Thursday, July 6, 2017

It's adjusted readings, not actual warming

Well, how about this?

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.
Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
Now, can we dispense that there's any reason for humankind to collectively mobilize to stop advancing?


  1. Damn! Who knew using a decades-old technique for compensating for local changes in scene (installation of a new asphalt parking lot and the relocation of the AWOCS station is an example I was personally involved in) would accidentally cause the arctic ice caps to melt? Cheers. ;)

  2. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..,

  3. Help me here, oh supremely sure and wise one. Help me come to terms with this "lie" released to the scientific community today (and why is Stephen Hawking claiming we need to get off the earth within the next 100 years?):

    "In a new study, researchers say the current mass extinction is even "more severe than perceived" and amounts to "biological annihilation" affecting thousands of species.

    In the study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from Stanford University and the National Autonomous University of Mexico unveiled a granular look at population trends among 27,600 species of birds, amphibians, mammals, and reptiles — half of the world's known terrestrial vertebrates — including detailed analysis of 177 species of mammals.

    The results are grim: researchers found an "extremely high degree of population decay" among vertebrates, even in species considered at low risk of extinction. In general, they found that the world's temperate regions are losing species at equal or even higher rates than the tropics.

    "Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations" — when a species ceases to exist in a particular location — "which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization," the researchers wrote.

    "We describe this as a 'biological annihilation' to highlight the current magnitude of Earth's ongoing sixth major extinction event."

    more at

  4. Help me here, bloggie, these scientists keep wanting to wreck America. Do I just listen to you?

  5. Bloggie, what do you think of Hawking's admonition that we as a species need to leave earth within 100 years? Is he politically motivated? Perhaps a freedom hater? Is he even someone we should listen to?

  6. 3 days have passed and still no comment on the Stanford study. Oh well, I shall presume you have to consult your experts for rebuttal or have tired of expositing your will in this tired thread.