Skip to main content

The flawed data proving "hottest months" is up for review. 

 

"Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

 

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

 

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

 

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

 

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

 

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

 

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

 

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

 

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

 

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...warming-figures.html

 

 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

If you don't like it, it's bogus

================

If you like it you will repeat it even after it's been proven to to you to be a lie, just like global warming that used to be global cooling. You don't let those pesky facts get in your way. Funny how global warming/cooling comes and goes. Too, we were supposed to be out of fresh water by now and all the birds, flying p o o p machines, would be dead too. That was supposed to come to pass about 30 years ago.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Progressives are the worst for true believe mode,  Fraudsters like Bernie Madoff milk them for all they  are worth.  See my next post of the Clinton foundation for similar.

=====================

We know how gullible they are. Some proof of that, they're democrats. Hard to call them progressives when they live in the 1800s and all they can whine about is past history, which they change/re-write to suit their agenda.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I posted,"it is warmer than it was years ago".

You posted, "no answer". Can you read?

=====================

It should be obvious even to you that I can read. You may be able to read, a bit, but you can't comprehend, understand, what you read. Yes, I saw what you posted, and that was no answer to the question I asked, just one more of your nothing posts you throw out when you're cornered.

Well tell us jt, is it global warming or an ice age?

--------------------

This was your question.

==========================

From your question, I thought you wanted to know if it was warmer or colder. I answered this way.

It's warmer than it was years ago. What do you think?

-----------

How many choices did I have on that question? I only thought there could be but 2, warmer or colder. List the other choices and maybe I'll pick one of them.

 

 

The question really is : are you dumb enough to believe the myth the 2  Koch bros push that global warming is a hoax, or are you smart enough to listen to what 98% of the worlds scientist believe, not to mention what many of us have seen happening with our own eyes ?

Global warming does not care if you believe it or not.
However, in the long run, it really dosen't matter; almost every day news articles are telling of the success of alternative energy sources. Two articles in Yahoo News just today stating that it appears that solar electric power will probably be the world leading supply by 2030. I would have bet on wind, but it appears solar may in the long run be better . 
One great advantage to both solar and wind turbines is that neither require water, and especially , out West, there just ain't any water. On virtually any fossil fuel, cooling water for the condensers just may not be available. 
On the other hand, I suspect that fossil fuels for family transportation will remain for a long , long time, but maybe, if we are all lucky , coal is toast and so would be the almost yearly raises in our power rates due to the ever rising cost of fuel.

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Well tell us jt, is it global warming or an ice age?

--------------------

This was your question.

==========================

From your question, I thought you wanted to know if it was warmer or colder. I answered this way.

It's warmer than it was years ago. What do you think?

-----------

How many choices did I have on that question? I only thought there could be but 2, warmer or colder. List the other choices and maybe I'll pick one of them.

 

 

===================

You had two choices. Either global warming or an ice age.  You lefties jump from one idea to the other. It was an ice age coming, and when that didn't happen, it's global warming.  You've been pushing global warming but now you are backtracking wanting more choices. Two choices for you to pick from, but actually only one real answer. Neither global warming or an ice age.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by seeweed:

The question really is : are you dumb enough to believe the myth the 2  Koch bros push that global warming is a hoax, or are you smart enough to listen to what 98% of the worlds scientist believe, not to mention what many of us have seen happening with our own eyes ?

Global warming does not care if you believe it or not.
However, in the long run, it really dosen't matter; almost every day news articles are telling of the success of alternative energy sources. Two articles in Yahoo News just today stating that it appears that solar electric power will probably be the world leading supply by 2030. I would have bet on wind, but it appears solar may in the long run be better . 
One great advantage to both solar and wind turbines is that neither require water, and especially , out West, there just ain't any water. On virtually any fossil fuel, cooling water for the condensers just may not be available. 
On the other hand, I suspect that fossil fuels for family transportation will remain for a long , long time, but maybe, if we are all lucky , coal is toast and so would be the almost yearly raises in our power rates due to the ever rising cost of fuel.

 


I guess we now know who is dumb enough to parrot the 98% myth that has been debunked already.  I guess we also know who is dumb enough to base their belief on computer models which have been shown thru actual observations to be flat out wrong.  The Soros is strong in this one.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I guess we now know who is dumb enough to parrot the 98% myth that has been debunked already.  

---------------

98% are wrong, my 2% is right.

_______________________________________________________

 

JT,

 

Either you are extremely forgetful or intentionally ignored what I've repeatedly posted on the false 98 percent claim.  Once more.

 

Keep seeing the 97 or 98 percent of scientists or climatologists agree on warming.  As I showed in another thread, that was based on one small poll of a few climatologists.  To make such a claim, meeting legal requirements, requires a rigorous statistical sampling. I've done such sampling for years and defended such in court.  To make such a claim, one must identify how many climatologists exist in the world. Then determine accuracy of the poll one wishes to attain.  They select  a sample and poll the selected scientists. The sample number would be about 10 percent of all climatologists to be legally defensible or about 10 percent of all scientists in the world, if one wished to make that claim.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I guess we now know who is dumb enough to parrot the 98% myth that has been debunked already.  

---------------

98% are wrong, my 2% is right.

_______________________________________________________

 

JT,

 

Either you are extremely forgetful or intentionally ignored what I've repeatedly posted on the false 98 percent claim.  Once more.

