Looks Like NOAA Is “Rectifying” History . . . . Yet Again
Well, NOAA will come out with a tall tale scientific paper today that says that the nearly 20-year “Global Warming Pause” you’ve been hearing about – isn’t real. Their new cock-and-bull-story scholarly article will appear in the journal Science.
Unfortunately for NOAA, a couple of folks with a scientific background and no agenda (plus a healthy dose of skepticism) got their hands on the paper and its supporting data – which was “embargoed” from public release until 2PM EDT yesterday. These two individuals took a critical look at the data and the paper’s methodology.
The two individuals make a persuasive case that NOAA – for probably the 4th time since January 2009 – appears to have “diddled the data”. Essentially, what NOAA has done is “adjusted” many past temps downward – below previously accepted values – for years before the mid/late 1930s/early 1940s. Then they “adjusted” more recent temps upward above the accepted, measured values.
The net result of these new “adjustments” is to make the now roughly 20-year pause in “global warming” they can’t explain go “Poof!” and disappear. How . . . convenient.
These two are the “money charts” from the article, which show exactly what’s going on. First, here’s the one that highlights NOAA’s blatant data manipulations temperature “adjustments” to measured data in their propaganda scholarly paper released today by year. Blue values represent “adjustments” which are reductions from measured reality; red values, “adjustments” that are increases over measured reality. The “crossover point” is in the late 1930s/early 1940s – precisely when actual unadjusted measured raw data appears to show the beginning of a slight cooling trend.
This second chart shows there have been multiple such adjustments since the beginning of 2009. The adjustments from today’s article don’t seem to be shown – yet.
Don’t believe that’s what’s going on here? Well, then “Rjddle me this, Batman”: if recent temperature measurements – made with highly accurate modern equipment we know well – are so “uncertain” that they have to be dramatically “adjusted” upwards, then how in the hell do they know how to “adjust” measurements taken 60+ years ago on equipment of what type they don’t always know downward? And why is the precise effect of these “adjustments” to explain away an apparent flaw in their claims of “runaway global warming” that previously could not be explained – a flaw demonstrated by their own measured data?
Moreover, these adjustments fly in the face of common sense. Modern electronic temperature measuring equipment responds much faster than mechanical measuring devices from decades ago. Modern equipment thus captures fast, temporary transients – both high and low – that the older equipment simply missed. Modern equipment would therefore be expected to capture HIGHER and LOWER daily extremes than equipment used a century ago, as well as lower lows – e.g., to show a bias towards MORE EXTREME MEASUREMENTS.
If anything, any adjustments to harmonize old and new data would be to reduce more recent temperature extremes to correct for the capture of extremes by modern equipment – or to increase past extremes to account for missing those same transients. You wouldn’t adjust both to harmonize the data – well, IMO you wouldn’t if you were doing legitimate science.
But if you were instead attempting to push an agenda, truth be damned? Maybe you’d do exactly that.
Here, NOAA appears to have adjusted both old and new measured temperatures. And they adjusted them in precisely the way needed to support their “runaway global warming” thesis.
Sheesh. The propaganda here from NOAA seems to be moving well beyond the Johnsonian or Nixonian in scope. This one has the “Baghdad Bob” seal of approval.
And remember: since NOAA is Federally funded – we’re the ones paying for their propaganda.
I’ll let you come to your own conclusion concerning why NOAA did this. I personally think the actual reason this was done is quite obvious. But maybe that’s just me.
I will say this, though. Give me raw data and let me “adjust” it as I see fit, NQA, and I can prove any freaking thing I please from any data set you give me – reality be damned. As one of the authors is quoted in the article from which the above diagrams appear: “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”
The science blog “What’s Up With That?” has an excellent article by Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts describing just how NOAA is trying to pull a fast one here. It’s quite detailed, and isn’t exactly a “quick and easy” read. But it’s IMO well worth the time to read anyway.
Global warming my ass.
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Global Warming
But, they’re a well respected government agency and they aren’t bought off by the eeeeeeeevil Koch brothers like all you climate change deniers are!!!!
The point is; they are the government and they have our world’s best interests in mind, not like evil Big Oil!!
I can’t believe I got through that with laughing.
Gore the whore started this shyt, hoping to get filthy rich over carbon credits, then every other A.H. jumped on the bandwagon, including the queer muslim in the white house!
Well, let’s see. The Glorious Leader has made some bold and outlandish claims, declaring them “settled science.” These claims form the core of his crony politics, the cover for his corruption, and the cudgel he will use the bludgeon his opponents in public. If the hard data doesn’t support those claims, then the data must be manipulated, skewed, and falsified until it does. That’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth 101 right there, not all that different from airbrushing disfavored figures out of official photos.
Now you know this started with the clintoon administration, dontcha? Remember when James Webb, the head of NOAA, said that global warming was BS? And then suddenly, he changed his tune?
Haven’t heard from him lately. Ever wonder what happened to him?
Gore started this shyt!!
