NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quick Question
Next: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
From: Mike Jr on 15 Jan 2010 20:49 On Jan 15, 8:38 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 1:37 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/15/10 9:54 AM, john wrote: > > > > > In North America, the thermometers > > > > have been migrating to the coasts. > > > > (California uses just four- three on the > > > > LA beaches and one at an airport- perhaps > > > > on its way to the beach!) > > > > In Africa they have been migrating the other way- > > > > away from the cooler coasts and towards the > > > > hotter central plains. > > > > Also there has been a migration from higher > > > > elevations in Europe and NA to lower ones. > > > > > THIS is the way they get the > > > > results they want- sleight of land!! :-) > > > > > john > > > > Ya think, John!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You have to actually read the links, Sam. > > Obviously, you haven't. > > Sam Wormley is typical of those who have an irrational emotional > attachment to a conclusion that supports their biases. For Liberals*, > it's the hippie/Greenie assumption that People Are Bad, and Technology > Is Really Bad. AGW supports this, and the mere fact that data had to > be cooked (OK, burnt to a crisp) to support it is fine with him. > > Notice he cannot bring himself to even examine, much less attempt to > refute, the information in the links provided. Instead, the best he > can do is "Ya think!", like a vocabulary-challenged tj frazir. This is > why I say his is an emotional attachment; his intellect is short- > circuited by counterevidence to his beliefs. > > When all the data that support AGW have been shown conclusively to > have been cooked, if not outright faked, he will doubtless claim "a > vast Right-wing conspiracy". > > * Of course, it isn't exclusive to Liberals. > > Mark L. Fergerson In my append at Jan 15, 7:16 pm UAE should have been UEA. I know Sam to be very smart. He is also human. Regarding Hansen and GISS; if you like sausage, never watch it being made. --Mike Jr.
From: Bill Ward on 16 Jan 2010 00:00 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:43:39 -0800, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 15, 7:08 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:23:36 -0600, Brian wrote: >> > "Mike Jr" <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >news:b6877501-1aaf-4ee0- b3f4-4fb818752977(a)a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> > On Jan 15, 1:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 1/15/10 11:59 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 15, 12:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm >> >> >> >> 2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/01/080116114150-large.jpg >> >> >> >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase >> >> >> >>http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp- >> trend... >> >> >> > Sam, >> >> > Please read my links. The data that those records are based on is >> >> > manufactured garbage. >> >> >> What convince you that the data is manufactured garbage, Mike. Is >> >> that what you want to believe? Or do you have the "real" data? What >> >> is your evidence that the climatological data is wrong? Seriously! >> >> >>Seriously. Read the links to see the evidence. I wouldn't point you >> >>to it if I didn't think that this was serious. >> >> >>--Mike Jr. >> >> > the data keeps changing >> > J-D annual means for 1998 is 58 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20001206235400/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ data/ >> >> update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt> J-D annual means for 1998 is 56 and >> 2005 is 58 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20060206055540/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ >> >> gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt> J-D annual means for 1998 is 57, >> 2005 is 62 and 2007 is 56 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20080719094751/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ >> >> gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt >> >> > J-D annual means for 1998 is 56, 2005 is 63 and 2007 is 57 >> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt >> >> It's nothing to worry about - just the normal retrochronic effect of >> CO2 on temperature. > > Retrochronic particles have negative mass and negative energy. > > Who knew they could affect temperature? > > http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/ gemellaire_anglais/twin_universe.pdf > > --Mike Jr. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jan 2010 01:02 On 1/15/10 6:16 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/15/10 8:04 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed >>> Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero > [snip] > > While the effort was inspired by the debacle at UAE, the analysis did > not depend on UAE e-mails. Rather an analysis was performed on the > Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) itself. See what they > uncovered. The detailed analyses are collected here (see links): > http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ > > "NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the > global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smith�s analysis > of NOAA�s GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world�s > stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high > altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be > cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the > sea and to airport tarmacs." > > http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf > > --Mike Jr. > What does it all mean, Mike?
From: I M on 16 Jan 2010 04:10 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:43:39 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jan 15, 7:08 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:23:36 -0600, Brian wrote: >> > "Mike Jr" <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >news:b6877501-1aaf-4ee0-b3f4-4fb818752977(a)a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> > On Jan 15, 1:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 1/15/10 11:59 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 15, 12:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm >> >> >> >> 2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm >> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/01/080116114150-large.jpg >> >> >> >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase >> >> >> >>http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp- >> trend... >> >> >> > Sam, >> >> > Please read my links. The data that those records are based on is >> >> > manufactured garbage. >> >> >> What convince you that the data is manufactured garbage, Mike. Is that >> >> what you want to believe? Or do you have the "real" data? What is your >> >> evidence that the climatological data is wrong? Seriously! >> >> >>Seriously. Read the links to see the evidence. I wouldn't point you to >> >>it if I didn't think that this was serious. >> >> >>--Mike Jr. >> >> > the data keeps changing >> > J-D annual means for 1998 is 58 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20001206235400/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/ >> >> update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt> J-D annual means for 1998 is 56 and 2005 is 58 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20060206055540/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ >> >> gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt> J-D annual means for 1998 is 57, 2005 is 62 and 2007 is 56 >> >http://web.archive.org/web/20080719094751/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ >> >> gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt >> >> > J-D annual means for 1998 is 56, 2005 is 63 and 2007 is 57 >> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt >> >> It's nothing to worry about - just the normal retrochronic effect of CO2 >> on temperature. > >Retrochronic particles have negative mass and negative energy. > >Who knew they could affect temperature? > >http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/gemellaire_anglais/twin_universe.pdf > >--Mike Jr. But down the road, data generated out of thin air by chronic liars may change in either direction.
From: I M on 16 Jan 2010 05:48
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:02:54 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/15/10 6:16 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >> On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/15/10 8:04 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >>> >>>> "Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed >>>> Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero >> [snip] >> >> While the effort was inspired by the debacle at UAE, the analysis did >> not depend on UAE e-mails. Rather an analysis was performed on the >> Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) itself. See what they >> uncovered. The detailed analyses are collected here (see links): >> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ >> >> "NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the >> global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smith's analysis >> of NOAA's GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world's >> stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high >> altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be >> cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the >> sea and to airport tarmacs." >> >> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf >> >> --Mike Jr. > > What does it all mean, Mike? Ineptness? |