Zerohedge has a new article, Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”. Is the study they cite credible? Are their conclusions reasonable? Let’s have a look.
In the report “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO 2 Endangerment Finding“, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the the most important surface data adjustment issues in the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified.
In other words, the report examines the methodology behind the GAST data sets.
The report finds that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. This was nearly always due to systematic removal of the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
The implication is that the numbers are being biased to make global warming look worse than it actually is.
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 researchers checked the GAST data against other sources.
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.
This squares with the NOAA satellite data, which show that while 2016 was the hottest year on record, there has not been a steady climb, as the GAST data shows.
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 is a political implication. The EPA’s anti global warming measures were based on findings derived from GAST data. So this report gives Scott Pruitt (head of the Trump era EPA) the ammunition he needs to begin dismantling the Obama era EPA’s efforts to curb climate change.
According to ZeroHedge.com, the real data looks something like this:
The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.
OK, here’s where the article goes off the rails. The report does not conclude that there is no global warming. And well they should not, because natural warming has been occurring since the last ice age. The report does not even conclude that there is no man made component to global warming. It merely states that warming is exaggerated in the GAST data. And hell, even the Met data shown above has a clear upward trend.
The article concludes that this report will be ignored by those advocating radical measures to combat man made climate change, and that is probably true. But altering the GAST data so that it clearly doesn’t match the satellite measurements brings it’s legitimacy into question, providing a legitimate excuse those who want to remove measures put into place to curb emissions. This is why scientists need to be more careful about their claims. When I constantly hear claims that every year has been the hottest on record, but looking at the NOAA satellite data, I can see that’s untrue, according to a data set that no one is arguing is incorrect, I’m not surprised when I hear that there is scientific evidence that the GAST data has been cooked.