Lion of the Blogosphere

NOAA unscientifically exaggerated global warming

First four paragraphs of a Daily Mail exclusive:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Over and over again we see that the so-called “scientists” pushing global warming are acting much more like evangelists for a religion than they are like real scientists who follow the scientific method and welcome skepticism.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 6, 2017 at 8:56 am

Posted in Science

26 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is incident 4682 in scientific malpractice in regards to climate change. Honestly, how do they expect us to trust them?

    Mike Street Station

    February 6, 2017 at 9:55 am

  2. As Lawrence Auster said with regard to AGW: (paraphrase) “When there is so much revealed lying, deceit, hysterics by authorities on a particular subject/theory, what are the chances that it’s actually true?”

    Andrew E.

    February 6, 2017 at 10:29 am

  3. This article is largely based on a blog post by former NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates. He is attacking a 2015 paper by another former NOAA scientist, Dr Thomas Karl. Both of these men are now retired from NOAA.

    Bates argument mostly seems to be that Karl would not put the data set for this paper into a NOAA archive that had been run by Bates. Instead he put the data on a ftp site where it can be downloaded. He also claims that the adjusted data sets used in the Karl paper were not the final adjusted data sets, they were only a preliminary version of the adjustment and that Karl’s paper did not disclose this. The final adjustments were not finished until many months after Karl’s paper was published, so it is not clear that Karl even knew this at the time of publication. Bates also asserts without evidence that Karl was biased and made some decisions to make the warming trend look bigger.

    Most of criticisms of this paper do not stand up to up to examination. See:

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

    The correction that Karl 2015 made to the NOAA ocean temperature record actually brought it closer into agreement with other independent ocean temperature records. Other researchers have also confirmed the result (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207).

    Finally, the graph near the bottom of the Daily Mail data is fake data. It is a plot of changes in sea temperature from the NOAA data compared to the Met Office data. These data sets are give temperature changes but they are normalized differently. NOAA is normalized to average temperature between 1901 and 2000. The Met Office data is normalized to average temperature between 1961 and 1990. When you normalize to the same period, the differences completely disappear.

    The Karl 2015 paper angered global warming skeptics because it attacked one of their favorite claims, that global warming ended in 1998. Karl’s paper was published in mid 2015, but global warming has continued. All data sets show that 2016 was the warmest year on record for land temperatures. Actually several years been 1998 and 2016 were slightly warmer than 1998. 2014 was the warmest year at the time by a small amount. Then 2015 was warmer and 2016 has been still warmer. Take a look at this data:

    The argument that global warming ended in 1998 is silly. It is likely that 2017 will be cooler than 2016, just because we have had three years in a row of record high temperatures. Only a matter of time before the skeptics start claiming global warming ended in 2016.

    Mike CA

    February 6, 2017 at 10:48 am

    • So you agree that Karl violated his own agency’s rules in order to rush to publish something that he felt supported warmist alarmism. And that what he published contained temperatures adjusted in order to support warmist alarmism.

      Rogal Dorn

      February 6, 2017 at 11:24 am

      • Bates had apparently created the archive and was in charge of writing the rules about archiving data. I never worked at NOAA and have no idea whether Karl did anything wrong. Bates was not on the research team that wrote this paper and was not involved in the research. Bates says things like he asked someone on Karl’s team to explain a decision and they refused.

        It sounds to me like Bates did not get along very well with Karl or his team and they were refusing to have anything to do with Bates. Bates is apparently now trying to settle scores with Karl.

        The question is can Karl’s results be independently verified. So far several researchers have independently verified the Karl 2015 results. That is what matters.

        mikeca

        February 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      • “The question is can Karl’s results be independently verified. So far several researchers have independently verified the Karl 2015 results. That is what matters.”

        No. That wasn’t the question. The question was whether the science was influenced by political considerations.

        destructure

        February 6, 2017 at 2:35 pm

      • The question is can Karl’s results be independently verified. So far several researchers have independently verified the Karl 2015 results. That is what matters.

        The question is, can scientists given Karl’s raw data and data adjustments make the same adjustments to the same raw data as Karl and recover the same adjusted data that Karl recovered. Voila, science!!

        Andrew E.

        February 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    • “It is likely that 2017 will be cooler than 2016, just because we have had three years in a row of record high temperatures.”

      I seem to recall reading where 2016, a year where we had yet another record temperature, was actually .02 degrees hotter than 2015. Of course the fear-mongers never seem to mention the error parameters of this measurement, which are somewhere around 50 times the size of the increase in the temperature, rendering the so-called record temperature as meaningless aka “a lie”.

      Also not mentioned is the El Nino which really caused the “record high”.

      But such are the desperate machinations of the self-deluded boosters of the “climate scientists”.

      gda

      February 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      • Also not mentioned is the El Nino which really caused the “record high”.

        But such are the desperate machinations of the self-deluded boosters of the “climate scientists”.

        The year 1998 was a year with a very strong El Nino effect which pushed temperatures higher than any year before it. This allowed skeptics to claim global warming ended that year because later El Nino years were only about the same temperature, actually slightly higher, but not by much. Now we have another very strong El Nino year and the temperature once again is much higher than any preceding year.

        Global temperatures fluctuate. Global warming is a long term effect. It may slow down for periods of years or decades, but you need to look at the long term trend. The very strong El Nino of 2015/2016 makes it clear is has not paused right now.

        Mike CA

        February 6, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      • Fake and 100% explained by urban heat island effect.

        Urban heat islands do not explain why the ocean temperature is rising. Urban heat islands do not explain why the arctic ice cap is melting. Urban heat islands do not explain why the sea level is rising.

