SEARCH
Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
re: climate science
The thermometer in my breezeway reads 5°F hotter than 20 feet further away. Maybe I can contribute my bullshit temperature readings to help save the burning planet?
See also:
Watts Up With That?
2001-2020 ‘Global Greening Is An Indisputable Fact’ And It’s Driven By CO2 Fertilization
Scientific Alarmism Drives DoD Climate Policy
UN Says Melting Arctic Ice Is Key Indicator of Climate Change—But It’s Not Melting
Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say
Seriously, these jackass “scientists” are putting sensors at AIRPORTS, where it is obviously going to be hotter from pavement alone, let alone jet exhaust. See for yourself—the very first one I checked... at an airport. What a scam.
NCEI: Local Climaoalogical Data
Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
2024-01-29
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’
...
More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.
“And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.
“The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years ... their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”
...Mr. Spencer also said computerized climate models used to drive changes in energy policy are even more faulty.
...NOAA and NASA have adjusted historical temperature data in such a way as to make the past appear colder and, by so doing, make the current warming trend more pronounced.
...Consequently, NOAA requires all its climate observation stations to be located at least 100 feet away from elements such as concrete, asphalt, and buildings...
a report that shows that 89 percent of NOAA’s stations had heat bias issues due to being located within 100 feet of those elements, and many were located by airport runways.
...The report concluded that the U.S. temperature record was unreliable, and because it was considered “the best in the world,” global temperature databases were also “compromised and unreliable.”
Following the report, the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office confirmed Mr. Watt’s findings and stated that NOAA was taking steps to address the issues. “NOAA acknowledges that there are problems with the USHCN data due to biases introduced by such means as undocumented site relocation, poor siting, or instrument changes,” the OIG report reads.
“All of the experts thought that an improved, modernized climate reporting system is necessary to eliminate the need for data adjustments.”
...Despite the assurances, Mr. Watts had doubts about NOAA addressing the issues and in April 2022 and May 2022, he and his team revisited many of the same temperature stations they had observed in 2009.
He published his findi96 percent, of NOAA’s temperature stations still failed to meet its own standardsngs in a new study on July 27, 2022. It found that even more, approximately.
...NOAA has also been adjusting historical temperature data...“Incredibly, the range of data adjustments exceeds 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which is significant with respect to current temperature trends,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk said.
“NOAA also employs a very unusual follow-on data adjustment process, where they periodically go back and re-adjust the previously adjusted data. This makes it difficult to find ground truth, which seems more like shifting sands.”
WIND: “need for data adjustments”? WTF? When you have to “correct” or “adjust”, you know it’s bullshit—you’re dealing with a climate change grifter industry driven by follow the money:
...When asked why NOAA isn’t only using thermometers where there’s no possibility for an urban heat island effect, Mr. Spencer said: “I think their goal is not to get the most accurate long-term temperature record but to use as much thermometer data as they can get their hands on. This is good to build a congressionally-funded program and keep people employed.”
And wait.. “re-adjust” already adjusted data? It was GIGO, now it’s readjusted GIGO.
Anyone who thinks you can measure the temperature of the earth now or at any time is an idiot. This is not science, it’s playground games.
Scientific data today in most every field is garbage. And just today, we learn that the Big Bang theory looks like toast, due to massive structures that exist when they cannot. Is it all bullshit?
And on the totally batshit crazy what-the-hell-are-you thiking super-max grifting front...
Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet
2024-02-14
Three geoengineering projects seek to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ocean. Critics warn of unintended consequences
Dumping chemicals in the ocean? Spraying saltwater into clouds? Injecting reflective particles into the sky? Scientists are resorting to once unthinkable techniques to cool the planet because global efforts to check greenhouse gas emissions are failing.
These geoengineering approaches were once considered taboo by scientists and regulators who feared that tinkering with the environment could have unintended consequences, but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments to get out of the lab and test these methods outdoors.
...
WIND: parasites and grifters, that’s “climate science”.
