NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were 'Adjusted' to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were 'Adjusted' to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

https://stream.org/noaa-whistleblowe...erly-adjusted/

iStockphotos
By WILLIAM M BRIGGS Published on February 6, 2017 • 24 Comments

William M Briggs
A scientist-whistleblower has accused the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of diddling with temperature data, adjusting it so that it better accorded with political desires.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Dr John Bates, a now-retired climate data expert, late of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), a branch of NOAA, claimed the agency “breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

Bates said that Thomas Karl, who was until recently the director of NCEI, was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” (ellipsis original).

The data, Bates claimed, was never “subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process.” When Bates complained, “His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Karl and eight others authored the “Pausebuster” paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” It reported “an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades” and which claimed “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott
Climate data expert John Bates (Picture by Chris Bott)
The “slowdown,” or rather the non-increase in global temperatures for almost two decades, was notable in satellite data. It was also noticed in surface-based data, until that data was statistically adjusted by Karl and others. These adjustments of surface records, which are not uncommon, are also curious. It usually happens that older data are lowered, and recent data pushed higher, making it appear that temperatures are increasing. Are these adjustments legitimate, or the result of confirmation bias, or potentially fraudulent?

How dramatic are the adjustments? As the Daily Mail reports, “The Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade.”

This is three-thousandths of a degree higher. Three-thousandths. To appreciate the magnitude, it helps to say it aloud: three-thousandths of a degree. And not just three-thousandths of a degree, but three-thousandths of a degree per every ten years. If panic at the news of higher temperatures was your first reaction, ensure it is panic in slow motion.

The global rate is the product of land and sea measurements. On the sea adjustments, “Thomas Karl and his colleagues … tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade — as stated in version 3 — to 0.099C per decade.”

Even assuming this correction is valid, the final result is only a tenth of a degree a decade. If the global sea temperature really is caused to act like a straight upwards line, which is physically extremely doubtful, then after ten years, the temperature at sea will be one-tenth of a degree (on average) warmer than previously thought. Make that panic super-slow motion.

But even then, it’s not likely the correction is right.

But Dr. Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source — water taken in by ships. This, Dr. Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden — so affecting temperature readings.
Bates said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships.”

Similar statistical manipulations were done to land-temperature data, with adjustments being of the same low level. Bates not only questioned the timing and direction of adjustments, but said the programs used to make them were “highly experimental” and “afflicted by serious bugs.”

Karl “admitted” to the Daily Mail that “the data had not been archived when the paper was published,” making replication by colleagues impossible or difficult. Karl also said “the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the [data] would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.”

Even assuming all is aboveboard, what most don’t realize is that surface temperature measurements are not static; they change year to year. These changes induce uncertainty, which has so far been badly underestimated. This is why claims of thousandths of a degree change are, at best, dubious, and are more likely subject to large uncertainties.

CO2 is Life The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax


Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files




Check this out! LINKS---> https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017...ing-gun-files/


The Evidence:

Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart

Smoking Gun #2: 600 Million Year Geologic Record

Smoking Gun #3: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably

Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference

Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)

Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming

Smoking Gun #7: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are

Smoking Gun #8: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.

Smoking Gun #9: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.

Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW

Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected

Smoking Gun #12: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none

Smoking Gun #13: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect

Smoking Gun #14: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear

Smoking Gun #15: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community

Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)

Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.

Smoking Gun #18: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.

Smoking Gun #19: The Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.

Smoking Gun #20: 35 Years Ago We Had A Coming Ice Age and a 10 Year Supply of Oil

Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.

Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.

Smoking Gun #23: The costs of fighting climate change are astronomical, and the benefits are basically immeasurable.

Smoking Gun #24: What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?

Smoking Gun #25: Atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric H2O, not CO2?

Smoking Gun #26: PDO/ADO and other Natural Cycles You’ve Never Heard of…and for good reason.

Smoking Gun #27: The Climate Slush Fund; wasting other people’s money, tracking where it goes, and finding better uses for it

Smoking Gun #28: The Global Warming Inquisition; documenting the Climate Bullies and their unhindered workplace harassment

Smoking Gun #29: Global Sea Ice Sophistry

Smoking Gun #30: The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science

Smoking Gun #31: CO2 Cools the Atmosphere

Smoking Gun #32: Data Chiropractors “Adjust” Data

Smoking Gun #33: CO2 is a weak GHG, it has no Dipole

Smoking Gun #34: Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry

Smoking Gun #35: All Science is Numbers, if you understand something, prove it with a valid model

The bottom line is this “science” would “not stand up in court.” The global warming movement isn’t about science, it is about persuading public opinion. Once this “science” does get dragged into court, the Climate Alarmists get convicted for sophistry. Focus on the real science, and the Climate Alarmists will lose every argument. If the Climate Alarmists do win, it will cost society an absolute fortune, and the benefits will be immeasurably minuscule.

CO2 is Life The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax


Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files


Check this out! LINKS---> https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017...ing-gun-files/


The Evidence:

Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart

Smoking Gun #2: 600 Million Year Geologic Record

Smoking Gun #3: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably

Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference

Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)

Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming

Smoking Gun #7: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are

Smoking Gun #8: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.

Smoking Gun #9: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.

Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW

Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected

Smoking Gun #12: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none

Smoking Gun #13: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect

Smoking Gun #14: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear

Smoking Gun #15: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community

Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)

Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.

Smoking Gun #18: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.

Smoking Gun #19: The Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.

Smoking Gun #20: 35 Years Ago We Had A Coming Ice Age and a 10 Year Supply of Oil

Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.

Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.

Smoking Gun #23: The costs of fighting climate change are astronomical, and the benefits are basically immeasurable.

Smoking Gun #24: What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?

Smoking Gun #25: Atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric H2O, not CO2?

Smoking Gun #26: PDO/ADO and other Natural Cycles You’ve Never Heard of…and for good reason.

Smoking Gun #27: The Climate Slush Fund; wasting other people’s money, tracking where it goes, and finding better uses for it

Smoking Gun #28: The Global Warming Inquisition; documenting the Climate Bullies and their unhindered workplace harassment

Smoking Gun #29: Global Sea Ice Sophistry

Smoking Gun #30: The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science

Smoking Gun #31: CO2 Cools the Atmosphere

Smoking Gun #32: Data Chiropractors “Adjust” Data

Smoking Gun #33: CO2 is a weak GHG, it has no Dipole

Smoking Gun #34: Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry

Smoking Gun #35: All Science is Numbers, if you understand something, prove it with a valid model

The bottom line is this “science” would “not stand up in court.” The global warming movement isn’t about science, it is about persuading public opinion. Once this “science” does get dragged into court, the Climate Alarmists get convicted for sophistry. Focus on the real science, and the Climate Alarmists will lose every argument. If the Climate Alarmists do win, it will cost society an absolute fortune, and the benefits will be immeasurably minuscule.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

bahhaaa

ask any libtard this question and they'll FAIL it every time ...


"Should we eliminate all CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?"

9 outta 10 would blindly say "YES!" .. well congrats u libtards you just killed us all. Idiots.

Pollution is the issue not any nonsense about the "climate" the biggest issues with CO2 is if pollution changes the natural ratio into a zone where plants can't grow. then we are fucked and it won't matter how hot or cold the Earth is.

If YourWrong would be quiet there would be less "hot gas" in the atmosphere.

This is the first time the NOAA has been caught falsifying data. What I don't get is how much attention and money these kooks
get for a subject that always ranks last in the concerns of the American people.

It's a scam.

Yep, just follow the money.