Long time readers know that I've been posting about climate science for quite a long time. Newer readers who are interested in a condensed view of my opinions can read it here (it's sort of a "Climate Science 101" post for the educated layman). Readers who want more depth and background (or who are gluttons for punishment) can get a list of climate posts here.
But everyone is familiar with the Global Warming scare machine which pumps out a never ending stream of ZOMGTHERMAGEDDON!!!11!!!ELEVENTY!!! The climate science establishment feeds a stream of "hottest year ever" press releases to a media that is fully on board and which pushes this narrative. Government funding to the tune of $100 Billion feeds the whole machine.
And yet the public is (rightly) skeptical of the whole thing. Trump is making some right moves appointing skeptics to positions like head of the EPA. Some have proposed cutting funding of climate science research by 80% or more. These are good ideas, but won't directly address the problem of corrupted research and bureaucratic pushback. Immodestly, I believe that I have something that will stop the global warming machine in its tracks in the space of a month, and keep it derailed for good. And there's nothing that the bureaucracy and the scientists can do about it.
And it would be 100% scientific, which is why it would be so easy and why it would stick. You clean up the climate databases:
If you look closely at climate data, you will find that all the major data sets consist of two parts:Spoiler alert: according to the scientists themselves, over 85% of reported warming comes from adjustments to the data. Re-stated, the data as recorded only show 15% of the ZOMGTHERMAGEDDON!!!11!!!eleventy!!! that is being fed to us. Or all of it, if you believe the new post that's going around.
Raw Data, which is the instrument reading: satellite, thermometer, or proxy (tree ring, ice core, etc). This is data straight from the sensor.
Adjustments, which are corrections applied to raw data to adjust for inconsistencies. For example, it is important to read the thermometer temperature at the same time every day. If the hottest time of the day is, say, 2:30 PM, but you read the thermometer at 10:00 AM, then the day's reading will be low. Adjustments are also made when weather stations are re-sited, and for other reasons.
An interesting question is how much of the 20th Century's warming came from adjustments, rather than from raw data?
Now maybe these adjustments are actually correct, but it seems that the scientists should provide very solid and compelling reasons when and why they adjust the data. Quite frankly, there are some good reasons to think that they are not doing this:
Not to me it doesn't, and it shouldn't make sense to the Trump Administration, either. And so my proposal:Anyway, lets look at the specific adjustments. The lines in the chart below should add to the overall adjustment line in the chart above.
- Black line is a time of observation adjustment, adding about 0.3C since 1940
- Light Blue line is a missing data adjustment that does not affect the data much since 1940
- Red line is an adjustment for measurement technologies, adding about 0.05C since 1940
- Yellow line is station location quality adjustment, adding about 0.2C since 1940
- Purple line is an urban heat island adjustment, subtracting about 0.05C since 1950.Let's take each of these in turn. The time of observation adjustment is defined as follows:The Time of Observation Bias (TOB) arises when the 24-hour daily summary period at a station begins and ends at an hour other than local midnight. When the summary period ends at an hour other than midnight, monthly mean temperatures exhibit a systematic bias relative to the local midnight standard0.3C seems absurdly high for this adjustment, but I can't prove it. However, if I understand the problem, a month might be picking up a few extra hours from the next month and losing a few hours to the previous month. How is a few hour time shift really biasing a 720+ hour month by so large a number? I will look to see if I can find a study digging into this.I will skip over the missing data and measurement technology adjustments, since they are small.The other two adjustments are fascinating. The yellow line says that siting has improved on USHCN sites such that, since 1900, their locations average 0.2C cooler due to being near more grass and less asphalt today than in 1900.During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites.OK, without a bit of data, does that make a lick of sense?
Remove all adjustments from the climate databases and then allow them back only when justified for a single day at a single weather station. If an adjustment is needed, then have NOAA specify why. And report the last 100 years without any adjustments.
And this will basically kill the global warming movement. It will reveal to the public that the data have been manipulated. Those who complain about this will have to justify why unspecified and unjustified changes should be allowed to the data. They will have to explain how that is scientific. Quite, I don't see how the climate science establishment can effectively push back against this without confirming the skeptics' worst accusations. I mean, do you want honest science or not?
And suddenly all the scientists who use that data set will have a data set without an artificial warming signal. There will suddenly be a "97% consensus" that no warming is seen.
And this can all be done in a week. No Congressional action needed, just the stroke of Trump's pen. And then he can tell the EPA to justify all their new carbon rules ...