Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
The Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.
As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.
The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.
A partial list includes:
The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral
"The 5-year mean global temperature has
been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability
and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist,
"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just
0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero.
This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans
Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a
pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially
over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton
This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.
Proving Americans' assessment correct, the National Geographic is caught pushing obvious "science" B.S. about sea level rise.
Why the mainstream believes they can blatantly fear-monger over climate change and global warming, with gross distortions, in the internet age is, ..... well ..... exceptionally stupid.
This National Geographic cover is a perfect example of climate-BSing that Americans don't need in a serious debate about science - a National Enquirer's level of sensationalism in a "science journal" is simply worthless.
Note: Per the NYC tide gauge trend, by year 2100, sea levels near the statue will have risen by some 9.6 inches - the National Geographic cover is a gross distortion, visual-lies one could say, designed to mislead. For more accurate information, a variety of empirical evidence sea level rising charts.
Obama EPA puts 13 Illinois coal plants on verge of closure — 2000 jobs to disappear
"Workers at the state’s coal-fired power plants are all worried about the same thing: whether they will lose their jobs.
Owners of the plants have been squeezed by regulations forcing expensive pollution control upgrades at the same time cheaper sources of fuel have rendered the plants unprofitable. In the next two years, legal decisions affecting roughly two-thirds of the state’s coal-fired power plants are expected to determine whether those plants have any future…"
Like the Obama administration's farcical, ham-handed climate change "movement," which Americans are rejecting soundly, he has jolted Americans to the real risk of the USA becoming a police state that constantly harasses political opponents and citizens.
They are rejecting his totalitarian view of "security" also.
****Like the cartoon strip? Get Dilbert stuff and wisdom here.****
Is he the penultimate, politico liberal Democrat hypocrite?
Living a life of privileged arrogance that is totally non-sustainable, combined with his massive, ever-increasing personal CO2/carbon footprint. And he lectures the rest of us about protecting "God's Creation"?
The complete failure of the global warming alarmism movement, as represented by the fringe green-fundamentalists, is being welldocumentedon alllevels - ultimately, this spectacular failure is the result of extremists promulgating anti-science climate predictions that ignore the most basic of known physics
Dr. William Happer is one of America's preeminent physics experts, who now calls Princeton University home.
He is the scientific antithesis of those fringe, global warming alarmists predicting climate change disasters and doomsday over the last few decades. Fringe-green personalities such as Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, John Holdren, Michael Mann, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Hansen, Al Gore, Jeff Masters, Paul Erhlich are just some of the quack climate prognosticators-of-hysteria that Happer usually mops the science lab floor with.
And Happer is at it again, taking to task the anti-science clerics in a piece written for the Watts Up With That? blog. His current ire is focused on the crazed CO2-fanatics' claims of future temperatures by year 2050.
In his article, Happer discusses the basic disregard of physics that a hapless (witless?) WSJ reporter is responsible for. Instead of writing about known science, she instead lends credibility to an utterly ludicrous +6.0 degree warming prediction from the fundamentalists, which has no real basis in physics.
As the good doctor explains, per the logarithmic nature of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, the subsequent global temperature increase will essentially be a +1.0 degree increase - not 2 degrees, not 3 and certainly not 6. This is irrefutable physics, explained in detail via the requisite formulas.
The real-world physics does not allow for a fantastic 6 degree increases to be achieved; for that to happen, the IPCC's mythical positive feedbacks have to arise.
In reality though, there is no acceptable physics science that supports the belief that positive feedbacks will arise, and at the same time produce the hypothetical big temperature increases. And adding to the green clerics' fallible alarmism, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the fantasized feedbacks of their consistently wrong climate models even exists (hmmm...kind of like those fantasized, mythical 72 virgins).
With all that in mind, the above chart attempts to visualize (using the gold-standard, IPCC empirical temperature dataset) what Dr. Happer has explained. Let's breakdown this Excel chart to its components:
1. The blue curve (with the bluish area underneath) represents the simple running 12-month average of global absolute temperatures calculated from HadCRUT4 monthly anomalies. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), the actual global temperature increase has been about +0.85°C, through February 2013.
2. The red curve represents a simple 60-month average of the blue curve's data. The recent decade+ global warming pause (i.e., "stall") is clearly evident.
3. The light orange curve is a 2nd order fitted trend of the global temperature measurements extended out till year 2050. Based on this Excel fitted trend of all the empirical evidence, global temperatures are headed for a 15.0°C average by 2050 - an increase of about +0.53 degrees over today.
4. The darker orange arrows on the right axis represents the likely range of temperature increase from a doubling of initial 1850AD CO2 levels that known physics supports (although Dr. Happer's calculations indicate an increase of+1.0 degree, this Excel chart utilizes a narrow range that many other experts have spoken to). The possilbe range per the physics: +1.0 to +1.5 degrees.
5. The black-dotted curve includes monthly estimates of monthly atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1959, and thereafter, the actual monthly measurements.
6. The grey curve is a 2nd order fitted trend for CO2 levels extended out to year 2050.
7. Finally, the pink-dashed line represents the non-physics +6.0°C global warming increase predicted by many of the fear-mongers.
This visualization of the empirical reality lends solid observational support to the physics laid out by Dr. Happer. In addition, the chart denotes how absurd the +6 degree fear-mongering is, and why "scientists" and reporters promulgating it should not be believed.