 

Keep seeing the 97 or 98 percent of scientists or climatologists agree on warming.  As I showed in another thread, that was based on one small poll of a few climatologists.  To make such a claim, meeting legal requirements, requires a rigorous statistical sampling. I've done such sampling for years and defended such in court.  To make such a claim, one must identify how many climatologists exist in the world. Then determine accuracy of the poll one wishes to attain.  They select  a sample and poll the selected scientists. The sample number would be about 10 percent of all climatologists to be legally defensible or about 10 percent of all scientists in the world, if one wished to make that claim.


Additionally, the way the poll question was worded would cause even skeptical scientist to vote "yes" for warming as humans have affected the climate, albeit a miniscule amount.  If the question had been phrased "do you believe the amount of anthropological warming occuring is dangerous", then the result of this small survey would have been considerably different.

 

Just goes to show that polling can be manipulated by careful choice of wording.

 

 

When solar power can be consistent,  I will welcome it. The same thing goes for wind generated power.  But I don't think that I should have to alter my lifestyle to suit a bunch of eco communist.  If the people screaming about global warming, or climate change are convinced that it is caused by the use of fossil fuels, then they should not be using fossil fuels.
Originally Posted by mad American:
When solar power can be consistent,  I will welcome it. The same thing goes for wind generated power.  But I don't think that I should have to alter my lifestyle to suit a bunch of eco communist.  If the people screaming about global warming, or climate change are convinced that it is caused by the use of fossil fuels, then they should not be using fossil fuels.

You may hear from those on this forum who say solar can be consistent and they will provide links to capcitor/battery bank technologies.  However, you can't charge the caps/batts and send power out on the grid at the same time, which make it a use now or use later question.  Problem with later is it is usually at night when power demand is low.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob

"Global Warming" has always been with us.

Then again, so have "Ice Ages".

 

It called atmospheric "trends".

 

How much has MAN added?

 

Any more than volcanic activity added millions of years ago?

 

Doubt it. We're still here.

 

Dinosaurs aren't...and there were no coal fired, atmosphere polluting, industrial plants in those days.

Unless it was Hostess...cranking out those Twinkies.

 

I believe the forefront of this campaign against Man Made "Global Warming", is that the Politicians (Worldwide) are looking to distract the masses from other, more important issues, which they don't want to address.

Hunger, wars, inequality.

 

Plus! It adds cash to their coffers. Which they can then use for Limo's, Jets, Villa's in the South of France.

 

While us "dogs" fight for the scraps.

 

There are Tribes in New Guinea that haven't changed since the "Stone Age".

 

See any Eskimo's or Siberians that are trading in their Mukluks for sandals?

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

"Global Warming" has always been with us.

Then again, so have "Ice Ages".

 

It called atmospheric "trends".

 

How much has MAN added?

 

Any more than volcanic activity added millions of years ago?

 

Doubt it. We're still here.

 

Dinosaurs aren't...and there were no coal fired, atmosphere polluting, industrial plants in those days.

Unless it was Hostess...cranking out those Twinkies.

 

I believe the forefront of this campaign against Man Made "Global Warming", is that the Politicians (Worldwide) are looking to distract the masses from other, more important issues, which they don't want to address.

Hunger, wars, inequality.

 

Plus! It adds cash to their coffers. Which they can then use for Limo's, Jets, Villa's in the South of France.

 

While us "dogs" fight for the scraps.

 

There are Tribes in New Guinea that haven't changed since the "Stone Age".

 

See any Eskimo's or Siberians that are trading in their Mukluks for sandals?


Saw an article once on two eskimos who were in a kayak and it was so cold they decided to build a fire.  Of course the kayak was set ablaze and both drowned.  Which proves once and for all that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

"Global Warming" has always been with us.

Then again, so have "Ice Ages".

 

It called atmospheric "trends".

 

How much has MAN added?

 

Any more than volcanic activity added millions of years ago?

 

Doubt it. We're still here.

 

Dinosaurs aren't...and there were no coal fired, atmosphere polluting, industrial plants in those days.

Unless it was Hostess...cranking out those Twinkies.

 

I believe the forefront of this campaign against Man Made "Global Warming", is that the Politicians (Worldwide) are looking to distract the masses from other, more important issues, which they don't want to address.

Hunger, wars, inequality.

 

Plus! It adds cash to their coffers. Which they can then use for Limo's, Jets, Villa's in the South of France.

 

While us "dogs" fight for the scraps.

 

There are Tribes in New Guinea that haven't changed since the "Stone Age".

 

See any Eskimo's or Siberians that are trading in their Mukluks for sandals?


Saw an article once on two eskimos who were in a kayak and it was so cold they decided to build a fire.  Of course the kayak was set ablaze and both drowned.  Which proves once and for all that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.

 

 

You're "warped"...LOL!

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Dire, you are the closest to putting out accurate numbers. Mainly because you are the only one to put any numbers out. The rest were personal opinions.

_____________________________________________________________

Jt, look at the amount of "temperature correction" that NOAA admits to adding to past measurements:

 

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55192557e4b0413cd5ed97bd/t/552bb85ce4b010138baf2246/1428928605776/?format=500whttp://www.tempdatareview.org/

 

Notice that NOAA added progressively more "correction" to the raw temperature numbers to get a nice ascending slope. Adding 0.5 of a degree to numbers matters when scientists are arguing over a couple hundredths of a degree (Less than the margin of error!) supposedly making 2014 the hottest year on record. Those correcting the data must assume that over the last century concrete and asphalt cities were razed to the ground and forests were planted around the weather stations instead of what actually happened.

http://www.cornwallalliance.or...erature-los-angeles/

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×