Stats tampering puts NOAA in hot water

Why would NOAA issue a non-peer-reviewed report as gospel?

  • argo

lamarsmithApproximately 300 people including scientists, engineers, and other experts, about half with doctorate degrees, have petitioned U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) to carefully investigate suspiciously overheated climate temperature book-cooking by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Signers included 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, and 12 economists.

One was a Nobel laureate physicist, two were Apollo astronauts . . . and another was me.

Referring to a 2015 NOAA study purporting to having eliminated a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” of flat global temperatures, the signatories asked Smith’s committee to ensure that federal agencies observe scientific Data Quality Act (DQA) guidelines established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

The DQA requires agencies, including NOAA, to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

NOAA’s adjustments to previous ocean temperatures between 1998 and 2012 made recent global temperature changes appear more than twice warmer than the original records showed.

This was accomplished by throwing out global-coverage satellite-sensed sea floatsurface measurements taken since the late 1970s — the best data available — and upwardly adjusting spotty and unreliable hit-and-miss temperature readings taken from ocean-going vessels which present well-recognized problems.

Big errors are introduced because readings taken from the cooling-water intake tubes of various ships record measure temperatures at different ocean depths. Varying amounts of conduction from different vessel infrastructures and daily sun conditions skew temperatures as well.

lindzenWriting in the well-known science blog “Watts Up With That,” CATO’s Center for the Study of Science Director Patrick Michaels, Assistant Director Paul Knappenberger, and Distinguished Senior Fellow-MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology Richard Lindzen agree that the lax standard of NOAA’s study should prompt questions by members of the scientific community.

They note: “As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use.”

In addition to tweaking recent temperature readings to be higher, NOAA’s revisions to earlier original data have consistently made past temperatures cooler.

As climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts observe on the same WUWT blog site, “To manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward” to show even more recent warming.

Incidentally, NOAA’s “corrections” to suggest warming between a huge 1998 El Niño and another big one last year contradict data provided by other wider-coverage and higher quality measurements.

A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming.

And even if all those adjustments were right, the warming trend would still be significantly lower than was projected by the collection of climate models cited in the most recent U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

In light of the massive El Niño there should be no surprise that 2015 showed elevated temperatures — about a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit higher than the previous year.

This is similar to what happened with the El Niño in 1998. Also don’t be surprised to see it soon followed by a La Niña cooling. Although not well understood, there is no evidence linking these naturally occurring reversals of Pacific trade winds and deep-ocean currents to any man-made influences.

Michaels, Knappenberger, Lindzen, along with most of us, recognize that global temperatures have been warming in fits-and-starts since the “little ice age” ended in the mid-1800s.

They urge us to keep in mind: “It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”

House Science Committee Chairman Smith has expressed a commitment to look into concerns that the real purpose of NOAA’s report was to push President Obama’s political agenda.

He is not alone in noting that the non-peer-reviewed study appeared to be rushed forbho2 release conveniently in advance of UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris last December.

As reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Smith said: “It is this committee’s oversight role to ensure that federal science agencies are transparent and accountable to the taxpayers who fund their research.” He added: “Americans are tired of research conducted behind closed doors where they only see cherry-picked conclusions, not the facts.”

Referring to the pleading submitted by the 300 petitioners, he responded that “This letter shows that hundreds of respected scientists and experts agree that NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data deserve serious scrutiny.”

After all, isn’t serious scrutiny a prerequisite for all trusted science?

Categories

About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

  • Li D

    Suspect the author hasnt given the
    adjustments much of his own serious
    scrutiny.
    Or their wouldnt be a line like
    ” but even if the adjustments are right”.

    Conspiracy ideation all over this
    bit of writing.
    Gunna do a NASA lied about
    the moon landing story next?
    I mean, if NASA is lying about
    environment numbers, then…

    • http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com.au/ Paul Clark

      We understand your message: trust blindly and never question. Good sheep.

      • Dano2

        You are blindly trusting that them thar daters been adjusted with no information.

        Best,

        D

    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

      What about the presumed conspiracy by oil companies? One conspiracy cancel the other… Try again with something plausible.

  • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

    Thanks Dr. Bell, great post. All scientists should show their work and that goes double if they received government funding.

    • Dano2

      Dr Bell. I LOLzed!

      Best,.

      D

      • Li D

        Betcha ya didnt laugh as hard
        as me when i read
        ” climate expert Bob Tisdale “.

    • Li D

      Is there some allegation the work
      has not been shown?
      Is there an allegation of error?

  • Dano2

    Nobody is ‘tampering with stats’.

    Smith was personally given all the data. Twice. And it has always been in the public domain.

    So nobody cares what a little list of non-climate scientist, paid shills, exposed frauds have to say about a settled matter.

    Best,

    D

    • Brin Jenkins

      Oh, when was this changed? You always claimed it was normal practice.

      • Dano2

        You are confoosid.

        Best,

        D

    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

      Dano2, wrong: old data -kept in wayback.com files- show old records have been changed towards cooling. Local files from almost all over the world show an upward “correction” with no plausible explanation for the correction.

      • Dano2

        You were duped. Why are denialists so easily duped?

        Best,

        D

        • Li D

          Thats a damn good question.
          The utter shite denialists
          come up with and propagate.
          Usually in the form of conspiracy theory.

          Anyone is free to take data that is known to be wrong and
          try to work out the most accurate form for adjusting it
          so it bears the best resemblance possible to reality.
          In this case, the data, methodoly, reasons, and reasoning, are all completly
          transparent.
          The sole agenda was to get
          a clearer picture so a better
          understanding can be made of
          our environment.
          i think we both agree about this.
          Denialists are more than welcome to do their own
          science.
          Funny thing is , when they do,
          its ALWAYS very badly done.

          • fight4liberty

            No, there shouldn’t be science on both sides of the aisle. Science should produce the facts. But to produce the facts they have to be above reproach. The scientists and engineers have rightly pointed out the flaws in the reports and questions why the report was rushed instead of being peer reviewed.

            • Li D

              Id like the the allegation
              of no peer review substantiated.
              Shouldnt be hard.
              I note the main story carries
              the same idea.
              Is Karl et al 2015 peer reviewed or not?

            • Dano2

              You made this up: he flaws in the reports and questions why the report was rushed instead of being peer reviewed.

              Big fibbin

              Best,

              D

          • BigWaveDave

            Like I said a few minutes ago,

            “A few years back and again recently, I saw some of NOAA’s manipulations myself, as I compared data sets from one version with the next. The more recent versions had 9999 in some places where there used to be a value.

            I didn’t have to examine many stations to see they have been systematically deleting selected high readings, which their software then infills with averages of the rest, et voila! the past just got cooler.

            They have been doing this with each version. Their first couple excuses were almost plausible.

            Now, if the data don’t say what they want, they get rid of that data, because they know what good data must say. They don’t bother with excuses because they are “the authority” and that’s the only source you’re allowed.

            Their “data” are State sponsored agitprop.”

            The sad part is that so few even realize that for identifying heat content of the atmosphere, the data are meaningless no matter what they are tortured into telling.

            Apparently nobody teaches science anymore.

        • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

          How do you know I was duped? Got any proof? Nope, you don’t, because those old records are found in cache in wayback.com. Of course you must know HOW to browse the NASA and NOAA sites. Do you? In case you want o chek data for the 50 US continental states, thousands of cities then check a study of 1583 stations records from 1900 until 2000:
          http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html

          • Dano2

            Oh, I know, I know: LoWatts found another conspiracy and it validates your self-identity. We know how it works.

            Best,

            D

            • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

              My research was made back in 2004 when Watts was totally unknown in the web. Another of your bloopers… So… you know how everything works… 😀 Then I will ask you to forgive my arrogance. I didn’t know you were the sole owner of the Enlightened Truth.

              • Dano2

                So it is your conspiracy ideation. Congratulations on injecting a new conspiracy into the denialosphere.

                Oh, wait: research. Where is it published?

                Best,

                D

                • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                  On that website since 2004, but you haven’t seen it, of course. It has been under permanent public AND peer review –and NO ONE ever refuted it. Where do YOU publish your rant?

                  Drano, stop drinking Cool Aid. It shrinks your brain and people notice it.

                  • Dano2

                    So no real, peer-reviewed journal. Got it.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      This a kind of study that cannot be published in a printed magazine… it sould need the entire magazine for showing 1583 temperature graphs and the comment on each one.

                      As I said before. Cool Aid has shrunk your brain to AGWers size.

                      BTW, where are YOUR papers?

                    • Dano2

                      Right, no not a real study. We get it.

                      BTW, my papers are in several journals of the natural sciences, a half-dozen proceedings, and every trade magazine available for practitioners of two trades, thanks!

