Met Office Falsify Data To Prove “Hottest Bank Holiday”

YET another example of why – sadly – government climate agencies, like the UK Met Office, BoM, CSIRO, NASA and NOAA, who have been captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever name beats their PR departments alarmist drum the hardest.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902088907654914049

This is quite an amazing piece of evidence that the UK Met Office are actively involved in defrauding the public.

The above tweet was published early this morning, forecasting the day’s weather (Aug 28th).

Note that the record to beat was 28.3C.

A few hours later they triumphantly sent this tweet:

image

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/902212321103290368

Miraculously, the previous record temperature dropped by 1.1C!

Is it surprising that nobody trusts official Met Office data any more?

The lengths that the Met Office, NOAA, GISS etc go to in order to distort the truth should surprise none of us now.

But this latest piece of fraud really does take the biscuit, as  many commenters have spotted.

image

https://twitter.com/balinteractive/status/902238903050137604

View original post


“Hottest Year Evah” Update

Nearly everything about “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever suits the narrative of the day is based on propaganda, fear and alarmism, having nothing to do with actual “science”, hard data or observed reality…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Supposedly 2016 was the banner year for global warming. So what has it brought?

Arctic sea ice extent finishes the year at the level of the last few years:

osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years_en

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

View original post 90 more words


Hottest Arctic Hype

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/13/hottest-arctic-record-triggers-massive-ice-melt/amp/

There has been a concerted effort in the last few days to run the latest Arctic scare story, such as this one in the Telegraph:

The Arctic shattered heat records in the past year as unusually warm air triggered massive melting of ice and snow and a late fall freeze, US government scientists said on Tuesday.

The grim assessment came in the Arctic Report Card 2016, a peer-reviewed document by 61 scientists around the globe issued by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The NOAA report covers from October 2015 to September 2016, a period it said the Arctic’s average annual air temperature over land was the highest on record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/13/hottest-arctic-record-triggers-massive-ice-melt/amp/

The use of the word “heat”, has become prevalent lately, all designed to put slightly warmer weather into a bad light. All I can say to the writer of this article is that…

View original post 185 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 :


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 :


NOAA’s Fabricated “Record Temperatures”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

201510

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201510.gif

NOAA inform us that last month was another “hottest evah”.

Note how a huge swathe of South America has been labelled as “record warmest”. And what is this based on?

View original post 120 more words


Why NASA And NOAA Made Greenland Disappear

Many wonderful ways for Tom and NOAA ‘National Centres for Environmental Information (propaganda)’ to manufacture the “Hottest Month Ever”, by hundredths of a degree.

Real Science

There is plenty of temperature data available from Greenland, but NOAA has made it disappear from their analysis, as has NASA.

201510

They have good reason for this. Temperatures in southwest Greenland are plummeting, and are colder now than during the 1970s. The plot below is made from the NOAA GHCN database – data they pretend they don’t have.

2015-11-13-04-54-27

The amount of ice in Baffin Bay has sharply increased since 2010, and is now fully recovered to 1979 levels.

region.all.anom.region.4

University of Illinois – Cryosphere Today 

 Green below shows ice expansion since this week in 2010.

2015-11-21-04-07-39

N_daily_extent.11232010 N_daily_extent

I took these pictures of Baffin Bay in late June. There was still huge amounts of ice.

ScreenHunter_9591 Jun. 21 07.08

ScreenHunter_9593 Jun. 21 07.09

Satellite data shows that 2010 was much warmer that 2015 globally. Satellite data covers almost all of the planet, so it doesn’t produce the gross errors which NASA and NOAA do with their surface data.

2015-11-21-04-25-39

Greenland has gone missing, because…

View original post 5 more words


NOAA Blows Away Their Fraud Record By A Wide Margin In September

“It [global warming] is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

– Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Harold Lewis, on resignation from the American Physical Society.

Not much has changed since Harold resigned from the APS in 2010.

Real Science

2015-10-22-14-53-34

Lots of headlines today that September was the hottest ever – by a wide margin. The level of fraud which NOAA had to use to obtain this result (ahead of Paris) is quite stunning.

The first thing to note is the massive data tampering they did since last September. They increased the temperature of all recent years to get rid of the hiatus.

NOAASeptember2014-2015201409.gif (813×525)
201509.gif (813×525)

But that is the least of their fraud. They generated this red colored map, which does not even vaguely represent their measured data.

201509 (2)

201509.gif (990×765)

The map below shows their actual station data. They have coverage for less than 50% of the land surface, meaning that more than half of their surface temperatures in the map above are fake. Note that there are only two warm areas – the US and eastern Europe. They simply made up fake temperatures in the missing areas to paint their map…

View original post 140 more words