The bogus "unprecedented" modern warming claims by the IPCC and catastrophic global warming 'hystericals' takes another body blow - newly released Arctic region empirical evidence (from Svalbard) confirms that Medieval Period was robustly warmer than the world-ending, hypothetical CO2-induced modern warming feared by alarmists
The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.
The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.
Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.
The anti-science Democrats and left-wing greens absolutely hate the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), due to its invalidation of the modern CO2 global warming-climate change hypothesis - no matter their extraordinarilylame corrupted/bogus attempts to prove otherwise, the objective empirical evidence continues to confirm the MWP was an uniquely extended warm era
In another fascinating exposé of climate science flim-flam produced by yet another group of academia climate-quacks, Steve McIntyre has the adjacent chart embedded in his article.
This chart represents a 5,000 year span of temperature variation in the Arctic region (Ellesmere Island) per peer-reviewed research . To add context, we superimposed the atmospheric CO2 levels (mauve curve) from the last 2,000 years.
Several very obvious conclusions can be drawn that gut claims by anti-science alarmists and quacks:
1. Climate change is a science-proven constant.
2. Periods of global warming and global cooling happen frequently
3. The Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the modern era
4. Temperatures changed regardless of CO2 levels
5. CO2, be it natural or human, is not the globe's "thermostat"
Finally, per the HockeySchtick blog, it is known that the essentially barren Ellesmere Island had temperatures some 2 to 3 degrees higher than current temps, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions of our modern consumer/industrial era.
Over recent years, green-sharia scientists, pundits and mainstream journalists have claimed that every new severe weather event is a sign of climate change because atmospheric CO2 levels are above 350 ppm - they say 2012 weather disasters are examples of this, but they conveniently forget about 1957...a terrible year for sub-350 climate change eruptions
A University of Illinois "scientist" named Wuebbles goes hysterical about 2012 severe weather events - he thinks they are unusual, unprecedented...as usual though, green alarmist, taxpayer-funded scientists conveniently forget past history of climate change and bad weather
Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.
100% of climate scientists now agree that accelerating global warming has robustly stalled- the IPCC's gold-standard UK HadCRUT global temperature dataset confirms what skeptical scientists have long publicly discussed
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
Green-sharia scientists in the pay of Big-Green constantly promote the idea that recent floods are the result of human-caused global warming and climate change - yet all empirical evidence and objective research proves that modern flooding is not increasing in terms of frequency and size
During 2012, parts of Spain experienced devastating floods. This terrible weather event was immediately claimed as more proof that climate change, due to global warming, is causing extreme violent disasters.
But are these "climate change" claims accurate, based on the latest scientific research or just more green-sharia propaganda?
Per the 2012 peer reviewed Spanish research of Barredo et al., the following was determined:
"..."the absence of a significant positive trend in the adjusted insured flood losses in Spain," which suggests, in their words, that "the increasing trend in the original losses is explained by socio-economic factors, such as the increases in exposed insured properties, value of exposed assets and insurance penetration." And they add that "there is no residual signal that remains after adjusting for these factors," so that "the analysis rules out a discernible influence of anthropogenic climate change on insured losses," which they say "is consistent with the lack of a positive trend in hydrologic floods in Spain in the last 40 years." [J. I. Barredo, D. Saurí, M. C. Llasat2012: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences]
Additional EU research that disproves the anti-CO2 propaganda of IPCC-related "scientists":
France - "...Wilhelm et al. (2012) say their study shows that "sediment sequences from high altitude lakes can provide reliable records of flood-frequency and intensity-patterns related to extreme precipitation events," closing with the warning that "such information is required to determine the possible impact of the current phase of global warming." And when this warning is heeded, it is clearly seen that the climate-model-inspired claim that global warming will lead to "an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of such events" - would appear to be just the opposite of what is suggested by Wilhelm et al.'s real-world study..."
Germany - "In light of these several observations -- plus the fact that "most decadal-scale climate-change impacts on flooding (Petrow and Merz, 2009) are small compared to historic peaks in flood occurrence (Mudelsee et al., 2006)" -- Bormann et al. (2011) conclude their report by stating that these significant facts "should be emphasized in the recent discussion on the effect of climate change on flooding." And if this is done, there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the warming experienced in Germany over the past century has not led to unprecedented flooding throughout the country. In fact, it has not led to any increase in flooding."
United Kingdom - "As a result of this multifaceted endeavor, they (Macklin et al. (2005)) determined that "the majority of the largest and most widespread recorded floods in Great Britain [had] occurred during cool, moist periods," and that "comparison of the British Holocene palaeoflood series ... with climate reconstructions from tree-ring patterns of subfossil bog oaks in northwest Europe also suggests that a similar relationship between climate and flooding in Great Britain existed during the Holocene, with floods being more frequent and larger during relatively cold, wet periods."
"...they (Hannaford and Marsh (2008)) state that longer river flow records from five additional catchments they studied "provide little compelling evidence for long-term (>50 year) trends but show evidence of pronounced multi-decadal fluctuations." Lastly, they add that "in comparison with other indicators, there were fewer trends in flood magnitude," and that "trends in peaks-over-threshold frequency and extended-duration maxima at a gauging station were not necessarily associated with increasing annual maximum instantaneous flow."
