{"id":60221,"date":"2015-06-05T07:29:20","date_gmt":"2015-06-05T11:29:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=60221"},"modified":"2015-06-05T09:26:12","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T13:26:12","slug":"looks-like-noaa-is-rectifying-history-yet-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=60221","title":{"rendered":"Looks Like NOAA Is “Rectifying” History . . . . Yet Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

Well, NOAA will come out with a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 tall tale<\/del> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scientific paper today that says that the nearly 20-year “Global Warming Pause” you’ve been hearing about – isn’t real.\u00a0 Their new \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cock-and-bull-story<\/del>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scholarly article will appear in the journal Science<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for NOAA, a couple of folks with a scientific background and no agenda (plus a healthy dose of skepticism) got their hands on the paper and its supporting data – which was “embargoed” from public release until 2PM EDT yesterday.\u00a0 These two individuals took a critical look at the data and the paper’s methodology.<\/p>\n

The two individuals make a persuasive case that NOAA – for probably the 4th time since January 2009 – appears to have “diddled the data”.\u00a0 Essentially, what NOAA has done is “adjusted” many past temps downward – below previously accepted values – for years before the mid\/late 1930s\/early 1940s.\u00a0 Then they “adjusted” more recent temps upward above the accepted, measured values.<\/p>\n

The net result of these new “adjustments” is to make the now roughly 20-year pause in “global warming” they can’t explain go “Poof!” and disappear.\u00a0\u00a0 How . . . convenient.<\/p>\n

These two are the “money charts” from the article, which show exactly what’s going on.\u00a0 First, here’s the one that highlights NOAA’s\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 blatant data manipulations<\/del> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 temperature “adjustments” to measured data in their\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 propaganda<\/del>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scholarly paper released today by year.\u00a0 Blue values represent “adjustments” which are reductions from measured reality; red values, “adjustments” that are increases over measured reality.\u00a0 The “crossover point” is in the late 1930s\/early 1940s – precisely when actual unadjusted<\/span><\/strong> measured raw data appears to show the beginning of a slight cooling trend<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This second chart shows there have been multiple such adjustments since the beginning of 2009.\u00a0 The adjustments from today’s article don’t seem to be shown – yet.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Don’t believe that’s what’s going on here?\u00a0 Well, then “Rjddle me this, Batman”:\u00a0 if recent<\/em> temperature measurements – made with highly accurate modern equipment we know well – are so “uncertain” that they have to be dramatically “adjusted” upwards, then how in the hell do they know how to “adjust” measurements taken 60+ years ago on equipment of what type they don’t always know downward<\/span><\/em>? And why is the precise effect of these “adjustments” to explain away an apparent flaw in their claims of “runaway global warming” that previously could not be explained – a flaw demonstrated by their own measured data?<\/p>\n

Moreover, these adjustments fly in the face of common sense.\u00a0 Modern electronic temperature measuring equipment responds much<\/em> faster than mechanical measuring devices from decades ago.\u00a0 Modern equipment thus captures fast, temporary transients – both high and low – that the older equipment simply missed.\u00a0 Modern equipment would therefore be expected to capture HIGHER and LOWER daily extremes than equipment used a century ago, as well as lower lows – e.g., to show a bias towards MORE EXTREME MEASUREMENTS.<\/p>\n

If anything, any adjustments to harmonize old and new data would be to reduce<\/em> more recent temperature extremes to correct for the capture of extremes by modern equipment – or to increase <\/em>past extremes to account for missing those same transients.\u00a0 You wouldn’t adjust both<\/span> to harmonize the data – well, IMO you wouldn’t if you were doing legitimate science.<\/p>\n

But if you were instead attempting to push an agenda, truth be damned?\u00a0 Maybe you’d do exactly that.<\/p>\n

Here, NOAA appears to have adjusted both old and new measured temperatures.\u00a0 And they adjusted them in precisely the way needed to support their “runaway global warming” thesis.<\/p>\n

Sheesh.\u00a0 The propaganda here from NOAA seems to be moving well beyond the Johnsonian or Nixonian in scope.\u00a0 This one has the “Baghdad Bob” seal of approval.<\/p>\n

And remember:\u00a0 since NOAA is Federally funded – we’re the ones paying for their propaganda.<\/p>\n

I’ll let you come to your own conclusion concerning why NOAA did this.\u00a0 I personally think the actual<\/em> reason this was done is quite obvious.\u00a0 But maybe that’s just me.<\/p>\n

I will say this, though. Give me raw data and let me “adjust” it as I see fit, NQA, and I can prove any freaking thing I please from any data set you give me – reality be damned<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 As one of the authors is quoted in the article from which the above diagrams appear: \u201cIn the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.\u201d<\/p>\n

The science blog “What’s Up With That?”<\/em><\/a> has an excellent article by Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts<\/em><\/a> describing just how NOAA is trying to pull a fast one here. It’s quite detailed, and isn’t exactly a “quick and easy” read.\u00a0 But it’s IMO well worth the time to read anyway.<\/p>\n

Global warming my ass<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Well, NOAA will come out with a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 tall tale \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scientific paper today that says that … Looks Like NOAA Is “Rectifying” History . . . . Yet Again<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[213,98],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-your-tax-dollars-at-work","category-global-warming"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=60221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=60221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=60221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=60221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}