No wonder it's the warmest year on record, in Michigan it was 600°F! we're screwed

[dammitgibs]

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/c...ive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced

Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

This is why these data sets need to be released for peer review in the name of science

 

[Elfear]

Lol.

 

[ShawnD1]

Cthulhu is behind this.

 

[monovillage]

NOAA only had a $4.6 Billion budget in 2010, you don't expect them to do quality control work with that paltry amount of tax dollars do you? Don't you know that everything that NOAA says is gospel?

 

[chucky2]

You know the biggest problem with that:

That's something the satellite folks, and the people receiving the raw data, should have caught before it ever having been caught by someone in the public.

If they truly were paying attention to their data, and cared about its complete accuracy, they'd be scrubbing that data like a data miner for Goldman Sachs.

The fact that they weren't....it really just again calls into question all the rest of the data out there. If something this major was caught by some schmoe, how can we seriously trust all the rest of the data?

Unreal.

Chuck

 

[Brainonska511]

I see the circle-jerk has already begun. Carry on.

 

[Hacp]

Don't worry. Its just science, nothing to see here. The planet IS warming and it is because of carbon dioxide. Al Gore said so.

 

[ShawnD1]

Don't worry. Its just science, nothing to see here. The planet IS warming and it is because of carbon dioxide. Al Gore said so.

He was right about the internet though so we should at least hear him out

 

[StageLeft]

It's getting hot in here (so hot), so take off all your clothes. I am getting so hot, I wanna take my clothes off.

 

[dammitgibs]

we're so fucked

 

[ShawnD1]

It's getting hot in here (so hot), so take off all your clothes. I am getting so hot, I wanna take my clothes off.

Ha, I love Nelly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-qN6TCY85c

 

[senseamp]

Fraud is a strong charge that implies intent, I don't see any proof thereof.
So I would call that site a piece of libel.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/

NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.

Here, you can enjoy updated image if you don't undestand what the concept of outlier is:

 

[ShawnD1]

Fraud is a strong charge that implies intent, I don't see any proof thereof.
So I would call that site a piece of libel.

Probably missed a decimal.

60.4 degrees --> 604 degrees

 

[Hacp]

Probably missed a decimal.

60.4 degrees --> 604 degrees

60.4 in august? They obviously processed and refined the charts.

 

[MotF Bane]

Wiping out half of the data from a map isn't getting rid of outliers - it's cherry picking your data.

 

[sportage]

Ah... don't look now but your butt is on fire...

 

[senseamp]

Wiping out half of the data from a map isn't getting rid of outliers - it's cherry picking your data.

I am guessing you haven't taken a statistics course in your life.

 

[ShawnD1]

I am guessing you haven't taken a statistics course in your life.

Q-test is a Jewish conspiracy.

 

[Hacp]

I am guessing you haven't taken a statistics course in your life.

I'm guessing you don't know that statistics can be manipulated. Like this example. If they change the raw data deliberately to support their tree hugging ways, no statistics can catch that.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm guessing you don't know that statistics can be manipulated. Like this example. If they change the raw data deliberately to support their tree hugging ways, no statistics can catch that.

Alright so let me get this straight.
-their raw data has a value that is totally fucked, 600 degrees
-they want to Q test this value out, which would LOWER the temperature
-you claim that their lowering the temperature through statistical fuckery is a conspiracy to increase the temperature?

Would you rather them leave the outlier in there so the reported average is waaaay higher? Or do you want them to "change the raw data deliberately" which would lower the average and increase the precision of their numbers?

 

[Hacp]

Alright so let me get this straight.
-their raw data has a value that is totally fucked, 600 degrees
-they want to Q test this value out, which would LOWER the temperature
-you claim that their lowering the temperature through statistical fuckery is a conspiracy to increase the temperature?

Would you rather them leave the outlier in there so the reported average is waaaay higher? Or do you want them to "change the raw data deliberately" which would lower the average and increase the precision of their numbers?

I'm saying they do this stuff to the raw data(manipulate it) all the time. Only this time, they were caught red handed and they changed the data only AFTER they were caught. I'm thinking they're regularly adding a degree here or there to keep the grants coming.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm saying they do this stuff to the raw data(manipulate it) all the time. Only this time, they were caught red handed and they changed the data only AFTER they were caught. I'm thinking they're regularly adding a degree here or there to keep the grants coming.

Fail on all fronts. Please learn something about experimental statistics. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

 

[Hacp]

Fail on all fronts. Please learn something about experimental statistics. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Please learn something about manipulating data. I can give you manipulated data and all the statistics in the world won't tell you if its manipulated or not. Until we get the tree huggers away from the machines that record the temperatures, we can't trust any satellite or other temperature measurements.

 

[monovillage]

I'm of the opinion that it's as the NOAA Program Coordinator stated. "..................One of our colleagues checked the status of the satellite that generated that image on that particular day and indicated it was operational but degraded. We'll look more into this.

Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator "

My curiosity is whether this data was used in NOAA's recent claim about "the hottest year ever" It's a question that should be very easy to answer and whether or not it had an effect on their results. I don't see it as a deliberate attempt to manipulate data, but an example of sloppy QC.