Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account for 'Nearly All of the Warming' in Climate Data

By Michael Bastasch Published On July 6, 2017
https://stream.org/study-finds-tempe...-climate-data/


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 U.K.'s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings....



...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."...



..."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."...



...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 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 CHECC's petition. "The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered....