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

[JD8]

You like to say that all information that doesn't agree with yours comes from Fox; I suggest you reconsider that, because it's not true, IMHO.

No need to reconsider, you're just misunderstanding my sarcasm and taking it literally. The point I'm trying to make is that you have by far and large, two types of sources here, political driven MSM or several scientific organizations collaborating with countless points of PRJ study.

 

[JD8]

Confirmation bias goes both ways. Just saying...

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.

 

[Rod Snell]

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.

 

[dugby]

I will make of it that an agenda is driving the conclusions more than the information. Cover for stealing from and controlling the masses to enrich and empower the elitists/statists. We hold too many resources and too many choices. They want them all.

 

[Rod Snell]

I will make of it that an agenda is driving the conclusions more than the information. Cover for stealing from and controlling the masses to enrich and empower the elitists/statists. We hold too many resources and too many choices. They want them all.

I know many professionals still on duty that agree with you, but dare not say so in public.

 

[RugersGR8]

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.

+1
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/updated-satellite-data-shows-even-less-global-warming-than-before/
Updated Satellite Data Shows Even Less Global Warming Than Before
Michael Bastasch
10:29 AM 04/29/2015

..."This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”"...

PS Near zero trends in the around the Antarctic.

 

[Glocktogo]

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.

Perfect, now please point me to the double blind studies performed by those educated at neutral schools, of which none of their studies have been paid for by people and institutions that have an agenda.

Confirmation bias is alive and well in academia, science and scientific studies, just as it is in the general population.

 

[RugersGR8]

Fiffy:

Perfect, now please point me to the double blind studies performed by those educated at neutral schools, of which none of their studies have been paid for by people and institutions that have an agenda.

Confirmation bias is alive and well in academia, science and scientific studies, all those that are firmly attached/affixed/glued to the .gov mammary gland, just as it is in the general population.

 

[RickN]

Sat data average for the last 37 years shows that Global average trend.: +0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since December 1978.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since December 1978.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since December 1978.

Tropics: +0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since December 1978.

This is well within normal ranges and is below what the "computer models" predicted.

 

[JD8]

Perfect, now please point me to the double blind studies performed by those educated at neutral schools, of which none of their studies have been paid for by people and institutions that have an agenda.

Confirmation bias is alive and well in academia, science and scientific studies, just as it is in the general population.

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?