        I think land temperature data was corrected for the urban head island effect long ago.

        mikeca

        February 6, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    • Fake and 100% explained by urban heat island effect. Go half a mile outside a city and the temperature drops precipitously. Weather monitoring stations that in the past were miles outside city limits are now close to or literally inside cities.

      Global warming careerists know this, so they adjust the data however they see fit. In other words, the data are manufactured. Garbage in, garbage out.

      hard9bf

      February 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    • That graph from MikeCA is post-adjustment. Thanks to the urban heat island effect and the fact that temperature stations once outside cities are now inside cities, a pure unadjusted graph would look ludicrous: unadjusted graphs show Earth’s temperatures rising 10 degrees Celsius in the last few decades, and of course nobody would believe that because it doesn’t jibe with observations.

      If lay people could see the ludicrous unadjusted data, they’d know the whole global warming hypothesis is based on wildly flawed data and would thus reject AGW. Garbage in, garbage out.

      hard9bf

      February 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    • One last thing: MikeCA, you’re wrong about everything and suffer from logorrhea. Please get to the point instead of blathering on NPR-style about alternate positions you don’t support. Much appreciated.

      hard9bf

      February 6, 2017 at 2:45 pm

  4. Satellite data show no real warming since 1998. Satellite data is more accurate.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/

    Andrew E.

    February 6, 2017 at 11:20 am

    • Satellite data shows 2016 was the warmest year on record at most altitudes below 40,000 feet.

      Mike CA

      February 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      • Yes, that would be the “little” in the “little to no warming since 1998” statement.

        Andrew E.

        February 6, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    • Exactly. Any reliance on terrestrial weather stations is fatally flawed because cities have grown a lot over the past many decades. Global warming careerists ‘adjust’ this data to generate fear and hysteria to keep their gubmint grant $$$ flowing.

      hard9bf

      February 6, 2017 at 2:34 pm

  5. A blast from the past when NASA was still doing real science:

    Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/20/flashabck-1990-nasa-report-satellite-analysis-of-upper-atmosphere-is-more-accurate-should-be-adopted-as-the-standard-way-to-monitor-temp-change/

    Andrew E.

    February 6, 2017 at 11:24 am

  6. The science is set in stone! And no one can challenge it with data and other nonsense. If the thermometers don’t show enough warming, they must be replaced with more socially aware equipment.

    JimboHarambe

    February 6, 2017 at 12:56 pm

  7. I’m a climate skeptic. When politics gets involved in science science becomes corrupted. Look at how scientists ignore HBD when discussing “the gape” between black and white grades. Look at how phony most sociology is. Psychology in the 60’s – 90’s was absolute garbage. Fake science. Barely better now,

    I’ve been hearing all my life that the sky is falling. Nuclear war, population explosion, silent spring. You get skeptical after awhile.

    Rosenmop

    February 6, 2017 at 1:05 pm

  8. There’s all sort of deception and sleight-of-hand going on. Notice the transition from “global warming” to “climate change.” It’s true that all climate experts agree that the climate is changing. Always has been, always will be. About 25,000 years ago, during the last Glacial Maximum, portions of North America (including the part in which I live) were covered by thick ice sheets. What happened to them? Well, it warmed up. Roughly 14,000 years, Asians migrated from Siberia to Alaska and spread throughout North and South America to become the Native American. How did they make this journey? They walked across the Bering land bridge. Then it warmed up, and the bridge is now under water. About 1000 years ago, we had the Medieval Warm Period, with the Vikings colonizing Greenland and grapes growing in England. Then it got colder, and we had the Little Ice Age, which really didn’t end until the about 200 years ago.

    AGW is nothing but junk science pushing a political agenda. One of these idiots told me recently that there was a “consensus” of climate scientists that this was taking place. I told her that, aside from the groupthink and hive mentality, science wasn’t done by “consensus” but by truth, facts and evidence. Six centuries ago, it was the “consensus” of all the scientific experts that the earth was flat and that is was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. It was also the “consensus” of the leading medical experts that most disease resulted from an inbalance of bodily humors. This belief persisted well into the nineteenth century – in his final illness, George Washington was treated with bleeding and purging by the “best” doctors.

    BTW, on his first vacation after leaving the White House, Barack Obama flew down to Richard Branson’s private island in the British Virgin Islands – by private jet! He also took a helicopter to and from the airport. I’ll believe that AGW is a problem when the people who say it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem.

    Black Death

    February 6, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    • It’s a myth that they didn’t know the Earth was round before Columbus; the ancient Greeks had figured that out. In fact part of the reason Columbus had trouble getting a sponsor for his journey is because they knew a sea journey from Europe to India would be too far for the ships of the day. (Not knowing about the land mass in between, obviously).

      snorlaxwp

      February 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    • It was not thought in Europe that the earth was flat, this is a common misconception. Ships going out to sea were observed dipping below the horizon. The Earth’s shadow against the Moon was observed to be circular It was believed OTOH that the Earth did not move, and that the Sun, planets and stars went around it. The idea that the Earth moves is very counter intuitive, since we don’t feel it moving, and the velocity required would surely produce such a hurricane that trees would be uprooted.

      martin2

      February 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • “The idea that the Earth moves is very counter intuitive, since we don’t feel it moving, and the velocity required would surely produce such a hurricane that trees would be uprooted.”

        Indeed, it’s pretty wacky when you hear that the earth goes around the sun at 67,000 mph!

        peterike

        February 6, 2017 at 7:13 pm

  9. Yup, fraud going on in the global warming industry. File this under N, for “No shit, Sherlock.”

    peterike

    February 6, 2017 at 7:11 pm

  10. Who knew?

    Robert

    February 7, 2017 at 10:21 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: