A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “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,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.
Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “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.”
Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.
“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”
Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.
The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”
Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.
Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.
Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.
“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.
“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.
Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.
40-Year Veteran German Climatologist: ‘CO2 A Scapegoat” …UN IPCC ‘A Marketing Organization…Fundamentally Corrupt’
Image cropped from RT.
Retired climatologist Prof. Werner Kirstein: CO2 is “a harmless gas.” “When I go back and look at history, there’s absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.” IPCC is about marketing. The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” “Today you do not find scientists on the IPCC, instead you have political scientists.”
The German-language RT recently conducted an interview with retired climatologist Prof. Werner Kirstein concerning President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord and the state of climate “science” itself. Hat-tip EIKE.
Kirstein, a German climatologist of 40 years, has been one of Germany’s most high-profile critics of climate alarmism. He maintains that the warming over the past decades has been mostly due to natural causes associated with the climb out of the Little Ice Age, and therefore is not surprising.
In the RT interview, on the subject of Trump’s recently announced withdrawal, Kirstein says that it is no surprise because within the Republican party itself there have been a number of politicians who for 20 years long haven’t believed in man-made climate change, and that over the past ten years “hundreds of US scientists say it’s an invention“, and who even said so in a signed a letter to former President Obama.
On the claims made by the IPCC that man is behind the recent climate change (4:50 mark) Kirstein doesn’t buy it, reminding us that in the past CO2 has always varied, and that man’s contribution is puny in comparison to the natural ones.
In total Kirstein agrees that CO2 is “a harmless gas” and calls the IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 drives global temperature based on a coincidental correlation over 30 years, 1970 – 2000, a mistake.
When I go back and look at history, there’s absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.”
CO2 used as a scapegoat
At the 9-minute mark the retired professor tells that the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is highly controversial, and that the trace gas is in fact being used as a scapegoat by politicians, and says that the odds of cooling, based on history, are greater. “Eventually it is going to come.”
IPCC is about marketing, “fundamentally corrupt”
On the question as to why there has been so much climate-catastrophe panic spread by the media, Kirstein blames economic interests, and that governments of course can always find scientists who are willing to go along with the catastrophe scenarios – naming the PIK Potsdam Institute as an example.
He views the IPCC as a “marketing organization” run mostly by sociologists who have the task of marketing climate change. He quotes Vincent Gray (13:00): “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” Kirstein tells the reporter: “That says it all, doesn’t it!” He adds: “Today you do not find scientists on the IPCC, instead you have political scientists.”
Kirstein reminds there is a big difference between climate-protection and environmental protection, and agrees the environment needs to be protected, but “one does not have anything to do with the other.”
Climate science is “a lie”
Kirstein finds it’s okay to be politically in favor of eliminating fossil fuels, but then “you shouldn’t lie to the public” about why it should be done.
When Kirstein is asked why he gives speeches criticizing climate science, he says (17:20):
Because I’m completely against it. Because I see that it just cannot be that the people are being dumbed down by having them believe that there is a climate catastrophe through CO2.”
Driven by funding
On the subject of consensus, Kirstein says he is not alone as a skeptic in Germany, and especially worldwide. Of those scientists who insist that man-made climate change is real, he points out that most of them have their sights on funding.