 is presented. We discuss all potential errors affecting the calculation of the global MSL rate. We also compare altimetry-based sea level with tide gauge measurements over the altimetric period. This allows us to provide a realistic error budget of the MSL rise measured by satellite altimetry. These new calculations highlight a reduction in the rate of sea level rise since 2005, by ~2 mm/yr. This represents a 60% reduction compared to the 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise (glacial isostatic adjustment correction applied) measured between 1993 and 2005. Since November 2005, MSL is accurately measured by a single satellite, Jason-1. However the error analysis performed here indicates that the recent reduction in MSL rate is real.

[–]Gooey_Discharges 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

I can't wait until all of the disciples of the green religion show up to down-vote brigade.

[–]Zeppelin415Libertarian Conservative 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Remember kids, the fact that all the scandals occur on the alarmist side doesn't change the fact that we can just claim that the skeptics are lying without any argument.

[–]unalienable1776 7ポイント8ポイント  (38子コメント)

Why would they do this if it can be fact checked so easily? Seems strange.

[–]tenthreeleaderLocke & Load 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because they know they have a fully compliant media which will report their findings as "fact".

[–]narcedmonkey[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (33子コメント)

because its a religion to them. They are not operating under the scientific process, they are out to prove a hypothesis that their religion states must be happening.

[–]jjlew080 4ポイント5ポイント  (32子コメント)

But why would they want it to be true? A warming climate isn't good for anybody.

[–]narcedmonkey[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (21子コメント)

its good for people who want to demonize certain businesses and behaviors or who want to enrich friends in certain businesses.

[–]jjlew080 -1ポイント0ポイント  (20子コメント)

So you believe climate change is made up to enrich certain people? I'm asking honestly. If climate change is real and ocean levels rise as a result, for example, who will get rich off of that?

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt. 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

who will get rich off of that?

You mean who had and is getting rich?

http://bfy.tw/12A4

[–]jjlew080 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

Fuck Al Gore, but I'm pretty sure scientists around the world aren't fasifying data to make Al Gore rich.

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt. -3ポイント-2ポイント  (16子コメント)

but I'm pretty sure scientists around the world aren't fasifying data to make Al Gore rich.

Al Gore enriches himself so would it not be possible "scientists" are also enriching their careers and themselves?

[–]jjlew080 -1ポイント0ポイント  (15子コメント)

No because those scientists will "enrich" themselves by studying the climate regardless of what the data says. They still have to work on collecting it, do they not?

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt. -2ポイント-1ポイント  (14子コメント)

Because "science" takes away all the things that make people human like greed?

Do you know what a climate model is?

[–]Zeppelin415Libertarian Conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Warming is bad, but public perception is great for people. If the public truly believes that there will be a catastrophic disaster in the future if we don't enact my legislative agenda then that's great for me.

[–]JackBond1234 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Crises get money and votes. We'd buy all kinds of snake oil if we thought it'd save us from destruction.

[–]jjlew080 -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Understood, but NOAA or NASA are not in the business of selling anything, nor are they trying to get elected. I'm still trying to see the motivation to falsify data that the climate is warming. There is no benefit to do that.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

NASA is a government-funded organization. This means two things. First of all, they are subject to political pressures from above. And secondly, they are dependent on government funding. The political left climate alarmists want to massively increase taxes and government climate-related funding. This will benefit NASA's budget directly.

Also, keep in mind that it doesn't take an entire organization to falsify data. All it takes is one executive at the top with a self-interested motive to let all the underlings know that they'll be punished if they don't go along with the charade. See: An entire branch of the IRS caught unfairly punishing conservative organizations. Do you think every IRS agent was in on it? Unlikely. It was probably a few agents with the help of the one executive in charge telling everyone else to go along with it or else.

[–]jjlew080 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

But that is not how funding works. If the climate was cooling they would still need funding to study it. These organizations need funding regardless of what the data says. Why would data of a warming climate increase funding?

[–]Zeppelin415Libertarian Conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like I said before, public perceptions.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the climate was cooling they would still need funding to study it.

Well they have to choose warming or cooling. 50/50 chance they'll choose warming. Nobody is going to demand politicians fund climate science if their statement is "everything is fine guys, climate isn't changing at all!"

Why would data of a warming climate increase funding?

Democrats have been demanding carbon taxes and the funding of "green" technologies by government in response to climate change.

[–]DonnieS1Suppprter -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, in the seventies they were claiming that we were entering a new ice age and need to fund studies to stop the temperature drop.

[–]DonnieS1Suppprter 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They don't want it to be true. They just want to keep getting their alarmism checks.

[–]DoctorX1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It stands to reason that some don't want it to be true, but they think it is. And, some are crazy enough to want it to be true. Anyway, the problem is not exactly that they want it to be true.

Some of them are people like Al Gore and various rich people who want to make fortunes off a contrived "problem", and they want to step in as saviors so they can seize power.

And, others aren't rich and aren't trying to make money off it, they are just confused and convinced, and the kind, helpful part of them has been successfully manipulated by PR to adopt an ideology and support a deception which is not kind, and not helpful.

The scientists putting this stuff forward kind of straddle those two groups - the power-hungry and the duped supporters. Scientists are in no way immune to social and political pressure, and, in fact, the way some of them eschew such things actually presents certain vulnerabilities. Along with that, there is the issue of how much scientific funding comes from government.

And, there you have it: who thinks politicians and bureaucrats are going to give away money with no strings attached, year after year after year, and who thinks no one would ever think, hey, we could both get something for this money and get the scientists on board. How? Use PR and pressure to sway them. Do you want a career in the sciences, or not?

[–]DoctorX1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because their useful idiots won't care about checking the facts. To the useful idiots, whatever the climate alarmists say is fact.

[–]SentientPenguin 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I wish this weren't a political issue. It amazes me that people are so quick to dismiss actual climate scientists and their work because some Internet blogger posts some graphs with buzzwords like 'percentage fabricated'. Did anyone even try and download those data sets? He didn't provide any scientific analysis to his findings, just graphs that you're supposed to believe are based on these data sets that you yourself have never seen.

[–]threerocksReagan Conservative 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fair enough point. So why don't you take your own advice and compare his work to the data. If he's right then you can let us know this was a partisan issue and that you and the left were duped. If not, then show us your work and we will recant out skepticism.

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogtSupporter 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the current climate, science is a disreputable den of whoredom. If the political elite had set out to discredit science and scientists, they could not have done better than they did. When Nobel Prize winners like Algore are considered the font of climate science for great profit, credibility is lost.

[–]AutoModerator[M] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Posts from the 'stevengoddard.wordpress.com' domain require moderation. Please be patient as we review. Thank you.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.