‘Bombshell’ climate-change study


“Welcome to the Adjustocene.”

A new peer-reviewed study claims that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets is the result of adjustments made after the temperatures were recorded.

The adjusted datasets, from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office in the United Kingdom,  call into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

In the report, entitled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” authors James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso examine the accuracy of Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data.

It urns out that GAST data is not simply the raw temperature recordings. Rather, the data is adjusted after it is recorded to account for various problems, such as “contamination by urbanization.”

Critics (myself included) think these adjustments have been exaggerated to favor the view humans are causing climate change.

To test the validity of the GAST data adjustments, the two scientists and veteran statistician examined other historical data to determine whether the adjustments were appropriate.

“The three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the authors wrote. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming.”

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who co-authored the study, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

The researchers’ findings could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

Note: These guys are heavy weights.

Joe D’Aleo, one of the original founders of the Weather Channel, has been a meteorologist for more than 30 years. He was chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.

Dr. Craig Idso, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.

Dr. James P. Wallace III is an engineer and long-time statistician.

Here are a few people who agree with this report:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Ph.D., Economics, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant

B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana, M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics, Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Ph.D., Geography/ Climatology, University of Colorado, M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado, B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer, Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff, Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

On his website, meteorologist Anthony Watts has a wonderful cartoon “Welcome to the Adjustocene.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/09/bombshell-climate-change-study-could-totally-dismantle-the-claim-humans-are-causing-global-warming/

Thanks to Val Robins for these links



12 thoughts on “‘Bombshell’ climate-change study

    • The hockey stick has been discredited for so long by so many studies that there’s no basis for global warming scaremongering. But it still goes on unabated.

      Nothing can kill it.

    • It isn’t really GIGO. The recipe calls for innocent raw measurements which are then seasoned to taste, where large sectors find the “taste” inedible. More of a Comestibles in Garbage Out pattern.

  1. It will simply be ignored, and if discussed it will be mocked.
    It will take years for the AGW theories to be overthrown. Only as the world grows colder will it be harder and harder for the AGW crowd to ignore reality. Simply to much time, treasure, and political capital has been invested for them to simply walk away from it all.

    • we are up against 20+years of inculcation in schools and media on a many x daily basis
      its going to take a lot to wake people up
      a lot of extreme cold should do it
      but
      the warmists shriek that that is also a symptom of warming
      and the gullible follow like the lemmings they are.
      anything that doesnt require thought research and exertion will be the preferred option.

  2. This is news? I thought we established that NOAA was corrupt 9 years ago? Why would anyone think that down stream data wouldn’t be corrupt as well?

  3. This is very interesting, always believed they have been and there have been rumours from ex Met Office staff, although can’t verify those rumours, then you had the climategate email hack confirming much of the same thing and then you have the unfathomable weather stations in Heathrow Airport London, either the most busy airport in the world or one of the most busy, aside from all those jet engines you get the urban heat effect from all that runway and many of the temp records set over recent years in the UK is surprise surprise, only showing on the Heathrow airport station, no other stations confirm this temp, so do they ignore this… no they don’t they publish all over the British media the hottest day this and hottest day that nonsense

  4. Politics is about beliefs, not facts.
    We have a smallish number of scientifically minded people who understand that climate change is constant (over hundreds of millions of years), it isn’t our fault, and we can’t make it stop, we can only adapt.
    There is a largish number of people who believe that climate change is our fault and we can make it stop if we just stop burning fossil fuels.
    The scientific people do not understand how to change the beliefs of the non-scientific people, so being “right” scientifically does not matter politically, the “Deniers’ have for 20 years failed to file the lawsuits and make the movies that could change the beliefs of the Believers.

  5. Climate models and now datasets from NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office are nothing more than mendacious computer encoded guesswork.

    I especially enjoy this review of the observed climate and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century, by Sergey Kravtsov, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Atmospheric Science group, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

    Plain Language Summary

    Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074016/full

  6. For years I used to direct people to NOAA’s “climate at a glance” website.
    It was very easy to use and showed a very clear decline in land based surface temps after 1998. Suddenly in 2008 the data no longer reflected a decline. The data started flat lining and now shows an upwards trend, not matching what I saw on hundreds of occasions prior to 2008.
    Even to a laymen like myself it was blatantly obvious that the data had been changed, and right when “the pause” was the hot topic.
    Very disappointing.
    Glad this study confirms my suspicions.

Comments are closed.