Posted on 01/25/2015 1:35:24 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
In South America, there are hardly any rural land thermometers. GISS tells us the area is warming (see the map below). Paul Homewood looked at the raw data. There are only three rural stations currently operating in the area, Puerto Casado, Mariscal, and San Juan, and they all show a raw trend that falls. As in so many other situations, after adjustments, all three show a rising trend. The changes are breathtaking. In Mariscal raw temperatures of 25.5C turned out to be “really” 22.5C. (Those 1950 thermometers were hopeless 
). In San Juan Bautista, and Puerto Casasdo the old thermometers get adjusted down by around two degrees. Perhaps there are reasons for the adjustments, but if old thermometers so so bad, and station changes have made such a difference, why does any scientist pretend we can calculate global temperatures accurately?
The GISS map of South America. Left: The warming. Right: The NOAA map showing “grey” areas with no coverage. See Notalotofpeopleknowthat for source links.
Paul Homewood describes what he found when he compared the raw data with the official set: Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America. This is just one of his three graphs. They are all show similar transformations.
…
Christopher Booker discusses the implications in: Climategate, the sequel: ‘How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming’.
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”
After telling us about Homewoods work, Booker describes how dubious so many of the surface temperature sets are:
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.
To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.
But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
The GISS group told the world 2014 was the hottest ever. Goddard Institute for Space Studies doesn’t use the satellites in space — they use thermometers on the ground, near airports and tarmacs, which need a LOT of man-made adjustments.
These datasets need independent replication. Analysts who want to find the flaws need to get the resources to replicate them properly. Anything less is not real science. Skeptics need funding.
mote mischief~
So, mankind is responsible for warming temperatures.
Apparently the problem isn’t CO2 it’s mercury! /s
I don’t understand why they need thermometers on the ground. We’ve got literally billions of dollars worth remote-sensing satellites in orbit that can make these measurements.
Ping.
I have known about this since reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton and being inspired to do a little research. Turns out there are numerous "adjustments" made to the data to account for things like changes in land use, population, precision and accuracy of the gear, etc... Well, turns out these "adjustments" and factors are an order of magnitude (or two) larger than the trends "discovered" in the data. Yeah, that's right, those scary sounding, alarmist trends in the data saying we're all doomed are almost certainly a figment of mathematical manipulation and imagination.
After reading that, doing a little research on what passes for "climate science" and knowing what I know about large scale computer modeling of complex systems... I've reached the considered opinion that climate science, global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, rapid climate change, climate change, or whatever they're calling it now is a load of BS. It is a load of BS promoted and advocated by a bunch of people my dad would call the "north end of a southbound horse."
Grant money causes man-made Globull Warming.
If at first your climate model fails, Adjust!, Adjust!, Adjust!
Adjustment is the climate model scientist’s best friend.
And, at the rate of their present predictive record, arguably their only friend.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
The computer model is the final authority. Factual that does not coincide with the model is necessarily wrong.
And GlowBull Warming killed off the Mayans and Aztec empires:
for the record I don’t think that was the only cause.
They were likely ravaged by disease, famine and a drought.
There has never been a catastrophic point of civilization change, over one factor or event.
Certainly, the Aztecs located near quite a few rivers that were feed from hundreds and thousand of miles away and they at least had some agrarian skills, as well, were able to master irrigation.
http://www.history.com/topics/aztecs/videos/aztec-aqueducts
So who knows what the heck happened.
They should have at least left a note telling us where they were going or when they would be back...
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
The satellites are more accurate and show no warming. Even after they tweek the measurements. So it means the Earth has been cooling, if you look at raw sat data. The oligarchy has bet their bubble economic farm on a warming planet. So there will warming, no matter how many data sets and humans are killed in the process.
Liberal rule:
If the facts don’t fir the liberals’ narrow little ideology, then the facts are wrong.
Pope's visit to stoke climate fight
Obama Targets Americans At The Pump
Global Warming on Free Republic
Yes indeed. I’ve had a fairly regular argument going back and forth between me and a younger research scientist. Doing my best to shine that light, but he has all these “facts” he keeps throwing at me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.