Geologist Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt compare adjustments made by NOAA, NASA and the Met Office to doping in sports.
Temperature Data Doping?
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]
Fantasy stories from la-la land: Climate change is progressing unhindered and the hottest November (2015) since measurements began. Climate activists are following in the footsteps of Pippi Long-Stockings, making the world into something they want it to be. But there’s something they are not telling us: Satellites are unable to confirm the records. What follows are the RSS satellite data, called up in mid December 2015:
Moreover the claimed monthly records from the MetOffice, NOAA and NASA are – hard to believe – the result of a conscious adjustment that force the latest measurements up and the older ones down. In sports this is what is called skewed competition and is vigorously pursued by anti-doping authorities. See: “NOAA in dire straits: warming pause of the last 15 years cannot be tricked away so easily“.
To top it all appearing in October 2015 in the Journal of Geophysical Research is a new paper by Dillon Amaya of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, in San Diego. Here the warming pause is even in the title:
Seasonality of tropical Pacific decadal trends associated with the 21st century global warming hiatus
The official science has long accepted the hiatus and is busily debating its causes. Yet activists are still constantly deceiving the public.
21 responses to “German Scientists Suggest NOAA, NASA And Met Office Are Doping The Global Temperature Data”
November was warm. everyone did notice that, and that is what the numbers show. Dezember also is very warm.
We have allergic reactions to early hazelnut pollen instead of cold weather.
The satellite datasets always only tend to pick up el nino in the second year. Let us just watch and see.
Yes in the UK we had the warmest December reading for about 50 years. I wonder what caused the warmth 50 years ago? Ahem, so what caused the lower readings recorded by satellites before the latest El Nino. I think you are grasping at straws
” I wonder what caused the warmth 50 years ago? ”
Look at the RSS graph plotted above. There are random swings of about 0.5°C every couple of years.
The average temperature level has risen over the whole timespan also by about 0.5°C.
So the first real peak (about 1988) remained the highest temperature up till 1998. But that year could also just have been a random spike, until 2003 to 2008, when the 1988 number was beaten repeatetly, showing that this was not by chance but a real change.
So “highest temperature since 50 years” is a nice information.But what we currently see (this year being the hottest, beating 2014, which was the hottest before and with a high chance of 2016 being the hottest again, is what makes the difference between a random record and a trend.
“But what we currently see (this year being the hottest, beating 2014, which was the hottest before and with a high chance of 2016 being the hottest again, is what makes the difference between a random record and a trend.”
A guy with no knowledge of statistics or signal processing gives a definition of “trend”. You should write the wikipedia.
“The satellite datasets always only tend to pick up el nino in the second year. Let us just watch and see.”
‘Always’? followed by ‘tend to’?
‘pick up el nino in the second year’ Well it is that what the latter day observations would leave us to expect? 82 led to 83, 98 was set by 97, two strikes! WE have it, nailed on, we know what happens next!
Anybody know if a North Pacific ‘warm blob’ existed for the two years prior to the 82-83 event? Or the 97-98 event? I don’t know and don’t know how to find out. Nor do I know what or if any effect it might have had?
Can’t see teleconnections being only limited to Enso 3.4 area? Large area of the North Pacific running warm for 2 years has no effect? Yet this Enso is expected to be significant?
Another, interesting and yet to be resolved issue is the SOI Index, in both the two previous ‘strong’ events the lowest monthly values were recorded during the first 4 calendar months of ‘The El Nino Year’ Jan to Apl, 83 and 98.
Will this be the case come the New Year? I have no idea and the SOI seems to be hedging its bets.
As always only time will tell!
sod 20. December 2015 at 5:01 PM | Permalink | Reply
“We have allergic reactions to early hazelnut pollen instead of cold weather. ”
Oh noes. We’re doomed.
Typical complaining by German media. Instead of being happy about no cold-related deaths, dangerous icy streets, high heating costs, etc. they can only complain about minor deviations.
“Hiatus” is worse than “pause”. Hiatus has more of the “stop” subtext than “pause”, at least suggesting a longer period of hesitation or interruption within a continuous movement. A hiatus in warfare may lead to an armistice, whereas a pause just lets the troops rearm and reorganize.
Or maybe I’m just assuming a more delicate understanding of words than is the case.
Sometimes, when grapes are fermenting, the yeasts seem unable to complete the task of turning sugar into ethanol. The situation is described as sluggish or stuck. That is, it is said: There is a stuck fermentation.
Perhaps one of these terms could replace hiatus, that seems to come from “break or opening” and more suited to a pause in a race while debris is cleaned off the track. And “pause” has the same problem. With temperature we have a data series without a break or gap.
Maybe in another language the terms sluggish or stuck would sound more fanciful, or even scientific. Pierre?
