Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[bonnie]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

 

 

       

   

l

 

The Yavari Valley rainforest, Peru Photo: Alamy

 

By Christopher Booker

8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015

 

 

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

Below, the raw data in graph form

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

 

[JoeMo]

Very interesting article. However, Puerto Casado is just a single data point.  It would be interesting to see the record of other data points.  I'll bet the people on the Atlantic Seaboard are having a hard time believing in global warming after the past two winters.

 

Oops - so sorry; global warming is sooo not PC - it's "climate change".

[Gregory Matthews]

The subject of global warming is complex:

 

One important factor to consider is that temperatures are recorded at three altitudes with the lowest at the surface of the earth.  Each of the altitude level has a different effect on the weather pattern, to include temperature, of the earth.

 

The U.S. first began taking consistent weather observations following a resolution of Congress in February of 1870.  This took a period of years to establish and in its early beginnings the observation points were few, located mainly on military installations, not coordinated for what was required for general observation and located near the earth surface.  In 1873 an observation station was established on the top of Pike's Peak, at 14,100 feet.  For many years that observation point was the highest such point in the world.  It was not until 1891 that civilians managed the U.S. weather reporting system.  It is from this perspective, in part, that many of the recorded weather observations are not consistent with what was actually needed and the tri-level of observations simply did not exist.  Perhaps, this is part of the reasons why adjustments are sometimes made in the recorded values. 

 

It is also clear that there is much in nature that causes the temperature to rise and fall that is not controlled by humans:

1) The sun goes through periodic cycles of changing emitted energy.  It dims, brightens and dims again.

2) The orbit of the Earth is an ellipse which results in different parts of the earth surface being closer to the sun than at other times.

3) The axis of the Earth  wobbles which results in changes in both hemispheres ass to what area is closer to the sun.

4) Volcanic dust can lower Earth temperature.

5) Oceans absorb hear.  A 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature results in 15 trillion watts of power that has been absorbed by the ocean.

6) The Gulf-stream current changes flow which affects weather patterns on land.

7) There is a transoceanic current flow throughout the worlds oceans called the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), which flows at 1 cm. per second, affects world-wide temp0eratures and goes in cycles.   

 

Humans do not have any direct control over these aspects and others which I have not mentioned.

 

But, there are human factors which are involved:

1) Two important ones are atmospheric carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

2) In a 200 year period the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. 

3) At the present time we release eight billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

4)  This is a yearly increase in carbon dioxide of 2 ppm each year.

5) Other human caused gases that are important in this issue include methane, nitirous oxide and sthe so-called CFC's.

6) Since the Industrial Revolution it is estimated the atmospheric methane has increased by 145 per-cent and nitrous oxide has increased by 15 per-cent.

7) Analysis of the radioactive isotopes of those gases has confirmed that the increase has been caused by human activity.

 

For whatever reason that warming has occurred, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.2 Fahrenheit degrees in the a 100 year period.  This increase may seem to be small.  But, it actually has a major effect on what happens on Earth.  This effect includes animal and plant life, rise in surface level of oceans, changes in weather patterns and much more.    While we can not control for the non human caused aspects of this, we can control for human aspects.

 

  NOTE: Much, but not all, of the source material for the above came from:  Mike Nelson, COLORADO WETHER ALMANAC, pges 257 - 288.

[CoAspen]

The word 'fiddled' was used bythe author of the 'opinion' piece to give a negative conotation. The word was not used by any of the scientific people quoted. Because of the contoversy, on going, persons were going to examine the adjustments, needed because of additional data acquired, to the overall picture.

 

Any 'lite' reading of the literature on the subject, also explains that the warmer trend upwards means more fluctuations in weather, warmer some places, colder other places, more seasonal variations, etc, etc, etc. As has been noted, a very complex subject.

[Tom Wetmore]

If 95 % of qualified experts in most any other field agreed, few people would pay much attention to the 5% that don't. But the exact opposite seems to happen with climate science. And truly odd that the primary fault line is the standard political divide between those who somehow think 95% of climate scientist are right or wrong about the significant evidence of climate change and that it has a man-made cause.

It is as ridiculous as if half the population sided with the scientific/medical consensus that smoking is bad for your health and that the other half sided with the tobacco industry funded experts that denied the evidence as being sufficient/valid/convincing enough proof of a link between the list of health issues and smoking.

But it really isn't so different since many of the climate change denier "experts" are largely funded by or in some way in the pocket of big oil and other big business that stand to gain from not doing anything about climate change.

[Bravus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Denial centre commisions study intended to bolster denial.

Not even news.

[Geoarrge]

If 95 % of qualified experts in most any other field agreed, few people would pay much attention to the 5% that don't. But the exact opposite seems to happen with climate science. And truly odd that the primary fault line is the standard political divide between those who somehow think 95% of climate scientist are right or wrong about the significant evidence of climate change and that it has a man-made cause.

It is as ridiculous as if half the population sided with the scientific/medical consensus that smoking is bad for your health and that the other half sided with the tobacco industry funded experts that denied the evidence as being sufficient/valid/convincing enough proof of a link between the list of health issues and smoking.

But it really isn't so different since many of the climate change denier "experts" are largely funded by or in some way in the pocket of big oil and other big business that stand to gain from not doing anything about climate change.

 

The oft-repeated '97%' figure comes from a dishonest survey by the Australian activist John Cook, who examined about twelve thousand scientific papers and then used the loosest criteria possible to count as many of them as possible as an endorsement of global alarmism.  There is plenty of reason to doubt this figure. 

