I knew if I waited long enough, I'd eventually find an article I agree with...this was published today...

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...rc_cmp=BonginoReport

Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.
The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.

“For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.

“And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.

“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”

The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.

“The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”

In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.

Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.

“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.
Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.

“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”

Homogenization

One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”

According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.

These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.

For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.

Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.
But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.

“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.

Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.

Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.

One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.

These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.

Because NOAA doesn’t maintain historical information on its weather stations, the CERES scientists reached out to European scientists who had been compiling the data for the stations that they oversee.

They found that just 17 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were consistently applied. And less than 20 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were clearly associated with a documented change to the station observations.

“When we looked under the hood, we found that there was a hamster running in a wheel instead of an engine,” Mr. Connolly said. “It seems that with these homogenization programs, it is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.”

A spokesman for NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information downplayed the significance, but said the agency was working to address the issues raised in the papers.

“NOAA uses the well-documented Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm every day on GHCNm (monthly)—version 4, and the results of specific adjustments to individual station series can differ from run to run,” the spokesman said, adding that the papers in question didn’t support the view that the concerns about the homogenization of the data made it useless or worse.

“NOAA is addressing the issues raised in both these papers in a future release of the GHCNm temperature dataset and its accompanying documentation.”

Urban Heat Islands

One of the major flaws in the temperature data that creates a need for homogenization in the first place is the so-called urban heat island effect.

In essence, the temperature stations that were once located in rural areas are now in many cases surrounded by roads, buildings, airports, and cities. This produces additional localized warming around the thermometer, which gives the appearance of drastic “global warming” when many similar stations are examined together.

The IPCC has acknowledged the urban heat island effect and the contamination of the data; however, according to the scientists who spoke with The Epoch Times, the U.N. agency has mistakenly assumed it’s a minor issue.

In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.

When Mr. Connolly and other scientists created a temperature record using only rural temperature stations, almost half of the global warming alleged by the U.N. body disappeared.

Indeed, the rural-only datasets match the weather balloon and satellite data much more closely.

Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.

“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.

The current warming period began in the 1970s as scientists were still warning about alleged man-made global cooling, which had begun in the 1940s.

Michael Connolly, another independent scientist at CERES and Ronan Connolly’s father, noted that urban warming in cities, which cover about 3 percent of the Earth’s land surface, is in fact becoming a “major problem” that ought to be addressed.

“But, it cannot be cured by greenhouse gas policies,” he said. “Instead, we should be investing more into urban greening and other measures to try and reduce urban heat waves.”

Blending Rural and Urban Data

A separate issue with homogenization algorithms was examined in another paper published last year in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

The problem, which Ronan Connolly and his colleagues refer to as “urban blending,” involves the comparisons made between temperature records from one station and others in the surrounding area.

If one seems way out of sync with the others, the program assumes it was a non-climactic bias that should be corrected.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this is that it allows urban warming to contaminate the entire temperature record by blending it with rural data.

The result is that urban and rural data are blended together, allowing some of the urban warming to be mixed in with the rural data that doesn’t have the problem.

“A useful analogy is if you mix strawberries and bananas in a blender, afterward you have a blended homogenous mix that is neither strawberries nor bananas,” Ronan Connolly said.

But the CERES scientists’ “contention that the warming inferences we are making are bunk because of the gauge changes and station relocation issues, and their suboptimal handling in homogenization procedures, are just not true,” he said.

“In fact, no matter how you deal with the changepoint issues, all globally averaged series (like the IPCC series) contain strong upward trends. It’s just that simple.”

The homogenization issue “might account for maybe 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius per century of the 1.3 [degrees Celsius] that we are globally warming, but not more,” Mr. Lund said.

He accused the CERES scientists of “trying to take any amount of uncertainty, exponentiate it, and discredit everything.”

Asked if he was planning to refute their studies in a paper of his own, Mr. Lund said he and others in the field have grown weary of battling scientists who, he suggested, were mostly interested in discrediting the climate narrative.

A number of other scientists on both sides of the debate didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Several critics of the manmade global warming narrative asked to speak off the record for fear of retaliation by their institutions, colleagues, journals, or funding sources.

Other Problems

Historical temperature data don’t really exist prior to the 1970s, which hampers any type of long-term study.

And outside of Europe and North America, there’s very little coverage.

Until recently, data from the oceans—making up more than two-thirds of the planet’s surface—were also sparse, confined primarily to occasional readings from major shipping lanes in the Northern Hemisphere.

NOAA has been criticized for allowing more than 90 percent of its climate stations to be affected by the urban heat bias, The Epoch Times reported in January, citing scientists and a separate study examining NOAA’s temperature records.

By 2022, about 96 percent of the stations failed to meet the agency’s own standards for reliability, a study by meteorologist Anthony Watts revealed.

Michael Connolly pointed out that when the weather stations were originally set up, they were meant to monitor day-to-day weather, not long-term climate changes.

“While most of the scientists that I talk to on a personal level admit that they have reservations about aspects of the current climate change narrative, they say that their institutions would suffer if they speak out,” he said.

Mr. Soon acknowledged that measuring climate change was a “very difficult scientific problem,” especially because the data are imperfect. But scientists have an obligation to be honest about that.

“Many research groups—in a rush to get grants and to get their work published—seem to have overlooked the serious problems of the data they are using,” he said, adding that many scientists are concerned about job security and are unwilling to speak out.

But some analysts who have seen the issues say it’s deliberate fraud.

Scientist and engineer Tony Heller of the website Real Climate Science said that the temperature data—both historical and geographical—are “grossly inadequate.”

Echoing the concerns about homogenization and blending, he told The Epoch Times that “the operating theory seems to be that mixing in a lot of very bad ingredients will create a good soup.”

Mr. Heller accuses NOAA of tampering with its data to create the “appearance of warming” and calls the global and U.S. temperature records “propaganda, not science.”

The misleading adjustments made to the data and the broader deception are “absolutely intentional,” he said.

“Trillions of dollars are being poured in to push global warming and climate change.”

So far, the studies by Mr. Soon and others haven’t been countered in any peer-reviewed literature.

However, some prominent scientists working for the federal government and other bodies tied to the climate movement have ridiculed and insulted the authors, as The Epoch Times reported in October 2023.

Neither the IPCC nor NASA’s top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt responded to a request for comment.

Climate change is the environmentalist wackos' religion. Nothing can, or will, change their minds.

It is bad now.

It has to be fixed immediately with more money.

It will be really bad after everybody reading the report has died and been forgotten.

PANIC! PANIC! PANIC!

Twenty years ago I was at a gun show and an organization had a table set up with information contra to the liberal view of climate change. One handout was a glossy book with maybe 50 or more pages, each page consisting of several colored pictures. Each picture was of actual temperture sampling station. First the book explained how the stations were supposed to be situated to avoid contamination from other sources of artificial heat, such as hot roofs, a/c outlets, restaurant exhausts fans, etc.

And then there was picture after picture (100's of them) showing sampling devices where the data would be absolutely contaminated by inappropriate heat sources. It was a very impressive condemnation of the temperture sampling process.

The argument about man made global warming falls apart when looking at the 800,000 year ice core samples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...rage_temperature.png

The earth is not as fragile, as we may be lied to believe.

Consider the atmosphere, from space it is a very thin layer. At .75% of the earth's dimeter, compared to the average diameter of a human body, our skin is nearly 20 times thicker (16%) than the atmosphere to the earth.

The better understanding is the skin of an apple to the atmosphere of the earth.

That seems very fragile, yet in all the time recorded of mankind, and very likely the entire history of mankind before anything was written, that thin and seemingly fragile layer is and has been 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gasses.

If carbon were a problem, that number would not be consentient and maintained at the exact percentages for all known time.

