Bits and pieces and
Magic from the hand
We're makin'
Weird science
--Oingo Bingo
Video discussing the corruption of US temperature data by NOAA to fit the global warming agenda--an issue that has been discussed on these pages previously (e.g., here, here, here). Some important graphs from the presentation appear below (source here).
First is a plot of the unadjusted US temperature data (blue) alongside the adjusted temperature data (red) reported as 'official' by NOAA using a 5 year (60 month) moving average since 1895.Corruption Of The US Temperature Record - YouTube https://t.co/WCfSWGeaLB— Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) April 12, 2019
The unadjusted blue series shows no significant warming trend while the adjusted red series does. This should raise the eyebrows of any critical thinker--particularly because it conveniently serves the global warming agenda. Why must the red series be adjusted and how?
NOAA's explanation is that raw US temperature trends do not correlate well with temperature trends in other places across the globe--despite the fact, as explained in the video, that the US has the best temperature data system in the world. Consequently, NOAA workers have rationalized the revision of US temperature to better fit global warming enthusiasts' claims that temps are rising alongside atmospheric CO2 readings. Here is what the relationship looks like after adjustment:
Voila! Nice and tight. Unfortunately, the presenter does not show what the relationship looked like pre-adjustment to provide an idea of just how much the data have been fudged.
Increasingly greater fractions of the data have been manipulated since the 1970s to provide the illusion of an uptrend:
It goes without saying that any such study submitted to a serious academic journal would be rejected outright for data manipulation.
For global warming enthusiasts, however, this is what qualifies part of the 'science' that these people claim to be 'settled.'
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vSGY4FNWD5cq2rt50gToMQcbpxIfCSrjsoZ9ivUbL9ywkDF9NQ-bWAhlGUyGM2voM8TJKlnlT-49niXikhrvKkHtaf0UBX5Rln3EDVMeUYO_ot98OojdztF4bSmkUvtkYzzw=s0-d)
1 comment:
I did some recherche on the backgrounds. This is just a comparison between the raw data and the adjusted data. In every scientific discipline data have to be adjusted if circumstances have changed. In this case something like the following: cities have grown to encompass climate stations which have stood free before; cities around a station have grown; stations had to be replaced nearby; equipment had to be changed due to aging or technical progress; stations changed from hand measurements to automated ones; and many more. In Germany, there is a control mechanism if cases like this are foreseeable: a control station that temporarily overlaps the change at the original station allowing to calibrate one to the other; I assume the NOAA has similar quality measures.
However, in the US there were people who strongly pointed at the need to do such adjustment or that the adjustments were not good enough to justify the speech of global or regional warming.
These were especially **Anthony Watts** and **Richard Muller** (https://www.quora.com/profile/Richard-Muller-3).
The latter founded Berkeley Earth funded by the Koch Family, probably with the intention to falsify global warming to which he was skeptical at that time. His group established an own data set, did their own adjustments, found many new climate stations to include and came out with their own graph (showing upper and lower 95 %-confidence limits as to the time of writing):
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b8b025c861596b90bcdc2c18c2a481e8
**This matched almost exactly with what the other groups had depicted.**
Anthony Watts went into another direction. His group filtered all US climate stations, discarded some thousand of them and came out with a list of 70 best stations published in 2009 by the Heartland Inst. The very advantage of these stations: they needed no such adjustments, that was mainly the reason to chose just them. Comparing the adjusted NOAA curves of all stations with those best stations brought the following result (after Menne et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research):
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5a3fb1991af1c07d844f872acb0f0030
**The unadjusted best stations matched almost exactly with the adjusted data.**
**Obviously, there was no arbitrary tampering but necessary data adjustment.**
Post a Comment