Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
29,961 - 29,980 of 45,851 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31655
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Here's a graph of the change that GISS has made since 2008:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
I've been keeping data on GISS since 2008 so it's an easy matter to subtract 2008 values from the current 2012 measurements and graph them out.

I'm sure you see the pattern. I'm also rather sure you will make up some sort of an excuse as to why it really isn't what it appears to be. And what it appears to be is an obvious bias to lower the earlier temperatures and raise more recent measurements.

One has to wonder why there were no net downward values since 1977. That's 35 years of one way adjustments. Does that give you any pause at all? It's plainly obvious that there's bias at GISS, and it's not difficult to imaging that the bias plainly visible in that graph permeates everything that Dr. Hansen and GISS touch. I don't make this stuff up, it's right there for anyone who is the least bit curious to see for themselves.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31656
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a graph of the change that GISS has made since 2008:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
I've been keeping data on GISS since 2008 so it's an easy matter to subtract 2008 values from the current 2012 measurements and graph them out.
I'm sure you see the pattern. I'm also rather sure you will make up some sort of an excuse as to why it really isn't what it appears to be. And what it appears to be is an obvious bias to lower the earlier temperatures and raise more recent measurements.
One has to wonder why there were no net downward values since 1977. That's 35 years of one way adjustments. Does that give you any pause at all? It's plainly obvious that there's bias at GISS, and it's not difficult to imaging that the bias plainly visible in that graph permeates everything that Dr. Hansen and GISS touch. I don't make this stuff up, it's right there for anyone who is the least bit curious to see for themselves.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Of course you have no evidence that there is a bias, or conspiracy for that matter, to adjust temperatures upwards. You only give us here say.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31657
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Northie wrote:
As are so many here, Case (aka, "Liberals Suck")
Liberals do suck.
Northie wrote:
remains convinced that the temperature record is all a vast socialist political conspiracy.
See my previous posts. You tell me there isn't a pattern.
Northie wrote:
30,000 posts on this thread and the true believers are still here complaining that all these rising mountains of evidence compiled for more than a century are nothing but a hoax.
There are mountains of evidence that the world is warmer and that sea levels are rising and that the glaciers are receding etc. What there is no evidence for is that it's a catastrophe.
Northie wrote:
Good grief. If ever there were testimony to the undying persistence of political fanaticism, this is it.
Political fanaticism? Take a look at Dr. James Hansen's activities. How many times has this guy gotten himself arrested now?

Liberals do suck and if you want to find out what they are up to, just check out what they accuse others of doing.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31658
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DumBozo wrote:
OK, I think I'm getting your drift.
Late 70s, early 80s data wasn't considered accurate enough, so it was adjusted in the late 80s, early 90s and again in the late 90s, early 2000s and will continue on this path ad infinitum.
Thanks for the info, grandpaw.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31659
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DumBozo wrote:
Of course you have no evidence that there is a bias, or conspiracy for that matter, to adjust temperatures upwards.
Does it matter why temps were adjusted upwards?
DumBozo wrote:
You only give us here say[sic].
Hearsay.
-
"People will love you for saying that," grandpaw.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31660
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Liberals do suck.[/QUOTE]

You're angry that they won't suck on your itch.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31661
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you have no evidence that there is a bias, or conspiracy for that matter, to adjust temperatures upwards. You only give us here say.
I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.

Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?

Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.

But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.

It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31662
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Liberals do suck.[/QUOTE]
litesout wrote:
You're angry that they won't suck on your itch.
All these years later and litesout's still having problems wrapping quotes.
Unbelievable.
Must be the faulty injun brain cell.
ֿ

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31663
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?
Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.
But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.
It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.
Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc. the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining. When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range. That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31664
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I think I'm getting your drift.
Late 70s, early 80s data wasn't considered accurate enough, so it was adjusted in the late 80s, early 90s and again in the late 90s, early 2000s and will continue on this path ad infinitum.
Thanks for the info, grandpaw.
I didn't really expect you to be able to internalize range of error nor accuracy of instrumentation. No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.

It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.

