Quote:Eliminated?


 

NASA and NOAA are about a lot more than just climate.


 

As far as NOAA climate science is concerned, they take the original measurements and adjust them based on theory. They publish both the original raw data and the adjusted data. They explain their adjustments. I disagree with their reasoning, but I don't 'eliminate' them. Their adjustments increase the warming rate, double it in the US. They continually re-adjust data. I'm not talking about fixing problems with recent measurements. Since just 2010 they have made additional adjustments that have added another 0.1 degree to their long-term warming, with the biggest adjustments on data in the 1930s. To me this screams of confirmation bias, fitting the data to one's theory rather than the other way around. Even if you accept every adjustment as being right, what does it say about their pre-2010 calculations when they now consider than to be off by 0.1 degrees. I know 0.1 doesn't sound like a lot, but when the warming is less than one degree it's a significant change.


 

NASA uses the NOAA data and calculates their own adjusted data series. I believe they also use a different subset of the measurements. Like NOAA, they continually adjust the data to add more warming.


 

The two satellite data sets show no warming for over 18 years. These are really global (with small missing circles at the polar caps).


 

The NOAA data 
is from ground-based temperature measurements, and water temperature measurements from ships. Since 2003 they use ARGO buoys for sea temperatures. As you might guess, the sea temperature measurements before 2003 are very sparse, and there is much infilling of the 70% of the globe that is covered with water. Although they publish a global temperature back to before 1900, there is almost no data from the southern hemisphere before 1950.

 

History also provides some clues. Much of recorded history disagrees with what the climate scientists say. Fortunately Winston Smith is on the job.