Switzerland - "Reiterating the fact that "the findings of this study suggest that the frequency of extreme summer-autumn precipitation events (i.e. flood events) and the associated atmospheric pattern in the Eastern Swiss Alps was not enhanced during warmer (or drier) periods," Stewart et al. (2011) acknowledge that "evidence could not be found that summer-autumn floods would increase in the Eastern Swiss Alps in a warmer climate of the 21st century," in contrast to the projections of the regional climate models that have suggested otherwise."
Italy - "Diodato et al. (2008) undertook a detailed analysis of "the Calore River Basin (South Italy) erosive rainfall using data from 425-year-long series of both observations (1922-2004) and proxy-based reconstructions (1580-1921)." This work revealed pronounced inter-decadal variations...researchers write that "in recent years, climate change (generally assumed as synonymous with global warming) has become a global concern and is widely reported in the media." And with respect to the concern that both droughts and floods will become both more frequent and more severe as the planet warms, they say their study indicates that "climate in the Calore River Basin has been largely characterized by naturally occurring weather anomalies in past centuries (long before industrial CO2 emissions), not only in recent years," and that there has been a "relevant smoothing" of such events during the modern era."
Conclusions: Scientific charlatans associated with Big-Green organizations (or in the pay of) primarily rely on the real-world tragedies of severe weather events to push their anti-CO2, anti-job green agenda. Multiple EU studies disprove the green propaganda that climate change (i.e., global warming) is causing floods of greater frequency and size. The actual empirical evidence simply and clearly refutes the bogus green-sharia claims.
Additional severe-weather charts and listing of severe-weather events.
The United Nations IPCC climate agency has a gold-standard dataset used since 2007 to make global climate predictions - the HadCRUT3 gold-standard confirms that the predicted dangerous global warming is non-existent, and unequivocally, that CO2 is not the world's thermostat
Taxpayer-funded climate scientists and ideologue politicians have continuously predicted that the globe will suffer from dangerous global warming; and they claimed that human CO2 emissions acted as the world's climate thermostat.
As the adjacent chart reveals, the IPCC's own temperature gold-standard (HadCRUT3) refutes the "experts" and "elites" hysterical, anti-science prognostications:
#1. The global temperature dataset clearly indicates that the world has exhibited a slight global cooling trend since the spike in temps from the super El Niño of 1997/98. That's 180 months (15 years) of non-dangerous global warming.
#2. The chart's thin black line is a plot of the monthly changes in CO2 levels. The correlation between monthly temperature and CO2 changes ranges from slim to none - this supposed thermostat relation of CO2 to temperatures has a ludicrously low R2 of 0.01. CO2 is not only not a "thermostat," it's likely not even a major climate forcing, per the actual data.
#3. While global temperatures have been slightly cooling, the global changes in monthly CO2 levels have been slightly increasing (note smooth grey curve - a 2nd order fit).
#4. Simply stated, this actual IPCC gold-standard empirical evidence robustly refutes all the anti-science predictions/claims of climate "experts" and alarmist "elites."
And, as we are currently witnessing, the green-sharia, anti-human fanatics are now having to do some serious crawling-back from their previous anti-CO2 agenda and bogus-science blinders to the climate reality.
The 2012 year-end satellite measurements continue to be cruel to the IPCC's green-sharia scientists - this UN agency has long predicted huge atmospheric global warming from CO2 emissions .....yet in reality, global cooling currently dominates
(click on images to enlarge)
The above chart is the plot (Figure 1) of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA (data sources).
Clearly, as CO2 levels have monotonously increased over the last 17-years (why 17?), global temperatures have not increased with any significance. By year 2100, this "warming" trend would produce a projected increase of one-third of a single degree - rather insignificant and hardly noticeable.
The UN's IPCC's catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which the vast majority of empirical-based scientists now reject, demands that ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to rapidly warm. This accelerated, man-made atmosphere warming would then significantly warm the globe's oceans and land surfaces, quickly making Earth inhospitable from incredibly high temperatures and horrific climate change disasters.
Contrary to the United Nation's "science" though, global temperatures have morphed over the last 30 years from a warming trend to a cooling trend despite the huge increase in CO2 levels.
This next set of temperature plots (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5) depict the global atmosphere temperatures and CO2 levels over four different time periods. These plots, plus the 17-year chart, formulate an empirical reality that refutes the UN's non-empirical CAGW hypothesis:
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the last 30 years
2. For all time periods, the average atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded the supposedly "safe" 350 parts-per-million (ppm)
3. As figure #2 shows, there is a modest global warming trend evident over 30 years
4. Figure #2 also reveals that most of the global warming took place prior to 1999
5. Since 2003 1993, the 20-year plot (figure #3) has a smaller warming trend - less than 1.0 degree by year 2100
6. The 15-year and 10-year charts (figures #4 and 5) have no warming trend, proving that a very slight atmospheric global cooling has dominated since the late 20th century
7. 2012 global temperatures are well below previous highs over the last 30 years.
8. The 17-year plot (figure #1), which is favored by some CAGW scientists, confirms that global atmospheric warming has been robustly insignificant, contrary to their own predictions
Conclusions: Per the actual satellite empirical evidence, global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling over the last 15 years despite the IPCC "consensus" predictions that global warming would have to be produced if CO2 levels exceeded the 350 ppm level. Global cooling has now dominated for a significantly extended period, which demonstrably proves that CO2 is not a "global thermostat" as claimed by many of the UN's green-sharia scientists. (Note: linear trend representations are not predictions.)
