Climate and Weather

Can't sleep tonight anyway, and its been awhile since I tried my hand at ripping the scab off one of these. So let's do this.

Sheriff Joe said:
Delingpole: Climate Mafia Caught Tampering With Evidence — Again
Click to expand...

The claim, from our faker friend Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) is that the satellite temperature data used to compile this graph (currently displayed on RSS website, 2017)

Image1309_shadow.png

has been fraudulently manipulated compared to a previous version (RSS website, 2016)
Screen-Shot-2017-02-12-at-7.49.57-AM-down.gif

If one superimposes the graphs, the differences generally fall within the previously defined blue confidence interval.

Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 12.58.45 AM.png

So what's different about the two graphs? (the yellow CIMP5 projection is the same) 1) RSS deployed new software to compensate for orbital decay and other things that have already been discussed on this thread. Notably, UAH, no friend of climate consensus there, updated theirs at about the same time. 2) The older graph is from 80S-80N whereas the newer graph 70S-80N. 3) The newer graph will have a somewhat different running mean that accommodates the temp data from the intervening year (which was a hot one). Without the raw data its hard to sort that out, although the software update is probably the biggest variable IMO. What's funny is that in his hurry to take a shit on something, Heller misses his chance to throw shade at the real import of the graphs, which is that observed warming is not quite matching CIMP-5. Like I've said on here before, if you don't mind getting your feet wet, AGW gives us a chance to follow a rapid pulse of thermal energy through planetary systems and learn about mixing.

Anyway, here's the latest side by side for different software versions utilized by RSS and UAH using data from the NASA satellites
(source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1). Pretty similar really. And keep in mind that RSS is to Carbon Brief as UAH is to Watt's Up with That. So if somebody's cheating, they're doing it the same way.


. Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 2.07.20 AM.png
 
But if you want to talk about manipulating data towards a particular outcome our friend Heller can show you the way. Referencing back to the previously linked http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fia-caught-tampering-with-the-evidence-again/, scanning down the article we see this graph.

Screen-Shot-2017-05-01-at-10.01.15-AM.gif

One thing that flags about the above graph is that on the wood for trees graphing site whoever plotted this specified an interval of 60 to smooth the data. That's a strange interval. So lets just go to wood for trees site ourselves and graph the exact same data but without the smoothing (I also included UAH 5 as well as UAH 6 for comparison, same offset, I didn't bother with the trend lines because I consider them effectively worthless with out some metric on the scatter. Anyway, this is what the plot now looks like.

Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 12.45.28 AM.png

So if you want to cheat, that's how its done. I wonder how many smoothing values he had to punch in before it worked out the right way. One might ask, "Hey, isn't he doing the exact same thing he's accusing the scientists of doing". And the answer would be yes.
 
There is literally no amount of debunking of junk science you can do that would ever change the mind of a nutter.

When their information changes, they just dig in deeper.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
I like that graph.
Not alarming, and not unlike the interactive graphs I have created and posted in the past.
woodfortrees is a great site and even fun for the average joe, like me.
Click to expand...

I recall you using data sets that had been debunked by their own creators. It's amazing what you can do when you don't care about its validity.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
But if you want to talk about manipulating data towards a particular outcome our friend Heller can show you the way. Referencing back to the previously linked http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fia-caught-tampering-with-the-evidence-again/, scanning down the article we see this graph.

View attachment 1173

One thing that flags about the above graph is that on the wood for trees graphing site whoever plotted this specified an interval of 60 to smooth the data. That's a strange interval. So lets just go to wood for trees site ourselves and graph the exact same data but without the smoothing (I also included UAH 5 as well as UAH 6 for comparison, same offset, I didn't bother with the trend lines because I consider them effectively worthless with out some metric on the scatter. Anyway, this is what the plot now looks like.

View attachment 1176

So if you want to cheat, that's how its done. I wonder how many smoothing values he had to punch in before it worked out the right way. One might ask, "Hey, isn't he doing the exact same thing he's accusing the scientists of doing". And the answer would be yes.
Click to expand...
I am glad she is on your side,

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Chelsea Clinton shares climate clickbait garbage from WaPo, hilarity ensues
 
Shitstain, if you could finish that Associates Degree at Trump University you might be considered for their Platinum level classes for only $30K a year.
 
Booter said:
Shitstain, if you could finish that Associates Degree at Trump University you might be considered for their Platinum level classes for only $30K a year.
Click to expand...
Shitstain is one of my terms of endearment for the Kenyan-illegitimate bastard child.
Please treat him with all the respect I do.
 
espola said:
I recall you using data sets that had been debunked by their own creators. It's amazing what you can do when you don't care about its validity.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of how Trump just says whatever, whenever and then maybe just the opposite a few minutes later with no consideration for the truth whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top