Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

We are the Borg.
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Something else?
robinson wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:54 pm I became a skeptic in Feb 2010.

Why? What does that even mean?

Inspired by
gnome wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:29 pm Skeptic of the phenomenon, its causes, or the appropriate response to it? Or some combination?

What led to your change of mind?
Abdul Alhazred wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:00 pm OK. What happened in Feb 2010?

Something in the world in general, or just the month the light-bulb in your head turned on? :roll:
In two days it will be 11 years since it actually started. December 19 2009. I didn't know it at the time. The climategate emails were out, but I wasn't that interested. Like a good skeptic I didn't need to actually look at anything to know what was what.

There had been some malarky about a hockey stick graph for years, but obviously anyone arguing against global warming was a paid shill for fossil fuels, or insane. There had to be something wrong with them.

So here's the short version. I experienced a record shattering blizzard (my first one ever!) starting on the 19th of December 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_ ... n_blizzard

It was actually fun for me, even the shoveling and the inconvenience didn't bother me. First blizzard ever, and the amount of snow was amazing. DC was quite variable in snow amounts, and I didn't actually know that 25 inches of snow was a lot. A lot for anywhere, but definitely a lot of DC

(other locations had 15 inches, some had 3 feet)

It's ironic that as I sit here typing this out, there is another huge blizzard hitting the northeastern US. Deeply ironic. Especially since snow (and the cold that causes it) are fundamental for both my skepticism, climate, data and the arguments about it all. If you find the argument "it is snowing so much because the climate is warmer" either convincing, or ridiculous, I understand.

No, I really do. I actually used that argument in December 2009, that's how unskeptical I was at the time. I explained the blizzard away, by saying it was because it was getting warmer. "More moisture because warmer, means more snow", which as you will see, is still an argument, about snow.

The difference is, now I consider that bullshit, and I know it's bullshit. And the data shows it is bullshit. But I also know the data will probably not change anyone's mind. It certainly won't change the minds of the skeptics who read this topic, who are 100% sure about the matter already.

Those who are skeptical and find it a bullshit argument might nod sagely and then ask, "So what?"

In any case, I don't think it will matter. Not even a little.

Dumping data into the topic will make it matter even less. Is it fraud? Is it a matter of faith? Is it ignorance? Hubris? Politics? Who the fuck can tell?

From a scientific POV, I actually would like to know. But here's the thing. The only way to know, is if you, another human being reading this, is if you tell the truth. If you are honest, and share your view, it might be possible to learn something about this. (hope springs eternal you know)

The last time I started in on this was at the beginning of the lockdowns, and I fucked up my one computer I can run the software on. Not this time. Science!
Last edited by robinson on Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

So first things first, as we await the data to come in on the current blizzard in the US of A

December 2009

At the time it was not easy to graph the data, in fact it was a royal pain in the ass to show it in a meaningful way. Fortune favors the patient


I try to use station data that has a 100 years of data, with no missing data, and no UHI to deal with. In this case, these three stations are pretty good for showing the situation.

(edit) Crap. Unless I insert image it doesn't show up in a quoted post.

Fuck

Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by robinson on Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

Except for Beltsville of course, but it's actually the best the entire state of MD has for climate stations.

The temp data
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

So now I can show the snow and temp data in a post

Image
Image
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

And to keep it simple for the quotes

Image
Image

I find that awesome. I know some find it annoying. I understand. I just don't care.
Last edited by robinson on Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

It's pretty obvious that it wasn't warmer temperatures that caused the snow. This is going to be repeated many times in the topic. Yes, it won't matter, but that's not even the point. Why won't it matter?

That's the interesting part.

Before the cherry pickers arrive, (there is always someone who goes right to that argument). here is another GHCN station showing the same things
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

Now 100 years is a pretty good data set, and the Dale Enterprise station is a really good station for data. It's not had a station move, it's not been urbanized (no UHI to contend with), and even when the sensors were updated in 1996, they kept both electronic records and the old mercury thermometers, to compare the data. (the electronic sensors caused a warming bias) It's also run by the same family that started measuring 150 years ago, and they are anal about record keeping.

The Staunton WTP is close to Dale E, and while not as quality as Dale E, it's quite interesting.

The Lewisburg WV station is close enough that it shows similar trend data, which is fucking awesome. No seriously, if you are suffering to read all this, (and I understand, it is suffering), you will get to see something almost nobody else in the world knows about. Natural cycles, that show up in actual data. Clearly. These cycles actually were discovered a long time ago, and they even have names. If you only read the fake climate news, you would never know this.

I know, I know, too many posts. Fuck off.

If that is your complaint you are in the wrong place.


So anyhow, that's December 2009, a very short version. I only included it this time because of what is going on at the moment. It's puking snow again, and while it's not the same as the 2009 blizzard, it doesn't matter. It certainly isn't snowing like a motherfucker right now because it's warm. (temps are in the teens and low 20s)

This theme is going to be repeated. Like, a lot. I should shorten it. ISMWIIC (it snows more when it is colder)

If you are going to counter with ISMBIIW (it snows more because it is warmer), or with ISMWIIW, (see above), you probably should know that I coined those phrases. You have been warned. If you are going to argue that ISMBIIW, that is an argument I created, as satire.

Heh. There is a good chance the trolls will not read this deep in (who can blame them?) When they use those words, it will be fucking awesome.

Yes we are going to get to Feb 2010

Image

Image

Once again we see that it's not a warming trend that ends up with a record snow dump

This theme will show up over and over and over (and it won't matter at all)

There is another "reasons" that will show up, and it's easy enough to debunk. It goes like this

"Because it is warmer there is more precipitation, so more snow"

If that were the case, I wouldn't even be arguing about this. But it's not the case.

Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson2
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson2 »

robinson wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:35 am If that were the case, I wouldn't even be arguing about this. But it's not the case.
So what?
"This aggression will not stand, man."
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

Good point. Why waste even a minute on it. So what if a huge fraud is happening?
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson2
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson2 »

You haven’t shown any fraud
"This aggression will not stand, man."
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by robinson »

Even if it is shown, it literally won't matter
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9948
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: Scientific fraud? Or political nonsense? Evidences

Post by xouper »

On a slightly related matter:
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why I know the climate data is a fraud

Post by robinson »

The current deadly shitshow in Texas, 3.5 million people freezing (some to death) from brutal cold and snow, is not the only story. Lots of other places are suffering record cold and snow, and ice, and misery on a scale impossible to imagine.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why I know the climate data is a fraud

Post by robinson »

still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why I know the climate data is a fraud

Post by robinson »

Presenting data that is not actually real, that is altered, could be called fraud. I'm pretty sure the super smart top level experts don't think it is, but that doesn't mean it's not fraud. One could argue the legal issue of this, the philosophical matters, and the political motives, but none of that matters even a little when it comes to reality. If you present data as fact, and it's not, that is fraud. You are presenting something that isn't true, and claiming it is. It's scientific misconduct, even if you believe it isn't.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent data when I see it

Post by robinson »

One of theses days I am going to take a day off and post more data
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

Until then, here are some links about the "adjustments" to what they show you and claim is "the one true real data", which they then change 3 years later, once again claiming "this time it's even more right"

Here's GISS, showing you the raw data and the 3 adjustments currently made to it
Example -> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gist ... ds=14&dt=1

The selection page
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4/

This is the fourth version of the changes they make

Here is Moyhu showing changes by state

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/07/ushc ... a-and.html

Here is a paper about version 2 changes (out of date of course, they are working on version 5 now)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 2613_1.xml

A 2007 page about version 2
https://web.archive.org/web/20071217215 ... trends.php

2010 paper about how it is automated
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghc ... al2010.pdf

Yes, that's right, the changes (still being made) are automated

Here is Zeke in 2013 bemoaning the lack of civility
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/a- ... -civility/

Here is Zeke in 2014 blogging about changes
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/unde ... ture-data/

There are thousands and thousands of posts and papers and such about the changes

Some of the hacked emails were about changing the data

Anyone who acts like they know nothing about this, is a troll, a moron, or a liar. Or just completely new to the fray
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

The state by state "adjustments" clearly show the huge problem. When one looks at the global data, and compares the changes made, the fraud becomes extremely obvious.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 25456
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by gnome »

Is this the adjusted data to which you refer in the other thread?
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

Just some of it, each agency does their own adjusting of data
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

The PRISM data (CONUS only) is the only one that matches reality, because it is used for agriculture, infrastructure planning, things where one must have real data to be able to plan

Because the US had the best climate data, seriously, the best by far, and it’s impossible to adjust it too much, the US data shows something remarkable

So much so that many papers have been produced about it, and many explainings offered
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »



Even with adjusting, the remarkable, actually unheard of cold and snow, can’t be adjusted away

Which is why the explainings that it somehow is because it’s warmer than ever before, has started in earnest
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by robinson »

This is complete fraud, and I can prove it

(That it is somehow colder because it’s warmer)
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 25456
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Why and how I know fraudulent climate data when I see it

Post by gnome »

That's such an abject oversimplification of the reasoning that it can only be malicious. So you've caused me to tune out. You're not playing to rubes here.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2