Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Not sure what to think of this. I have accepted the warming data but now I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe I have been Hoodwinked here.

"In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.

One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.

But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

 

There are actually 3 ways scientists measure temperature.

- Conventional datasets - These include only surface station observations.
- Satellite datasets - These include only polar orbiting satellites that measure microwave radiation.
- Reanalysis datasets - These include all measurements spanning the entire global and at every level of the atmosphere.

RSS and UAH are satellite based datasets and they are the only two in existence. There are about a dozen conventional datasets and several dozen reanalysis datasets. Reanalysis is by far the most accurate and most widely used. They require no adjustments or manipulation of data. Conventional datasets require some adjustments to account for station moves, the homogenization process of bringing new kinds of data into the mix, urban heat island, etc. Satellite datasets are by far the most heavily processed and adjusted datasets.

Here is the UAH data for the last 18 years.



Here is the RSS data for the last 18 years.



Notice that UAH shows less warming than RSS. The linear regression of RSS is 0.18C/decade while UAH is about 0.13C/decade. So both clearly show warming over the last 18 years.

It's important for me to point out that UAH is ran by Christy and Spencer who both deny the anthroprogenic role in climate change today. Both have a history of misinforming both the public and the scientific community on issues and data related to the climate. The UAH data is a complete outlier compared to the dozens of other datasets in existence. They have, by far, the lowest estimates of global warming and the scientific community has found numerous problems with their dataset in the past and even today. The problems are severe enough that most scientists treat it with extreme skepticism. Case in point...in 1998 Christy made the claim that his UAH dataset was the most accurate in the world have a warming rate error of no more than 0.01C/decade. Just a months later after it was pointed out that he made probably the biggest blunder ever he issued version D which increased the warming rate by a whopping 0.10C/decade. His dataset was in error by 10x the amount he claimed.

That's why conventional datasets like NASA GisTemp, NOAA GlobalTemp, HadCRUT, BEST, etc. incorporate multiple datasets. They don't just use GHCN. They use many datasets so that they can fill in the gaps where one dataset might be sparse during one period of time using one that is dense. The urban heat island is accounted for in these datasets.

Note that the Berkeley Earth dataset is conventional and was founded and funded by skeptic/deniers. Notable figures like Judith Curry were a part of this project. The project was specifically tasked with refuting the work by NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT and many others. So, it came as quite the bombshell when they announced their findings in 2012. Not only had the world's leading institutions not faked or fraudulently adjusted their data, but they had likely underestimated the warming that had occurred. Read that again...a skeptic/denier group came to the conclusion that the warming was likely higher!

Also, keep in mind that these conventional datasets aren't used by the scientific community for climate research very much. Reanalysis is a much better technique for analyzing the climate and computing global mean temperatures. They are far more accurate and require no adjustments. Of course, the satellite, conventional, and reanalysis datasets all still agree with each other. Well...except for UAH which is the lone outlier.

 

Turns out, the Rasplady ocean temp study released in OCT 2018 was, well, wrong. As in, because of baked in math calculation errors, the output of the study isn't actually reliable. Of course, this math error was "unintentional" for sure... right?

Why do we invariably find this? In this case, looks like peer review does work. But of course after endless citations, mouth breathing from the "we told you so" movement, of course, the repudiation of the actual results won't get a word in the press, no retractions from the NYTs, or the WAPO, or whoever hyperventilated about this, right before elections, no less...

And this it a pattern we see. Moonbeam just declared that never before has Malibu burned, so must be climate deniers who are at fault for all those super wealthy home owners losses... Silly Moonbeam.

 

I'm skeptical of the Rasplady research as well. It sounds like most climate scientists are analyzing it with a very critical eye right now. There's almost no chance this will become consensus. It's just too much of an outlier compared to the rest of the available data. Skeptics love their outlier datasets and research, but don't worry I'm not going to my breath waiting for the AGW critics to throw all of their eggs in this basket like they do with other questionable lines of research. Remember, something is only correct if it shows the consensus to be wrong in only one direction or so they tell us.

 

Looks like, gasp... the thermosphere is on the verge of utter collapse...

Ok, that was just my impression of a typical AGW commentator. Of course, the reality is that, well, it looks like the thermosphere is actually in rapid decline, and of course, the source of our new found concern is... wait for it.... NASA Goddard.... And as much as I detest the usual tripe coming from this group, it does appear that suddenly they are unable to otherwise whitewash over the solar output issues. And just as suddenly, are now worried about their endless hyperventilating that now appears, well, as useless hyperventilating.

Of course, actual discovery is valued. I applaud that this study has actually been released in the trades to see the light of day. Perhaps this actually is a step away from complete anthropogenic tyranny. I suppose time will tell.

 

What do you mean by "the thermosphere is actually in rapid decline"?

 

https://phys.org/news/2010-08-atmospheric-layer-linked-solar.html

proven to be from solar radiation, rather than co2...

 

Oops.

 

Yeah. Duh. The thermosphere is highly sensitive to shortwave radiation almost entirely transparent to longwave radiation. That's why it responds to variations in solar cycles but not CO2. This isn't even remotely close to being a surprise. Scientists predicted this behavior decades ago. Note that the thermosphere is not the same thing as the troposphere.

 

Yes,. Sometimes, one just doesn't have words....

The assertion now is that the decline will then undermine temperature growth or entirely cause it's decline. Then what?

 

There's no concern that I am aware of. The thermosphere, which is highly sensitive to shortwave radiation, is cooling because the Sun is dimming. Again, this research is further proof that the Sun is not the cause of the warming troposphere and hydrosphere. If it were you'd expect those to be cooling as well, but they aren't.

 

We go with the best science and work to mitigate the influences co2..
The debate is over.

 

Of course not.

 

And yet, here you are, draining the power grid "mitigating CO2"....

 

Political statement not a science based one.

 

The AGW folks were never interested in the science. Only the politics. Their dogma requires a measure of orthodoxy that transcends the scientific.

 

Obviously you're into politicizing not listening to science. Just name an accredited institution that does not think GW is settled, someone may take you seriously

 

Name an an accredited institution or major corporation or country that does not believe in AGW.

 

Well you strung some words together that may impress the unenlightened .

 

First you use a political term "the debate is over" and now you use a religious term "believe in". As I've always said the vast majority of AGW proponents are politically motivated and or view it more as a religion than science and you just proved me right.

 

Is there something you are thinking of?

 

Care to define what your standard is for "believing in"? Is that a religious context? Also, do you suppose that belief in something makes it factual? Small children in this country believe Santa is busy at work preparing to deliver all kinds of toys and goodies to them in a few short weeks. Liberals still believe Hillary won in 2016. Residents of New Orleans believe their dykes will keep them safe. Residents of Malibu thought that their naturalism and their belief in AGW would protect them.

On the philosophical side, do you suppose that a company, or a country for that matter, can actually believe anything? Really?

 

Do you suppose that a) my intent was to impress, or b) that you've demonstrated your own enlightenment?

 

You as well as others might be shocked at all the heat islands globally.

Take dry river beds. I worked on a job site in N Cal around 1959-60 in the summer and myself and the crew were very stressed by the heat. We consumed ice water by the gallons. It was supplied to the crew. On one side of the dressing shack that also was the office for the Superintendent was a thermometer hung on the outside of the trailer. I observed a temperature of about 135 in the shade. That day we heard on the radio the official high was 115.

Another example. Children left inside autos die in the Summer when the outside is say 90 and inside the car the heat is so hot the children die. I hear of inside temperatures of well above 125.

The point is heat does not average. Heat in some areas, say in the shade, can range lower than heat in the direct sun. How the hades can they tell us an average heat when they do not measure it all over the place?

The day I saw it 135 on the trailer should i agree it was only 115?

If you want hot days and not in the desert, get into the Chico, CA area on a hot summer day and measure the days temperature all over the place. The temps that are official are not the hottest there at all. They are taken in a controlled environment. I argue that man is able to handle 130 in deserts so surely he can handle them elsewhere.

 

It is wrong to label skeptics as deniers. First what are they denying? That it gets warmer? Or that man does it?

If I told you man regulates the climate, how would you take that? Man is in charge of Climate.

Deny it!!!