Posted on 04/21/2019 5:41:52 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage
Recently, NASA released its annual report on global temperatures and reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years. This claim was accompanied by dire predictions of climate change and for immediate action to dramatically curtail CO2 emissions around the globe.....But, a closer look at the data and methods used by NASA should make any reader skeptical of their results.....scientists around the world have been identifying (or constructing) ‘pristine’ weather monitoring stations to get a clearer look at temperature changes. These stations are located in areas where urban development has not occurred and is not expected. These locations do not show any meaningful change in reported land temperatures...and there are plenty of credible estimates that ocean temperatures are not changing rapidly or at anywhere near the rate that NASA is estimating.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
Spending trillions of dollars, destroying the economies of the world, and surrendering sovereignty is an exercise in Leftism and wealth redistribution, no more than that.
As a side note CO2 levels on a Submarine typically run at 4000 ppm and I survived that for a few years. All this concern about CO2 is much Ado about nothing.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Good objective article with references. Thanks for posting.
Personally, I think it’s a miracle that our climate system is as stable as it is.
It seems to me we should understand how that works before becoming overly concerned about the fact that our climate is changing.
How much have sea levels risen on the Boston, New York, and Miami waterfronts?
...
That depends on the time frame. In the distant past, water levels have been hundreds of feet lower and dozens of feet higher.
BUT!!!!
Try to get an AGW alarmist to read it and you will be greeted with "CONSENSUS!"
In the same way liberals shield themselves from social reality by shouting "RACIST!".
12 hr. 25 min:)
If only we had more STEM types and taught honest scientific inquiry instead of social justice and political activism to include climate hysteria......
The politicization of science is a travesty. NASA’s wholesale participation in manipulating the data is sad and it was one of the things I had hoped the Trump administration would end - it is purposeful and dishonest.
An easy way to explain what they are doing to the uninformed but honest is to ask what they think the results would be if they put all the monitoring stations on a north facing aspect of a hill (in the shade). This is no different than the current manipulation of having stations in areas with concrete and asphalt.
The National Academy of Sciences cautions against bias in research, but they are silent for political reasons when it comes to this measurement bias (and blatant manipulation) and that is why I no longer support them and many other “scientific” organizations.
Science, much like the media, has been infected with politics.
“This is one of the best, short, data driven essays on temperature manipulation by NASA and the IPCC that I have seen.”
I agree. An excellent summary of the skeptics position.
As I recall, several years ago a network of non-municipal non-heat island weather stations was established. These were also to be located in places not likely to develop for many years.
Even our local weather station at the airport near the interstate is apparently affected by the increase in concrete around it. There is a significant difference in my weather station recordings just 8 miles away. Yes, my station is calibrated.
“Climate science” is 99% Political Science and 1% Real Science.
The article does an excellent job summarizing the motivation.
“Motivation for NASA to Report Higher Temperatures
Why would NASA come up with results so different from those of other climate observations? Consider the history of the NASA global temperature estimates. In 1986, James Hansen broadly publicized his global warming theory in testimony before the US Senate. For the next 27 years, Mr. Hansen was the chief scientist at NASA in charge of preparing and presenting those estimates. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the “adjustments” and formulas he used after his Senate testimony were biased with an effort to make his predictions turn out to be correct? How much of the NASA estimate is a simple self-fulfilling prophesy?
It’s not just NASA that is subject to significant pressure which likely introduces bias into their results. Climate scientists may be in the same position as those in other fields (i.e. nutrition, pharmaceuticals, psychology) where the desire to produce a pre-selected result influences the inputs, methods, and findings of their science. Alarming results (“hottest ever!” “disaster predicted” “urgent action needed”) all generate headlines; speaking engagements; trips to climate conferences (IPCC); and additional funding for more research. When scientists find opposite results (“nothing is really changing” “it’s just weather” “random events as usual”) they get no publicity; no funding; and instead are attacked (“pro big oil” “anti-environment” or worst of all, a “climate change denier.”)[35] There are indeed thousands of scientific papers that are at odds with NASA, but they don’t get nearly the media coverage and they are not included in NASA’s estimates.”
Summation of current Climate Science:
When raw data show the exact opposite of “adjusted” data, there’s something very very wrong.
So when global warming didn’t sell, they went to climate change so they could point to any weather event- hot/cold, wet/dry, storms/ calm- all of it became “evidence” of climate change. Guess that doesn’t sound scary or urgent enough. Must not be bringing in the dollars like it used to. So now we have climate chaos? I guess that is supposed to be highly variable and unpredictable climate change? Hmm, seems to me at that rapid of a time scale that’s not climate, that’s just weather, and weather changes-sometimes a lot in a short period.
I like one set of schemes, namely the concept of an all hands on deck activity to develop the Gen IV nuclear reactor. Clean as far as CO2 goes, cannot melt down, and can eat old radioactive waste as in input fuel.
This would be coupled with infrastructure improvements like electric rail and bus transport systems as well as electric road chargers for electric vehicles.
Why do this? Why not, it won’t hurt to develop nuclear electric power and will generate jobs and reduce fossil fuels, (if that helps anything, which is still in doubt).
I recall the same. NASA heralded these as "pristine" sites, that needed no "homogenization", and could accurately measure US temperature without manipulation.
I suspect that these sites show no warming, and therefore NASA is quietly attempting to ignore them.
There are reasons to look for viable alternatives to fossil fuels. They do form pollutants, in the forms of noxious hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, etc. Plus, as far as I know, we have no information on their rate of formation vs. the rate of use.
The real motivation behind the attempts to stop the use of nuclear fuel is, as with all attempts to suppress energy production, an attempt to halt progress, suppress freedom, and force us to live primitive lifestyles. That seems to be the motivation of most “environmentalists.” Ironically, I actually am an environmentalist—I researched an environmental pollutant for my PhD.
“I suspect that these sites show no warming, and therefore NASA is quietly attempting to ignore them.”
Maybe we could organize FReepers to measure and log temperatures where they live?
I have long believed the truth in your post. The forces against cheap and clean energy are really the same forces that want to maintain gridlocked highways and dense cities. They are also against making desalinated water more available, and I suspect they would be against raising the standard of living for the poor in every country.
I was once a sierra club member but I realized that as an organization, they were more for a political result than an environmental one.
Congrats on earning your PhD.
The whole program just quietly dropped out of sight didn’t it?
Odd that. Huh?
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.