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

[dennishoddy]

There are an equal number of links that show global warming is a hoax. It all depends on what you want to believe to achieve the agenda your looking for.

 

[chuter]

There are an equal number of links that show global warming is a hoax. It all depends on what you want to believe to achieve the agenda your looking for.

Bingo!

I think I heard something that was agreed upon in the recent global conference was to limit the rise in the earth temp to 2 degrees.........the arrogance of such a goal is beyond reason. To think that man can actually control something like that! To think that human activity is the only thing affecting the temp, and all we have to do is cut back on CO2!
Astounding.

I don't have a problem with renewable, clean energy, but this is bullsh*t.

 

[jfssms]

There are an equal number of links that show global warming is a hoax. It all depends on what you want to believe to achieve the agenda your looking for.

Dennis, would you fix this post so the untrained can read it?

 

[Glocktogo]

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-surface-temperature-1/assessment-1

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01934.x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047222/full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v369/n6475/abs/369048a0.html

http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/7878/1/9...ficationDueToIncreasing_Monogr_pubid13120.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.short

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981400

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7355/abs/nature10176.html

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1506.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x/full

This is a tiny fraction of what I found and I tried to keep it with organizations or scientist from outside the U.S. contributing. I also kept it just within the subjects of ocean phenomenon.

So it's the general consensus on this board that everyone in the NOAA, NASA, etc is corrupt?

Corrupt? No. Compromised? Likely yes. Ever work for someone with an agenda who could ruin your entire career? Literally get you blackballed from your profession?

 

[dennishoddy]

Well, if you're questioning my qualifications, or the source of my post, then here they are:

I have advanced degrees in Atmospheric Science from Univ of Wa and Univ of Ill. My special area of interest is sensors, especially remote sensing. I was the DoD deputy director on the joint NEXRAD program during the development phase. I was on the joint (DoD, NOAA, FAA) committee that developed the standards now used for the unmanned weather stations at small airports.
I have had my work published on the problems of correcting data sets and reconciling two disparate weather data sets in real time on the Chicago Area Program(CHAP).

During over 10 years working on joint committees and programs with NWS, I made many friends and connections, and know from personal communication that the orders to modify the REAL DATA comes from the political appointee NOAA deputy. As I am now retired, I am not subject to getting approval for what I say and write in public, as long as I stay out of classified material. The meterologists still working for the government ARE muzzled.

The practice of "bogusing" data in real time is necessary to remove obviously bad data to prevent the forecast model from using the bad data and making erroneous "bullseyes" in the data output.
The new practice of "bogusing" climate data to raise the recorded temperature at correctly sited sensors with the data from urban sensors is bad science, and applying that same correction to NASA satellite 15 channel infrared data is equally questionable.

The satellite data has proven most reliable over the ocean in areas where NOAA bouys accurately measure the sea surface temperature. And for the last couple of decades, there has been no significant change in the average global temp as measured by the satellites before being subjected to data bogusing. Make of that what you will.

I kind of figured you had some credentials related to this field from past posts. My entire working career has to do with sensors, transmitters, etc relating to temperatures, emissions, frequency's etc.

Its way too easy to use the government standards relating to NIST to remain within the standards, yet skew the results with instrumentation and control calibrations.

For example, with any data generated by an instrument, the government allows a + or - from the desired reading. If its temperature, using RTD thermocouples, They may allow a .5% deviation during a calibration. A clever tech can make sure the instrument reads above or below the standard, but remains within the margin of error set by the government to make the results more favorable.

There may be thousands of temperature points across the nation, and like was posted, they have been encroached upon by environmental and other factors that make their readings not accurate.
All of this makes the screaming environmental activists claims that we have experienced a 1 degree increase in the last how ever many years that is going to destroy the planet and flood our coastal city's, etc. pretty suspect to their validity.

I lol'd at the global warming activists that got stuck in the growing ice field in Antarctica a couple of years ago.

 

[JD8]

There are an equal number of links that show global warming is a hoax. It all depends on what you want to believe to achieve the agenda your looking for.

No Dennis, actually it's not even close, especially to consider real data and people with credentials. Sure you have some opposition as with anything. But you have an amount of phenomenon that is compiling and it's getting too hard to ignore.

 

[JD8]

Bingo!

I think I heard something that was agreed upon in the recent global conference was to limit the rise in the earth temp to 2 degrees.........the arrogance of such a goal is beyond reason. To think that man can actually control something like that! To think that human activity is the only thing affecting the temp, and all we have to do is cut back on CO2!
Astounding.

I don't have a problem with renewable, clean energy, but this is bullsh*t.

There's a conglomerate of issues at play, especially outside of CO2 saturation. However, as I said earlier.... most here won't have an understanding of the science as to how and why.

I guess the toxic haze is a myth in China? Seeing man can't affect his environment an all....

 

[JD8]

Corrupt? No. Compromised? Likely yes. Ever work for someone with an agenda who could ruin your entire career? Literally get you blackballed from your profession?

I posted a tiny fraction of studies, some with repeatable results...... every one of those studies is corrupt? Overseas organizations are all corrupt or compromised too? Sorry, but I can't get on board with the tinfoil hat on this one. Worst case scenario the NOAA is "compromised." What for?

 

[farmerbyron]

Only problem with that theory is, references, facts, and education weigh more heavily on one side. Not unlike a gun control discussion, but for some reason this turns into an "us" vs "them" argument.

But you can find plenty of data to advocate for more gun control. It is only your perspective on the issue that makes you see the data you want to see. There is credible data on opposing sides of about any issue. Your bias will dictate which data you favor.

I'm a big advocate for science but any of the solutions presented to combat GW are economic in nature and would not make a significant impact on a reduction in warming. Plus our high resolution dataset is so small at this point, how the hell do we even know what normal is? We just came out of a little ice age a mere century ago so if our baseline of high quality data starts at the end of a cool period, shouldn't natural warming be expected?

Not faux news regurgitation here, just critical thinking applied with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[JD8]

But you can find plenty of data to advocate for more gun control. It is only your perspective on the issue that makes you see the data you want to see. There is credible data on opposing sides of about any issue. Your bias will dictate which data you favor.

I'm a big advocate for science but any of the solutions presented to combat GW are economic in nature and would not make a significant impact on a reduction in warming. Plus our high resolution dataset is so small at this point, how the hell do we even know what normal is? We just came out of a little ice age a mere century ago so if our baseline of high quality data starts at the end of a cool period, shouldn't natural warming be expected?

Not faux news regurgitation here, just critical thinking applied with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You bring up very good points. A fluctuation in temperature and conditions IS normal, and more drastic ones have happened but shown to have happened over a significant period of time. The speed at which they are occuring is the variable here.

Also, in terms of data FOR gun control is easily disproven as all of the data I've seen that provides backing is filled with cherry picking and junk science at best. All data is not the same, nor is the method by which it was gathered. So I'm going to have to disagree that credible data lies on both sides of any issue. Rather the amount of repeatable results within each subject at the very least, can be very different.