 

And how do governments not stand to gain something from inventing a crisis too big for the little people to solve on their own?  This is not about science. This is about power, specifically the lure of authoritarian technocracy.

http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/

http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/18/spiegel-trashes-john-cooks-survey-mans-impact-remains-hotly-disputed-only-10-have-faith-in-models/(Link to the  Spiegel article is within, if you read German)

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/

[Bravus]

That's entirely a political argument, George, not a scientific one.

If you can produce a number of peer reviewed scientific papers contradicting (a) the fact of warming and ( the main causes, by all means do.

Without that, whether it's 90, 95 or 97% of climate science papers, the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the relevant field with the relevant qualifications accept what the evidence shows: warming is happening and human activities are very significant in a number of the contributing factors.

[Geoarrge]

Seriously? The first link discusses the same papers used to construct the 97% narrative. It ceases to be an overwhelming majority as soon as you cease to lump Group 3 with the alarmists. 

[joeb]

I have never seen proof that global warming is not a cyclical change in earth's temperatures.  We've only tracked temperatures for a relatively short time.  But we do know temperatures on earth have fluctuated greatly in our past.  As these fluctuations were long before the industrial revolution man-made causes can be eliminated as everything being blamed for global warming are very new technology in human history.  

So, I'm a denier.  I've not seen any proof that the causes for global warming are not natural causes. 

[Bravus]

Science doesn't do 'proof', it does strong evidence. Science actually *understands* why the climate has changed in the past - based on strong evidence - why it has been relatively warm and stable for the past 12,000 years and why that stability is under threat now. It understands the fluctuations in solar output, and knows that they account for a maximum of 30% of the observed warming.

I'm not *calling* anyone ignorant, but assuming you're able to make judgements about the claims of science without understanding the science... simply means your judgement is poorly founded.

[joeb]

Science doesn't do 'proof', it does strong evidence. Science actually *understands* why the climate has changed in the past - based on strong evidence - why it has been relatively warm and stable for the past 12,000 years and why that stability is under threat now. It understands the fluctuations in solar output, and knows that they account for a maximum of 30% of the observed warming.

I'm not *calling* anyone ignorant, but assuming you're able to make judgements about the claims of science without understanding the science... simply means your judgement is poorly founded.

​Really?  Then why all the bashing of those who don't think the scientists assertions are true?  It's almost political suicide to be a "denier".  The political left, and I include you in that because of your putdown I must not be able to understand the issues or I have poor judgment, is rabid in its attacks on those who disagree with them. 

Funny how there are scientists who don't accept the man made global warming schtick.  They must be the retarded ones who have "poor judgment" because they don't agree.

[Tom Wetmore]

You really need to knock that political chip off your shoulder...

[joeb]

You really need to knock that political chip off your shoulder...

​How many political conservatives do you see condemn people for not accepting global warming?  I can tell you since I know you won't answer the question: Nada, zero, zilch.

How about the following about what the political left is now saying?

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html

It's plainly an attempt by the political left to criminalize opposition to global warming.  Use RICO to destroy opposition to something on the left's political platform.  How's that for evidence about how the left works?

How about the political left taking the chip off their shoulder?  That's what I'd like to see.

Edited June 9, 2015 by joeb

[Tom Wetmore]

You for one...  At least as much or more than you accuse others of doing.

A chip on the shoulder causes blindness... Or just blocks ones view when looking in the mirror.

[JoeMo]

For all of us naysayers out there...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

[Bravus]

For what it's worth, RICO is antiracketeering legislation. If donors to climate denial centres are willing to be publicly identified, end of story. What is being followed up is large secret donations from people with an interest in distorting public policy. "Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil". Come on out into the light, and you're safe.

[Jack Chaffin Jr]

You really need to knock that political chip off your shoulder...

What about when the issue is actually political?  Many of us believe that the climate change "consensus" is about power on the part of political parties and nations, and income for "climate scientists", who cannot get funding for research projects if they begin with a hypothesis that does not assume that climate change is real.  If the issue is political, and you believe that one cannot legitimately address this issue while bringing in politics, then you automatically handicap the opposition.  Because I can observe that the supporters of climate change don't seem to be inhibited by a similar restriction.  I have also observed that a favorite tactic of the left is to proclaim "consensus", then attempt to shut up all opposition.  Opposition is part of the scientific method.  True science welcomes dissent, and doesn't attempt to suppress it.  This is one of the ways that one can easily see that the discussion is now about power and politics, not about real science.

[Tom Wetmore]

You are missing the point, Jack.  First the reference to a chip on the shoulder was not directly about the topic or even whether the topic is, or should be political, but rather the apparent attitude of the one to whom the comment was specifically directed.  Coming to any discussion with an agenda and spoiling for a fight, a grudge match, throwing  over charged invectives and  inflammatory rhetoric around tends to overshadow and obscure rational discourse on the topic.  That was what was being addressed.  Politics is hard enough to discuss in anything close to a calm, civil and rational basis without escalating it unnecessarily with overwrought passion and person pique.

It really does not matter whether the topic of climate change has or has not become politicized. I am not disputing that, although I do think it is unfortunate that some continue to treat it as only a political football.  That really diminishes and obscures the science involved.  By politicizing it (or any other topic, the perception is that it is untrue and baseless, all just political hype not to be taken seriously.  The irony is that it ends up with over inflating the political rhetoric, but deflates the reality, facts and evidence.  But the greater frustration is that such obfuscation of the real issue ultimately only serves the political agenda.  Just bury it in political BS to avoid dealing with  and coming up with solutions for real problems. 

As to the substance of your apparent point, it just sounds an awful lot like the tactic of the tobacco companies and their political servants disputing the the health effects of smoking.