The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 19:38:42 -0400

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.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/the-climate-warming-pause-goes-awol-or-maybe-not/

The climate warming pause goes AWOL - or maybe not

By S. Fred Singer Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 7:39 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 19:39:03 -0400

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 8:00 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:00:36 -0400

Hey SGT Private RallyPoint Member, how do you really feel?

Yes, I agree, it is highly suspect that NOAA just decided that their old method was flawed, so we're just going to guess how wrong they were and change all of the historical data.

You know that as time goes by, once remote weather stations find themselves in developed areas. That matters quite a bit.
Likewise, now oceanic temperatures are taken at specified points in a day by buoys, whereas before it was done by sailors on a vessel lowering a bucket, pulling up a draft of water, and placing a thermometer in it.

Let's be real. People have an effect on climate. Deforestation clearly affects precipitation and temperature. I am very dubious myself that carbon in the air from human activity makes icecaps melt and hot air blow.
One good volcanic eruption can put more greenhouse gasses in a day than all of mankind does in the course of several months.

Having said that, it just make sense to reduce what we dump into the air and water. We have the ability to reduce our impact, so let's be responsible stewards.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 29 at 2016 4:55 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:55:02 -0500

Here is my evidence on the human factor, I am lactose intolerant and if we share an enclosed room with me, you will say stop drinking milk because you are producing methane gas which is a green house gas.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 8:47 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:47:02 -0500

NOAA has a vested interest in pushing the false narrative, it's how they get paid, period.