100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

"Real Science" is an agenda driven site that has made many claims inconsistent with the findings of those who actually do research in climate science. That doesn't guarantee that any particular thing written on their site is wrong, but it does mean that anything they claim should be taken skeptically and checked.

In this particular case it is not difficult to show that they have little basis for their allegations of fraud. Their claim seems to be based on satellite data not showing the same temperature anomaly for the October world temperature average as presented by two climate scientists. There are multiple problems with this, and using satellite data as if it can be substituted for land based measurements amounts to intentional deception. I.e., those claiming fraud in this case are in fact misrepresenting the evidence.

The fact is that satellites and ground based sensors are not measuring the same thing. Satellites are used to make very indirect determinations of temperatures in the upper troposphere and other sets of measurements in the lower 8 Km of the atmosphere. It's not surprising that those of the upper troposphere would, even when the data is well analyzed, yield different results than those from measurements at levels about 10,000 m lower. If I remember correctly there are small but still significant lags in the trends of satellite determinations in comparison to lose on land and ocean surfaces. Perhaps the satellite measurements mentioned in the site were those of the lower 8 Km. In that case the statement in stye site seems to be incorrect: October 2015: Earth's Warmest Month on Record by a Huge Margin.

The second problem is that one set of satellite results has been frequently found to be suspect. Here is a summary of a recent analysis: One satellite data set is underestimating global warming | John Abraham
 
Last edited:
What do scientists and researchers think about "Real Science"'s claims against climate change?
For example, this article here (Page on realclimatescience.com) that claims NOAA and NASA have changed their data regarding temperature changes.

Do you feel the website is completely bogus, harmful to science in general, or perhaps correct and/or useful towards prompting closer scrutiny of scientific work/research (even if it the site is completely incorrect)?


10 Answers

Richard Muller, Prof. Physics UC Berkeley, author "Physics for Future Presidents"
Written Nov 25, 2015

My organization, Berkeley Earth, has looked very hard at what NOAA did when they changed their data. What they did was correct, and necessary. In fact, what they did was to adopt an approach that we had already used in our published data, and which is demonstrably superior.

The issue has to do with the fact that temperatures in the oceans used to be measured by intakes in ships, and most of that has now been replaced with automatic buoys. When they made that change, the extra warming that took place inside the ship was no longer affecting the measurement. The correction done by NOAA wound up reducing the average global warming over the past 100 years (something that I believe the "Real Science" people didn't notice), and it gives a slight increase for recent measurements.

NOAA has been treated very badly by Real Science. What they did was legitimate and necessary in order to improve our knowledge. It is Real Science, not NOAA, that is showing its prejudice: accusing others of being driven by the desired results rather than by the science.
 
Banjo said:
Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
More...
Yes, I saw that. I also saw FutureCurrents spaz out five times before I dropped in.

Yea, man made global warming is crap. Wouldn't be surprised at all if this were true. How many times have these assholes invented numbers in the past? How many times have they been caught? 3? 4? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top