Posted on Jun 5, 2015
The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not?
3.82K
8
16
1
1
0
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/
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/
Posted in these groups: 
Climate Change
Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT (Join to see) - Yes my human activity of drinking milk cause more methane green house gas, so I have stopped drinking milk and have increased eating more hamburgers because less cows less cow produced methane too.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT (Join to see) - It no dream, I have modified my human activity by stop drinking milk activity that cause my body to produce methane greenhouse gases and have increase eating hamburgers. See we can all do our part.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Sgt Richard Buckner - Richard Read again, I said Medicinal Marijuana, which you know is not illegal, so tell me again how you got your prescription.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Hey SGT (Join to see), 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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see), I found it an interesting article, but facts are facts. The facts are there is global warming and are caused by pollution being sent to the atmosphere since man invented the wheel. I know where I worked and retired from, benzene, toluene, acetone, etc. vapors went into the atmosphere 24-7. That's just one chemical plant and there are thousands all over the world that did or still do the same thing. After a release, OSHA would come in to make reports and evaluate what happened. Then they would fine the company for polluting. The fine might start out at say, $10,000,000 and after many appeals some got off for about 10% of the original fine. OSHA is a joke, and doesn't worry the big companies in the least.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
Being a skeptic does wonders by freeing us to research the misinformation of the current "crisis". Imagine, if you will, the earth forming pre-industrial age and the volcanoes burning through forests creating explosive wood gases or the coal that resides in the mantle burning as magma is pushed through the surface.
The three chemicals you mention are created in thermal conditions which can happen in nature under the right conditions.
Imagine if you will the chemical processes that take place of the products found in nature under intense pressure and heat. The chemicals we release into the environment are but a fraction of what a single volcano can do.
The data that NOAA is manipulating goes back how far? They have a vested interest in getting government grants to continue getting paid. Not to mention, many of the alphabet soup companies have long been known to be a revolving door for many big businesses who lobbied to have the government "fix" a crisis they may or may not have manufactured in reality or fiction.
I remember the pollution problems we had in the 70's and have seen a drastic improvement since then. At what point do these regulatory agencies begin operating with diminishing returns while limiting our freedoms.
George Carlin may be a comedian, but his epic rant is brilliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
The three chemicals you mention are created in thermal conditions which can happen in nature under the right conditions.
Imagine if you will the chemical processes that take place of the products found in nature under intense pressure and heat. The chemicals we release into the environment are but a fraction of what a single volcano can do.
The data that NOAA is manipulating goes back how far? They have a vested interest in getting government grants to continue getting paid. Not to mention, many of the alphabet soup companies have long been known to be a revolving door for many big businesses who lobbied to have the government "fix" a crisis they may or may not have manufactured in reality or fiction.
I remember the pollution problems we had in the 70's and have seen a drastic improvement since then. At what point do these regulatory agencies begin operating with diminishing returns while limiting our freedoms.
George Carlin may be a comedian, but his epic rant is brilliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
The salient point is that since the measurements started getting inconvenient, a major agency didn't just change it's calculation or collection method, it arbitrarily altered decades of measurements taken with the tools of the day and said "Look! No warming pause here."
It defies understanding that there could be any other purpose for that than to make the data fit a narrative.
It defies understanding that there could be any other purpose for that than to make the data fit a narrative.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
NOAA has a vested interest in pushing the false narrative, it's how they get paid, period.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google