Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here. I found one in two seconds:As I explained earlier to day, the thread title is a challenge to the many posters here who have claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or admitted falsifying data and have no credibility. These statement are made with complete certainty as if it were a universally accepted truth. I simply want to see the evidence supporting that certainty. So far, no one has been able to provide it.
www.investors.com
One wonders with what your denier compatriots were having such difficulty.Here. I found one in two seconds:
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, its data are fraudulent.
You requested a link. One was provided.One wonders with what your denier compatriots were having such difficulty.
So, investors.com. Well, that's not where I'd start for climate data but let's see what they've got. The first link, through several steps, gets us to
This is a 2017 study performed by John Christy and Richard McNider and published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences nee the Journal of the Korean Meteorological Society.
Abstract: We identify and remove the main natural perturbations (e.g. volcanic activity, ENSOs) from the global mean lower tropospheric temperatures (T LT ) over January 1979 - June 2017 to estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered value is +0.155K dec− 1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096Kdec− 1 , related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 (+0.09Kdec− 1 , Christy and McNider, 1994) using only 15 years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096Kdec− 1 represents the net T LT response to increasing greenhouse radiative forcings, this implies that the T LT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔT LT at the time CO 2 doubles) is +1.10 ±0.26 K which is about half of the average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31±0.20K. Assuming that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing over this period is near zero, the mismatch since 1979 between observations and CMIP-5 model values suggests that excessive sensitivity to enhanced radiative forcing in the models can be appreciable. The tropical region is mainly responsible for this discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the extra sensitivity are (a) the parameterized hydrology of the deep atmosphere, (b) the parameterized heat-partitioning at the oceanatmosphere interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.ANDConclusions The current tropospheric temperature trend from 1979-2016 is influenced by large, natural, interannual fluctuations which if removed reveal a trend about a third less positive than is directly measured (+0.155 down to +0.095Kdec−1). This underlying trend is essentially the same as calculated in CM94 (+0.09Kdec−1) when only 15 years were available and who determined the underlying trend at that time needed adjustment upward, from −0.04 to +0.09Kdec−1. We find that the influence of the tropical oceans and mid-latitude SST indices on the temperature trend has been essentially zero since 1979, so that removing the cooling in the early part of the record from the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo dominates the adjustment. The assessment of tropospheric climate sensitivity from the calculation of the underlying trend above requires significant assumptions. If we assume, among other things, that the impact of the net of natural external and internal forcing variations has not influenced the observed trend and that anthropogenic forcing as depicted in the average of the IPCC AR5 models is similar to that experienced by the Earth, then observations suggest the tropospheric transient climate response (TTCR) is 1.10 ±0.26 K. This central estimate is likely less than half that of the average of the 102 simulations of the CMIP-5 RCP4.5 model runs also examined here (2.31±0.20). If this result is borne out, it suggests many explanations including the possibility that that the average feedbacks of the CMIP-5 generation of climate models are likely skewed to favor positive over negative relative to what is present in the actual Earth system. As noted, we cannot totally discount that natural variability or errors in forcing might also account for the discrepancy between modeled and observed TTCR. However, given the facts that the processes controlling the uptake of energy by oceans and the transfer of heat in the tropical atmosphere are largely parameterized, it is not scientifically justified to dismiss model error, possibly substantial, as one source of the discrepancy. Acknowledgements. This research was supported under the US Department of Energy, DE-SC0012638. We thank the reviewers and editor for their helpful suggestions.
I found a collection of climate scientist comments about this study on a Climate Feedback page (Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study) that nominally was reviewing a Daily Caller article about this study but included far more commentary about Christy-McNider 2017 than about Daily Caller. Feel free to visit the Climate Feedback link but the impressions I got from the original study and some of these comments are that:
1) No where is there a single comment even suggesting that NOAA or NASA have improperly adjusted historical temperature data.
2) An underlying purpose of the study was an attempt to discredit IPCC ECS and TCR estimates, a favorite bugaboo of Christy and his partner Spencer.
3) The study conclusion seems to the simple claim that the discrepancy between observations and CMIP-5 model runs is due to model sensitivity errors.