However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless. Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading. There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31665
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?
Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.
But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.
It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.
And sometimes all you end up with is the quack. You are still pushing a conspiracy.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31666
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc.
The bias is obviously there, see my last several posts.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining.
Got a link for that, or did you make that up?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range.
You're probably confusing accuracy and precision but let's not quibble.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.
You made that up too didn't you? You're expecting me to believe that the instruments are out of calibration or inaccurate in only one direction. You need to say why that its, otherwise you might as well tell me that Abraham Lincoln's dog had five legs.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31667
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
And sometimes all you end up with is the quack. You are still pushing a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is hard to prove, bias isn't. Bias can easily be seen from the data. People have a bias to want the data to go one way or the other, it's human nature. Inspectors in manufacturing depending on the feature to be examined have a natural bias to find that it meets specifications or that it doesn't. Subjectivity is often difficult to achieve. The folks at GISS don't seem to know what the word means.

“I'm watching you”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31668
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sit down! shut up! Ill tell you when its time to poop!
kal

Richland, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31669
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc. the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining. When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range. That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.
oh good 'bozo', and to think it all appears as if they are just making numbers up to fit their pre-decided outcome. so they adjust the numbers, adjust the instruments, limit readings to the lower ranges to eliminate suspicion of fraud, then slowly ramp things up to the middle range of made up readings and numbers. all the while applying for and recieving copious amounts of taxpayers money in government grants under the pretense they are doing a fair, honest and exhasting study. you almost make it sound funny. any time I am using an instrument, of any kind, new, used or old, I refer to the instruction manual of the unit so that the first time use, and those afterward, are within the manufacturers specifications and guidelines. you are telling us that the 'climate science' experts just set up their brand new taxpayers supplied machines and start fiddling with stuff untill they have what they believe are the desired results. what did they do, throw the instruction manual out with the box the instrument came in? if they do not know how to operate the instrument without playing with the settings they need to get the manufacturers rep. to come and show them how the instrument was designed to work. you are making your genius 'climate scientists' look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, who can't even run an instrument designed to take temperature readings without screwing the readings up, thus making 'adjustments' and 'smoothing' necessary. you've got to be kidding me.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31670
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>I apply the duck test.
No, you invariably apply the "liberals suck" test. If any liberals agree with something, you hate it.

It's how you reduce all of the world's scientific complexities to one simple question: "does this serve my personal political war"?

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31671
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you invariably apply the "liberals suck" test. If any liberals agree with something, you hate it.
It's how you reduce all of the world's scientific complexities to one simple question: "does this serve my personal political war"?
The data doesn't back up your side of the argument as I pointed out several posts back.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31672
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DumBozo wrote:
No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.
It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.
However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless. Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading. There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.
OK, riddle me this.
You aquire a new, more accurate gauge, do you then alter all of your readings back to the date you aquired your previous gauge?
If ten years have passed since the old gauge was used, you spent that ten years working with faulty data.
Taking that to the nth degree, your data will never be accurate.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31673
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
I didn't really expect you to be able to internalize range of error nor accuracy of instrumentation. No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.
You can't create data that wasn't their in the first place. All they're doing is taking a guess at it. And their guesses are biased.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.
For yet to be taken readings that's true. But for refining the historical record it is not. If the storm last week was measured with an instrument that was only accurate to 0.1" you aren't ever going to know how much rain fell accurate to 0.1 mm.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless.
If you know that the gauge was off consistently a set amount.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading.
You can only adjust if you know what those variables were at the time of measurement.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.
Only if you can repeat the measurement. If the opportunity is gone, it's gone, and you won't know, you will never know, you can't know. You can't make data up out of thin air. Well you can of course; GISS seems to be proving that.

Here's that graph I put up earlier:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
Here's the first line of date I used to produce it:

YYY .. MM ... 2008 ... 2012 .. Delta
1880 .. 1 ..-0.22 ..-0.56 ..-0.34

Sometime since 2008 Dr. Hansen and his team at GISS determined that world temperatures were really 0.34C cooler. Based on what? is the question.

And as Earthling pointed out, in another four years or so they will be dropping them again while they jack up those from the last few decades. They're quite brazen about it you know.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31674
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>OK, riddle me this.
You aquire a new, more accurate gauge, do you then alter all of your readings back to the date you aquired your previous gauge?
If ten years have passed since the old gauge was used, you spent that ten years working with faulty data.
Taking that to the nth degree, your data will never be accurate.
Say what?

blah blah

This is the most inaccurate post this week. LOL. Wrong useage of technical terms as well.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••