Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

NOAA finally releases REAL data. Admits having "adjusted" U.S. data since 2005.

U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/

If the article is correct this is good news.

The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.

kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.

Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?

Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

So I wonder what kind of "adjustments" are done with the global data?

I've wondered about the actual methods for calculating average temps for a while, and if things like spacing and surroundings make a difference then can we really rely on global average temp measurements?

GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.

Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.

We've had quite a few the past couple weeks here in the Eastern Iowa area - almost all of them F2 or smaller, including the 2 or 3 last night.

Of the roughly 10-12 the last 2 or 3 weeks I'd bet only 4 or 5 would have been "confirmed" prior to 10-15 years ago.

It's a lot like peanut allergy or autism stats. Is it happening more or being diagnosed/caught because of better medical technology?

clenz wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.

Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.

We've had quite a few the past couple weeks here in the Eastern Iowa area - almost all of them F2 or smaller, including the 2 or 3 last night.

Of the roughly 10-12 the last 2 or 3 weeks I'd bet only 4 or 5 would have been "confirmed" prior to 10-15 years ago.

It's a lot like peanut allergy or autism stats. Is it happening more or being diagnosed/caught because of better medical technology?

I lean towards this

Just how the statistics are how more children are diagnosed with ADHD and other pediatric conditions, technology allows us to detect them earlier and earlier.

50 years ago there was no HIV, not because it didn't exist (contrary to those who believe it just "appeared" in the 1980s) but because we didn't have the technology to diagnose it properly.

How do we know this is the real data? Can we trust NOAA? OWLS!

clenz wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.

Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.

We've had quite a few the past couple weeks here in the Eastern Iowa area - almost all of them F2 or smaller, including the 2 or 3 last night.

Of the roughly 10-12 the last 2 or 3 weeks I'd bet only 4 or 5 would have been "confirmed" prior to 10-15 years ago.

It's a lot like peanut allergy or autism stats. Is it happening more or being diagnosed/caught because of better medical technology?

Wasn't the big surge in autism due to a change in the definitions as well as more diagnoses?

EDIT: Found this article. Sorry for the hijack.

A new study suggests that changes to autism diagnosis criteria may be more to blame for rising rates of the developmental disorder than anything else.
Since the 1960s, autism prevalence rates have skyrocketed from 4 in 10,000 children to a current reported rate of 1 in 88. The reason behind the rise, however, has remained unclear.
Now researchers are shedding new light on the trend by applying current diagnostic criteria to data from a 1980s study on autism prevalence in what’s believed to be a first-of-its-kind analysis.

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/06/ ... sis/15957/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:NOAA finally releases REAL data. Admits having "adjusted" U.S. data since 2005.

U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/

That last few summers haven't been nearly as unbearable as they used to be and our winters are getting worst.

Don't get me wrong, Gold Bond sales continue to do well down here, but the last 2-3 summers were nothing compared to the summers in the early 2000s or even the 1990s.

Ibanez wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:NOAA finally releases REAL data. Admits having "adjusted" U.S. data since 2005.

U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/

That last few summers haven't been nearly as unbearable as they used to be and our winters are getting worst.

Don't get me wrong, Gold Bond sales continue to do well down here, but the last 2-3 summers were nothing compared to the summers in the early 2000s or even the 1990s.

Same up here

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.

Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?

Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

lol

asking klam loaded questions

Ibanez wrote:How do we know this is the real data? Can we trust NOAA? OWLS!

Spanos!!! WE NEED YOU!

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.

Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?

Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

Not really, I just assume that they're lying regardless of the subject. It's what they do.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -high.html

kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.

It has been good news for decades ever since the left tried to lie about the next ice age......failed and then lied about global warming. My guess is now they will lie about...........the next ice age.

Again

CID1990 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?

Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

lol

asking klam loaded questions

You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

lol

asking klam loaded questions

You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.

No, but you were being hoisted on your own petard

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.

No, but you were being hoisted on your own petard

When it's shown other than in an opinion piece that NOAA willfully withheld data, I'll pass judgement.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
No, but you were being hoisted on your own petard

When the liars confess, I'll stop repeating their lies...though, I'll always defend them.

What he meant to say.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
When the liars confess, I'll stop repeating their lies...though, I'll always defend them.

What he meant to say.

I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.

Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?

Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

Or why they would go to such lengths to lie about freedom and democracy..?


Yawn

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
What he meant to say.

I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.

It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data ... ushcngiss/

There have been subsequent posts with state specific analysis, discussion of the so-called "zombie" sites, and rationalization of the zombie data, with at least one alarmist even suggesting ALL the zombie sites were always hotter, therefore, USHCN was reasonable to remove those sites from the study and substitute ESTIMATED readings which, by coincidence, changed the results 180 degrees.

Perfectly

Reasonable



You've already been handed the advantage of Google editing/blocking anti AGW search results. If you REALLY want to be perceived as having an open mind, you should become familiar with the non-alarmist research.

Go back to practicing...look at Cream's White Room. Mostly rhythm with Clapton throwing in some finger muting to augment...pretty cool.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.

It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data ... ushcngiss/

There have been subsequent posts with state specific analysis, discussion of the so-called "zombie" sites, and rationalization of the zombie data, with at least one alarmist even suggesting ALL the zombie sites were always hotter, therefore, USHCN was reasonable to remove those sites from the study and substitute ESTIMATED readings which, by coincidence, changed the results 180 degrees.

Perfectly

Reasonable



You've already been handed the advantage of Google editing/blocking anti AGW search results. If you REALLY want to be perceived as having an open mind, you should become familiar with the non-alarmist research.

Go back to practicing...look at Cream's White Room. Mostly rhythm with Clapton throwing in some finger muting to augment...pretty cool.

Like I said...

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data ... ushcngiss/

There have been subsequent posts with state specific analysis, discussion of the so-called "zombie" sites, and rationalization of the zombie data, with at least one alarmist even suggesting ALL the zombie sites were always hotter, therefore, USHCN was reasonable to remove those sites from the study and substitute ESTIMATED readings which, by coincidence, changed the results 180 degrees.

Perfectly

Reasonable



You've already been handed the advantage of Google editing/blocking anti AGW search results. If you REALLY want to be perceived as having an open mind, you should become familiar with the non-alarmist research.

Go back to practicing...look at Cream's White Room. Mostly rhythm with Clapton throwing in some finger muting to augment...pretty cool.

Like I said...

...I am slow

Accuracy.

You didn't read. Again.