MIT Researchers slam Climate Data In New Report

Corazón said:
So maybe you can answer this question then as Snopes chose not to do?

The NOAA ERSSTv4 1998-2014 trend is about twice as large as the trend for HADSST3 and OISSTv2.

So, why are these three, all primarily based on ocean buoy data during this period, so radically different?

I don't believe that it was claimed anywhere that this study was intended for publication in a scientific journal. I fail to see why sea temperatures are used at all to determine the hottest years when there is so much discrepancy between the various datasets.

I wonder why Snopes fails to mention that the UAH and RSS satellite records are in broad agreement regarding troposphere temperatures and agree with remarkable accuracy with data collected by weather balloons and radio sondes. Satellites are much more accurate at measuring global temperatures than the surface temperature record. NASA claims global warming is rapidly occurring, but satellites show very little warming this century. So the perfectly reasonable question needed to be asked, what could possibly motivate them to ignore their own satellites?
Click to expand...

I actually read the study and have seen the names of the people that reviewed and endorsed it. Here is the list.

Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana-Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
So maybe you can answer this question then as Snopes chose not to do?

The NOAA ERSSTv4 1998-2014 trend is about twice as large as the trend for HADSST3 and OISSTv2.

So, why are these three, all primarily based on ocean buoy data during this period, so radically different?

I don't believe that it was claimed anywhere that this study was intended for publication in a scientific journal. I fail to see why sea temperatures are used at all to determine the hottest years when there is so much discrepancy between the various datasets.

I wonder why Snopes fails to mention that the UAH and RSS satellite records are in broad agreement regarding troposphere temperatures and agree with remarkable accuracy with data collected by weather balloons and radio sondes. Satellites are much more accurate at measuring global temperatures than the surface temperature record. NASA claims global warming is rapidly occurring, but satellites show very little warming this century. So the perfectly reasonable question needed to be asked, what could possibly motivate them to ignore their own satellites?
Click to expand...

As British economist Ronald Coase said one time,“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”Never has a truer statement ever been made.

So, why are the surface thermometer data used rather than far more advanced satellite technology when tracking global temperatures? The answer is simple enough, they support the narrative of a dangerously overheating earth whilst satellites which monitor every square centimeter 24/7/365 do not.
 
The idea that science has the technology to accurately measure the temperature of every drop of water on Earth is ridiculous.
 
Bigdog said:
The idea that science has the technology to accurately measure the temperature of every drop of water on Earth is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

GISS actually acknowledges, on their website, that it is largely guesswork how they determine Surface Air Temperatures (SAT).

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
 
Corazón said:
It was never intended to be published in a scientific journal hence there was no requirement for a formalised peer review procedure.
Click to expand...
I do love how so many cling to the belief that peer review is some kind of gold standard when often as not it is nearer to pal's review. That crooked bastard John Cook, who runs the totally misnamed website Skeptical Science, even used false names to self review his stuff. Yet regularly you will get some arsehole quoting the 97% consensus bullshit yet again.
 
Micawber said:
Has any Retardnicon actually linked to the study? Or are they all content with a slaughter of the actual study to the alternet god without looking it in the eye as usual? Just troll using a reliable derivative red meat provisioner.
Click to expand...

I think it is cute that you want to cling to Mann's manipulated data. You have been duped so you will continue to be forced to believe. Why you may ask?

Simple. You and your ilk consider yourselves the smartest people on earth. So how could you possibly be duped?

You also think you are morally superior and care more about the environment than everyone else. I mean who can be against the environment? It is like being pro baby shaking.

But duped you have been.

Do you know that Michael Mann sued someone in Canada and upon being asked to produce the data leading to his famous hockey stick, he refuses to do so.

Just about every temperature reading has been "adjusted" up or down. Oddly enough the pre industrial temps were mostly adjusted down and the post industrial temps were adjusted up. Kind of coincidental dontcha think?

What am I asking? You don't think. You just swallow what your betters tell you.

Remember the pause? First your side said it was made up. Then when it was proved, you merely said it is proof of warming.

Give it up. The jig is up
 
Up to the end of April, global temperature anomaly has fallen to only +0.1°C.
72d65b22fc0778444ff170f713401f5f.jpg
 
Bigdog said:
The idea that science has the technology to accurately measure the temperature of every drop of water on Earth is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The idea that science has developed the technology to measure global temperature and co2 and they are constantly rising doesn't care that you can't understand it and so don't believe it because you were educated in Kentucky and listen to right wing, pro dirty energy, shock jock political commentators on a transistor am radio on your front porch off highway 75 all day every day.
 
Micawber said:
The idea that science has developed the technology to measure global temperature and co2 and they are constantly rising doesn't care that you can't understand it and so don't believe it because you were educated in Kentucky and listen to right wing, pro dirty energy, shock jock political commentators on a transistor am radio on your front porch off highway 23 all day every day.
Click to expand...
Who let this cunt in?
 
Corazón said:
I actually read the study and have seen the names of the people that reviewed and endorsed it. Here is the list.

Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana-Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Click to expand...

Amoco and Exxon
 
Micawber;1969534[B said:
]Same way you diluted your genetic inheritance[/B] by fucking every hooker from cape cod to timbuktu, assclown.
Click to expand...

It is quite clear PackD that you believe like Hilter did. That whole master race deal. The whole Nazi Aryan race. Keep it pure right? All white and pure.
I actually enjoy when you lose your temper PackD. Your white supremacy comes shining through every time. You can try and hide behind your "liberalism". Facts always show that you
are nothing other than real racist.
 
Sailor said:
It is quite clear PackD that you believe like Hilter did. That whole master race deal. The whole Nazi Aryan race. Keep it pure right? All white and pure.
I actually enjoy when you lose your temper PackD. Your white supremacy comes shining through every time. You can try and hide behind your "liberalism". Facts always show that you
are nothing other than real racist.
Click to expand...
He is a supremely arrogant tosser, without a shadow of a doubt.
 
Micawber said:
The idea that science has developed the technology to measure global temperature and co2 and they are constantly rising doesn't care that you can't understand it and so don't believe it because you were educated in Kentucky and listen to right wing, pro dirty energy, shock jock political commentators on a transistor am radio on your front porch off highway 75 all day every day.
Click to expand...

The jig is up

Americans are on to the lie
 
Sailor said:
It is quite clear PackD that you believe like Hilter did. That whole master race deal. The whole Nazi Aryan race. Keep it pure right? All white and pure.
I actually enjoy when you lose your temper PackD. Your white supremacy comes shining through every time. You can try and hide behind your "liberalism". Facts always show that you
are nothing other than real racist.
Click to expand...

How many responses to my single post do you require? Need a third take? You'll need to add some factual heft to prove the latest point though. Hey, aren't you also that assclown Morwron who trolled me thinking I was French? The violence in your contradictory arguments is constantly waxing. Take note. Or meds.
 
Micawber said:
How many responses to my single post do you require? Need a third take? You'll need to add some factual heft to prove the latest point though. Hey, aren't you also that assclown Morwron who trolled me thinking I was French? The violence in your contradictory arguments is constantly waxing. Take note. Or meds.
Click to expand...

The last one of two summed it up best. Racist.
 
Corazón said:
Note to self: don't forget to ban ALL fuckwits.
Click to expand...

What, you failed to notice those two entities connection to the hatchet job on the climate data critiqued by the right wing blog that was the topic in this thread by one of our many right wing morons?

Why did you change names?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top