Likewise, claims that global warming is "rapid," "accelerating," "irrefutable," "unprecedented," "incontrovertible," and/or "irreversible" are outright known falsehoods.
Finally, any journalist, scientist, politician or bureaucrat using such terminology to describe global temperatures is an unequivocal liar - that is the simple, empirical truth.
Read here. More confirmation that climate doomsday alarmists are completely incapable of conducting honest, impartial scientific research.
"The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline - linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism - was not even supported by his data. The first allegations of academic fraud have been made."
The credibility and reputation of the entire science community continues to be sacrificed by "scientists" with a political agenda, especially any scientist who is a proponent/advocate of catastrophic global warming and climate change.
The level of science misconduct alleged in the Lewandowsky affair again establishes why there needs to be 'freedom of information acts' that allow the public to discover the truth. And in fact, a 'FOIA' has been filed in this case. This should get very interesting.
Read here. Climate-lies from doomsday scientists, associated with universities, is becoming much more common. The latest is the brazen lie that the current drought climate condition within the U.S. is a record.
It's not even close, as the adjacent empricial evidence reveals. The 1930's (top graphic) clearly had drought conditions well surpassing those of 2012 (bottom graphic).
And, of course, the famous 1930's drought and heat waves took place under a regime of low atmospheric CO2 levels.
Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times - NOAA has been a leader in fabricating temperatures (faux warming), which many view as faux (fake) climate science
(click on image to enlarge)
'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's).
The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006).
The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below:
1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months
a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered
b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees
2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959.
a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale
3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months
a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised
b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees
4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959
a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale
7. One example of wacky (nonsensical) adjacent temperature adjustments
a. December 1881 = +0.10C deg (adjusted up since 2008)
b. January 1882 = -0.02C deg (adjusted down since 2008)
Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis.
Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some non-scientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions.
No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures.
Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple.
Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures - it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.
Read here. Another bogus 'hockey stick' study can't withstand the scrutiny and thus is withdrawn from publication - "put on hold" is how they charitably describe its current status.
"Scientist" Gergis claimed to have found "unprecedented warming" down under but when she refused to provide all the data pertinent to her research this set off the alarms. With the expert analysts working in the background, they went about ferreting out the details of why she refused.
It didn't take long for them to determine why she refused. In essence, she stated that her research was done in a particular manner which has now proven not to be the case. In addition, her research amazingly includes 'upside-down' correlations that other 'hockey stick' studies have been discredited with doing.
"The refusal to release data was troubling, as it prevented anyone ever being able to replicate Gergis's work. And when Gergis's blog was unearthed and it was revealed that she was a committed environmentalist, the alarm bells became louder still"..."I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I’m getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test."..."difficulties were confirmed by others, including Steve McIntyre, but perhaps most significantly, by CSIRO's Nick Stokes, who is no sort of a sceptic. Stokes agreed with Sibelius that, when detrended, the correlations for the 27 proxies used in the Gergis reconstruction were insignificant, completely contradicting Gergis's paper."..."The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data."..."Worse still, proxies were selected with positive or negative correlation. In other words, some were used 'upside-down'."
Conclusion: The Joelle Gergis affair is another sad chapter in the travails of 'hockey stick' science. Her "unprecedented warming" for the Southern Hemisphere is likely just to be another statistical fabrication that can't withstand a proper forensic audit. For this bimbo to gain any respect and credibility in the future she needs to quit acting like...er...hmmm...a bimbo. Releasing all the data and algorithms that would allow others to completely replicate here research and results will be her path back to non-bimbodom. Until then, her studies she be automatically dismissed as science garbage.
Previous hockey-stick science postings. A wide selection of historical temperature charts that refute the fabricated 'hockey sticks'
Read here. That the anti-science and anti-empirical evidence bias runs rampant in the mainstream media is now taken for fact. Whether it's the UK, US or Australia, the left-liberal dominated media fear-mongering on climate change and global warming, tossing empirical evidence out the window, leaves lots to be desired.
The latest example is the Guardian, which reports that Arctic sea ice has declined by 75% over the last few decades - a very scary sounding decline. And they can get away with this because their readers are incredibly susceptible to most types of anti-science propaganda, such as the recent claims that vaccines cause autism.
In the Arctic sea ice case though, a 75% decline would be represented by the red line in the adjacent chart - sea ice has never reached that level no matter what the mainstream press "reports." Instead, recent sea ice decline is represented by the blue curve, which by early spring 2012 had recovered to its 30-year average.
"The Guardian managed to outdo itself in it’s latest foray into global warming, claiming that Arctic sea ice has declined by three quarters in the last three decades. In a series of “factoids” following an interview with pop celebrity and latest Greenpeace spokesperson for the Arctic ice, Jarvis Cocker, Lucy Seigle, the Guardian’s environment reporter, informed readers that: "Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years.""
Conclusions for mainstream media bias: Climate change reporting by large media outlets is totally untrustworthy. The left-liberal-progressive political agenda prevents an accurate reporting of global warming empirical evidence. Instead of receiving objective journalism, readers and viewers are constantly subjected to fear-mongering, anti-science opinions.