Figures lie and liers figure…
Hurricanes in the eastern Pacific, snow in Mexico, snow in the Atacama Desert in Chile… they haven’t really ‘splained any of that… except I have an entire volume of papers presented at a conference on the Medieval Warming Period which state clearly that the North American west goes through periodic episodes of megadrought that last for several hundred years.
Did you guys know that the timber industry is clear-cutting timber of all kinds in flood-prone areas in the the US southeast for the wood pellet industry? And did you know that ALL OF THAT PRODUCT (1.7 million tons/year) is being shipped TO THE EU?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-europes-climate-policies-have-led-to-more-trees-cut-down-in-the-us/2015/06/01/ab1a2d9e-060e-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html
Oh, and this one, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-epas-not-so-green-emissions-plan/2015/03/04/8e9941e2-bbb2-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html
I’m waiting for people who live in these areas to find out what it’s like to have raging floods because they caved into this crap.
“if recent temperature measurements – made with highly accurate modern equipment we know well – are so “uncertain” that they have to be dramatically “adjusted” upwards, then how in the hell do they know how to “adjust” measurements taken 60+ years ago on equipment of what type they don’t always know downward?”
You’re reading my mail, Hondo! How the hell these “scientists” can tell us that the earth has cooled by tenths of a degree is something that makes absolutely no sense. Improperly calibrated equipment, human error, or any number of variables tells me it is impossible to get to the accuracy they claim.
Bias adjustments are always part of this equation and have been for quite some time.
Raw data is just that raw, until that data is corrected for deviation the relative value of the data is relatively weak based systematic parameterization errors and local station bias errors.
Steve McIntyre has an excellent site that covers a great deal of this in keeping the global warming alarmists honest.
In fact the GISS in 2007 acknowledged a data collection flaw that McIntyre had shown them.
His site is here for those with an interest (http://climateaudit.org/).
I will say the math is daunting as is the science but they have a layperson’s section in some posts as well. They are a pretty tolerant and forgiving bunch if you ask a question that indicates your novice level of knowledge.
You know the climate change folks are strange. By that I mean all those PHDs, grad students and professors making a living of federal and state tax payer grant money are an odd lot. I think somewhere, in their upbringing, they got into some left over hippie shit from the 60s about “save the earth” and went off to get degrees in Climatology and Meteorological Sciences and then realized, “Hey, what da fuck! I can’t get a job except at the local New York Life Insurance Agency because all they want is a degree! Da hell do I do now except go back fucking school? I got an idea. Grants. I remember the professor telling us about the money he made from grants! I’ll come up with a proposed study of, now…what sounds good? I got it! ‘The Long Term Effects of Arctic Climate Change on the Possible Alterations to Eskimo Skin Pigmentation Color’. Yea that’s the ticket!” So he sends off his proposed research study to department after agency until it hits the desk of…ANY NOAA OR EPA FEDERAL LEFTOVER HIPPIE who says, “Amy, can you come into my office a moment.” (Amy) “Yes sir Mr. Freelove what can I do for you?” (Mr. Freelove) Now listen Amy, this one is interesting. I mean someone who cares about our fragile planet, the climate’s changing effects AND get this, a thin slice of humanity. Amy, I want you to do the necessary paper work to stamp APPROVED FOR FUNDING on this study by a Mr. um…Lovejoy, yea Lovejoy, I like this guy already ha-ha, in Santa Rosa Lova Cloud, CA. Let’s start him out with an, oh say, $1.5 million grant. You know, a small let’s just see what he’s got grant. Tell him if he shows positive climate change evidence in say, oh, 2 years, we’ll continue funding. Also, let Mr. Lovejoy know that this grant money is only to cover his travel and living expenses for the next two years. If he needs specialized equipment, labs and assistants, to add them on the separate quarterly expense sheet and… Read more »
You know the climate change folks are strange. By that I mean all those PHDs, grad students and professors making a living of federal and state tax payer grant money are an odd lot. Saying they ‘make a living’ off federal and state tax payer money is like saying soldiers make a living off of federal and state tax payer money — it’s true in the sense that the funding happens at that level, but the vast majority of people who do that work aren’t doing it to make a living, and the living ain’t exactly the high life. More to the point, though, … go to a good university and sit in on a talk some postdoc or grad student is giving about some particular area relating to climate. Amongst the things you’ll see are 1) nobody screaming that the sky is falling, 2) very small-scale focus (eg, change in carbon isotopes in certain fossils or ice cores, not gigantic, perfect predictions of the world’s end in 20 years), and 3) plenty of science that shows fluctuations in emissions or temperatures, some of which are warmer and some of which are actually colder. Let me reiterate point #3 – scientists show decreasing temperatures all the time, too. It’s just that, overall, there appears to be a large warming trend. You don’t get laughed out of the building for showing cooling over certain time frames or areas, though. Anyway, you had your long rant, so here’s mine – we’ve seen time and time again that veterans are maligned in the media and the public perception. Fears of PTSD, hippies calling them murderous thugs, insults to their intelligence because they “didn’t have other options but to enlist”, etc. You know these to be false, and I know them to be false because, while not a veteran, I’ve spoken with many and have family that serves. The point being, getting to know a soldier helps dispel ridiculous notions that are conjured up by ‘group think’ in certain circles (liberals, for example!). The same is true of climate scientists, and how they’re perceived… Read more »
To: LC
Soldiers don’t get paid more by lying or making up confirmed kills.
