The Strange Case of the Wandering Data

Wake wrote:
Checking out the entire article posted on https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

We see something very similar to the complaints of http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa-scientists-manipulated-temperature-data-to-make-global-warming-seem-worse/

In https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data we have an explanation from a man who simply cannot believe that NOAA would be open to political pressure. And yet he then says that he prefers to work with raw data.

That is fine as long as the raw data is not purposely tampered with.

Wake wrote:
NOAA has used the excuse that they have corrected for large urban growth but somehow their records show INCREASING heat rather than the expected lower heat from urban heat islands:

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
Tampering with data for any reason destroys the data. This includes correcting for any heat island effects.
[quote]Wake wrote:
If we look at the satellite records for the period of the most rapid temperature growth according to NOAA:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

we see another story altogether. This is an actual representation of the true temperature growth. And it is ZERO.

Wake wrote:
Has there been some warmer years in the last eight years than previously IN THE SATELLITE RECORD? Yes, but the average temperatures have not changed

Wake wrote:
and the increases in temperature could be expected even using NOAA's claims to the Sun's energy in the upper atmosphere and the emitted radiation from the Earth.

Wake wrote:
There is 0.6 W/m^2 missing which is due to the warming of the continents back to normal temperatures after the Little Ice Age (The Maunder Minimum). The Little Ice Age was followed in rather short order by the Dalton Minimum in which most of Europe had records of cold almost as much as the Little Ice Age.

The Dalton Minimum ended about 1830. So it should have come as no surprise to anyone that the Continents began absorbing slightly more energy than was radiated circa 1896.

Wake wrote:
So NOAA and NASA is under very questionable science.

Wake wrote:
I do NOT see most scientists as guilty of fiddling with the data but it only requires a few that believe that they are working for the "good of the human-kind" to destroy the reputations of scientists all over the world.

Wake wrote:
Since the IPCC reports are in large dependent upon the reports from NOAA and from the hands of Obama, the IPCC should no longer have ANY effect on American science or energy policies.

Wake wrote:
I have asked some questions but actually there's no one left on the group aside from a couple of morons that will claim that the fact that Central Park in New York is rather large that there is no urban heat island effect there. The same moron signing on with another name and pretending an opposite opinion tells us that because there is grass between airport runways that there is no urban heat island effect. He also claims that if you have the definition of a non-commercial airport it doesn't, by default, define a commercial airport. Chief litebrain it telling us that the sky is falling because there is less Arctic ice this year than there has been for a last 40 years. That's been the only time that we could make measurements but that makes no difference, proving I suppose that litebrain is a good name.