4) The study ignores several small but significant volcanic eruptions in the 21st century
5) The study claims that the lack of warming acceleration seen in the few decades reviewed is significant, when very little acceleration would be expected over such a short span
6) The study relies on a single source which Christy and McNider themselves characterize as "contentious". Reviewer Professor Victor Venema goes on to say " The authors have a long tradition of overconfidence in their data, their dataset has often needed large adjustments and has a large structural uncertainty and the study was published in a low-level journal".
The next reference in the IBD articles is a Tony Heller piece in Real Climate Science at NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees | Real Climate Science
I'm going to watch SNL and go to bed. I'll get back to this in the morning.
And so, Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). Heller is a well known global warming denier. He has a bachelor's in geology and an MS in Electrical Engineering and has never conducted professional climate research. Lately, he's been lured away with fighting the battle defending January 6th perps. He's made a few missteps in his notable career. In 2008 he claimed that NSIDC data showed that Arctic sea ice was not receding. He later issued a retraction (bravo). He has for many years insisted that there is no global warming and that the various agencies producing climate data were lying in the service of their administrations. "Apart from himself, Heller does not cite any external sources to explain how he reached his conclusion." (from “100% Of US Warming Is Fake,” The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, August 23, 2017. Archived August 23, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lFySf). This is not evidence of NOAA or NASA falsifying data.One wonders with what your denier compatriots were having such difficulty.
So, investors.com. Well, that's not where I'd start for climate data but let's see what they've got. The first link, through several steps, gets us to
This is a 2017 study performed by John Christy and Richard McNider and published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences nee the Journal of the Korean Meteorological Society.
Abstract: We identify and remove the main natural perturbations (e.g. volcanic activity, ENSOs) from the global mean lower tropospheric temperatures (T LT ) over January 1979 - June 2017 to estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered value is +0.155K dec− 1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096Kdec− 1 , related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 (+0.09Kdec− 1 , Christy and McNider, 1994) using only 15 years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096Kdec− 1 represents the net T LT response to increasing greenhouse radiative forcings, this implies that the T LT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔT LT at the time CO 2 doubles) is +1.10 ±0.26 K which is about half of the average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31±0.20K. Assuming that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing over this period is near zero, the mismatch since 1979 between observations and CMIP-5 model values suggests that excessive sensitivity to enhanced radiative forcing in the models can be appreciable. The tropical region is mainly responsible for this discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the extra sensitivity are (a) the parameterized hydrology of the deep atmosphere, (b) the parameterized heat-partitioning at the oceanatmosphere interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.ANDConclusions The current tropospheric temperature trend from 1979-2016 is influenced by large, natural, interannual fluctuations which if removed reveal a trend about a third less positive than is directly measured (+0.155 down to +0.095Kdec−1). This underlying trend is essentially the same as calculated in CM94 (+0.09Kdec−1) when only 15 years were available and who determined the underlying trend at that time needed adjustment upward, from −0.04 to +0.09Kdec−1. We find that the influence of the tropical oceans and mid-latitude SST indices on the temperature trend has been essentially zero since 1979, so that removing the cooling in the early part of the record from the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo dominates the adjustment. The assessment of tropospheric climate sensitivity from the calculation of the underlying trend above requires significant assumptions. If we assume, among other things, that the impact of the net of natural external and internal forcing variations has not influenced the observed trend and that anthropogenic forcing as depicted in the average of the IPCC AR5 models is similar to that experienced by the Earth, then observations suggest the tropospheric transient climate response (TTCR) is 1.10 ±0.26 K. This central estimate is likely less than half that of the average of the 102 simulations of the CMIP-5 RCP4.5 model runs also examined here (2.31±0.20). If this result is borne out, it suggests many explanations including the possibility that that the average feedbacks of the CMIP-5 generation of climate models are likely skewed to favor positive over negative relative to what is present in the actual Earth system. As noted, we cannot totally discount that natural variability or errors in forcing might also account for the discrepancy between modeled and observed TTCR. However, given the facts that the processes controlling the uptake of energy by oceans and the transfer of heat in the tropical atmosphere are largely parameterized, it is not scientifically justified to dismiss model error, possibly substantial, as one source of the discrepancy. Acknowledgements. This research was supported under the US Department of Energy, DE-SC0012638. We thank the reviewers and editor for their helpful suggestions.
