- Real Science Back in the Global Warming Debate

Recent Posts

Real Science Back in the Global Warming Debate

Written by Ann Shibler

Wednesday, 21 May 2008 08:22

Just recently there have been a few interesting items adding to the mounting evidence that global warming is a scam, based as it is on the manipulation of data and the outright dishonest “reworking” or “readjusting” of temperatures.

The first to come to our attention was an article in Glasglow, Scotland’s, The Hearld. The author of “Doubt is cast over global warming,” explained the findings of researchers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany. Their study created a model using sea surface temperatures in an attempt to simulate the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) — a giant conveyor belt-style current that brings warm water northward into the North Atlantic — in an effort to predict climate over coming decades.

Their findings showed that the MOC may weaken toward a long-term average, leading to slightly cooler temperatures in the North Atlantic. Writing in the scientific journal Nature they said, “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” This conclusion is based on the premise that the MOC in the North Atlantic had some “variability on a 70 to 80 year cycle.” When the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures, and of course, when it’s weaker, cooler temps prevail.

The second in the lineup comes from Steven Goddard and is found in the article “Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?” carried by the UK’s The Register. Goddard points to the inconsistencies of the charted temperatures used by the various “scientific” organizations to reach their conclusions. So he takes the time to examine the data sources.

Both NASA and the UK’s Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies (Had-Crut data) agree on global temperatures until 1998, whereupon there’s a decided fork in the road. Had-Crut data shows worldwide temps declining since 1998, about the same as it was in 1878 and 1941. NASA shows worldwide temps increasing at a record pace, a full degree warmer than 1880.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) use data collected from earth-orbiting satellites, and both show decreasing temps over the last decade, barely above the 30-year average and very close to the Had-Crut data. Satellite data is more reliable because satellites cover almost the entire earth, use the same methodology from year to year, plus the two sources tend be fairly close in agreement.

By overlaying NASA’s original 1999 U.S. temperature chart with NASA’s 2007 U.S. temperature chart a pattern was visible to Goddard. The pre-1970 temps had been adjusted downwards and the post 1970 temps had been adjusted upwards, some by as much as 0.5 degrees. Most troubling to Goddard were the years from 1986 to 1998, where every year minus one was adjusted upwards.

Trying to explain the strange aberration in a scientific manner has stumped Goddard and Canadian Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. Statistically, any recalculation in the data would cause each year to have a 50/50 chance of going either up or down, so the odds of almost 70 straight years (less than15 years went down) of temperatures working together to increase the slope of the graph were calculated to be one-thousand-billion-billion to one.

It’s true that NASA and Had-Crut data use surface thermometers that can be adversely affected by urban heating, changes in station locations, changes in thermometers, and even changes in the time of day thermometers are read. But that still doesn’t account for the astronomical upward trend of the NASA temperature set.

It appears to both Goddard and McIntyre that NASA has done some major reworking, modifying, and refining of the data from 1930 to 1999. For a closer scientific look, see “Rewriting History, Time and Time Again.”

For just one example, NASA data for March 2008 indicates it was the third warmest March in history — surely not where I live! — but the satellite sources of RSS and UAH show it to be the second coldest ever in the southern hemisphere, and average worldwide. Asia was warm in March 2008, but North America very cold, so it averaged out for the northern hemisphere.

It does seem that NASA’s data is completely out of line with other scientific data that’s been collected. And it’s interesting to note that the person in charge of temperature data at NASA is Dr. James Hansen. Hansen just may have a personal and professional stake in all of this, as he is Al Gore’s science advisor and a major long-term advocate of the global warming theory, now called climate change. Certainly the change in terminology could fall under the category of a psychological change, and that shows the warming alarmists may be losing their war. Few in the United States believe that the winter of 2008 was warm with people experiencing a very cold and snowy winter of record proportions – the worst in decades.

And yet another British newspaper, the Telegraph, ran an op-ed on May 4 by Christopher Booker.
He noted some slightly amusing anecdotes that contradict the global warming theorists’ hysteria.

In 2004 scientists predicted the highest mountain in southern Britain, Snowdon, would be snowless due to global warming by the year 2020. Politicians used it as a hook to push their greenhouse gas emissions capping program. But in 2008, there was so much snow on Snowdon that the EU had to extend a deadline for the completion of a building on the summit. The British press failed to report that little bit of news to its readers.

Booker also pointed to U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watt’s website discussion about NASA’s recent Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) announcement concerning the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a gigantic slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific Ocean similar to the MOC. The PDO has shifted into its cool phase, which happens about every 30 years. Watt and several other scientists are predicting crop damage on the West Coast due to a significant cold trend, and hopes it will be short-lived, from two to four years, otherwise the effects on the agriculture community could be devastating.

Still the warming alarmists refuse to give in. Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and warmist admits in the JPL press release that the colder Pacific ocean current will influence the climate with lower than normal temps, but incredibly still insists, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” How’s that for logic from a scientist?

It is ludicrous to say that the truth is somehow hidden in the data and it isn’t identifiable by sheer observation. That is nothing but a clear admission that their global warming theory is false and unscientific. And it indicates that they are starting to panic. Reality and truth are starting to catch up.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry