The climate warming
theory has been written into almost all the science of the past decade to a
level that has at times been silly. Yet
we generally accepted that it got generally warmer particularly in the past two
decades even when we were clearly looking at the decadal oscillations for most
of the disturbances. That must include
the Arctic were we simply lacked much data from the past.
Now we discover
selective data shifting that actually only serves to show a false trend
line. We even discover that it is worse
than that because we are in an apparent long term cooling trend which can be
explained as a natural consequence of deforestation during the last century,
now actually reversed or on the way to been.
The data tells the
story here and I am sure that the climate crowd will wilfully ignore this
report as well. They may even be glad
that their story is slowly sinking under the waves.
Written
by John O'Sullivan
A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating
error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate
scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to
the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the
discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and
sound the death knell on American climate policy.
Independent
data analyst, Steven
Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling
study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records
relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our
climate has been warming dangerously.
Goddard
reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.”
His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling
disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring
stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts
and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer
measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into
a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.
Goddard’s
plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is
entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by
such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.
Goddard
continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and
V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998,
which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they
didn’t in the US graph."
###
It
doesn’t look right, because they made a gigantic error (possibly
intentional) going from USHCN V1 to V2. In V1 they adjusted recent temperatures
upwards (thin line below) and made no adjustment to older temperatures.
###
"But
when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards,
and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact, " says Goddard. This
created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to
2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.
Blue
line is thermometer data. Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is
V2 adjusted. They created more than 1 degree warming by reversing polarity
of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. This created a double downwards adjustment for the pre-1998 years,
relative to the post 1998 years.
NOAA
made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the
temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA
and NASA US temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.
###
According
to USHCN 1 docs, the total adjustment is supposed to be about 0.5F, and
upwards.
###
But
in USHCN2, the adjustments are much larger, and downwards. The USHCN2 adjustments
are supposed to be approximately the same adjustments as USHCN1.
Here
is an animation of the complete set of USHCN adjustments, which turn a 90 year
cooling trend into a warming trend.
###
But
does this evidence prove an intentional fraud? Goddard certainly thinks it
possible and only a full examination of all the files will show that, one way
or the other. Goddard wants backing from others to compel the Administration to
come clean on this massive story, using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
rules. The ramifications are that hundreds of billions of tax dollars have
been misallocated to "solve" a non-problem, all due to willful
malfeasance and/or incompetence in data handling.
1 comment:
Rocks can not learn from their environment and can not respond to it
Single celled animal can learn from and respond to their environment
Trees can learn from their environment and respond to it.
This is relevant to the following information. On land most species, including trees are adjusting to their changing environment by either moving up the sides of mountains (about 10 ft per year) or towards the poles.
In the ocean, entire species of singled organisms are moving towards the poles at a rate of about ten miles per year.
we can see that you may be smarter than a rock, but are definitely less able to learn from your environment than single celled animals or trees. Like most people who are obedient to authority, you do an excellent job of "learning" from your own set of authorities without bothering to validate what they are teaching you.
You never did pass a course in calculus or physics did you? Certainly not a course in quantum mechanics where you would have learned about radiation transfer.
Also a little bit of research turns up the fact that the entire
http://www.principia-scientific.org is a fraud published by people of limited scientific ability and virtually no credentials in climate science
Post a Comment