Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are "not a valid representation of reality."

Source: Climate4You
A research report by James Wallace lll, Joseph D'Aleo and Craig Idso

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding


The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so-called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality. 
and later:
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. 
Skipping to SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS (Part) 
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.
This paper was peer-reviewed  and approved by Drs. Alan Carlin, Harold H. Doiron, Theodore R. Eck, Richard A. Keen, Anthony R. Lupo, Thomas P. Sheahan, and George T. Wolff

After the review, Dr Alan Carlin wrote:

‘CAGW Is a Failed Hypothesis since It Does Not Satisfy the Scientific Method’

Climate alarmism is nothing more than an attempt to scare people with unrealistic hypothetical climate outcomes based on computer models with no predictive power. 


Comments

  1. You should have told us where we can find the paper. I usually prefer not to rely on hearsay whether by alarmists or skeptics and others do too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link given twice, Frank. Click on "Opening of Absrtact" or "Part" on Skipping to SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS (Part)

      Delete
    2. Direct quotes are not hearsay.

      Delete
  2. Have just read the paper. The thesis is that removal of the cyclical component invalidates the datasets is reasonable.

    If the adjustments had changed the trend while keeping the cyclical components, the data providers might defend their products by arguing that the trend is deterministic and exogenous to the climate system. while the cyclical components are driven by internal (endogenous) factors.

    The fact that the driver of the trend may have been exogenous to the climate system does not necessarily mean that the driver was CO2 and other "Greenhouse" gases.

    But by eliminating the cyclical components, the data providers have revealed that the adjustments were ad hoc in the sense that their adjustments were not related to the climate system. The literature refers to adjustments that are purported to correct biases in the method of measuring temperature.

    There is an aspect that is not elaborated in the paper: oceanic circulation of deep water and oceanic oscillations.

    Since the heat capacity of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater that that of the land surface or the atmosphere, measurement of transient changes in the atmosphere are good for projecting weather about a week or so in advance, but not much else. Borehole temperature measurements are suggestive but lack precision.

    Vegetation is a better indicator of climate change than either thermometers or rain gauges. Canada has measured changes in vegetation in its various climate zones. The northward shifts in vegetation zones has been greater in the west than in the east and this corresponds with changes in temperature and precipitation change during the 20th century, confirmed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment both Federal and Provincial in a sober study that is neither alarmist nor skeptical.

    https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/climate_change/cc_indicators_e.pdf

    The study shows that while Western Canada has been warming, Eastern Canada has been cooling. Climate change in Canada appears to follow regional rather than global trends.

    Climate change based on recent observation of vegetation change is confounded by the well-documented "greening" that has resulted from increased tolerance of drought, in turn related to the shrinking of plant stomata directly resulting from elevated CO2. Greening has been more pronounced in western North America simply because the west is drier than the east where drought has been less a constraint to plant growth.

    This leads to the question whether or not there exists a global climate.

    The paper by Belda et Al (2014) is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map from modern datasets.

    The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)

    Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.

    The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.

    My professor, a specialist in Quaternary Geology, asserted that the trend in globally averaged temperature during the 20th century may well have been merely a continuation of the warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Others assert that the LIA is part of a longer climate cycle.

    The youngest readers of this blog may live to see some of these issue resolved with more certainty than we have now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!