What is the real temperature? The answer is fraught with great uncertainty because it depends on where you put the thermometers, which readings are counted, and how they are averaged.

Two experiments demonstrate the problem. The newest, still on-going, experiment is being conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They set out an array of five thermometers in a field adjacent to a building (see photo below). They found that night time temperatures become warmer as the building is approached. This is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the building. The researchers suggest this happens because of infra-red radiation from the building. So, which thermometer records the “true” temperature? (See more of the story here).

I’ve reported on the second experiment before (see here). NOAA, keepers of the official temperature record, maintains two sets of stations, the older U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and the newer U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). The newer stations are located away from warming urban influence. These stations record temperatures 0.5°C on average, up to almost 4.0°C (0.9°F to 7.2°F) lower than the older stations upon which the official record is based.

These experiments support a 5-year study by Anthony Watts which showed that with a combination of poor station siting and “adjustments” performed by NOAA, the official U.S. temperature record is warm-biased and does not reflect the true temperature.

Perceived trends in the surface temperature record are used by advocates to attribute a cause, such as carbon dioxide emissions, and to pretend there is a crisis. But, as these data show, the causes are complex and very uncertain, too uncertain to be the basis of major policy decisions. But much money depends on maintaining the mythical crisis, from subsidies for wind and solar projects to the indulgence of renting “clean” air through the trading of carbon credits.

One other question: What is the “right” temperature for this planet?

See also:

Cooking the books – was 2012 really the hottest ever in the US?

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

NOAA temperature record “adjustments” could account for almost all “warming” since 1973

NOAA has also established a parallel set of weather stations, operating for about 10 years now, that address the many problems of the USHCN. That network is United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). These are modern stations, sited well away from urban influence, that use state of the art instrumentation and are therefore not subject to the problems associated with the old USHCN network.

The difference in temperatures recorded by the two networks shows that the old USHCN has been overstating the temperature anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months. Remember that when you see headlines blaring that a certain day, week,  month, year was the warmest since…. whenever. The new USCRN data is more in line with the satellite temperature record.

The situation is neatly summed up by C3Healines (in spite of its provocative headline):

NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct

 Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence. In addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits. And finally, global warming skeptics believe, for a multitude of reasons, human errors/mistakes/failings have caused late 20th century global warming to be significantly overstated.

This article addresses this last point. What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world-wide warming being overstated? ( click to get larger image at source: one, two, three )

Well, NOAA has actually conducted said experiment by building their U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which precisely, and automatically, measures temperature and weather conditions across the U.S. The USCRN effort is based on the concept that the best way to measure the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures is to place state-of-the-art climate stations in pristine rural areas that are little impacted by people, buildings, vehicles, equipment, asphalt and etc.

An example of one of NOAA’s pristine climate measurement stations is the top image (Image #1). And the middle image depicts the location of each pristine station – there are currently 114 of them, and clearly they are well dispersed providing good U.S. coverage.

By carefully planning and maintaining these pristine stations and by using the best technology available, this large-scale experiment eliminates the following problems with the older weather measurement network:

There are no observer or transcription errors to correct.

There is no time of observation bias, nor need for correction of it.

There is no broad scale missing data, requiring filling in data from potentially bad surrounding stations.

There are no needs for bias adjustments for equipment types since all equipment is identical.

There is no need for urbanization adjustments, since all stations are rural and well sited.

There are no regular sensor errors due to air aspiration and triple redundant lab grade sensors. Any errors detected in one sensor are identified and managed by two others, ensuring quality data.

Due to the near perfect geospatial distribution of stations in the USA, there isn’t a need for gridding to get a national average temperature.

So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story – when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature “warming” in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months.

To clarify, this range of overstatement depends on the given new and old stations being compared. However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1°F higher than the actual temperatures.

What does this mean? Within the climate science realm, the old climate/weather station system had long been considered the best and most complete measurement network in the world. But when pitted against a brand new climate measurement system that has the best qualities that science can provide, we find that the traditional U.S. methodology is significantly overstating the “global warming” phenomenon. This means that if other countries replaced their own low quality network with NOAA’s greatest and latest technology, with the best location site standards applied, we would discover that world-wide temperature increases have been wildly overstated also.

Conclusions: A large-scale NOAA experiment has proven that global warming skeptics were correct: temperature warming in the U.S. has been significantly overstated in recent decades. This NOAA experiment should be expanded to other continents and countries since it is now obvious that the combined older technology and substandard weather station sites have well overstated the global warming phenomenon. Before any further dollars are spent on climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, the world needs to upgrade their global weather/climate reporting network to the USCRN standard so that policymakers have correct temperature change measurements to base their decisions on.

