Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
More at the Telegraph
So many fallacies, so little time in that little 60 second video.
Even now emmissions of greenhouse gases are NOT ”unchecked.”
Yet they MUST ”REMAIN UNCHECKED” for another 90 years if we are to see a 2.6′ C increase in earth’s average temp.
Straight-line projections in the video ignore earth’s ability to self-correct, such as using the oceans as carbon sinks (which we only recently discovered they are.)
When a starting number is 0.002 and it increases to 0.003 that is a ”50% increase.
Yet the 1910 number must surely be a guestimate.
We didn’t have worldwide testing of such things in 1910.
So, the rise of 40% over 100 years is pure BS., based on guestimation of numbers 100 years ago.
NASA’s numbers are adjusted UP when most of their weather data collectors are set too close to man-made heat generators such as air conditioners, asphalt parking lots, car exhausts, BBQ grills, etc.
Yet NASA’s numbers are the main ones used because, by adjusting them UP they fit the ”narrative” better than other data collection sets.
I could go on but why.
There also is an effort to lower temperature records of some country temperatures for the early 1900s. This would make warming appear to be valid.