Myles Allen is a self-avowed climate 'doomsday' scientist who attempts to convert others into global warming 'chicken-littles' - not too successfully it appears
Read here. How bad is a science argument when one is entirely unable to convince other scientists? Then, how bad is an argument when other scientists decide to very publicly eviscerate the argument?
The doomsday climate science of Myles Allen and his 'hockey stick' opinions are without merit, it seems, when objective and vocal scientists take issue. Especially when his responses are so pathetically lame.
I appreciate that people like yourself who have devoted a lot of time to the analysis of paleoclimate data find it irritating when scientists who don’t work in that area dismiss it as uninformative.
First: communication tip: You need to learn to post complete thoughts. Uninformative about what? Everything? Climategate? Or the thermometer record? Or the strength of evidence for AGW? Depending on how I read your mind, you may be saying something true or utterly false. If you are going to lecture people on communicating science you might want to stop making readers guess which you mean.
Second: It seems to me you are misunderstanding what SteveMc writes. He’s not saying he is irritated that someone thinks paleo data is uninformative. He is saying that you suggest the “whole affair” (i.e. climategate) is an argument about the thermometer record. The fact is: climategate is not merely or even mostly about the thermometer record.
And I stand by the assertion that, thanks to the sloppy coverage the affair received in the media, it wasn’t just Sarah Palin who got the impression that the instrumental temperature record was seriously compromised
I would suggest that the main reason for this “sloppy coverage” was that reporters turned to people trying to rebut those discussing climategate at blogs and in forums. Some people people who (like you) might prefer to discuss the thermometer record rather than misbehavior of scientists or what “hide the decline” meant, diverted the discussion to the thermomeber record.
I strongly suspect the behavior of the scientists who wanted to suppress discussion of climategate succeeded in giving the media the incorrect impression that climategate was about the thermometer record is one of the reasons much of the media, some politicians, and Sarah Palin developed the impression climategate is about the thermometer record. That you can show they were confused about what people at blogs and forums were posting about merely shows you don’t know what it was about.
I would also suggest the only thing that can come of you continuing to try to convince people it was about the thermometer records is for people to explain that which you do not wish to be discussed: The Hockey Stick, misbehavior or scientists and the various whitewash investigations.
OTOH: If you simply wish to communicate that the topics that are central to climategate are not important to our understanding of climate change- that would be fine. But if you wish to make the case that the hockey stick doesn’t matter, then you need to make that clearly. Unfortunately for you, clear exposition requires discussion of the hockey stick!
A proper exposition might be to a) Discuss what the hockey stick “is” with a little history.(Accuracy would be useful here. Mention it was used as background at IPCC meetings, and in Gore’s talk.) b) Discuss why this shape is not important to our understanding of climate change. Show versions with and without the decline– and explain why even if the decline exists we do believe the world is warming. Do this by c) Explaining the thermometer record.
Don’t try to take the tack of inaccurately claiming that climategate is actually about the thermometer record. If you take that tack, you’ll find yourself trying to defend your position– downgrading much of what you seemed to present rather strongly as your opinion, and burying your arguments in favor of your opinion deep in comments at a blog. (I’d note: I think much of your argument amounts to “changing the subject”– but that’s another matter.)
Moreover, I would like to point out that unless say what paleo is uninformative about your claim that paleo is not important (at all) seems a bit thin. Climate blog addicts can easily see see that on May 26, 2012 you are chiding Bishop Hill for discussing the Hockey Stick and providing lengthy explanations of its lack of importance while Real Climate’s front page is simultaneously running a post on discussing Hockey Sticks (See Fresh hockey sticks from the Southern Hemisphere, May 22). It’s quite likely some will suspect that your opinion that the hockey still is uninformative (about something you don’t quite spit out) is maybe not entirely correct.
Third: Returning to “first”. When I watched your talk, I was struck by your tendency toward vagueness. Based on what you write in your defense in comments, I learn that the allusion to “the data” at minute 2:37 likely meant “the thermometer record” and “impact of the whole affair” (i.e. climategate) must have meant “impact of portions of the climategate discussions that relate to the thermometer record”. Your talk is riddled with these types of vague ambiguities. The consequence is that– on the whole– what your talk appears to communicate is false. If the audience comes away thinking you are suggesting that climategate was not about the paleo records, and that you think the only impact of climategate is a small tweak on the thermometer record, then the fault for their misunderstanding you falls on you for communicating rather badly.
Next time you want to make a presentation telling reporters that they shouldn’t focus on the paleo record but rather the thermometer record, you might be wise not to try to turn that into a talk about how the media got climategate wrong. Try to bite off less– stick to just discussing the thermoter record and why you think it tells us that the world has warmed and it’s because of man.
If you want to discuss climategate and how scientists failed to communicate their position, you have a hard row to hoe. Much of the reason scientists communicated the issues in climategate badly is they didn’t want to talk about them. Scientists mistake was to respond to journalists by trying to change the subject; others with plenty of ink keep talking all the whining in the world isn’t going to get people to stop discussing the topic. You can keep trying to do that: it isn’t going to work any better in 2012 than it did from 2009-2011.
The ever growing global warming science facts continue to make a shambles of the IPCC's and MSM's case that catastrophic global warming is ravaging Earth and humanity - the lies, myths and hysteria crumble under evidentiary weight
(click on images to enlarge)
The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.
The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.
Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.
The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.
Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.