Those who claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of recent warming (AGW) fail to produce physical evidence to support that position. Some cite computer statistical studies that conclude that a certain percentage of the warming must be due to human influence, only because they can’t think of anything else. The bottom line, however, is that computer simulations are not physical evidence and the AGW position is unsupported by anything other than speculation. Government policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions therefore have no basis in science, no proof that such policies would make a real difference in climate. But such policies have a great detrimental effect on our economy, jobs, and national security. This phantom menace should be put to rest so that we can direct our resources toward solving real problems.

See also:

Which comes first, rise in global CO₂ or rise in global temperature?

NOAA temperature record “adjustments” could account for almost all “warming” since 1973

July 2012 not hottest according to NOAA data

US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling says Anthony Watts

Urban heat island effect on temperatures, a tale of two cities

Most US maximum temperature records set in the 1930s

The State of our Surface Temperature Records

The AP story printed by the Star was based on a press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that read in part:

“The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since record keeping began in 1895.”

Those temperature records were based on the old US historical climate network stations (USHCN) which are shown to be inaccurate due to siting problems, encroachment of urban areas, and poor instrumentation. (See my post: US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments says a new study)

But there is another, more modern, group of weather stations established by NOAA called the United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). These are modern stations, sited well away from urban influence, that use state of the art instrumentation and are therefore not subject to the problems associated with the old USHCN network.

Those USCRN stations show the monthly average U.S.temperature for July 2012 was 75.51°F, some 2.1 F cooler than the touted results from the old USHCN stations, and 1.9°F cooler than July, 1936. See the full story details from Anthony Watts here. See also as Dr. Roy Spencer weighs in on this issue here.

For some perspective and contrast, while July in the U.S. was warm, it was not so in the U.K. When I was in the U.K. in June, it was colder and wetter than normal. That trend has continued into July with U.K. temperatures almost 2°F below the long-term average. (Source)  The implication, of course, is that U.S. temperatures don’t necessarily reflect global conditions.

See also:

Do newspapers have a responsibility to check wire-service stories?

Urban heat island effect on temperatures, a tale of two cities

Most US maximum temperature records set in the 1930s

NOAA temperature record “adjustments” could account for almost all “warming” since 1973

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

The new normal temperature will be about 0.5 F warmer than the old normal temperature because the period 1998-2008 was warmer than mid-20^th Century norms. See graph below.

Notice than the 1920s and 1930s were as warm as 1998-2008. This was followed by a cooler period from 1940 to about 1978. The warm period of 1998 to 2008 is attributed to a super El Niño in 1998. It appears that the average temperatures have cooled since 2009. It remains to be seen whether this cooling will persist as some predict based on total solar irradiance and sunspot observations (see articles below).

The “normal” temperature baselines have some value to farmers in judging when to plant crops. Energy utilities also use these baselines to help predict energy demand. The “normal” temperature is just a mathematical construct. By choosing longer or shorter periods, the “normal” temperature would be different.

For more extensive discussion of the “new normal” see here and here.

See also:

Astronomers predict a major drop in solar activity, that means a cold spell

Declining Sunspots my trigger deep cooling period

Geophysicist predicts new “Little Ice Age” by 2050

NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period

NASA Lowers Estimate of Carbon Dioxide Warming Effect

An article in the Huffington Post is typical of the hype: “Violent tornadoes throughout the southeastern U.S. must be a front-page reminder that no matter how successful climate deniers are in confusing the public or delaying action on climate change in Congress or globally, the science is clear: Our climate is worsening.”

But back on Planet Earth, reality prevailed. Dr. Roy Spencer , a scientist at UAH and NASA, writes,

If there is one weather phenomenon global warming theory does NOT predict more of, it would be severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

Tornadic thunderstorms do not require tropical-type warmth. In fact, tornadoes are almost unheard of in the tropics, despite frequent thunderstorm activity.

Instead, tornadoes require strong wind shear (wind speed and direction changing rapidly with height in the lower atmosphere), the kind which develops when cold and warm air masses ‘collide.’ Of course, other elements must be present, such as an unstable airmass and sufficient low-level humidity, but wind shear is the key. Strong warm advection (warm air riding up and over the cooler air mass, which is also what causes the strong wind shear) in advance of a low pressure area riding along the boundary between the two air masses is where these storms form.

But contrasting air mass temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring.

