Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

Another study and another set of conflicting data points.

Seems that the claims of record setting temps is all adjustments that do not jive with (real world) credible and published temp data.

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

dailycaller.com...



Words like inconsistent and not a valid representation of reality means someone is lying. I seems to be about money-carbon credits and the like.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

a reply to: seasonal

Sad that this 'agenda' still requires debunking.

There were warmer years in the 1900's and the 1940's, 1944 in particular had a terrible July and August, the heat was apoplectic. Yet the winter of 1941/2 was the worst in living memory for the Russians. (and Germans).

a reply to: seasonal
I wonder how long it will take for such an inconvenient thread to be disapeared again?

a reply to: seasonal
You're a brave man, trying to debunk a cult, the members will start attacking you in 1,2,3.....

a reply to: manuelram16

This boils down to money. Seems like it always does.

But. But. But. Al Gore!!

How can someone come-along now, and make accusations that AGW skeptics are unscientific?
"But the deniers are just ignorant of the science!"

It's your science, and it's unreliable.
From: instrumentation-equality; calibration; repeat-ability; collection; to the choice of places, and people responsible for collecting the raw data, none of it could be considered even close to pure unquestionable science.

a reply to: Nothin

a reply to: seasonal

Why would he lie to get rich?

Isn't he already rich from when he created the internet?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: seasonal

Why would he lie to get rich?

Isn't he already rich from when he created the internet?

The sad part is I bet many actually believe it.

a reply to: abe froman

The whole climate change thing has been mismanaged from the 1970's global cooling knee jerk declarations.

Now you have 2 sides that are refusing to even consider learning what if anything is happening or not, and what if anything man is doing to have any effect. Then enter the snake oil salesmen barking their stats to make, you guessed it, money.

Pitiful, but it is human nature.

Also, when you're talking about temperatures that vary by 10's of degrees from one day to the next, and probably 100 degrees over the course of a year, a difference of 0.01 degrees is simply not significant. Your calculations can never be any better than your least-accurate data point. Any college freshmen in any STEM field learns about significant figures.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Be careful.

Gore never said anything about no ice by 2013.

Also, that 'study' is pretty dumb. It purposely looks at old data (pre-2010) because more recent data would destroy it.

Additionally, it distorts things to make unfounded claims. For example, here are two charts from the 'study' and their dumb rhetoric:

Thus, it seems that beyond any doubt, the U.S. data reflected in the Global Average Surface Temperature data calculation should contain the cyclical patterns shown above. In fact, as shown below in Figure V-15, as of 1999, in NOAA data, it did!
*chart V-15, the red line in the overlay below*
...
The solution: the U.S.historical data was adjusted as shown in Figure V-17.
*chart V-17, the purple line in the overlay below*

Here's how those charts look like compared to each other to annihilate that rhetoric:

I had to adjust the height by 92% and the width by 104% from the second to match up closely with the first. This is how they mislead you.

Far be it from a vast adjustment, it's simply because it's been warmer since 1999 that the trend changed so much.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: seasonal

Why would he lie to get rich?

Isn't he already rich from when he created the internet?

He's rich from having stocks enough to be on the board of Apple.

Congratulate all the iPod / iPhone owners out there for rewarding that decision!

a reply to: Greven

Maybe he is on the board of Apple because he was vice pres of the US?

Imagine the favors that were done for Apple while he was in office......

Waiting for the posters that belittle anyone that dares to question climate change.

I'll check back later. This should be good

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven

Maybe he is on the board of Apple because he was vice pres of the US?

Imagine the favors that were done for Apple while he was in office......

What favors?

Apple was almost a laughing stock until it released the iPod in October 2001... that would be 9 months after he left office as VP.

The study was done by the Cato Institue, which is funded by the Koch's. To but it simply, the 'liberterian free market' think tank that Cato is, is funded heavily by fossil fuel interests.

Amazing how quick you guys are quick to dismiss the findings of NASA, NOAA and thousands and thousands of actual universites, yet jump on a pro-Oil, right wing think tank bandwagon.

More on the Cato Institute here:
www.sourcewatch.org...

originally posted by: jrod
The study was done by the Cato Institue, which is funded by the Koch's. To but it simply, the 'liberterian free market' think tank that Cato is, is funded heavily by fossil fuel interests.

Amazing how quick you guys are to dismiss the findings of NASA, NOAA and thousands and thousands of actual universites, yet jump on a pro-Oil, right wing think tank bandwagon.

More on the Cato Institute here:
www.sourcewatch.org...

And the ones that fund studies to the contrary are heavily invested in carbon tax interests. NASA takes tax money right?