Conclusion: Global warming science facts have completely demolished the lies, myths and hysteria of the IPCC and the MSM. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, these "institutions" don't falter in their pursuit of a political agenda based on falsehoods. For an expanding cornucopia of reasons, no longer does either institution deserve the belief or trust of the public.
The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating
Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.
A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:
"John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers. They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
"...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
"QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."
For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.
The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?
These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.
The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?
The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!
The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.
The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.
Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.
Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).
Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)
Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.
As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).
Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.
The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.
Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.
Listening to the claims of the well known anti-CO2 fanatic, one begins to seriously wonder if Bill McKibben is a pathological liar regarding global warming; or simply a climate change nutbag; or stupendously stuck-on-stupid; or blissfully ignorant of actual climate/weather science - regardless, his latest video certainly does confirm his renowned talent for extreme 'cherry-picking' [McKibben survey at bottom]
Read here. Clearly, McKibben 'cherry-picks' certain weather events that recently happened across the globe, and then remarkably claims that they are all "connected" to CO2-induced global warming.
Unfortunately for the viewers of this video, McKibben totally fails to explain that the world's top extreme weather experts can find no "connections" between these incidents and global warming.
In addition, he completely (conveniently?) ignores the continuous onslaught of natural disasters that took place prior to 1987, a period of supposed "safe" CO2 levels.
Finally, he fails to mention the obvious elephant in the global warming alarmist room - over the last 10 years there has been no global warming.
So...time for a survey...what's your take on McKibben?
Latest global temperature info refutes the extraordinary 'cherry picking' of Tom Yulsman, well known CAGW climate model cultist advocate - the doomsday kool-aid "science" of fanatics green-disoriented individuals
(click on each image to enlarge)
To be honest, I've been waiting for almost three years to write about this article penned by Tom Yulsman, but never mentioned it until now. His recent, idiotic challenging article about 'cherry picking' by skeptics just flat-out exhibits the typical brain-gyrating hypocrisy mental process of your standard cult fanatic warmista, and then I got thinking about that old article.
"...I [Tom Yulsman] drank the cap-and-trade Kool-Aid, spiked by a generous portion of climate modeling."
No shit, Sherlock. Tom Yulsman fancies himself an environmental journalist, but in reality, he's a hack propagandist advocate for the climate doomsday cult tribe located in his region of Colorado. An propagandist advocate for a cargo cult unique style of climate-science where Kool-Aid appears to be the chosen elixir.
In his most recent article, he chooses to push the blatant propaganda misunderstanding that skeptics only 'cherry pick' their climate data, but then proceeds, in literal black and white, to demonstrate his superior skills as the ultimate 'cherry picking' CAGW cultist tribe spokesperson. Let's review:
Tom Yulsman, doomsday cultist advocate and cherry picking expert
Synopsis: Yulsman uses the first three weeks of March, 2012 as evidence that humans are causing global warming - "But over the very long run, the picture has been pretty clear: Humans are winning — as this March’s extraordinary weather suggests"...alrighty then, Tom.
First, talk about 'cherry picking'. This cultist advocate basis his whole article on a portion of a single freaking month
Second, the early March warmth was primarily located in certain regional areas of the U.S., not a global phenomenon - more convenient 'cherry picking'
Third, as the NASA global atmosphere temperature chart #1 shows, March through the 26th has not exhibited global temperatures out of the ordinary.
Fourth, as the HadCRUT global temperature charts #2-5 reveal, global warming has been modest, to non-existent over the last 30 years, depending on the given time span examined, despite the obvious 30-year, non-stop growth of CO2 levels.
Fifth, Yulsman exposes his amazing lack of climate science knowledge (cultist ignorance?) when he wonders about the following: "Watts up with the 17-year period." It's a 'you've-got-to-be-kidding' moment - this "science" journalist isn't even aware that a major CAGW climate modeler published a study in 2011 claiming that temperature benchmarks should be using 17 years as the measurement period. (Psssst...Tom, try googling "climate +17-years"...second item on first page of search. You're welcome. Say hello to Ben S. for me. Thanks.)
Sixth, he 'cherry picks' quotes from Jeff Masters, a known internet weather crackpot, who expounds on the March warming in Michigan, yet actual NOAA U.S. temperature data has March 1910 as warmer and that goes unmentioned.
Seventh, he 'cherry picks' a single study about the 2003 European heat wave that claims that event was a result of human factors, yet ignores all the other studies suggesting such heat waves are natural phenomenons.
Eighth, I'm not making this up, Yulsman 'cherry picks' a single, "renowned," cartoon video as his scientific evidence that humans are to blame for global warming - gee, I wonder if instead this video would help better explain AGW to Tom's erudite readers:
Ninth, knowing full well that the CAGW cultists scientists can't explain the lack of recent global warming over the last 15 years, Tom chooses to 'cherry pick' a single study that speculates that all the previous predicted warming from the climate models is really disappearing into the deep oceans. However, as our cult propagandist advocate fails to mention, all the empirical scientific evidence disproves that AGW alarmist speculation.
Tenth, going back to those 'cherry picked' first 3-weeks of March, 'Kool-Aid' Tom just happens to forget to speak of the previous 52-week period - and for good reason. Obviously, as the chart on the right shows, the CAGW fanatics faithful are notoriously reluctant to talk about those temperatures, which has the world monstrously cooling at a minus 18.3 degrees by 2100.
