Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Thread Tools Display Modes

New Study: Temperature adjustments account for "warming" in climate data
Old 07-07-2017, 12:37 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,127
Default New Study: Temperature adjustments account for "warming" in climate data

Peer reviewed study here:


Of course, this is just one study.

But what say you?
Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2017, 01:41 AM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,989

Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Peer reviewed study here:


Of course, this is just one study.

But what say you?
I'd say their research is on par with the autism and MMR vaccine study. A.k.a. it's complete BS.

It's super well documented that the Earth's surface temperature is rising. It's not a coincidence that it started spiking when technology spiked.

I mean, one author says rises in temperature will benefit us (Not me as my area will be covered by water because all the ice shelves are melting.

Another claims the Earth has been cooling, which is a joke. Facts are completely opposite of that. He also says carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant.

And the third...I can't even find legit info on him which calls him into question.

I mean, their whole claim is that global warming research is just leaving data out which is absurd.


Saves me a lot of time.
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2017, 03:42 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 738

A passed friend of mine was working on a DOE funded project regarding cluster computing. They generally setup the clusters in groups of eight. To test the clusters some climatologists were offered time to run their models against collected data. My friend told me several of the scientists complained that the results weren't what they predicted and therefore the cluster computers were at fault. The scientists refused to believe there might be something wrong with their climate models as they had already predicted the results. One scientists flat out told my friend that he didn't make mistakes. My friend also learned these scientists received the same results from a few different runs on super-computers.
I'm not taking a position if man is effecting the climate to such a degree as some claim, I do have a problem with those that think they're correct beyond even the smallest doubt. Their theories are not longer theories but absolute fact. That's arrogance plain and simple.
My friend is no longer with us and if he gave me any names I no longer remember them.
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2017, 08:27 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 203

Variations of this "study" have been circulating for years. I really hate writing about how it's meant to be misleading by simply trying to cast doubt. Then a rigorous scientific paper pointing out something as wrong and trying to explain why.

The main problem is this from the abstract;

"The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global
Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA,
NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global
average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate
modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this
research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of
Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST
data to be a valid representation of reality."

Basically they are saying, the big the earth is getting warmer number keeps getting upwardly revised. And that means something... Ignoring or glossing over when the numbers were revised downward. And making wild claims that different groups using the same data cant draw different conclusions, then in the next breath says that then they share the same bias.

And its not like they are using the data to make a case for a different conclusion. It's trying to make an argument for some kind of conspiracy. A conspiracy for climate funding, like we exist in a world where we should not pay money to keep tabs on our climate.
Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017, 07:57 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 203

God I am reading this excuse of a scientific paper again. And I am just even more infuriated now that I am hopped up on caffeine.

Fist off the GAST data is aggregate. Meaning its kinda useless outside of use as an abstraction. Its basically a system to say this planet is getting warmer over time. Its not like this planet is an oven when you turn up the temperature its the same everywhere. Its like we did our best using these models to sum up the changes over time into one graph. Also the people who create the GAST aggregate data stress don't use this data as a universal rule to apply to temperatures over the globe (which they do). Because each area of the earth has a unique weather and does not always respond 1 to 1 with the GAST data.

Then they start using "Record High" data like it means something. Especially using measurements taken in 1930s and comparing it to now. Also its INCREDIBLY easy to cherry pick figures that reinforce your claim when you use this method.

Also they use the US is getting colder data. Ignoring that the heat from Europe and the Pacific ocean is forcing colder arctic air to dip down giving us cold snaps in the north east. And dont forget the cherry picked cities of Chicago and NY that are in that zone. The US is getting colder so the world is.............. sigh.

And we get gems like this;

"Clearly the historical GAST data adjustments that have been made
have been dramatic and invariably have been favorable to Climate
Alarmists’ views regarding Global Warming. The question now is
whether the latest versions of GAST data by NOAA, NASA and
Hadley are credible for policy analysis, or even climate modeling,

Lets see, there is 4-6 logical facilities in that sentence alone. Once again a misleading hit piece dressed up like a proper scientific paper.

so the TL;DR on this is.

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06 PM.

vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.