Lies, damned lies and global warming

We are surrounded by scammers everywhere. This is taken directly from Powerline and in full: NO U.S. WARMING SINCE 2005.

One of the problems in assessing global climate is that the surface temperature record is terrible. There are very few weather stations world-wide, and fewer all the time. Seventy per cent of the world is ocean, and therefore hard or impossible to measure accurately. Most temperatures that go into calculations of a global average are not even measured: they are interpolated, assumed temperatures based on records at other stations.

Even when measured, temperature records are not very reliable. The U.S. is generally considered to have the best records, but surveys show that over half of our weather stations do not comply with written standards. Some are located in places that obviously will be warmer than surrounding air, e.g., next to airport runways. Many are in cities, where temperatures are artificially inflated by concentrations of people, motor vehicles, buildings, etc. And on top of all of that, the alarmists who curate weather records have systematically fiddled with them, lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago and raising recent ones, to exaggerate the supposed phenomenon of global warming.

In order to address some of these problems, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented, beginning in 2005, a new surface temperature measurement system in the U.S.

[The U.S. Climate Reference Network] includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations.

So–not to keep you in suspense–what does the USCRN show so far? No warming:

At Real Clear Energy, James Taylor adds:

There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery.

If anything, the raw temperature readings should be adjusted downward today relative to past temperatures (or past temperatures adjusted upward in comparison to present temperatures) rather than the other way around. If raw temperature readings are the same today as they were 80 years ago, when there were fewer artificial factors spuriously raising temperature readings, then U.S. temperatures today may actually be cooler than they were in the early 20th century.

More at the link. USCRN promises to be a valuable contribution to the raging debate over climate, as long as the alarmists don’t get their hands on the data and start changing it.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Lies, damned lies and global warming

  1. max

    The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

  2. Old School Conservative

    Sure sure sure.
    I’m going to wait until Saint Greta tells me what to think.

  3. Mark M

    No need to curse those homeless people any more …

    “Even a homeless person in America has a carbon footprint of roughly 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year — far higher than the per capita value needed to hold back dangerous [global warming].”

    http://mashable.com/2017/05/06/how-you-can-fight-climate-change/#gHr5haA9rOqm

  4. Roger

    We are surrounded by scammers everywhere.

    Our government just gave $500m of tax payers’ money to various Pacific Island nations to alleviate the effects of their non-existent subsidence into the ocean.

    What hope is there they’ll tell the UN where to go?

  5. a happy little debunker

    Our government just gave $500m of tax payers’ money to various Pacific Island nations to alleviate the effects of their non-existent subsidence into the ocean

    No, they gave it to the Pacific Islanders to ‘limit’ Chinese influence in the Pacific.

    It was a payout under the threat of extortion.

    Their claims will only get bigger from here.

  6. nb

    We are in the grip of a hostile takeover of humanity by forces of darkness.
    Science has helped elevate humanity by its material achievements and by the tone of mind it requires. It is now being distorted by corrupted personalities into a force for arbitrary oppression and the destruction of freedoms. The promoters of AGW are your enemy. They want to destroy you and all your achievements.

  7. First, there is this…Scientists aren’t the most honest folk around. In fact I’d argue the opposite.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/some-of-the-world-s-most-cited-scientists-have-a-secret-that-s-just-been-exposed

    Specifically, among the 100,000 most cited scientists between 1996 to 2017, there’s a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent “extreme self-citations and ‘citation farms’ (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other’s papers),” explain the authors of the new study, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University.

    Then there is the question of why 97% of them haven’t been jumping around protesting the unscientific claims of the alarmist scamsters. (tip: They’re gutless bastards)

    Take the very simple and basic criticism of the “Global Temperature” for example.
    In the story posted about no increase in US temperatures since 2005, do we realise that temperature readings taken at 6am on the East coast of the US, are married to the temperature readings taken 3 hours later on the West coast, then averaged out?
    Now do that globally. A ninth grade kid should understand why such an exercise is not scientific.

    Slightly more difficult to understand is the basic fact that temperature readings taken of the air 2m above the ground on land, are married to temperature readings of the water (actual water, not the air above the water) of the oceans. In some cases from a few meters below the surface, in other cases from many meters below the surface.
    These readings are all averaged out to give us the “Global Temperature” How scientific eh?

    So now that we know this isn’t about “The Science” but about the politics, we can see why we’ve been losing since the scam started way back in the early 80’s.
    Honest and decent sceptics who claim the science will correct itself, because it always does (apparently), have led us astray and helped the alarmist scamsters for over 20 years now.
    This “science” will never correct itself (not in our lifetimes) because it isn’t science.

  8. Lazlo

    You can “average” a dataset any way you want – the highest maximum daily temperatures, the highest minimum temperatures, the highest mean daily temperatures, in the USA, Europe, globally?

    Either way, you will “prove” whatever you wish.

  9. Herodotus

    So our BoM and CSIRO learned their adjustment tricks from the USA.

  10. mem

    I have just read on Elders Weather news(sourced from BOM ?) that Melbourne had “fairly average August weather” and then when you get into the article the reader might be forgiven for assuming that “fairly average” applied across the rest of Victoria.Being a little curious as to why this headline was chosen and released as the first report on August temperatures, I thought I might look up August temperatures in the major rural towns/cities and guess what, of the six I looked up, every one of them experienced colder than normal temperatures, the majority were at least 1 degree centigrade below the average, some even more so. It would be great if someone could do a check on this before the “average” narrative takes over.

