By Kirye (photo right)
and Pierre Gosselin
Today we post before-and-after mean annual temperature charts for 6 US stations in the midwest region with a low brightness index (BI), meaning low impact from the urban heat island (UHI) effect, which arises from widespread asphalt, concrete and infrastucture.
The low BI index tells us that the stations are sited in a rural-type environment. Five of the six stations have a BI of 0, while one (Thibodaux, LA) has a relatively low BI of 11.
Shown will be comparisons of NASA GISS Version 4 unadjusted, versus Version 4 adjusted. In each case the unadjusted data showed a cooling or little warming, while the adjusted data all ended up to show warming.
First we plot the station at Plainville, Kansas, which I already posted at Twitter. Shown is the plot going back over 100 years, before NASA adjustments and after adjustments.
It's obvious, as far as Plainville's temperature goes, NASA made the false warming trend.
Why do many media pretend to know nothing about that?https://t.co/35Itt16sN0
~#地球温暖化? #温暖化？ #気候変動 #ClimateChange pic.twitter.com/WTD380BGxN— キリエ (@KiryeNet) June 7, 2020
Data source: NASA GISS.
As the 2 plots show, the data from the past were changed by NASA and made cooler. The new result: a warming trend! In other words, a cooling climate was fudged into one that is supposedly warming.
Next we move to the station of Hobart, Oklahoma. A slight cooling trend there was transformed by NASA into a warming trend:
Data source: NASA GISS.
The third station we look at is Carrizo Springs, Texas:
Data source: NASA GISS.
Originally in the V4 unadjusted, the past at Carrizo Springs was warmer than today. But NASA didn’t like that, and so they adjusted the temperatures from earlier in the 20th century downward. Again a modest cooling trend was changed into warming.
The story is the same at the station at Conception Missouri:
Data source: NASA GISS.
At Conception, Missouri, we originally saw no warming over the past 130. years. But then NASA fiddled with the data and now tell us there’s been warming at there as well.
Looking at the temperature charts for the station at El Dorado, Arkansas:
Data source: NASA GISS.
Note how warm it was in the 1920s. But NASA said that this couldn’t be right, and so cooled the mean annual temperatures in the early 20th century byalmost a whopping 2 degrees! Result: (fake) warming!
Finally we plot the NASA GISS data from the station located at Thibodaux, Louisiana – i.e. the U.S. South:
Data source: NASA GISS.
Above we see how the unadjusted V4 data were changed to create more warming.
NASA changed the data several times until they got the warming they want to us believe is taking place. The original data tell us there has been any real warming over the past century at these 6 stations.
If the data has to be fiddled to get a preconceived result the problem is with the fiddlers, not the data.
The problem is because of the ‘fiddling/organized Lying…
… the general public believe there really is a ‘climate’ crisis.
And the second problem is the ‘solution’ is also a lie. The Green scams have damaged the environment and it absolutely impossible to get to Zero carbon emission, by 2050.
And the third problem is there are a group of paid green scam lobbyists who are pushing the scam to make money from the scam.
So it is scam top to bottom.
Planet of the Humans
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KQnVEMOOYuJd/
Planet of the Humans
I am astonished that we still have people defending these adjustments, and allowing those who make them to still have a job.
Is there any suggestion that when the temperatures were originally taken that the person taking them was incompetent, that the instruments were broken etc. If so, where is the evidence??
In finance if I adjusted company accounts like this I would be jailed or be in serious trouble, and quite rightly. Why is climate science immune from proper scientific methodology?
The temperature records issue was how to reconcile old readings and recordings with new technology — new science of physics and digital computers and related advances. There are/were several (6 or 8 ?) problems, and all have been noted, looked at, analyzed, argued about, to a disgusting and ridiculous degree; to the point of nausea.
Climates (note plural) are not defined by temperature alone. Whether the temperature goes up or down 2 degrees in our valley will not change its climate.
All the fiddling in the past, now, and in the future will not make these records useful for the understanding of climates.
Rant over. Thanks.
Data fudging is caused by Man made CO2.
This is one of those examples where ‘climate science’ all gets a but silly and starts tripping over itself – but no one notices. With the USA Midwest we have papers explaining the cooling, saying it was probably due to the expansion of intensive agriculture and irrigation, yet the cooling does not exist in the official data!
My faith in the data of Oz’s BOM vanished when they adjusted all the 19th century data to show global warming, claiming this was required by urban heat island effect.
Yet again I notice incorrect attribution. Anyone who has heard of NOAA whistleblower Dr. John Bates, as reported in the UK Daily Mail Feb 2017 will know it the NOAA that fabricates these fake trends.
Even the lead image links “NASA GISS” actually reference NOAA data sources.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Dr. Bates shows the unbelievable scale of corruption at NOAA.
The report makes Prof. Man’s well known methods appear amateur!
That article prompted a GOP inquiry into NOAA, but did anything change?
You mean the same Dr John Bates who said The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.
Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:
I knew people would misuse this.
You have clearly not read what Dr. Bates said. Most Daily Mail on Sunday readers have.
See what the NOAA did with the data, the computer archive, and now the adjustments.
Not very fair, in any weather.
Irrelevant anyway Paul, people like Tony Heller have been through all the ‘adjustments’ forensically and shown that the reasons used are invalid/untrue – like TOBS (Time of Observation Bias), whilst such a thing exists, in reality it has little affect on the data and the adjustments are unnecessary. Additionally a large proportion of the data (60%?) is simply made up these days, stations have closed, and data is infilled by algorithm.
It’s no surprise the data is junk and has no resemblance to reality.
Karl Marx had to adjust old financial data to “prove” his point. The grand assumption and conclusion of the meta story can never be wrong.
People like us like to project our integrity and good intentions onto others, but in truth, some people are just sh*t.
[…] LINK, til originalartikel på notrickszone.com/ […]