                      Best,

                      D http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85da728cdf5b43857e90499e103625d3f7c35cb331e2d0aea5539647558769e9.gif

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      Good! Any link so we can check if you’re not simply a warming liar/troll?

                    • Dano2

                      So I can be hounded for years? Sure, why not?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      Ok… now we know. You’re a troll.

                    • Dano2

                      Dishonest assertion. Likely to hide the fact you didn’t make a real study, despite your assertion upthread.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      You are an amateur. A lousy one by the way. Dodging the main point of where are the links to your “published studies” is an attempt of diverting the attetnion away about you having no work published. My study is for REAL, you have it in the web, and millions of persons have looked at it since 2004. I don’t know a person that has read any of your inexistent “studies”.

                      Again, you reveal yourself as a troll.

                    • Dano2

                      Your aggressive bombast doesn’t do anything for me, except tell me you have nothing, standard con knee-jerk reaction.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      You don’t remember me; I’ve crossed you in others forums, but under a different nick and I have beaten you any time you opened you mouth. But now you are really pissed off by having been exposed as a troll and a fraud. No hand waving can deny that. My job is done once more. Drown in your own venom.

                    • Dano2

                      and I have beaten you any time you opened you mouth.

                      Using the same weak, trite rhetoric as here? Doubtful.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      BTW, your weak bluff you having no work published. Is weak. A non-weak person would understand anonymity. No reason why the weak from you.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ag

                      Yawn———-You truly are a posturing snob

                    • Ag

                      “study” all you want. Just make sure it agrees with observations. If not then your silly computer model isn’t worth a jot. And since none of your silly models agree with observation then they are ——Not worth a jot.

                    • Dano2

                      none of your silly models agree with observation

                      You made that up. You can’t support that statement.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Li D

                      “A kind of study that cannot
                      be published in a printed
                      magazine”
                      Er, ive never read or imagined
                      such a sequence of words.

                    • http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Articulos.html Eduardo Ferreyra

                      Now you have seen it. See how reality can give your surprises? It can be priinted in a 600- pages book, of course. But journals don’t have much room, 😀

                    • Ag

                      Ah “peer review”—-where you get your buddies to look over your junk science

                    • Dano2

                      Let us know when you develop a different standard for science.

                      Oh, wait: you are just whining because science doesn’t validate your self-identity. Never mind.

                      Best,

                      D

                • Ag

                  It must be so difficult publishing when the climate Taliban are determined to stop you publishing. I seem to remember one of the incriminating emails (the ones where the activist scientists were all cleared of any wrong doing hahahahahaha by committees of vested interests) stating that they would go so far as to redefine peer review in order to keep certain papers from appearing in scientific journals. Nasty business this “science” isn’t it? —–But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?

                  • Dano2

                    Climategate! Drink!

                    Best,

                    D

            • Ag

              As opposed to the single purpose IPCC seeking all the time to prove what they were set up to prove. That is their remit after all. When you set out to prove what you already have in mind you are indulging in activism not science.

              • Dano2

                And your legion of ideologically pure, free merkit scientist? What do they say?

                Best,

                D

                • Ag

                  Not at all, I don’t make any claims about the climate.—–You do though. And apparently with no evidence. How strange
                  Worst,
                  A

                  • Dano2

                    So you have no science that validates the ideology either. We know.

                    Best,

                    D

        • Ag

          Remember you are the one who “believes” something. It’s only possible that you are the one being “duped” therefore.

    • fight4liberty

      Read the article Dano. The data NASA/NOAA used was substandard. So it doesn’t matter they supplied the data, the error is that they did not use the best data available. Even if the error was identified by non-scientist, consider other sciences where everyday citizens fly against the experts (environmental issues especially).
      The letter was written by a wide range of scientists and engineers, including those involved in climate change. And it doesn’t take a climate change scientist to identify when NASA/NOAA are manipulating data to support a hypothesis instead of using the scientific method where data either prove or disprove a hypothesis, if disproven, a new hypothesis must be developed.
      I tend to lean toward climate change, but not the hysteria of the Obama administration. But I also want scientists to hold true to their craft, to follow the scientific method, and to not manipulate data.

      • Dano2

        Smith has all the data, thanks!

        Best,

        D

  • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

    “Settled”?? Settled science is an oxymoron. “Settled” refers to political agreements and religion, it is the opposite of science. Anything that is settled is not science.

