Home Climate Facts Climate Briefs Alarmist Rebuttals Failed Predictions Historic News Clipings News Reports Russian Money How They Lie to YOU Its OK to Lie! CO2 Facts Warm Periods Lack Of Data Electricity Cost Climate Is Normal Heat/Cold Deaths Wild Fires Green New Deal No Rapid Waring Sun - Real Cause of Climate Alarmist errors C13/C12 Isotope Ratio oregon_climate_plan Tipping Points Climate Predictions IPCC Says Our Best Data 22 Inconvenient Truths Medieval Warm Period Extinctions Propaganda Fossil Fuel subsidies Who's Lying? What is Real Science Peer Review Adjustment Example proxies Climate Papers Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Antarctic Loss Renewables Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed IPCC Prediction Fail IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview IPCC Scientists IPCC&CLouds WWF Infiltrated the IPCC Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Major Data Tampering Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic History Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 97% is meaningless 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources Record Temperature Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Michael Mann Mann's Book Wegman on Mann paper styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors Ask Questions Climate Models Record Highs Local Food Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level sea_&_islands Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links EcoTretas Selected Emails Briffa et al (1998) data



Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations


5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores

We Do Not Have Enough Data to Make Claims About Climate


Data problems:

* Lack of coverage in Africa, Oceans-mostly shipping lanes ; dropping stations

* Constant adjustments show the data is crap - good data does not need constant adjustments. How do we know which version is the correct one? The latest, that may be revised tomorrow? The correct answer is probably NONE.

* Lack of history. Very little coverage before 1950;  


Our data is not up to making judgements.


* Our ONLY world wide coverage is satellites and they only go back to 1979. Therefore there is not enough history to make long term judgements about world, which has cycles lasting decades, centuries and millennia .


* Radiosones go back further, but not back to the last warm spell, the 1930s, so we cannot make useful comparisons to the last really warm period, let alone the early 1900s and late 1800s.


* NOAA data (and its many derivatives) are unreliable because they have to constantly revise them. Which is the correct climate history? The one from a few years ago that showed 1930s to be warmer than 1998? Or the one that shows 1998 to be warmer? Can we choose the latest one? NO - because tomorrow may bring yet another revision.


* Ocean data is vertically non-existent. Even today we have a only a few thousand buoys measuring millions of square miles of ocean. We have virtually ZERO data deep below the surface before the buoys. Surface data before satellites was mostly from ships along trade routes, measurement methods were poorly controlled, inconsistent, and changed over time.

* Surface data suffers from station moves, time of observation changes, constant revisions, and changes in surrounding land use. Most (90%) are rated below top quality with errors of 1 degree or worse.  The ONLY good surface data is USCRN which shows ZERO warming over its short span. World coverage is quite poor outside of the developed countries and arctic and even worse before about 1950. Many stations have been dropped from the official reports and estimates substituted.


Then one must add things like "hiding the decline"(Jones-0942777075.txt) , "mike's nature trick" (Jones-0942777075.txt)  and other arbitrary "adjustments" such as this: "I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip" (Wigley - 1254108338.txt) . And don't forget that Mann wrote "it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP"(Mann-(1054736277.txt)  


This pretty much sums up the whole field of climate research:

"there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.  (Wigley-1255553034.txt) and  As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.   (Mann-1256735067.txt)


Can we really know how much (if any) the climate has warmed during the instrument record? And how can we be confident it is correct?


A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products

Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph - Department of Economics,  Date Written: August 5, 2010

Abstract

There are three main global temperature histories: the combined CRU-Hadley record (HADCRU), the NASA-GISS (GISTEMP) record, and the NOAA record. All three global averages depend on the same underlying land data archive, the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Because of this reliance on GHCN, its quality deficiencies will constrain the quality of all derived products.

The number of weather stations providing data to GHCN plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919. The collapse in sample size has increased the relative fraction of data coming from airports to about 50 percent (up from about 30 percent in the 1970s). It has also reduced the average latitude of source data and removed relatively more high-altitude monitoring sites.

Oceanic data are based on sea surface temperature (SST) rather than marine air temperature (MAT). All three global products rely on SST series derived from the ICOADS archive. ICOADS observations were primarily obtained from ships that voluntarily monitored SST. Prior to the post-war era, coverage of the southern oceans and polar regions was very thin. Coverage has improved partly due to deployment of buoys, as well as use of satellites to support extrapolation. Ship-based readings changed over the 20th century from bucket-and-thermometer to engine-intake methods, leading to a warm bias as the new readings displaced the old. Until recently it was assumed that bucket methods disappeared after 1941, but this is now believed not to be the case, which may necessitate a major revision to the 20th century ocean record. There is evidence that SST trends overstate nearby MAT trends.

The quality of data over land, namely the raw temperature data in GHCN, depends on the validity of adjustments for known problems due to urbanization and land-use change. The adequacy of these adjustments has been tested in three different ways, with two of the three finding evidence that they do not suffice to remove warming biases.

The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653928  

PDF: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1653928_code237317.pdf?abstractid=1653928&mirid=1