Climate by it's very nature, fluctuates and has some wild swings once in a while.

I have, since a child and first enthralled with science, believed that the sun's radiation, solar cycles and the extremes in solar maximum and solar minimum affect the earth by "heat soaking" greater and lesser degrees.

And the co-relation of an event where the sun produces greater energy, and the time before the measurable increase in heat soaking and then liberation of that heat, which shows as changes in climate for a period, weather patterns, vegetation growth and so much more are a larger dynamic and have tremendous effect, compared to the small amount that mankind has on the system.

All I have sees since the 60s and 70s has only convinced me that the entire issue of "climate change" for the past 60 years has been nothing more than a "boogie man" that is the face of fear sold in order to cause people to "demand a solution and save us all", as a means to an end of control.

The people that gravitate to this and get behind it, are those who are motivate by the fear of the unpredictability of one's mortality.

Projecting that fear on all people.

I do not fear my mortality. I see it as another unique day, with the present moment to enjoy, and the ability to use that moment to think what great thing I can experience in the next moment, plan and hope for the future, while knowing that I only have this single moment of "now", and looking back to realize the very many I had the pleasure of.

I have no desire to let fearful people rob me of any moment of my present.



(pardon my rant in the middle of your Black Panther Party. I was caught up in the moment...)

(edited to fix my dislexic goof)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigmonkey,

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
That seems very fragile, yet in all the time recorded of mankind, and very likely the entire history of mankind before anything was written, that thin and seemingly fragile layer is and has been 78% oxygen, 21% nitrogen and 1% other gasses.

78% O2???

Yikes. Don't light a match.

Simple question.... when did the last ice age end?

Answer, it hasn't. Geological record showed that before the last ice age the earth was largely covered with water and quite warm. The earth is trying, over millions of years, to get back to that state.

Is climate changing? Absolutely.

Can we stop it? Nope!

Agreed. Not only can we not stop it, we’re not causing it. The driver of weather on this planet is the sun.

You want to control or alter the climate? Learn to control the sun.

Here's my very scientific, judicial response...

Well, duh.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Climate change is the environmentalist wackos' religion. Nothing can, or will, change their minds.

Probably time to start tossing virgins in the volcano.

Me? I'm blaming the damn trees! Covering those nice solar reflecting soil areas with heat absorbing foliage. You know you're guilty! Wait until the next ice age, you'll get what's coming to you (oops, you're still working on this one).

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Probably time to start tossing virgins in the volcano.

Hell, where you gonna find one of those?

As Michael Crichton said about climate change in his heavily researched and footnoted "novel," State of Fear...Follow The Money!

Lots of people have gotten rich off of global warming, starting with Al Gore.

Those that would shout “us” down and scream, “LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE!!”, actually refuse to do just that in order to push their Leftarded religion and money-grabbing agenda.

Popper's law of science. "It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false."

The listen to the science, and the consensus argument is not science. It's politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:...
78% O2???


Yikes. Don't light a match.

Thanks.
I transpose words, letters and stuff all the time, but I try and catch everything.

(coding was a bitch, sometimes I would go through a routine for an hour before seeing a simple error)

We need to go back to the olden days and start sacrificing virgins when there’s:

Too much rain
Not enough rain
Too hot
Too cold
Too much daylight
Not enough daylight
When the moon eats the sun
Etc

I am a firm believer in climate change. It is the natural cycle of the earth, the sun and the moon.
The sun has solar flares. The moon moves away from earth according to NASA. This has to affect the tides.
What I don't believe is that it is all mans fault. There is know way for man to stop it. But it does make money. Which is what the Commies want. There aren't the democratic party anymore.

It's less about money and more about controlling the populace and altering the way people live and function. It's a useful and manipulative tool. Electric cars are just one example. Studies that push back on all this have been around a long time they just don't get pushed forward as much as all the alarmist stuff does.