    • Dano2

      Gravity: still a hypothesis.

      Best,

      D

      • http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com.au/ Paul Clark

        No it’s not. The cause of gravity is a hypothesis.

        • Brin Jenkins

          So true, space time distortions are little comfort when scraping up a dropped jar of marmalade of the floor.

      • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

        Gravity is a fact. It used to be explained with Newtons theory, now it is explained with Einstein theory. Someday it will be another theory. That is how science works. Religion and politics are “settled” by consensus. Science does not work that way.

        • Dano2

          Thank you – I was using your flawed logic to make a point.

          Best,

          D

          • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

            What flaw?

            • Dano2

              Gravity (c/A/Planck mass) is settled. Consensus science is not science.

              HTH

              Best,

              D

              • https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ Andy May

                I can see you are not a scientist. I am by the way, 42 years experience. Facts are not science. Science is a process. Facts are observable things, like gravity. Do not confuse gravity with the theory of gravity. Do not confuse global warming with the theory that man caused it or the speculation that global warming will be a problem or a catastrophe. Global warming is a fact, CO2 is a greenhouse is a fact. That global warming will cause death and destruction is a very speculative hypothesis (not a theory) with no basis in fact. Just some computer model runs that have yet to predict anything, much less a catastrophe. I can see our scientific education in the US is very flawed.

                • Dano2

                  Indeed our scientific education in the US is very flawed if purported “scientists” state inanities like That global warming will cause death and destruction is a very speculative hypothesis (not a theory) with no basis in fact. Just some computer model runs that have yet to predict anything and making ludicrous assertions such as “Dr Bell”.

                  Ouch.

                  Best,

                  D

                • fight4liberty

                  As this author, and the scientist, indicate the level of global warming may be much lower than purported by NASA/NOAA. Worse, NASA and NOAA, are manipulating data to support global warming claims. There is repeated instances where scientists “fudged” data to meet their hypothesis. So not only is science education lacking, ethics is near non-existent.

                  • Dano2

                    You made this up: Placement of the temp. recorders is cherry picked to show the desired results.

                    And this too: There is (sic) repeated instances where scientists “fudged” data

                    Telling little fibs.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      f4l isn’t fibbing.

                      A few years back and again recently, I saw some of NOAA’s manipulations myself, as I compared data sets from one version with the next. The more recent versions had 9999 in some places where there used to be a value.

                      I didn’t have to examine many stations to see they have been systematically deleting selected high readings, which their software then infills with averages of the rest, et voila! the past just got cooler.

                      They have been doing this with each version. Their first couple excuses were almost plausible.

                      Now, if the data don’t say what they want, they get rid of that data, because they know what good data must say. They don’t bother with excuses because they are “the authority” and that’s the only source you’re allowed.

                      Their “data” are State sponsored agitprop.

                    • Dano2

                      Says some commenter on a blog. If it’s not published, you aren’t believable.

                      best,

                      D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      It wouldn’t matter if it were published by me or anyone else. Your “mind” (stretches the term a bit) is made up.

                    • Dano2

                      You aren’t believable, aye.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ag

                      You are one commenter on a blog as well. But being “believable” is not the issue. Feel free to “believe” whatever you like, if “believing” things is so important to you.

      • Ag

        We see examples of gravity everyday. Like when I fall of my stool laughing at the likes of you. The only place your likely to see global warming is in a computer model.

  • Frank Blangeard

    Why are we concerned about climate change when the big problem is PEAK OIL !
    Do you remember the big scare about peak oil?

  • To Tell The Truth

    You really must be kidding. To say that federal science agencies are “transparent and accountable” is hilarious. Anything about climate that comes from the Ovomitscumbagasshole Misadministration is tainted with lies from the get-go. Lying is just about the only thing accomplished by this grossly incompetent bunch of hacks in DC under this Misadministration.

    • Dano2

      Deep thoughts.

      Best,

      D

  • Li D

    This comment is addressed to
    Larry Bell, who surely is interested
    in comments on his writing and
    reads them.
    Sir, you have alledged no peer review
    of something. Its very odd actually
    you havnt named what that something is.
    The context strongly suggests Karl et al 2015.
    1. Please clarify what you are refering to
    and please say why you didnt name
    the subject of your writing in your writing.
    Its a bizarre omission.
    2. Give evidence of lack of peer review
    for whatever it is you are talking about
    but dont name.
    Thankyou.
    Li D Australia