EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend

[RugersGR8]

These 'Compromised' Thermometers have been around for a long time. If the CCs & GW's really were trying to put forth good information/truth, they would police/eliminate them. But data that fits there agenda is the only thing important to them. The article seems to re-enforce the old adage/acronym/axiom: "Garbage In, Garbage Out".


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/
EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend
Michael Bastasch
4:31 PM 12/17/2015

..."Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 - a period of 21 years."...

 

[dennishoddy]

Data, like temperature readings, are so easily manufactured, that Its easy to make them show whatever temps you want them to. Knowing the gubberment, I'll bet the majority of them have not been calibrated in years.

I worked many years in a power plant. Temperature readings throughout the units are critical. Thermocouples, and sending units constantly need calibration to be accurate.

The only thing that could be constant would be laboratory grade mercury thermometers, but then it would take a person to look and record the data. Since the data NOAA says has risen a degree in 20 years or so, it would take a fine eye to read the thermometer accurately enough to make a one degree difference.

 

[NightShade]

On top of that how many of the thermometers are improperly mounted? Ever see one of the banks signs with automatic temperature 15 degrees off cause the temp sensor is inside the housing that is blasted by the sun directly.

They could be mounted correctly and out of the sun but have a big piece of asphalt underneath it and have the same problems.

To me it's just another nail in the coffin of BS.

The funniest thing of all to me is that since we have become aware of so many things a lot of people out there seem to think NOTHING in the environment should ever fluctuate or change. The same goes for animal species, if humans hunted something to extinction it's one thing but there are many things that change and change is the one constant thing in life.

In twenty or thirty years they are going to be talking about the next ice age coming and how people created it because of our overuse of who knows what.

 

[IndVet]

Oh good. Another thread for people to compete and show they are more ignorant about science than the next guy.

Carry on, we will be amused.

 

[Rod Snell]

The only thing that could be constant would be laboratory grade mercury thermometers, but then it would take a person to look and record the data. Since the data NOAA says has risen a degree in 20 years or so, it would take a fine eye to read the thermometer accurately enough to make a one degree difference.

The problem is worse than that. The NOAA thermometers are calibrated often enough, but the siting is seldom changed, and many sites are becoming increasingly urbanized. Airports that in the sixties and early seventies were newly placed out in the boonies to accommodate jet traffic are now surrounded by development, producing the well-known "city heat island" of easily 3 5o 5 degrees at night.

The real criminal act is that NOAA is following the discredited practice of CHANGING THE TEMPERATURES FROM PERFECTLY GOOD THERMOMETERS THAT DON'T FIT THE WARMING MODEL.
We in the met community call it "bogusing" the data, which is legit when you find that a sensor has a known error found in a recalibration, but not changing whole groups of thermometer readings because you don't like them. One of my peers was fired as the state climatologist of Oregon because he released THE REAL TEMP RECORDS instead of the "bogused" data the Governor preferred.

The primary set of data used at the Paris conference to justify the recent idiotic treaty was "bogused" by a well-known English climatologist and formerly respected member of the profession. Even though he was disgraced internationally, his bogused data set lives on among the "humans cause global warming" devotees. An Australian managed to steal the "secret data" and compare it to his own archived raw data, and exposed the fraud.
This referenced article is an expose of NOAA becoming a political tool of the current President's policy, and changing REAL DATA, by bogusing in the politically correct answer.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/e...that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/#ixzz3uos4JYmn

 

[Glocktogo]

Oh good. Another thread for people to compete and show they are more ignorant about science than the next guy.

Carry on, we will be amused.

What makes you qualified to decide?

 

[chuter]

The problem is worse than that. The NOAA thermometers are calibrated often enough, but the siting is seldom changed, and many sites are becoming increasingly urbanized. Airports that in the sixties and early seventies were newly placed out in the boonies to accommodate jet traffic are now surrounded by development, producing the well-known "city heat island" of easily 3 5o 5 degrees at night.

The real criminal act is that NOAA is following the discredited practice of CHANGING THE TEMPERATURES FROM PERFECTLY GOOD THERMOMETERS THAT DON'T FIT THE WARMING MODEL.
We in the met community call it "bogusing" the data, which is legit when you find that a sensor has a known error found in a recalibration, but not changing whole groups of thermometer readings because you don't like them. One of my peers was fired as the state climatologist of Oregon because he released THE REAL TEMP RECORDS instead of the "bogused" data the Governor preferred.

The primary set of data used at the Paris conference to justify the recent idiotic treaty was "bogused" by a well-known English climatologist and formerly respected member of the profession. Even though he was disgraced internationally, his bogused data set lives on among the "humans cause global warming" devotees. An Australian managed to steal the "secret data" and compare it to his own archived raw data, and exposed the fraud.
This referenced article is an expose of NOAA becoming a political tool of the current President's policy, and changing REAL DATA, by bogusing in the politically correct answer.

Now, come on.........your just being one of those anti-science guys, one of those "deniers"; just another trouble maker.
[/SARCASM]

 

[twoguns?]

Ha.....;/

 

[dennishoddy]

Oh good. Another thread for people to compete and show they are more ignorant about science than the next guy.

Carry on, we will be amused.

Ok, amuse me.

 

[JD8]

What makes you qualified to decide?

He's spot on IMO. Most of OSA has little to no scientific education by my experiences and it shows, especially when they parrot the latest Foxnews type rhetoric.

FWIW, this same article or a similar one has been regurgitated through the MSM several times. The air conditioning vent theories are hilarious.