The climate change
industry is unregulated
and can do whatever it wants
with its temperature data.
All raw temperature data
are claimed to be
so distorted and biased
that they are unusable
in their raw form.
Adjustments
are essential,
we are told.
Many times
the adjustments
are so large
that anyone
with sense
would wonder
if the raw data
were reliable enough
in the first place.
But never mind that !
This approach allows
the data adjusters
to show the
“right” results
to the public.
"Climate change"
is a major growth industry
employing hundreds
of thousands of people.
The industry would fail
if government bureaucrats
were honest about
the future climate
(they have no idea
what the future climate
will be).
The past 20,000 years
of warming could continue,
or we could reverse to cooling,
where Detroit and Chicago,
are eventually under ice again,
as they were 20,000 years ago.
Decades ago, skeptical people
could review thousands
of weather station records
from GISS’s database.
At the time the database
contained only
unadjusted records
(it no longer does).
The current
NASA-GISS database,
for the same time period,
shows about +0.3°C
more global warming --
(with about +0.2°C
more warming
in the Northern Hemisphere
and about +0.5°C
more warming
in the Southern Hemisphere).
How did GISS generate
this "extra" warming?
GISS replaced old
unadjusted records with
“homogeneity-adjusted”
versions.
So, how did the GISS
"homogeneity adjustments"
add so much warming?
For the United States
Historic Climate Network,
for one example,
“corrections” were applied
to approximately 1,000 rural
US records in or around 1999.
Their impact was
to add about
+0.5 C. of warming
to the raw US SAT
data series after 1950,
and nearly +0.7 ° C.
of warming
to the 20th century’s
reported average
temperature trend
for the 48
contiguous states.
The entire exercise
was mainly based
on the assumption
that many relocations
of temperature stations,
from inner city areas
to outlying airports
after World War II,
resulted in
global cooling
that should be
"adjusted" away.
There is a culture of secrecy
among climate scientists,
particularly about
"adjustments" to raw data.
In one ClimateGate email,
Phil Jones told
Michael Mann
that if
Steve McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick
("the two MM's")
("the two MM's")
filed a FOIA request
for the CRU station raw data,
then he (Phil Jones)
planned to delete the data
rather than release it to them.
The NOAA Centers
for Environmental Information (NCEI),
(a/k/a National Climatic Data Center),
take active measures
to prevent automatic archiving
of their data,
which has the effect
of preventing comparison
of recent versions
to old versions.
It seems temperature data
are frequently "adjusted"
to make them match
the "CO2 controls
the average temperature
theory".
The same "CO2 controls
the average temperature
theory" is used for
climate models predictions
... that just happen to
grossly over-predict
global warming.
The government
bureaucrat "adjustments"
consistently lead to
a larger long-term
global warming trend.
Some "warmunists"
try to trick people
by claiming
the adjustments
"cool" the past climate.
Cooling the past climate,
without cooling
the current climate,
the warmunists fail to add,
creates more global warming
out of thin air.
There is no doubt
that current published
surface air temperatures
have been manipulated
to match the theory
of human-induced
climate change.
There is no doubt
that a majority of
"temperature data"
for Earth's surface
are wild guesses,
by government bureaucrats,
that they call "infilling",
used where there are
no local temperature stations,
which adds up to over half
of Earth's surface !
Warming-biased
homogeneity adjustments
have increased surface
air temperatures over land
since 1900 by about +0.4° C.,
-- add the +0.7 ° C. warming
in the raw data, and the total
reported global warming
over land is +1.1° C. !
One should be
very suspicious
when raw data,
including more
wild guess infilling
than actual data,
are increased
by almost 60% (+0.4° C.)
-- that's a very large
"adjustment" to land
raw temperature data.
The main issues
with land surface
temperature measurements:
(a) Time of day thermometer
reading variations,
(b) The changing number and location
of temperature stations,
(c) The condition and size of the
temperature stations'
Stevenson screens, and
(d) Changes to temperature station
surrounding environments, such as:
-- New roads, buildings, and runways,
-- Trees cut down for building structures
-- Thermometers located too close
to houses or parking lots.
Of course the
land surface
temperatures
are only about 30%
of Earth’s surface.
Sea surface temperatures
have much larger
data quality problems:
- There were very few
Southern Hemisphere
measurements before 1900,
and few between 1900 and 1940.
- Measurement methodologies
have repeatedly changed,
starting with wood buckets
and sailors with thermometers,
to ship engine cooling water
intakes, which are not
near the ocean's surface,
to the current ARGO floats.
If government bureaucrats
with science degrees
think their raw
temperature data
are wrong,
they should fix
the measurement problem
problems -- real scientists
fix the measurements,
not the historical data!
With real science,
any necessary
data corrections,
that may be required,
should be determined
in real time
— not many decades
after measurements
were made,
when conditions
have changed.
Temperature data
uncertainties increase
as we go back in time,
because there were fewer
measuring stations,
with all of them using
different instruments
than are used today.
Taking historical
temperature data,
arbitrarily deciding
they are wrong,
and applying
bulk corrections
decades later,
with little justification,
is junk science.
The correct way
to repair bad data
is to track the history
of individual
temperature stations
and to then
try to correct the data
for one station at a time.
The climate science community
has had more than enough time
and resources to do this,
but they never will.
Icelanders did an historic audit,
creating some of the best
curated climate records
in the world.
But this didn’t stop GHCN
from homogenizing
and changing it all,
to what they wanted to see,
creating meaningless numbers.
The bureaucrats
don't care enough
to even look for
data quality problems.
For example,
I have never seen
an analysis of the
different methodologies,
used to measure
sea surface temperatures,
done in the same location,
to find out if a measurement
methodology change
created "warming"
out of thin air.
And there will never be
such a test, because
government bureaucrats
with science degrees
have a monopoly on the
surface temperature average,
and they don't want the public
to lose confidence
in their "numbers".
In my 21 years
of climate science reading,
I have never read
any skepticism about
temperature data accuracy,
or about any prediction
of a future climate catastrophe,
no matter how bizarre,
in any liberal-biased
media source.
Comparing real time
Comparing real time
temperature measurements
with climate proxies:
-- While the first half
of the 20th century warming
is very clear in nearly all proxies,
the same cannot be said
for the second half
of the 20th century warming.
Most proxies that extend
at least to the 1990’s
(tree rings, ice cores, etc.)
do not show
two big steps up
that instruments show,
and if they do show
two periods of warming,
they also show
a period of cooling
in between.
The highly adjusted
and infilled surface
instrument data
has nearly no backing
from climate proxies.
And biology
appears to support
the climate proxies,
not the "adjusted"
instrument data.
-- Species are
barely expanding
or displacing
their ranges.
-- Cherry blossoms
in Washington DC
are nor peaking
earlier in the year.
-- And tree lines
are not climbing
the mountains,
as they should
if global warming
was real.
Setting world
energy policies
on these faulty,
highly "adjusted"
surface temperature
data is foolish,
and dishonest.
But for socialists
and Marxists,
the claim of a (fictional)
coming climate catastrophe
gives them an opportunity
to increase government powers,
while (falsely) claiming
more energy regulations
and new energy taxes
are needed to
"save the Earth
for our children"
Of course that's a lie,
but is also a devious way
to sell big government
socialism !