    A Fairly Average August For Melbourne
    GRAEME BRITTAIN, 31 AUGUST 2019
    The temperature and rainfall were close to the long term average across the month of August in Victoria’s capital.

    Melbourne Olympic Park’s rain guage collected 51.4mm, compared to the August average of 50mm.

    The combined mean maximum and minimum temperature across the month was within a tenth of a degree of the long term average of 10.8 degrees. Although, the average minimum temperature was around 0.7 degrees above average, the average maximum temperature was 0.5 degrees below average.

    Slightly above average cloud cover was the main driver of the warmer than average nights and marginally colder than average days.

    August 2018 and 2017 were also quite close to the long term average in terms of temperatures and rainfall.https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/a-fairly-average-august-for-melbourne/530154

  11. Bruce in WA

    And until information like this is plastered in 18pt text across all MSM, we are beating our head against a brick wall.

    It feels better when you stop.

  12. I_am_not_a_robot

    The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014):

    It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950 …

    Human CO2 emissions rose steeply from 1945 but here was net surface warming until 1980 according to the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.
    The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 10% since 2001 (370 – 410 ppm) from whatever cause and that has coincided with a global average temperature increase of 0.1C according to UAH, the only reliable data base.
    However much if not all that net warming was due to the strong El Nino in 2016, a cyclical Pacific Ocean phenomenon unrelated to any CO2 effect.
    It cannot be inferred from all that: there is no ‘greenhouse effect’, simply that the IPCC is wrong and ‘the science’ is far from settled.

  13. I_am_not_a_robot

    Human CO2 emissions rose steeply from 1945 but here was no net surface warming until 1980 according to the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

  14. Cynic of Ayr

    Greta Garbo – Sorry… Thunberg – was mentioned.
    The idea now is that interrogating, or to be real, humiliating this kid with hard questions can’t happen because she’s a well… kid. And, she has disabilities that she seems quite proud of. The lack of any sense of logic is forefront.
    She’s 16. Sure she, or more likely her handlers, are dressing her like she’s still 14.
    How-bloody-ever, only 2 years to go and she’s an adult!
    In that time, nothing will have changed with the climate, and the hard questions can be asked. Let’s see how well she does when everything goes off script.

  15. Robber Baron

    When I look at that chart I see lotsa money, lots and lots and lotsa money!

  16. mem

    “The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 10% since 2001 (370 – 410 ppm) from whatever cause and that has coincided with a global average temperature increase of 0.1C according to UAH, the only reliable data base.”
    0.1C! Really. I find it ludricrous, no very sad, that any organisation thinks it can measure the entire globe and come to such a precise and infinitesimal figure. The boffins have become totally separated from reality.

  17. Herodotus

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (full movie linked above) was so scarily true that Tony Jones and the ABC crew had to do a number on it. They showed a cut version (missing about 40 mins) and then had a panel discussion including Karoly try their hardest to discredit it.

  18. I_am_not_a_robot
    #3145220, posted on September 1, 2019 at 11:09 am

    Human CO2 emissions rose steeply from 1945 but here was no net surface warming until 1980 according to the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

    Are you saying that the burning of all those cities in Germany, Japan, GB, Russia, France, Holland, etc didn’t even make a spike in the CO2 levels? All the fuel, explosives, rotting corpses etc had no effect?
    Not that I disbelieve you, but if those six years of CO2 extravaganza didn’t make any effect, why would any of mankinds efforts be noticeable?

  19. Measuring global temperature?

    The best way would be to use a rectal thermometer.
    Insert it into Southbank, Melbourne.

  20. W Hogg

    St Greta is of age in Sweden. Maybe getting a bloke will snap her out of it.

  21. The criminals at the UN happened onto a good thing when that Afghani girl was shot in the head, and later became a cause celebre.
    The UN will use children more and more. It works because (here comes my sexism) so many women are in positions of authority and power nowadays, they all go “awww she’s so cute, and so sad, let’s all hug her and believe her.”

  22. I_am_not_a_robot

    Winston Smith @ 12:29 pm,
    It is puzzling, the enormous WW2 materiel manufacture and general destruction would be expected to be more apparent in the data but not according to the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

  23. I_am_not_a_robot

    mem @ 11:26 am,
    The 0.1C (I should have written 0.1C – 0.2C) is derived mathematically, the average of a sum many measurements at different intervals over time, not the result of direct observation.
    Dr Roy Spencer has shown that if the EL Nino – La Nina effects are excluded the UAH T trend so far this century is around zero.

  24. egg_

    97% of Sciencematists are scammers?

  25. Mitchell Porter

    In search of a response to this up-to-the-minute skeptic talking point, I searched Twitter for discussions of USCRN. The most straightforward comment I saw is that given the small number of years it has been in operation, the fluctuations are too large for the alleged warming trends (fraction of a degree per decade) to be visible. Also, the US is just a small fraction of the Earth’s surface and regional climates have their own trends; to truly test global warming, you need something more than that.

    However, I think that in the future, I won’t even try to counter Catallaxy’s would-be debunking of climate alarmism. There are too many posts, too many talking points, and they are too low-tier. I’m more interested in stuff like, does Gerard Roe’s work on the Milankovitch cycles really provide evidence of a lower climate sensitivity, compared to Hansen’s 3 +/- 0.5 degrees? (I asked him many months ago but he hasn’t replied.)

  26. Kneel

    There are too many posts, too many talking points, and they are too low-tier.

    Then have a look at http://judithcurry.com/ – a real climate scientist, interested in real climate science.
    Plenty there to arouse your interest – if you have an open mind, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.