Study: Temperature Adjustments Account For Nearly All Of The Warming

When the real world data doesn’t fit the models and hypothesis, what to do? Change the data

(Daily Caller) 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.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

This is exactly what Skeptics have been noting for a long time. They keep adjusting the temperatures, and tend to cool the past and warm the current, in order to make it appear as if it is warmer than it actually is.

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.”

Read the whole thing.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Study: Temperature Adjustments Account For Nearly All Of The Warming”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    “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.

    Well, no shit, Sherlock.

  2. Jeffery says:

    So, now the Earth ISN’T warming? Somebody better tell the ice. Will you deniers please make up your mind. A few years ago, you denied it was warming, shouting Heat Islands, Exhaust Ports and Thermometer Sitings! Next actual skeptic scientists (e.g., Muller) and denier fake scientists (Watts) concluded the data were sound and that indeed, the Earth was warming. The Denier Cult followers next proclaimed that they never denied it was warming it was always about “causation” – natural cycles were responsible for the current period of rapid warming. Now, two Denier Princes type a comic book “manuscript” claiming the temperature record is fraudulent. Are the deniosaurs back to claiming it’s not warming after all?

    Where was this “peer-reviewed” study published? Bueller? Bueller? Did we miss this important bit of information? Who were the “peer-reviewers”, Tony Watts and TEACH?

    Note too, the authors typists are climate change deniers Craig Idso and Joseph D’Aleo.

    The “authors'” typists’ own data disagrees with their conclusions – see their Figs IV-1, IV-3 and IV-5. And even the earlier versions of the data show clear warming, just slightly less than the latest versions. After their brief sortie into global data they spend the rest of the “article” cherry-picking local temperatures, especially in the US (about 2% of the global surface). This is a common ploy of the old-style deniers. “It snowed in Buffalo proving that global warming is a hoax!”

    They address the awkward fact that even the highly adjusted and computer modeled satellite data support the warming data by 1) burying it the final two paragraphs and 2) disingenuously using the Denier King’s (Roy Spencer) flawed trick of misaligning the baselines. The satellite data puts the Deniers in a tough spot. Before it was discovered that Roy Spencer and John Christy had mistakenly adjusted the raw satellite data to hide warming, Deniers relied on satellite data (which doesn’t measure temperature at all, but measures radiation patterns some 5 km above the Earth) to support their opinions. Now, it’s clear that satellite data reflects the surface thermometer data.

    This is just more of the trump regime’s war on science – it’s just more Fake Science to push his crony-serving policies. It’s telling that the Deniers typed such an obviously transparent political document and tried to pass it off as science.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Typical little jeffuckery comment. Lots of words but still not one word of truth.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Can someone identify the “peer-reviewed” science journal where this manuscript was published?

  4. Jeffery says:

    Can no one identify the “peer-reviewed” journal that published the Idso/D’Aleo essay? Is it possible that it wasn’t published in a “peer reviewed” science journal at all?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      So, little jeffuckery, who “peer reviewed” Mann’s debunked Hockey Stick paper?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        ahem….

        Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

        http://www.newscats.org/?p=10216

  5. Jeffery says:

    OK. We conclude that the D’Aleo/Idso exercise in typing pimped by right-wing websites was NOT published in an actual peer-reviewed science journal. Why did the Daily Caller lie about that?

    Why would TEACH post this disinformation? He is making his loyal followers LESS informed!

    It was a hit piece on science, and a sign of our future under trumpism.

    The fact is that the Earth is quite obviously warming, which most likely results from an increase in atmospheric CO2. And why has CO2 increased some 40% over the past century? From the burning of fossil fuels.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Daily Caller + TEACH + trump = (Fake Science) cubed

  7. Jeffery says:

    LOL… In their list of “supporters” (p2), they overlooked Dr. George T. Wolff’s 2 decades working for General Motors’ lobbying organization.

    They may be right – science denier Dr. Wolff is a peer of the science deniers who typed the manuscript.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The climate scam, bit by bit, is being exposed.
      You’re losing, little jeffuckery.

  8. Jeffery says:

    “Peer” Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen is VP at the Science and Environment Policy Project, an anti-science advocacy (lobbying) org created in 1990 by Fred Singer with support from Philip Morris. SEPP disagrees with mainstream scientific consensus on climate change, ozone layer depletion and the dangers of tobacco (Philip Morris, remember?).

    A direct SEPP quote: “…data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever.”

    Yep, another “peer” of the science denier typists.

    We can do this all day!

  9. Jeffery says:

    TEACH: Just a small amount of scholarship demonstrates the typed manuscript from the Daily Caller is Junk Science. Why did you post it? Did you not conduct your own due diligence?

  10. Jeffery says:

    No one stepped forward to defend the so-called study? Not even TEACH.

  11. Jeffery says:

    TEACH won’t even defend his own misinforming post?

  12. david7134 says:

    The entire time that Jeff has commented here, he has never provided one peer review article to support his religion.

  13. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You’re a liar. In addition, we have no religion, if by religion you’re invoking supernatural beings and events.

    The Daily Caller (and TEACH) claimed the “manuscript” was peer-reviewed and published. All we are asking is where was it published and who were the reviewers. We suspect the p2 list of climate change deniers are the “peer-reviewers”.

    Dr. Eck is an economist, retired from AMOCO. Doiron is retired from NASA. Carlin is an economist retired from the EPA.

    In fact, Dr. Lupo (Mizzou!) is the only climate scientist on the list.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7682 access attempts in the last 7 days.