Climate scientists on the other hand get paid lots of money at no risk manipulating data for the government in order to justify giving the government more power.
Every politician wants more regulation and more taxation (more power for them) as a result of climate change.
The UN wants the US taxpayer to pay into a fund that will be redistributed by them to ease the effects of global warming on the rest of the world.
And the former head of the UN climate panel is now a confirmed sex abuser.
So ya I am a bit skeptical.
Soldiers don’t get paid more by lying or making up confirmed kills. Neither do scientists. Most science done at universities or government institutions are done by graduate students or postdocs, with some input from students. They are hired into positions which have already been funded for the length of their studies or postdoc appointment, and their continued employment is generally not based on future grants (future grants are typically used to hire new students and postdocs, not current ones). The vast majority of climate scientists do not get paid lots of money at no risk. Rather, they get paid very little money and spend 5-7 years getting paid peanuts in the hopes that they can get a decent job afterwards. They certainly don’t have risk like soldiers do, no doubt, but my goal wasn’t to do an apples to apples comparison, but just to point out that climate scientists, like soldiers, are often seen as boogeymen eating at the tax payer’s dollar by those on the opposite political spectrum. You want to talk about taxes relating to climate change and the problems therein? Fine, plenty of good points to be made. Want to complain about the US taxpayer paying into a global relief fund? No problem, I can understand that frustration. And if those allegations about Pachauri are true? Well, clearly, that guy is an asshole then. I’m just saying this ridiculous notion that the people doing the majority of the climate science are somehow getting paid big bucks is laughable. To go back to your original statement, this would be like saying that the average Joes are making up stories about these ‘Al Qaeda’ sorts because, hey, the longer we’re at war, the more job security they have. Oh, and look at those head-honchos pulling in the big bucks, and Petraeus doing sexual no-nos, and… god, what a bunch of assholes. The reality is that people at the top might twist and distort things for their personal profit, sure, but if you think the rank and file who do most of the work are somehow getting rich, you need… Read more »
LC: NOAA is a government agency that employs scientists for climate research and weather forecasts.
It is GOVERNMENT employees who work there, not college undergrads or post-grads doing that work.
Where you get the notion that NOAA’s reports come from students is beyond me. It doesn’t. It comes from NOAA employees.
I was talking about climate science (and most science) in general, not specifically NOAA.
Publications and ‘reports’ come from high-level scientists and administrators (respectively), but most of the experiments (or field work) are done by postdocs and graduate students.
NOAA itself clearly does have a higher level of direct-involvement by staff scientists than, say, a university, but it’s overall volume of publications is a drop in the ocean compared to the sum total of scientific work being done at universities and research institutes around the world, largely by graduate students and postdocs. Who, again, aren’t getting rich working in climate science.
(And as an aside, NOAA does actually have some students and postdocs. I know of one working there right now, in fact.)
Climate measurements are based on a select few factors. Those include open water temperature, air temperature, evaporation rates and humidity. I have yet to see, in any of NOAA’s measurements, the amount of influence of solar activity on the atmosphere, any acknowledgement of the movement of the axial tilt, any acknowledgement of geophysical factors like volcanic vent outgassing and particulate-heavy eruptions (lots of that going on), or how GMOs reduce fertile soils to sterile deserts. There are resources for all of these things and others online. I have a file folder on my desktop that is full of them. The sun’s activity has a direct effect on our weather and on current climate. When there was a solar minimum – ZERO SUNSPOTS -for 18 months from October 2008 to March 2010, the concern at NASA’s SOHO group was that we might see another Little Ice Age. That there are continued episodes of low or no sunspots, as well as very small sunpots, is a clear indication that the sun is operating at a lower-than-usual rate of heat and light output. This means that we are NOT getting the usual amount of insolation – solar output – which heats the atmosphere. Solar influence is ONLY one of several factors that influence the weather (short term) and climate (long term). But this is ignored by climate scientists in general. Their entire area of study revolves around carbon loads in the atmosphere. That’s a rather narrow focus on a single factor. The fact that an unexplained blob of warm water in the Indian Ocean preceded the 12/26/2004 Sumatra quake by 9 months is being ignored, but another ‘warm blob’ of water in the Indonesian basin of the Pacific was reported in May. Does this mean another violent quake will occur in those islands? It just might. Two Japanese volcanoes have erupted since the 2011 Honshu earthquake, one of them just last week, in addition to a new island forming off the coast of Japan a few months ago. These not only add gases to the atmosphere, they add ash and dust paritcles as… Read more »
Ex-PH2 You are so far over my head that I must consider a lawsuit as you have made me feel so simple minded and insecure. Seriously, folks like you obviously know and believe what you say, but Average Joe gets lost and confused so easily these days. My feeble attempt to discuss the issue is directed to the one thing I CAN understand….the word CYCLICAL.