The UK Daily Telegraph has published an article today detailing discoveries of "adjustments" of old temperature data by the global warming alarmists. Guess what? The old temperature data has been reduced so that the trend towards warming has been exaggerated (or perhaps created). According to The Telegraph, checks were run comparing actual reports of temperature at a number of weather stations in South America during the 1930s and 1940s with the latest reports of historical temperatures at those same stations. These latest reports are the ones that form the base line for all of the global warming claims. The result was that the temperatures actually reported at the time were about 1 degree Celsius higher than the latest reports show. This difference was consistent at all the stations in South America that were checked. Next, weather stations in the Arctic from Canada to Siberia were checked in the same way. Again, it was discovered that the latest reports compiled by the global warming theorists showed higher temperatures 70-90 years ago at these stations by at least one degree Celsius. The checking continued and all sorts of "adjustments" to the old data were found. Every "adjustment" went only one way: each one made the warming of the Earth during the last century much more pronounced. In other words, it looks like the global warming theorists created phony data to support their theory.
So what does this mean? Here are just a few conclusions:
1. There are only a few sources of good data about the temperatures across the Earth. One of the best is the temperature data for the atmosphere measured by weather satellites that were put into orbit, in part, to gather data to verify global warming. This data has not been adjusted since it is regularly disseminated to the scientific community and changing it would be impossible. This is also the data that shows that there has been no global warming over the last 18 years.
2. This is not a new story. When the email from the University of East Anglia were hacked and then released a few years ago, there were a great many communications discussing the practice of "adjusting" old climate data to make it fit the global warming theory better. Indeed, it was the release of these emails that led to the major rise of opposition to global warming theory itself. The story of phony data, however, has never made it into the mainstream media in a way that would make clear the reality for most people. The Telegraph story helps in that regard.
3. There needs to be an immediate explanation from the global warming theorists as to why these temperatures from 80 years ago were modified. In the past, we have heard about the need to modify as a result of urbanization. The idea was that as cities came close to the weather stations, the temperatures were raised, so they had to be adjusted down. The problem now, however, is that there are no urban areas in the Arctic. Whether one looks at Canada or Siberia, it is empty wilderness. There is no reason to adjust temperatures due to urbanization. In South America, the stations discussed in the Telegraph article are centered in Paraguay. In that area, also, there was no urbanization in the 1930s. For their work to be taken seriously, the climate scientist supporters of global warming have to come forward with an explanation of the "adjustments" of all the old data.
4. In addition to explaining why the old data was "adjusted", the global warming crowd also has to explain why current data is not likewise adjusted downwards. After all, if urbanization in the 1930s raised temperatures at ground stations, just think how much more the urbanization of the 21st century would raise temperatures. Why are there no such adjustments now? Is it because they would undermine global warming conclusions?
5. The next time someone tells you that global warming is "settled science" and that 97% of all scientists agree on that, ask them if those 97% were told that the basic data was phony. Ask them if those 97% of scientists were told that old data was "adjusted" to make the theory work. Ask them why they would look at claims of settled science and 97% support that are now 10 years old while since that time Earth has not warmed. There are no answers to these questions.
So what does this mean? Here are just a few conclusions:
1. There are only a few sources of good data about the temperatures across the Earth. One of the best is the temperature data for the atmosphere measured by weather satellites that were put into orbit, in part, to gather data to verify global warming. This data has not been adjusted since it is regularly disseminated to the scientific community and changing it would be impossible. This is also the data that shows that there has been no global warming over the last 18 years.
2. This is not a new story. When the email from the University of East Anglia were hacked and then released a few years ago, there were a great many communications discussing the practice of "adjusting" old climate data to make it fit the global warming theory better. Indeed, it was the release of these emails that led to the major rise of opposition to global warming theory itself. The story of phony data, however, has never made it into the mainstream media in a way that would make clear the reality for most people. The Telegraph story helps in that regard.
3. There needs to be an immediate explanation from the global warming theorists as to why these temperatures from 80 years ago were modified. In the past, we have heard about the need to modify as a result of urbanization. The idea was that as cities came close to the weather stations, the temperatures were raised, so they had to be adjusted down. The problem now, however, is that there are no urban areas in the Arctic. Whether one looks at Canada or Siberia, it is empty wilderness. There is no reason to adjust temperatures due to urbanization. In South America, the stations discussed in the Telegraph article are centered in Paraguay. In that area, also, there was no urbanization in the 1930s. For their work to be taken seriously, the climate scientist supporters of global warming have to come forward with an explanation of the "adjustments" of all the old data.
4. In addition to explaining why the old data was "adjusted", the global warming crowd also has to explain why current data is not likewise adjusted downwards. After all, if urbanization in the 1930s raised temperatures at ground stations, just think how much more the urbanization of the 21st century would raise temperatures. Why are there no such adjustments now? Is it because they would undermine global warming conclusions?
5. The next time someone tells you that global warming is "settled science" and that 97% of all scientists agree on that, ask them if those 97% were told that the basic data was phony. Ask them if those 97% of scientists were told that old data was "adjusted" to make the theory work. Ask them why they would look at claims of settled science and 97% support that are now 10 years old while since that time Earth has not warmed. There are no answers to these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment