New Research Calls Global Warming Data 'Not a Valid Representation of Reality'

A new report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data generated by NASA and the NOAA found that it’s complete bunk.

The paper was peer-reviewed by some notable scientists with some pretty impressive credentials who agree with the report’s conclusions. Among them:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.

Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

The authors of the study, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso, have reached some devastating conclusions:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

[…]

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

Can you say, “cooking the books”? Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the “adjustment” of temperature data has suspiciously always seen the adjusted temps go up, never down. The famous “hockey stick” graph was built on these “adjustments.”

As the researchers point out, there is nothing wrong with making adjustments to temperatures. Many of the weather stations that have kept decades-long records upon which the temperature data is based have been moved, or a city has grown up around them, or their location above or below sea level has changed. All of these things and much more affect the temperature from year to year.

To compensate for those changes, ethical researchers develop adjustments that are applied across the board to more accurately reflect reality.

But unethical researchers, or those with a political agenda, find ways to subtly manipulate the “adjustments” to temperatures. What the authors of the paper found is that NASA and the NOAA managed to leave out cyclical temperature patterns, thus making it appear the average temperature was constantly rising.

Of course, this report will not be accepted by global warming hysterics. They will probably accuse the authors of being in the pay of Big Oil. But wherever the truth still matters, the report will generate discussion and debate — exactly what good science is supposed to do.