I found a collection of climate scientist comments about this study on a Climate Feedback page (Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study) that nominally was reviewing a Daily Caller article about this study but included far more commentary about Christy-McNider 2017 than about Daily Caller. Feel free to visit the Climate Feedback link but the impressions I got from the original study and some of these comments are that:
1) No where is there a single comment even suggesting that NOAA or NASA have improperly adjusted historical temperature data.
2) An underlying purpose of the study was an attempt to discredit IPCC ECS and TCR estimates, a favorite bugaboo of Christy and his partner Spencer.
3) The study conclusion seems to the simple claim that the discrepancy between observations and CMIP-5 model runs is due to model sensitivity errors.
4) The study ignores several small but significant volcanic eruptions in the 21st century
5) The study claims that the lack of warming acceleration seen in the few decades reviewed is significant, when very little acceleration would be expected over such a short span
6) The study relies on a single source which Christy and McNider themselves characterize as "contentious". Reviewer Professor Victor Venema goes on to say " The authors have a long tradition of overconfidence in their data, their dataset has often needed large adjustments and has a large structural uncertainty and the study was published in a low-level journal".
The next reference in the IBD articles is a Tony Heller piece in Real Climate Science at NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees | Real Climate Science
I'm going to watch SNL and go to bed. I'll get back to this in the morning.
Thank you for that. I've been working on it. I just posted the second response and am still working through the several reference sources in your linked article.You requested a link. One was provided.
Next is an article by Paul Homewood about the results of NOAA dataset adjustments for New York State. Homewood notes that the result of the adjustments is to lower past temperatures and raise new ones. The unadjusted dataset is called Drd964x. The newer, adjusted data are known as nClimDiv. Here are descriptions of both from NOAA including the reasoning behind the adjustments:And so, Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). Heller is a well known global warming denier. He has a bachelor's in geology and an MS in Electrical Engineering and has never conducted professional climate research. Lately, he's been lured away with fighting the battle defending January 6th perps. He's made a few missteps in his notable career. In 2008 he claimed that NSIDC data showed that Arctic sea ice was not receding. He later issued a retraction (bravo). He has for many years insisted that there is no global warming and that the various agencies producing climate data were lying in the service of their administrations. "Apart from himself, Heller does not cite any external sources to explain how he reached his conclusion." (from “100% Of US Warming Is Fake,” The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, August 23, 2017. Archived August 23, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/lFySf). This is not evidence of NOAA or NASA falsifying data.
That last link in the original IBD article led to a Breitbart article that was simply referring back to the Homewood article just discussed.Next is an article by Paul Homewood about the results of NOAA dataset adjustments for New York State. Homewood notes that the result of the adjustments is to lower past temperatures and raise new ones. The unadjusted dataset is called Drd964x. The newer, adjusted data are known as nClimDiv. Here are descriptions of both from NOAA including the reasoning behind the adjustments:
From Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
U.S. Climate Divisions
nClimDiv Dataset
The nClimDiv dataset is based on the GHCND dataset using a 5km gridded appoach. It is based on a similar station inventory as the Drd964x dataset however, new methodologies are used to compute temperature, precipitation, and drought for United States climate divisions. These new methodologies include the transition to a grid-based calculation, the inclusion of many more stations from the pre-1930s, and the use of NCEI's modern array of quality control algorithms. These have improved the data coverage and the quality of the dataset, while maintaining the current product stream.
The nClimDiv dataset is designed to address the following general issues inherent in the Drd964x dataset:
The first (and most straightforward) improvement to the nClimDiv dataset involves updating the underlying network of stations, which now includes additional station records and contemporary bias adjustments (i.e., those used in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network version 2; Menne et al., 2009).
- For the Drd964x dataset, each divisional value from 1931-2013 is simply the arithmetic average of the station data within it, a computational practice that results in a bias when a division is spatially undersampled in a month (e.g., because some stations did not report) or is climatologically inhomogeneous in general (e.g., due to large variations in topography).
- For the Drd964x dataset, all divisional values before 1931 stem from state averages published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rather than from actual station observations, producing an artificial discontinuity in both the mean and variance for 1895-1930 (Guttman and Quayle, 1996).
- In the Drd964x dataset, many divisions experienced a systematic change in average station location and elevation during the 20th Century, resulting in spurious historical trends in some regions (Keim et al., 2003; Keim et al., 2005; Allard et al., 2009).
- Finally, none of the Drd964x dataset station-based temperature records contain adjustments for historical changes in observation time, station location, or temperature instrumentation, inhomogeneities which further bias temporal trends (Peterson et al., 1998).
