Writing in Energy Matters, Roger Andrews has been studying land-based, surface-air temperatures (SAT) data.
Measurements are supposed to be taken at 5 feet +/- one foot (1.5 to 2 meters) above the ground, in the shade, over a grassy or dirt field, 100 feet from pavement, buildings, trees, etc.
A wood "Stevenson screen" is the standard to provide shade and protection from precipitation.
Few official measuring devices meet these criteria, ven in the US.
NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Ashville, NC, keeps the records, but frequently changes them.
Mr. Andrews focused on SAT from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS).
He compares the old GISS with the new GISS temperatures globally, and by northern and southern hemisphere.
Subtracting the old from the new produces a global warming trend from "adjustments".
The conclusions by Andrews destroy the scientific value of the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets.
Andrews writes:
“The conclusions? In previous posts and comments I had said that adjustments had added only about +0.2°C of spurious warming to the global SAT record over the last 100 years or so – not enough to make much difference. But after further review it now appears that they may have added as much as +0.4°C.”
“...and that global surface air temperatures have increased by only about 0.7°C over this period, not by the ~1.1°C shown by the published SAT series.”
There are no penalties for manipulating climate data.
There should be.
“There is no grand conspiracy to foist non-existent global warming onto a gullible public. The reason some think there is one is that the data adjusters are under intense pressure to come up with the “right” results, which inevitably makes their findings somewhat less than objective. Global warming, AKA climate change, is a major growth industry that already gives employment to hundreds of thousands of people, including some very influential ones, and the bandwagon has to be kept rolling.”
If carbon dioxide emissions are really causing dangerous global warming / climate change, we need credible data.
The difference of 0.4°C between the old and new data that Andrews calculates is significant.
Consider that NOAA, NASA, etc. recently proclaimed that 2016 was the hottest year ever –- by 0.04°C ... which is a meaningless number, even with their ridiculously small claimed margin of error of +/- 0.1 degrees C. for surface measurements
My estimate for a reasonable margin of error is +/- 1.0 degrees C., because most of the measurement instruments have that margin of error!
Source:
Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models –
Part 1: Surface Air Temperatures
By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, July 27, 2017