Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
"Uh-Oh: New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate
Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:21pm

Change Data ...

"'Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments. Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming,' he said. 'You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.'"

Of course it never happened, as honest adjustments would show lack of warming, followed by lack of funding and soon after, the "global warming experts" would be out of work.

Uh-Oh: New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are "not a valid representation of reality."
Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

ByJAMES BARRETT July 10, 2017
A new peer-reviewed bombshell study concludes that three key global temperature data sets used in recent climate change models have been "adjusted" in such a way as to not be "a valid representation of reality."

The study, titled "On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding," was published in June and written by James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso. It was reviewed and approved by Drs. Alan Carlin, Harold H. Doiron, Theodore R. Eck, Richard A. Keen, Anthony R. Lupo, Thomas P. Sheahan, and George T. Wolff.

The scientists determined that the EPA's conclusions based off of all three GAST data sets were "invalidated," one of the authors claiming that "[n]early all of the warming" shown in the data sets are accounted for by the "adjustments" made by scientists to past temperatures.

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality," the scientists state in the abstract. "In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming."

The researchers explain in the abstract that they set out to "test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes."

The authors underscore that the validity all three GAST data sets are essential to the EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. If they are not a "valid representation of reality," then the EPA's conclusions are invalid.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

After checking the GAST data against all of the relevant data sets, the researchers concluded that they were "not a valid representation of reality."

One of the authors, meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, pointed out to The Daily Caller that almost all of the adjustments made to past and present temperature data sets helped promote the global warming theory.

"Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments. Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming," he said. "You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened."

You would think.

    • Too bad for your fraudulent wishes. ~ Phooey, Wed Jul 12 7:54pm
      Global warming has just been confirmed. The huge chunk of the Larson Ice Shelf has finally thawed enough to giive way and float free of Antarctica. How big. How about Delaware! Let me count the ways... more
    • What was the original source? I cannot find it. DFM
      • Does source mean some sort of Scientific Journal? ~ TheFrustratedPragmatist, Wed Jul 12 10:51am
        If so, that is just simply 20th century thinking. Reports are published every single day and posted to internet sites, and other locations that have nothing to do with Scientific Journals. Next comes ... more
        • There Is A Reason Why... ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 1:54pm
          ...the process exists. It isn't 20th century thinking. In fact, given the concerted effort by some to obfuscate facts with the "fake news" red herring, it's a forward looking process. Peer review... more
          • Absolute 100% bullsh*t ~ TheFrustratedPragmatist, Wed Jul 12 1:58pm
            IF that was the case, why don't you take a stab at explaining how a fully peer reviewed paper went out with the now infamously debunked Hockey Stick Graph of world temperature rise?????? Go ahead,... more
            • I Don't Have To... ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 2:10pm
              It has been "explained" plenty of times. This might help you out, though: more
              • And you have the GALL to question sources????? ~ TheFrustratedPragmatist, Wed Jul 12 2:19pm
                You ignorant fool. The hockey stick was DESTROYED, and the authors RENOUNCED the graph due to the amount of data points they decided to not include. If you are not even aware of those simple FACTS,... more
                • Reality Disagrees With You... ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 3:38pm
                  And each of those links I posted sources their info to peer reviewed studies and original data sources. It is what it is. Amadeus
                • He who calls another man ~ Phooey, Wed Jul 12 2:27pm
                  a fool is in reach of hells fire. Paraphrased, but it straight out of the Bible. The last person I would refer to as an ignorant fool is Amadeus. Guess who my first choice is?
      • Would This Help? ~ Deanna, Wed Jul 12 9:41am
        • Not Really... ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 1:45pm
          Anyone can make a PDF and put it on a WordPress blog. Amadeus
          • THAT IS THE POINT ~ TheFrustratedPragmatist, Wed Jul 12 1:56pm
            Anyone can get their stuff out to the Public for educated review and discussion of the ACTUAL MATERIAL they publish. Without the bias, pressure, and outright blackballing involved with publishing... more
            • Exactly... ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 2:15pm
              Anyone. Can say anything. And 99% of us have no clue whether anything they are saying has any validity. How can we have a better idea of what does have validity? Those who are experts in the various... more
        • Thank you. (nm) ~ Curmudgeon , Wed Jul 12 12:43pm
    • Peer-Reviewed? ~ Amadeus, Wed Jul 12 9:20am
      Where is this study published? What journal? Amadeus
  • Click here to receive daily updates