View Single Post
Old 11-23-2012, 10:18 PM   #37 (permalink)
richierocket
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwebb View Post
[COLOR="Blue"]here is one of the many but more important pieces of evidence showing that nasa and employees of nasa are changing the values to support their
HOAX
in this documented case nasa is changing recorded history
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history
so the actual un tampered with NASA archives show
global cooling starting in 1920 GLOBAL COOLING
and the tampered with data supports the current HOAX
unfortunately this is only one of many exam
mwebb, I finally got the time to review your "smoking gun" evidence on the conspiracy at NASA to change data.

So if you put aside the politics and think this thru logically, yes, data could get adjusted for many reasons. If you have >100 years of raw temperature data, from many different station locations, using different measuring devices, measuring at different times, etc. The USHCN references the reasons in their reports at: ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Regional and local temperatures will still vary, it's the global, long term trends which we need to understand.
One example is the big blizzards in Washington DC in Feb 2010, called "snowmegedon". Some people claimed and fox network reported that "temperatures can't be rising, DC just had huge snowfalls!" Well, what they neglected to say was that about the time that DC got snow, New England snowmobile trails were closed due to lack of snow, the Vancover Olympics were in jeopardy because they were way below their normal snowfalls, and Austailia had extreme hot/dry, the dust storms were blocking out the sun in Sydney.
Point is natural cycles will continue locally...that does nto disprove the overall trend.

I like how Steven Goddard posts things and draws wild conclusions. For example, he has two picutes of a rocky pennisula on the ocean, one from 100~200 years ago and another from modern times. He claims this disproves the 6 inch sea level rise over the last 100 years.
These pics prove nothing conclusive. Was each pic taken at high tide or low tide? They do not tell you anything about if level changed or by how much...without knowing the tide timing. And the pics are too far away to judge a 6" change anyway!
  Reply With Quote