Today I saw announced that the trams in my city run on green electricity. This evening I wanted to make some soup and saw on the package that the peas were grown sustainably. Just outside the shop a young man asked me whether I ever planted a tree. Yes, I did and wanted to know what his intention was. He didn’t want to tell me and kept something hidden in his hand. What do you have in your hand, I asked. Finally, he had to show his CO2 message. I said that he was a swindler and should better read a book. The public is submerged in stupid advertisements and propaganda. My newspaper published hysterical articles day after day in order to warm up the public for Paris. Now everybody complains about the mild weather. If you are an hypochondriac and convinced that you have a hart condition, whatever signal you get, it proves how serious your illness is. Without treatment this goes on day after day. Actually, people are made mentally ill by the climate propagandists.How immoral this is.
They sure have been doping the surface instrument temperature data … massaging the data going back in time, manipulating the data to fit their narrative, and corrupting the science in general.
We found out about this a few years ago when John Coleman exposed what was happening:
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/12/20/german-scientists-suggest-noaa-nasa-and-met-office-are-doping-the… […]
The calculation of what is referred to as the “Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly” is wrought with unnecessary sources of error.
The most important factor (wrt “Global Warming”) is of course the long-term, smoothed temperature TREND. But since both camps gravitate to their “favorite” sources (which differ considerably from one another), it is difficult to make any progress in the assessment of what portion of warming is indeed caused by an increase in GHG concentration and what portion is caused by other factors if one can’t even agree on the overall rate of warming itself!
How much easier it would be if we could all agree on a “Dow Jones Average” for Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly!
Shouldn’t the important figure be a running mean of the readings of ONLY the highest quality sensors, in approximately the latitude range where most human beings live (i.e., LAND only, absent obvious UHI effects, approx. -30°S to +50°N)?
Why, 30 y into the fear of unprecedented, dangerous anthropogenic enhanced GH warming, we still don’t have a solid standard for measuring the GMST? Could it be that some players actually benefit from the confusion?
“Shouldn’t the important figure be a running mean of the readings of ONLY the highest quality sensors, in approximately the latitude range where most human beings live (i.e., LAND only, absent obvious UHI effects, approx. -30°S to +50°N)?”
no. There are big changes in the arctic. Ignoring those, would be insane.
And you are asking for sensor with no UHI effect in the most populated area. That will give you very few datapoints.
“But since both camps gravitate to their “favorite” sources (which differ considerably from one another), it is difficult to make any progress”
The long term tr3end does not differ all that much. The main difference are timespans starting around 1998. If “sceptics” would stop using using that particular timespan, the majority of conflicts would be fixed.
“no. There are big changes in the arctic. Ignoring those, would be insane. ”
You mean like, every summer half of it melts, and the winter after that, it freezes again. Yeah I guess the ice floes look different all the time. And imagine the snowing and thawing and sublimation on top of that.
Sod, would you care to explain what you mean by “There are big changes in the arctic”?
The only big change in the Arctic at the moment is that Arctic sea ice seem to have hit the continental boundaries about three weeks earlier than usual during the past 10 years:
leaving the sea around the Spitzbergen and Novaja Zemlja as the only area where sea ice still has room to grow. But you could not possibly mean this, so what are you talking about?
Again, one is looking to parse out a TREND from data, which can be very noisy at times.
Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are subject to the following problems:
– more extreme fluctuations than in temperate zones (noisier)
– difficult to monitor and record temperature swings
– difficult to obtain uniform spatial distribution
– data quality poorer.
You state, “…you are asking for sensor with no UHI effect in the most populated area. That will give you very few datapoints.”
Are you serious? This may come as a surprise to you, but there are in fact multiple and massive tracts of land between -30 deg. S and +50 deg. N lacking human settlement for several, if not dozens of kilometers, including in W. Europe!
Question: if the [uncorrupted] data from the average of the planet’s temperate zones were found to show little or no positive temperature trend, wouldn’t that invalidate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? If not, why not?
I, being an old fossil, thought we were coming out of a (mini) ice age.
If that is so, should not the “planet” be experiencing some degree of warming.
If not we are in “big heap ?hit”
Please note Pope Francis and O’Barma.
Does the Internet resident Sodding troll have any comment?
Here’s the RSS data record:
The TLT signal shows the temperature averaged over the lower Troposphere (0-10 km altitude), for the latitude range (-70S to +82.5N).
Where is the dangerous warming trend?
Long-term trend is about 1.2 K / Century.
Short-term trend (past decade and a half) is essentially zero, or flat slope.
This despite RECORD human CO2 emissions and RECORD atmospheric CO2 concentration. Shouldn’t this cause catastrophists to revisit their prognoses?
If not, why not?
Here’s NASA’s GISTEMP record:
Over the past 130+ years, the slope is < 1 deg. C per century
(best estimate is about 0.07 deg. C per decade since 1880).
Over the past 5 decades, the delta Temp. is approx. 0.7 deg., which works out to 0.14 deg. C per decade (fairy close to the 0.12 deg. C per decade for the past 3.5 decades per RSS).
Note that the catastrophists (believers in the Global Climate Model predictions) have been saying 'Business as Usual' would bring about 3-4 deg. C of surface warming per Century, which is 3x the warming rate of the past several decades.
How is it that RATIONAL human beings can continue to repeat such claims with a straight face?
[…] From No Tricks Zone […]