Post by De-Trois-LeaningI know you have some background in the sciences, have you ever looked at
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-
inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/
Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office
inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather
stations. The explosive allegations have been made by citizen
journalist Ray Sanders and sent to the new Labour Science Minister
Peter Kyle MP. Following a number of Freedom of Information requests
to the Met Office and diligent field work visiting individuals
stations, Sanders has discovered that 103 stations out of 302 sites
supplying temperature averages do not exist. “How would any reasonable
observer know that the data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a
Government agency,” asks Sanders. He calls for an “open declaration”
of likely inaccuracy of existing published data, “to avoid other
institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching
erroneous conclusions”.
WOW! Fabricating evidence?!!
And that is with precedent - big time:
https://science.house.gov/2017/2/exposed-how-world-leaders-were-duped-investing-billions-over-manipulated-global
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own
rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but
flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world
leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate
conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in
the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never
existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than
scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare,
it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by
politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an
impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence
that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process –
which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were
overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant
attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster
paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to
enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to
withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the
paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section
that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental
Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices
that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to
discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could
time publication to influence national and international deliberations
on climate policy’.
Dr. Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in
Asheville, North Carolina.
A blatant attempt to intensify paper's impact
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly
influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris
Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in
their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new,
climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which
broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of
thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had
manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the
influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of
data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s
surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now
decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially
revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable
methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will
show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by
devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was
never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on
which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory
requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to
process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA
results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year
career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the
Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in
setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve
climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference,
Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled
‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was
a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work
of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller
increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30
to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate
science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level
of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s
climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought,
so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith
Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project
future warming were ‘running too hot’.
However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming
from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was
actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause,
it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the
pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on
sceptics.
Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to
launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated
baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the
basis of the evidence.’
Data changed to make the sea appear warmer
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as
Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4,
tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014
from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.
Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by
about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall
global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this
increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error
was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys,
which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from
a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates
explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves
sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of
water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so
affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and
“corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good
data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look
as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from
satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which
are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s
co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified
what they were doing.’
Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new
version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that
explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen
by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in
version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite
data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network
known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both
absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of
NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network
(GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000
weather stations spread across the globe.
This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously
thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked
steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of
warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates
conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were
extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow
any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data,
they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that
tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity
adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual
weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was
only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use.
Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to
Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused
it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings
were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new,
bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is,
Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and
his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully
documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by
Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue
internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned
that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete
failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster
paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by
delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a
longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser,
John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.
Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb
emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the
conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent
and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal
mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in
pre-industrial times.
President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which
mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.
President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from
the Paris Agreement.
Post by De-Trois-LeaningIn his home county of Kent, Sanders charges that four of the eight
sites identified by the Met Office, namely Dungeness, Folkestone,
Dover and Gillingham – which all produce rolling temperature averages
to the second decimal place of a degree – are “fiction”. Sanders notes
that there has been no weather station at Dungeness since 1986. The
Daily Sceptic is able to confirm that none of the four stations appear
in the list of Met sites with a classification from the World
Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The Met Office directs online
inquiries about Dover to the ”nearest climate station” at Dover
Harbour (Beach) and provides a full set of rolling 30-year averages.
According to Met Office co- ordinates, the site is on Dover beach as
the Google Earth photo below shows. It seems unlikely that any
scientific organisation would site a temperature monitoring station
that is likely to be submerged on a regular basis. Who is running this
station on the beach, have accurate records been kept for 30 years and
why is it not listed under the 380 sites that are given a WMO rating?