The second (and far more extensive) improvement is to the computational methodology, which now addresses topographic and network variability via climatologically aided interpolation (Willmott and Robeson, 1995). The outcome of these improvements is a new divisional dataset that maintains the strengths of its predecessor while providing more robust estimates of areal averages and long-term trends.
The NCEI's Monitoring Branch transitioned from the Drd964x dataset to the more modern the nClimDiv dataset in early 2014. While this transition did not disrupt the current product stream, some variances in temperature and precipitation values may be observed throughout the data record. For example, in general, climate divisions with extensive topography above the average station elevation will be reflected as cooler climatology. An assessment of the major impacts of this transition can be found in Fenimore, et. al, 2011. This pier-reviewed paper describes in further detail the improved climate division dataset: Vose, et. al, 2014. Also available is the metadata for nClimDiv with an assigned DOI: NOAA's Climate Divisional Database (nClimDiv).
In March 2015, historical data for thirteen Alaskan climate divisions were added to the nClimDiv database and will be updated each month with the CONUS nClimDiv data. The Alaska nClimDiv data were created and updated using similar methodology as that for the CONUS, but with a different approach to establishing the underlying climatology. The Alaska data are built upon the 1971-2000 PRISM averages whereas the CONUS values utilize a base climatology derived from the nClimDiv dataset. More information on this new dataset can be accessed in Alaska FAQs .
Drd964x Dataset
Traditionally, climate division values have been computed using the monthly values for all of the Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) stations in each division, which are then averaged to compute divisional monthly temperature and precipitation averages/totals. This is valid for values computed from 1931-2013. For the 1895-1930 period, statewide values were computed directly from stations within each state. Divisional values for this early period were computed using a regression technique against the statewide values (Guttman and Quayle, 1996). These values make up the Drd964x division dataset.
A problem Homewood feels is significant is that these adjustments are done automatically and thus in some sort of black box. Well, that "box" was programmed by NOAA scientists who know precisely what it is doing and why and have explained here and elsewhere. So I think his complaint here is unjustified.
I'll let those interested digest this a bit as several posters have charged that these adjustments are intended solely to show greater warming. One adviso on that, these are only US temperatures we're talking about. The US represents less than 2% of the Earth's surface.
Complete certainty? Where. Show your mther fking data assholeAs I explained earlier to day, the thread title is a challenge to the many posters here who have claimed that NOAA and NASA have either been caught or admitted falsifying data and have no credibility. These statement are made with complete certainty as if it were a universally accepted truth. I simply want to see the evidence supporting that certainty. So far, no one has been able to provide it.
Jesus, you all need to do a little more thinking before you hit that post button. It is YOUR statements, that NASA and NOAA have been discredited, that are being made with complete certainty.Complete certainty? Where. Show your mther fking data asshole
correct, I am completely certain that neither data collecting business has data that shows anything demfoks are parroting about climate climate AGW, AGW. Nothing. you would have posted it if it existed.Jesus, you all need to do a little more thinking before you hit that post button. It is YOUR statements, that NASA and NOAA have been discredited, that are being made with complete certainty.
NOAA and NASA are agencies, not businesses. I and others have posted their temperature data dozens and dozens of times here.correct, I am completely certain that neither data collecting business has data that shows anything demfoks are parroting about climate climate AGW, AGW. Nothing. you would have posted it if it existed.
Two biggest scam organisations on the planet very busy fiddling the sun spot photos to keep the Sheeple unaware of the inevitable short term weather disruptions , but perfect for scamming trillions out of the system for the garbage "warming by man" agenda . Perfect Deep State operation .NOAA and NASA are agencies, not businesses. I and others have posted their temperature data dozens and dozens of times here.
I'm not saying you haven't, I'm saying you haven't posted data that supports AGW or added heat anywhere.NOAA and NASA are agencies, not businesses. I and others have posted their temperature data dozens and dozens of times here.
You're lying and we both know it.I'm not saying you haven't, I'm saying you haven't posted data that supports AGW or added heat anywhere.
if you know it, then post the site with the data that shows AGW is making the globe warmer?You're lying and we both know it.
www.ipcc.chif you know it, then post the site with the data that shows AGW is making the globe warmer?
And what do you think this says besides you lack the necessary technical competence?
