The entire theory of global warming rests on computer temperature models.
Sadly for the warming campaign (but happily for the rest of us), the temperature of the Earth consistently measures cooler than the models project.
What’s a warmist to do?
The scientific method demands that when observed data does not fit your hypothesis, the hypothesis must change. That’s the time to question your assumptions and open your investigation to alternative explanations.
There’s another way to go, but it’s not science. You can alter the data to fit your hypothesis.
If scientists had allowed that in the past the sun would be still orbiting a flat Earth — at least on paper.
Why are warming campaigners ignoring the best available satellite temperature data in favor of less reliable data from weather stations, balloons and buoys?
There’s an increasing body of evidence which suggests climate researchers are “adjusting” terrestrial temperature data to cool the past and warm the present. Marc Morano has constant updates at CFACT’s Climate Depot. This past weekend Matt Drudge picked up Marc’s reporting at the Drudge Report and hundreds of thousands of readers are following the story.
Paul Homewood recently posted a fascinating pair of graphs. They show the temperature recorded at a station in Paraguay both before and after the “adjustment bureau” went to work on it. Take a look:
The first graph, which is the actual raw data, shows a clear downward trend in temperature — a trend which is totally reversed to show warming after being “adjusted.”
This does not appear to be an isolated example. It appears to be the tip of the (not melting) iceberg. It certainly makes recent reports that 2014 was the hottest year ever by a whopping two hundredths of a degree even more laughable.
There’s a place for adjusting scientific data to compensate for factors which can throw it off and make it more accurate. However, you’d expect these adjustments to come out about even. That’s not what appears to be happening when it comes to climate. The adjustments appear to go all in one direction, consistently cooling the past and warming the present.
When something smells this fishy, it’s time to take closer look.
It’s too bad people keep telling a distorted story about climate modeling scientists and lumping them all into a “bad manipulative conspiracy” … like this article does … I wonder why? Alternative agenda? This article is nonsense. The way the climate modeling community works is they all work together and share correlative analysis techniques to get a more and more accurate view of a complex mathematical picture. Some of the best models now include La Nina and El Nino ocean currents plus the satellite data because the errors that failed to predict the recent temperatures have been shown to be caused by ocean current distorting the satellites view (mostly surface temp data available and not the mix of heat from the depths). I guess we will not see that analysis here because this blog does not appear to be interested in the truth…. does anyone want to talk about why?
It appears that your truth is made up.
“they all work together” – that’s telling. Not really the scientific method, however.
Complain about being lumped together, then in the next breath explain they all work together. Credibility zero.
My Yoga Video-If the data does not support the models prediction then the models are wrong. The modelers are always coming up with new excuses to explain why their models were wrong and after the adjustments to the original temperatures (finagling) they claim the models were right.
Yes but You need to use current and accurate info about the models. The discrepancies are minor and have been corrected for some time … except if you have political motivations like cfact … total misinformation here … by people who don’t understand the models or modeling.
My Yoga Video-You call that evidence and I call that BS or propaganda. I have seen and heard all that before and it only picks out what the AGW Alarmists scientists wants you to believe. The AGW and CO2 warming theory is just plain speculation and opinions and not scientific verified evidence. Lab experiments base on one variable does not in any way prove that one variable among the many other variables acting in complex and ever-changing scenarios is the main cause of any condition observed. That scientist is just as brilliant as the engineer pseudo scientists B. Nye. Fact is that natural forces overwhelm all man-made contributions to global warming and the earth will self-regulate to the temperature required for life to exist. A warmer climate and more CO2 in the environment is conducive for a healthier and more productive planet. If the current life forms can not adapt or cope with the changing climate they will die out as past ones and the stronger ones that adapt or change will the ones that survive. I do not believe anything needs to be changed other then clean up the environment that man-kind has polluted with trash in the oceans , trash in space and trash in the atmosphere other than CO2.
I understand, and suggest that you stick with the valid argument against run away warming that the skeptical scientists use. That heat dissapation via water vapor is the only real unknown that we still need to understand better. Heating via CO2 is an agreed upon element. Arguing against that makes you look silly and uninformed.
