Manipulation of meteorological data by NOAA and NASA over the past 30-40 years – comments

First, I want to emphasize that there is a scientific field of climatology, which needs to be kept distinct from the political science field of non-scientific-based opinions and emotions. I believe that I can answer your email because (as you say, you’ve “never invested the required 10k hours”) I, on the other hand, HAVE invested that amount of time trying to understand climatology vs meteorology. And what these GEITP pages are trying to do –– is to “separate the wheat from the chaff,” i.e. let’s deal with science and scientific facts, and identify fraud and corruption when it occurs, and leave political opinions and subjective emotions for the politicians.

Second, had I been able to attend your seminar several weeks ago at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and if I had found your data differed from my opinion, as a reputable scientist I would have approached you, as a reputable scientist (alone, or publicly in a question to you at the podium). I would NOT have checked online to find out what was your “Pants on fire” rating index. THIS is the difference between scientific facts and political hysteria.

Third, if government agencies (or various scientific journals and professional societies) receive federal funding to “perform research that is consistent with, and cannot be inconsisten with, their political agena,” too many times money speaks louder than truthful data.

Fourth, what NOAA and NASA have been doing for decades is called “cooking the books” (they call it “adjustment” or “homogenization of data”). If Y (on the ordinate) is plotted as a function of X (on the abscissa), and Y = global atmospheric temperature and X = time –– then every scientist knows that, if one removes a few “high Y values” early in time, plus removing a few “low Y values” later in time, the “adjusted data” will have a positive slope. Or one can find a “recent rise in temperature” and omit earlier data that would refute global warming. Here is an example of Greenland ice core temperatures over the past 600 years:

Graph #2: Last 1,200± Years Will this make people afraid? Doubt it. Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Some Tricks to fool t…

Compare that to Greenland ice core temperatures over the past 1200 years:

Graph #1: Last 600± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Will this make people afraid? Probably so! {This should do the …

And compare that to Greenland ice core temperatures over the past 5,000 years:

{One more example: how weather events are reported. Every opportunity is taken to make an artificial connection with a US …

To quote a few words from Tim Ball’s 2o14 book Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:
Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing, just as it always has, and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and, as a result, what most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to some person, then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars: after you buy one, you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate catastrophic events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They have always occurred. Now the story appears, and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their “Extreme Weather Reports.”

The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Fig. 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.
Fig. 1

Promoters of the false story also knew that people know even less about climate. Indeed, most don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. “Weather” is the atmospheric conditions you experience at any point in time. “Climate” is the average of those conditions in a region or over decades of time.

A few years ago I wrote, but didn’t submit, a story for the Globe and Mail with the headline, “An Area of Arctic Ice Twice the Size of Vancouver Island Melted Today.” My planned story then revealed that this was a normal amount of melt. Imagine my surprise –– when recently this story appeared in reality! The headline I tongue-in-cheek considered writing was in a national newspaper: “Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.”

This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. The amount mentioned is well within the wide variation in melt from year to year.

Fig. 2 provides a brief context to show the wider natural range of temperature over the last 10,000 years. It shows the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere derived from Greenland ice cores.

Fig. 2

The current temperature is on the right (red line). Some salient points that expose the lies and distortions:

* The world was warmer than today for 97 percent of the last 10,000 years, a period known variously as the Climatic Optimum, or more recently the Holocene Optimum. We have known about this warmer period for at least 75 years.

* The world was 2°C warmer than today 1000 years ago during the medieval warming. Remember, you are told that the world is going to warm by 2°C, and that is catastrophic.

* The world was 4°C warmer than today during the Minoan warming.

* We are told the amount and rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years (shown in red) is abnormal. Compare the slope with any of the previous increases.

* The green line indicates the larger trend and shows that Earth has cooled for approximately the last 7000 years.

The CO2 does actually change over this period, but those changes follow the temperature. The global warming proponents tell the public it is the opposite. As in all temperature changes, there is a logical explanation that does not include CO2. In this case, the longer trend fits what is called the Milankovitch Effect (ME). These are the collective changes caused by Sun/Earth relationships, including orbit, tilt, and precession of the Equinox (Figure 3).

Fig. 3

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not include the ME in their computer models that are the source of predictions about future climate. No wonder their models are always wrong.

The existence of the ME explains, beyond lack of knowledge, why the public is susceptible to the natural /unnatural ploy. Most people think the Earth’s orbit round the Sun is a small, unchanging ellipse. Science knew this was incorrect years ago. Joseph Adhémar (1797-1862) proposed that the likely cause of climate change in the earth’s solar orbit.

James Croll expanded the idea and calculated orbital eccentricity effects on solar radiation for different latitudes over 3 million years, and published the results in 1867. The primary cause of the orbital change is the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter. It is a significant change. (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

The cycle is 100,000 years, but that is from minimum to maximum ellipse and back to the minimum. The solar energy currently received when the Earth is closest to the Sun (perihelion) varies from +3.5% to -3.5%. When furthest away (aphelion) 20,000 years ago, the difference was +8.5% and -8.5%.

Today, 149 years later, this is little known to most people. The main reason is that it contradicts the philosophical basis of Western science, uniformitarianism. This is the idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. A quick look at the geologic, or any other natural, record shows it is false. However, it means people are easily persuaded that a change, especially sudden change, is unnatural.

People were vulnerable and therefore easily fooled. Worse, the deceivers have deliberately changed the record to enhance their deception. They created what is natural or normal. Watch the video by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) in which he demonstrates the changes made to the instrumental temperature record, all deliberately designed to enhance warming. These are the people who brand those who question the science as deniers and criminals. This is why it is the greatest deception, but worse, a deliberate deception.

Fifth and last, what global warming alarmists do (because they have no scientific facts to support their premise) is to attack the scientist climatologist and/or attack his/her credentials. This recently has even included lawsuits to try to prevent scientists from presenting real facts. Tim Ball, and his wife and children, for example, have received numerous death threats. Does this ever happen in your field of bioinformatics, Mario? I think not. THAT is the difference between the science of climatology and the field of political science and hysteria.

This entry was posted in Center for Environmental Genetics. Bookmark the permalink.