US Congress launches climate data probe

“NOAA’s decision to withhold the documents was, he wrote, ‘without any justification in law’.

Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’. The ‘pause’ is clearly visible in the Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT 4’ climate dataset, calculated independently of NOAA.”

Climate “science” finally being submitted to the proper scrutiny it deserves under the new administration.

TOM KARL et al – Time to handover the publics data, that you refused to under subpoena, when Obama ran your corrupt climate show!

Time “science” got its once good reputation back so we can make properly informed decisions with the publics money. The many trillions of their money spent so lavishly on “Climate Crisis Inc.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Credit: slate.com Credit: slate.com
It should be harder for NOAA to brush this off than it was when the last President was in office.
H/T GWPF

Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.

Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.

View original post 407 more words


BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

“(NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

In 1960, Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of a criminal like Tom Karl of NOAA corrupting science….

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
– President Eisenhower  1960


NOAA’s Tornado Fraud

NOAA TORNADO LIES: Another solid example of why government climate agencies like NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, MetOffice – run by a handful of activist administrators, are the last places to hear or read the truth on “global warming” aka “climate change”.

“The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!

NOAA themselves know all of this full well.
Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”

Read all of the excellent deconstruction of yet more NOAA fraud via Paul Homewood here…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201613

According to NOAA, the number of tornadoes has been steadily growing since the 1950s, despite a drop in numbers in the last five years.

They show the above chart prominently in their Tornadoes – Annual 2016 Report.

However, they know full well that it is meaningless to compare current data with the past, as they explain themselves in the section Historical Records and Trends, which is hidden away on their own website:

One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was…

View original post 592 more words


German Professor : NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

James-Hansen-Getty-640x480.png

CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images

Brietbart’s James Delingpole confirming what sceptics have been observing with disgust for years and what thankfully the world is now becoming increasingly clear about – that NASA, under the directorship of climate change activist Gavin Schmidt and before him James Hansen (pictured) arrested 4 times for climate activism, is scandalously tampering with one of the four major global temperature data sets – GISS.

This is the same data set used by much of the climate science cabal, agenda-driven politicians and the alarmist mainstream media to claim the “Hottest Year Ever” meme.

See: Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism

•••

by JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Nov 2015

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

station_thumb8

Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

station_thumb9

Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.

For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.
Truly, these people have no shame.
•••
Climate Fraud Resource File :

See also :


Stunning Drop In Global Temperatures As El Niño Warming Ends

Record Drop in Global Temp 11.2016.jpg

Record Drop In Global Temperatures As El Nino Warming Ends | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

 

The controversial global warming aka climate changehiatus/pause”, lingering like a bad smell to climate alarmists for nearly two decades, is back in play with a record drop in global temperatures since the middle of the year.

Temperatures are heading south rapidly. The latest huge drop despite record and increasing CO2 emissions.

Must be nearing revision time for the theory of Catastrophic Global Warming with regards to CO2-sensitivity?

•••

Via GWPF :

(Bolds added by Climatism)

RECORD DROP IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AS EL NINO WARMING ENDS

  • Date: 27/11/16
  • David Rose, Mail on Sunday

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.

It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.

This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.

The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer. 

This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.

But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.

Last year, Dr Schmidt said 2015 would have been a record hot year even without El Nino.

‘The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend, the cumulative effect of the long-term warming trend of our Earth,’ he said. This was ‘mainly caused’ by the emission of greenhouse gases by humans.

Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.

But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. Last night Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.

However, both his own position, and his Nasa division, may be in jeopardy. US President-elect Donald Trump is an avowed climate change sceptic, who once claimed it was a hoax invented by China.

Last week, Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.

Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’

The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.

David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back.

‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino. 

The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.

Record Drop In Global Temperatures As El Nino Warming Ends | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

•••

NASA and NOAA will be tweaking their heads and data-sets overtime in order to declare 2016 as “The Hottest Year Evah”. Possibly too late in the year to wipe out this years “Super El niño”.

•••

UPDATE

Further analysis from Paul Homewood’s excellent site Not A Lot Of People Know That :

Rose uses satellite data for his graph, but the NOAA surface data for land also gives a stark picture:

noaa-temps

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Even NOAA admit that October was by far the coldest over land since 2001, despite the fact that are we still awaiting the start of La Nina.

It is also becoming increasingly apparent that this year’s El Nino event is the strongest one at least for the last 60 years, more powerful than 1983/3 and 1997/8.

Whilst it has not peaked quite as high, it has been much more longer lasting.

ENSO.png

Earth System Research Laboratory : PSD : (none)

Global Land Temperatures Plummet In October | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Related :


Man Made Warming in Iceland

“Time To Drain The (Climate Change) Swamp.”

Defund Gavin Schmidt/NASA’s $1Billion/year taxpayer funded gravy train.

Put the dragnet through Tom Karl’s NOAA as well.

Disgraces to science.

Science Matters

H/t to Bill Illis and Tony Heller

As the graphs show, global warming is indeed man made. It is achieved by adjustments producing a warming trend in station records where no such trend existed.

A similar pattern is found and analyzed in my study of the highest quality US stations Temperature Data Review Project–My Submission

View original post


“The Hottest Year Evah”

FRANCE-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-COP21-gas-ring-Getty-640x480

 

Been hearing that 2015 was the hottest year on record? This depends entirely on which temperature data set is being referred. There are two main methods of measuring global temperature:

  • The much more accurate and comprehensive satellite measurement systems, RSS/UAH, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured! Or…
  • NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers which measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record (doctored in square brackets by Climatism)
  • The other issue with surface-based thermometer readings is that you can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres without finding a thermometer nearby. The Arctic region is a great example of this, as well the oceans which cover 70 percent of the planet.

With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the temperature measurement systems used to measure global temperature and fundamentally to help combat misinformation about NASA and NOAA’s “Hottest Year Ever” – PR claims that tell us everything about marketing, and nothing about science…

Satellite-v-thermometer-628x353.png

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 

via CFACT

by

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencerthermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

•••

See also :