Monday, April 7, 2014

Climate Data Rigging





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.

Judging by recent history, the bureaucrats should be worried. Just last month (December, 2013), John Beale, the senior EPA policy advisor, was convicted and jailed for defrauding taxpayers out of $1 million in salaries and expenses.  Does a culture of corruption extend throughout departments associated with climate policy? The public will certainly demand their right to know whether they have b

1 comment:


  1. 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

    ReplyDelete