My Yoga Video-Your suggestion is noted and further shows your total scientific ineptness. “That heat dissipation via water vapor is the only real unknown that we still need to understand better” . ” Heating via CO2 is an agreed upon element”. Both ignorant statements without any scientific validations. Pure arrogant boastful speculative opinions. Current climate change and global warming have been going on since the last ice-age ended . There are still trillion of giga-tons of ice locked up in ice sheets and mountain glaciers on planet earth that have not yet melted as well as each year accumulations that winter produce in both hemispheres of the earth. This has been going on for over 11,000yrs. and still continuing. I love the current climate and expect better in the future when more of the earth is warmer.
ummmm, Earl, you are getting speculative without any basis … mostly assumptions. When light radiation hits a CO2 molecule it absorbs the CO2 … that is as factual as possible via experiments … science. Then we get in CO2 forcing versus feedback. Forcing meaning the CO2 energy is retained in the atmosphere. Feedback meaning CO2 increases are secondary to the warming via an alternative mechanism and the water vapor heat is radiated into outer space. Your 11,000 year info is just propaganda you read from others on the internet who have their own agendas. Find me one person/link who has evidence of a CO2 increase that occurred anywhere close to as fast as we have currently seen on planet earth … please … and then we can talk about your long term theories that somehow have a current relevance. You will not be able to find any such info because it does not exist on the internet (as far as I can tell). The 11,000 year info does not relate (via correlations) to the known measurement of the CO2 increase levels and deep ocean temperature increases and rapid land ice losses (not sea ice accumulation which is warm ice and is expected in a warming environment). I understand and have lots of experience with the science of big data modeling … I understand the strong and weak point of all the internet theories. I am not a climate physicist like my father was, but I still know what is BS and what is not. The rapid CO2 increase correlates with the ocean warming and the land ice loss. Nothing else. Tell me what you think correlates with the ocean warming and land ice loss? And, please don’t mention satellite temperature data .. .waste of time … as speculative as the weather unless averaged over decades.
My Yoga Video-Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.!!!” Light absorbs CO2″ I thought you alarmists and AGW scientists agreed that the CO2 absorbed the heat from the infrared wavelengths of light . Now you morons believe that the light absorbs the CO2. It is impossible to carry on a sensible conversation with dimwits that do not know science and also do not recognize the many articles on the internet that discuss the evidence that I have commented on. I will not waste my more of my time commenting on any further comments you post as they are too absurd.
Ya obviously I typed it wrong ( I often answer on my phone without my reading glasses) … you feeling insecure? You are name calling like a grade school kid …
There may come a day when “climate scientist” will be looked at the same as “snake oil salesman” and for good reason.
Sigh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
*sigh* is right! Thanks for posting. Whoever is behind this nice calm British accent certainly asks the wrong questions, and certainly doesn’t mind setting up straw men to knock down. So riddle me this batman:
1. We all know CO2 contributes to global warming. The skeptics that he looks-down-his-ever-so-bright nose all agree to this. So why the long video to state the obvious?
2. Many of the “scientists” he raises above us mere mortals all had input to those failed models to generate a doomsday message (and get some big $$$ as a result). I don’t think the skeptics had much to do with these. Without these failed models the alarmist message (religion?) would never have taken off.
3. How much warming over what period of time will we see?
4. Won’t some warming be beneficial to humans and the planet in general?
5. If you think any warming is bad, what exactly do you want to do about it?
6. And is the cost worth the benefits? (As opposed to all the other problems facing humans)
I don’t know the answers, and I don’t think anyone does, and I have no problem with anyone (and everyone) taking a crack at it… not just the “published”.
Good heavens…
There’s also some cases, like the 110 year long data for McGill-Montreal where the warmed the past…
Raw: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=403716270030&dt=1&ds=1
Homogenized : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=403716270030&dt=1&ds=14
I suspect in this case, they probably tried to minimize the UHI.
I did a graph of the 110 years of raw data vs CO2 and vs population growth… guess which one as a 0.996 correlation…. population.
But overall, the “corrections” on those data set have been analysed and they show more warming trend after homogenization than before… see here:
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/linear_trends.png
source: http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-has-poor-station-quality-biased-u-s-temperature-trend-estimates/
I would add to my last comment that if we rely only on good & intermediate quality data sets, unadjusted. We see a slope of 0.2°C/century or less. Very far from the 0.88°C/century of this data set
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Graphing the models on only this good data set, would show clearly the corruption behind all this.
…When something smells this fishy, it’s time to take closer look….
Does anyone have any proposals as to how to take a closer look…?
Well if they let us have the original data ….
Oh wait… they ‘lost’ it… (university of East Anglia)
Nothing fishy there, happens all the time. (IRS)
Of course, the two main denialist go-tos, Curry and Mosher, have pointed out the idiocy of Booker’s story. And it gets a pants on fire rating.
So waste of ink here.
Best,
D
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pants-on-fire.jpg
enough said : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco