Comments on: NOAA & NASA Caught Manipulating Temperature Data http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data/ Korea From North to South Sat, 26 May 2012 23:02:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: someotherguy http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data/comment-page-1/#comment-380695 someotherguy Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:59:38 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=18896#comment-380695 The ice at the northern polar region is melting, but the ice shelves at the southern polar region are actually increasing. The Earth isn't in a perfect orbit around the sun, and our orbit isn't constant, it actually changes slightly from year to year which cause's different parts of the planet to receive different amounts of sunlight each year. This is in a 30~ish year patter, if you read back in the 1970's the world was getting colder because we were farther from the sun, then we started getting slightly closer to the sun so the earth warmed up a bit. The debated point is that CO2 production is causing the temperature to go up and that it will cause the world to go into a run-away heating cycle that will cook the entire planet within 30 (they used to say 10) years. This hasn't been proven true, and all indicators was that it was false. But the various agencies that depend on "climate" money for their research had to keep the golden chicken pooping eggs. So they cooked the books on just about every bit of climate research produced since 1990. This is why you can't rely on anything said / produced by the major climate research centers. In order for them to keep their jobs the world temperature must be shown to go up, and the cause must be shown to be man made, regardless if its the truth or not. The ice at the northern polar region is melting, but the ice shelves at the southern polar region are actually increasing. The Earth isn't in a perfect orbit around the sun, and our orbit isn't constant, it actually changes slightly from year to year which cause's different parts of the planet to receive different amounts of sunlight each year. This is in a 30~ish year patter, if you read back in the 1970's the world was getting colder because we were farther from the sun, then we started getting slightly closer to the sun so the earth warmed up a bit.

The debated point is that CO2 production is causing the temperature to go up and that it will cause the world to go into a run-away heating cycle that will cook the entire planet within 30 (they used to say 10) years. This hasn't been proven true, and all indicators was that it was false. But the various agencies that depend on "climate" money for their research had to keep the golden chicken pooping eggs. So they cooked the books on just about every bit of climate research produced since 1990. This is why you can't rely on anything said / produced by the major climate research centers. In order for them to keep their jobs the world temperature must be shown to go up, and the cause must be shown to be man made, regardless if its the truth or not.

]]> By: scott http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data/comment-page-1/#comment-380670 scott Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:15:30 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=18896#comment-380670 So by 1990 (long before global warming was discussed much), NASA dropped a significant number of reporting stations. Did NASA give a reason for this? Or do we want to believe that the whole global warming conspiracy began way back then? Secondly, does it matter anyway if the warming trend continues? If there is no global warming going on, wouldn't we see a big jump in, say, 1991, when the data from many stations was excluded from their surveys, and then a plateau from there? And finally, is the ice at the polar caps and glaciers melting or not? So I fail to see why this particular story is big news. Are we just seeing both sides of the debate prone to giving misleading 'evidence'? As for the link to the previous incident of NASA producing incorrect figures (and then fixing them), that was for America stations only. One locality doesn't mean much if the overall global temperatures are rising. So by 1990 (long before global warming was discussed much), NASA dropped a significant number of reporting stations. Did NASA give a reason for this? Or do we want to believe that the whole global warming conspiracy began way back then?

Secondly, does it matter anyway if the warming trend continues? If there is no global warming going on, wouldn't we see a big jump in, say, 1991, when the data from many stations was excluded from their surveys, and then a plateau from there?

And finally, is the ice at the polar caps and glaciers melting or not?

So I fail to see why this particular story is big news. Are we just seeing both sides of the debate prone to giving misleading 'evidence'?

As for the link to the previous incident of NASA producing incorrect figures (and then fixing them), that was for America stations only. One locality doesn't mean much if the overall global temperatures are rising.

]]> By: Lemmy http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data/comment-page-1/#comment-380661 Lemmy Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:11:13 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=18896#comment-380661 The outside temperature gauge in my car said 24 degrees! Global Warming My Azz! The outside temperature gauge in my car said 24 degrees! Global Warming My Azz!

]]> By: Teadrinker http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-manipulating-temperature-data/comment-page-1/#comment-380660 Teadrinker Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:47:52 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=18896#comment-380660 "For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one." Either way, just heard from my brother that it's +5 centigrade back home. The previously recorded high temperature for January in my home province was -4C. "For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one."

Either way, just heard from my brother that it's +5 centigrade back home. The previously recorded high temperature for January in my home province was -4C.

]]>