Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (838543)	2/22/2015 8:39:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576178

NOAA Caught Cooling The Past February 22, 2015 By Paul Homewood h/t AC Osborn http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 NOAA claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures 1.24F above the 20thC average of 57.0F. In other words, 58.24F. This is all very strange, because back in 1997, they said global temperatures were 62.45F! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13 Now I am quite sure that temperatures have not really dropped by 4 degrees, or else glaciers would by now be advancing over the hill. And I do realise that NOAA and the rest like to talk in anomalies, rather than absolutes. Nevertheless, if we have got so little idea of what global temperatures are, can we honestly have much confidence in claims of warmest years based on a few hundredths of a degree? The plot thickens, however! Back in 2007, NOAA offered this list of the 10 warmest years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2007/13 The anomaly was set against the 1901-2000 baseline, just as it still is. Now compare with the current list of annual anomalies: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global We discover that the anomaly for 2005 has increased from 0.60C to 0.65C. Similar increases have taken place in the other years. For instance, 1997 has been adjusted up by 0.06C, as has 1998 and 2006. This has happened for the simple reason that the 1901-2000 baseline has been adjusted downwards, in other words cooling the past again, and all in the space of a few short years. It’s funny how these adjustments always seem to go in the same direction! https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/noaa-caught-cooling-the-past/ ........ Ron C. permalink February 22, 2015 10:03 pm What Paul Homewood, and Goddard, Booker and others are doing is a well-respected procedure in financial accounting. The Auditors must determine if the aggregate corporation reports are truly representative of the company’s financial condition. In order to test that, samples of component operations are selected and examined to see if the reported results are accurate compared to the facts on the ground. Discrepancies such as those we’ve seen from NCDC call into question the validity of the entire situation as reported. The stakeholders must be informed that the numbers presented are misrepresenting the reality. The Auditor must say of NCDC something like: “We are of the opinion that NCDC statements of global surface temperatures do not give a true and fair view of the actual climate reported in all of the sites measured.” The several GHCN samples analyzed so far show that older temperatures have been altered so that the figures are lower than the originals. For the same sites, more recent temperatures have been altered to become higher than the originals. The result is a spurious warming trend of 1-2F, the same magnitude as the claimed warming from rising CO2. How is this acceptable public accountability? More like “creative accounting.” We are learning from this that GHCN only supports the notion of global warming if you assume that older thermometers ran hot and today’s thermometers run cold. Otherwise the warming does not appear in the original records; they have to be processed, like tree proxies. Not only is the heat hiding in the oceans, even thermometers are hiding some. Once you accept that facts and figures in the historical record are changeable, then you enter Alice’s Wonderland, or the Soviet Union, where it was said: “The future is certain; only the past keeps changing.” The apologists for NCDC confuse data and analysis. The temperature readings are facts, unchangeable. If someone wants to draw comparisons and interpret similarities and differences, that’s their analysis, and they must make their case from the data to their conclusions. Usually, when people change the record itself it’s because their case is weak.