Note: Readers, please remember that linear trend figures used in the charts are not predictions! Also, the charts' blue curves are 2nd order polynomial trend fits as calculated by Excel.
Conclusion:Tom Yulsman, the 'cherry picking' expert and climate doomsday cultist advocate, reminds me of Harold Camping and all the other crazies eccentrics. In my mind's-eye, Tom even looks like Harold - yikes!
A plethora of temperature charts that CAGW cult tribe 'cherry pickers' always avoid: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts, and of course, an extensive list of severe weather events prior to the 1980's that the cultists always seem to forget about.
p.s. Update: Rest assured, image #6 above is not really Tom Yulsman! He is infinitely better looking and younger. And more than 'robustly' likely, he is a great guy; someone to go out have an after work beverage with and shoot the skeptics shit with - just don't let him 'cherry pick' the Kool-Aid drinks. :-)
Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.
The outright evidence of climate liars and climate lies within the science, government and press continues to grow (google Fakegate), which may be symptomatic of an 'anthropogenic global warming obsessive compulsive disorder' - AGWCOD
Read here. Peer reviewed research has newly identified the 'AGWCOD' syndrome, which may help explain why global warming hysteria has been such a powerful lure within the elite circles of scientists, bureaucrats, the mainstream press, Hollywood celebrities and the wealthy.
"The main result is that...28 percent...of the patients suffer from the AGWOCD (anthropogenic global warming obsessive compulsive disorder). These patients were, among other things, checking their appliances "to reduce global warming". That's a pretty high percentage. The global warming hoax has become such a powerful component of the mental pathogenes in our environment that it is beginning to prevail in a whole major mental disease."
Clear indicators of the disorder include a fanatical belief that modern temperatures are "accelerating," are "unprecedented" and "unequivocal," all of which have proven to be empirically false. In addition, this global warming / climate change disorder requires a blind faith acceptance of climate catastrophe predictions that are known to be demonstrably false by objective science and research experts.
Indeed, this newly recognized mental illness may be the root cause of the preponderance of climate liars and climate lies that has become a global plague, which, btw, the mainstream media is at the forefront of condoning. (More evidence of why the press should not be trusted.)
The AGWCOD influence has become so bad that journalists are even publicly debating whether the public should be told the truth about climate change or continue to be told the global warming lies and misrepresentations by liars. (I am not making this up!...the mainstream press journalists actually now admit to not telling the truth about climate science and climate change.)
Conclusion: Climate liars and climate lies are the currency of the realm of elites, and unfortunately that has resulted in the public's growing mistrust in science, government and the press.
Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'
Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.
One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.
For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."
"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."
The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....
"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."
Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
The FakeGate web site will remind Internet visitors forever of the lunacy and corruption of global warming alarmism pushed on the public without remorse by the left / progressive / green elites
Read here. The Daily Bayonet does an excellent job mocking the activist groups that made Fakegate not only possible but are also caught condoning the obvious corruption of climate science that took place.
"You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog...Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since...Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story..."
And as a result, there is now a new web site, Fakegate.org, that will forever immortalize the global warming alarmism lies and deception that the National Center of Science Education, Huffington Post, DeSmogBlog, Greenpeace, ThinkProgress and the Pacific Institute have come to represent.
Is it any surprise that public opinion in regards to global warming concerns has plummeted in recent years because the never ending climate change fakery and dishonesty that these alarmist groups continuously push?
"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey."
Thank you, green lunatics and leftist idiots!
“Basically, [the fake memo] reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”
'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example
Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.
Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."
And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.
"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?
The former American Geophysical Union (AGU) leader on scientific integrity, Peter Gleick, confesses to being the antithesis of integrity - will the AGU now perform a slap-on-the-hand cover up of one of its own?
Based on recent experience of the investigations of scientific wrongdoing in the realm of "consensus" global warming science, the official whitewash (coverup?) and the usual condoning (the-ends-justify-the-means) rationale will likely fall into the laps of Gleick's former "integrity" AGU comrades. And the members of the integrity (exoneration?) task force are:
David J. Chesney, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, Michigan
Floyd DesChamps, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC
Karen Fischer, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
Tim Grove, MIT Earth Atmosphere & Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia
Noel Gurwick, UCSUSA, Washington, DC
Dennis Moore, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, Washington
Arthur Nowell, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Len Pietrafesa, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina
Jeff Plescia, Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland
Peter Schuck, NASA/GSFC CODE 674, Greenbelt, Maryland
Peter Gleick, a progressive, green activist Democrat, confesses to anti-scientific and anti-integrity behavior in the pathetic attempt to smear the Heartland Institute
Read here and here. From the progressive Democrat mindset that brought the world the bizarre science of eugenics, and more recently the anti-vaccine crusade, comes the confession from a left-liberal scientist that he is responsible for an anti-science smear campaign of an organization that he disagrees with in regards to global warming.
The galactic-sized irony regarding this entire climate change science fiasco is that Peter Gleick is considered by coastal elites to be an expert on science integrity. That patina of integrity has itself now been smeared by none other than Gleick. As one of his leftist, anti-science MSM collaborators now puts it:
"One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)."
As this blog and many others have documented in recent years, the global warming hysteria cause is dominated by "scientists" who constantly mislead and deceive the public and policymakers. Like the Climategate outcome, the Fakegate's fabrication and conspiracy of the left's "science" will hopefully be another cleansing episode that reduces the high fever of corruption that permeates taxpayer funded science in big academia and big government.
Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC climate "scientist", is widely known for both his aggressive smearing of his science critics and his dog-awful climate predictions.
Like a beggar-person addicted to alcohol, Trenberth seems to say and predict any CAGW outcomes to assure a continual flow of government research monies, including the prediction that global warming will cause frequent extreme precipitation events. Like many of his global warming climate predictions, he was wrong.
Climate researchers Dravitzki and McGregor analyzed precipitation events for the northern region of New Zealand and could find no evidence of what-in-the-hell Trenberth was talking about - another major prediction fail per the peer reviewed empirical data.
"Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region...developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values..."since 1900 there have been no significant variations in the total annual precipitation nor in the occurrence or magnitude of extreme precipitation events," and they say that these events "...write that "the consistency of the precipitation totals suggests that the current economically important water supply is secure within the region." And we would add that their finding of no evidence for the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC over a 107-year period -- when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that were unprecedented over the past millennium or more - suggests that the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC are not what they are cracked up to be..." [Stacey Dravitzki, James McGregor 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
The NOAA under Lubchenco's control continues to make a mockery of empirical-based science as global warming fabrication continues unchecked
This is an update from the two previous posts, here and here. During the month of December, NOAA / NCDC revised their published historical temperature dataset at least 6 times - affecting monthly historical temperatures going back to 1880. These major revisions were not constrained to just a few recent months or a few recent years, but to all the historical empirical records.
If doing it 6 times in December wasn't bizarre enough, the NOAA "scientists" have already revised the entire dataset 3 times during January (the month isn't even over yet). [Ed. Good news: No new revised datasets in last 2 days, which means the incessant changes may be halted until next month]
Since the Obama administration takeover of NOAA / NCDC, it has been on a tear to fabricate global warming, conducting major temperature fabrication on an almost monthly basis, which has now culminated to producing multiple major revisions per month. (click to enlarge images)
(Above is a sample of revisions, including 2 (of 3) done in January 2012.)
Defenders of Lubchenco's empirical evidence revisionism refer to the constant revisions as "quality control" which is categorically one of the lamest piles of B.S. uttered in the debate on global warming. If the 'QC' defense had even an ounce of truth to it, it would mean every single previous revision had "quality control" issues even though each was a result of the same quality control process.
Plus, in contrast to the 7 major revisions done by NOAA / NCDC over the last 4 weeks, there has been only one major revision by GISS and zero for HadCRUT, UAH and RSS. (These other alphabet climate agencies do not do major revisions every single month, let alone multiple major revisions to the historical record within a month.)
Simply put, the 'big green' activist Lubchenco must have a political agenda that calls for the NCDC dataset exhibiting more "global warming."
Needless to say, her servile puppet-scientists have performed that task since 2008, month-in and month-out, as the change in the global warming trend exhibits (red is new trend; blue is old) in the adjacent chart.
[Bonus recommendation to NOAA/ NCDC: Publish only one set of numbers per month; avoid changing historical temperatures prior to 1990; and, make future changes random so that they don't appear to be purposefully warming specific periods while cooling others. Food for thought.]
BTW, this Excel chart represents the typical way that alarmists portray "runaway" global warming. That red trend line leaves the impression that global warming will go through the roof by 2100. In fact though, that red trend line indicates a "global warming" of about +0.5°C by year 2100. To mislead the public and policymakers, alarmist scientists and the mainstream press typically avoid putting numeric linear trend information on the chart, for very obvious reasons.
The embarrassing outright fabrication of the global temperature dataset continues at NOAA / NCDC - Obama's anti-science regime not challenged by the mainstream press
How bizarre is changing historical temperatures, all the way back to 1880, on a monthly basis? Recently, we wrote about NOAA's monthly temperature revisionism and the political, anti-science agenda that's driving it, global warming alarmism. [Ed: part III here]
Well, it's definitely bizarre science since other major climate agencies are not doing the same.
Amazingly though, the NOAA / NCDC agencies are now seemingly dissatisfied with just monthly fabrications. They apparently have now embraced almost daily revisionism of historical temperatures.
Although we did not check the NOAA / NCDC dataset on a daily basis during the month of December, we did check six times, downloading six different historical datasets. Did we say bizarro? (image source)
There is no rational explanation for continuously fabricating a new historical temperature dataset multiple times during a month, let alone a year. [Note: You can download the six December 2012 revisions of historical data by Obama's "science" team here.]
Of course, the mainstream press (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, CBS, MSNBC, etc.) refuses to report on the actual bogus and fraud Bernie Madoff-like science that is being perpetrated by their comrades in the climate science bureaucracy. Obviously, for the left / liberal / progressive / Democrat anti-science mindset, fabricating empirical evidence is not bizarro.....
From Wikipedia: "...introduced the strange speech patterns that became synonymous with the character, with all of Bizarro's comments meaning the opposite (e.g.. "bad" means "good")."
[Editor's special note: The NOAA/NCDC revisions this post is about are entire historical temperature dataset revisions being done multiple times per year and even multiple times per month (December 2011). We are not referring to the common practice of revising the temperatures of a few recent months that is done by all climate agencies frequently.]
Left / Progressive politically correct anti-science claims more scientific scalps as Purdue researcher declares the walnut tree is endangered by global warming
Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.
"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."
For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."
He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?
Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.
At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.
Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.
Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.