A paper published in 2005 predicted the possibility of more tornadoes, given the right conditions: “Colder than normal temperatures in the western US/Canada along with warmer than normal temperatures in the southern United States during La Niña events would act to strengthen the interactions between warm and cold air in the mid-west. There would be an increase in the number of days favorable for tornadic development. This would act to increase the number of violent tornadoes that occur during the late spring-early summer. Large multiple tornado outbreaks are more likely for the same reason.” (Atmospheric Science Paper No. 755, Colorado State University).

“US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.” (Physorg.com)

“A top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the American South is related to climate change brought on by global warming…There really is no scientific consensus or connection between global warming and tornadic activity….Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.” (Fox News)

“The case linking tornadoes to global warming is even sketchier, and the science is far from settled. A 2007 NASA study predicted that the number of tornadoes would increase with global warming. A 2009 study by University of Georgia found the opposite. The number of recorded tornadoes has risen in the last 20 years, but the rise coincides with greater use of Doppler radar and other advanced means of detecting tornadic activity, creating an acute issue of data artifice.” (Washington Times)

The author of the 2009 paper cited above, Thomas Mote, director of University of Georgia Atmospheric Sciences program, “I know it is ironic saying this after last night when we had the most extensive outbreaks in 40 years, but there is some reason to believe we will see drier, more stable conditions in the southern U.S. as a consequence of climate change.” In other words, global warming should result in fewer tornadoes, and that has been the case. The graphic below from NOAA shows the incidence of strong tornadoes since 1950.

But, the CSI team (climate scene investigators) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says not so.

NOAA says:

They found no evidence — no human ‘fingerprints’ — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.”

The CSI team turned its attention to natural factors that control the ordinary ups and downs of weather. Many extreme weather events are due to cyclical, large-scale anomalies in air pressure and sea surface temperature across large tracts of ocean. Such fluctuations spawn weather systems that can cause droughts, floods, and massive snowstorms. While El Niño is the most famous, scientists have identified other climate anomalies throughout Earth’s climate system as well. Their names may seem unimpressive — the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few — but they can pack quite a punch!

The CSI team focused on two suspects known to be at large this winter — the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Niño. El Niño, with its warming of tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures, may be best known for delivering heavy rains across the southern United States. El Niño events can trigger mudslides in California, floods along the Gulf Coast, and unusual warmth and drought in the Pacific Northwest. The latter should sound familiar: an unusually warm winter from Portland to Seattle was part of the same climate pattern affecting the venue of the Winter Olympics. The CSI Team suspected that El Niño was a conspirator in the United States’ unusual winter weather, and that it had an accomplice.

The North Atlantic Oscillation is a fluctuating air-pressure pattern that alternatively enhances or blocks the storm-steering jet stream over North America. So the NAO is particularly relevant in understanding eastern U.S. wintertime climate variations. The NAO describes the contrast in surface air pressure between Iceland and the Azores as well as the vigor of the jet stream that normally flows between them.

The CSI team focused on two suspects known to be at large this winter — the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Niño. El Niño, with its warming of tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures, may be best known for delivering heavy rains across the southern United States. El Niño events can trigger mudslides in California, floods along the Gulf Coast, and unusual warmth and drought in the Pacific Northwest. The latter should sound familiar: an unusually warm winter from Portland to Seattle was part of the same climate pattern affecting the venue of the Winter Olympics. The CSI Team suspected that El Niño was a conspirator in the United States’ unusual winter weather, and that it had an accomplice.

False-color map showing El Niño pattern of sea-surface height anomalies in the equatorial Pacific Ocean on February 15, 2010. Higher areas, shown in red, are warmer than average, and lower areas, shown in blue, are cooler than average. White areas show average heights and temperatures. Image courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory.

The North Atlantic Oscillation is a fluctuating air-pressure pattern that alternatively enhances or blocks the storm-steering jet stream over North America. So the NAO is particularly relevant in understanding eastern U.S. wintertime climate variations. The NAO describes the contrast in surface air pressure between Iceland and the Azores as well as the vigor of the jet stream that normally flows between them.

The winter of 2009-10 witnessed the most extreme negative (blocked) NAO phase since at least 1950. (Graph courtesy of Marty Hoerling, NOAA Earth System Research Lab.)

This winter the NAO was in its negative phase and the jet stream flowed further south than usual, pushed toward the Azores by a massive “block” of high surface pressure over Greenland. It’s an unusual atmospheric circulation pattern, but one that has been implicated before. For example, remarkably cold winters persisted over Europe and Russia in the early 1940s, helping to turn the tide of World War II. The NAO, in a blocked phase, was one conspirator in those cold events. Likewise, the CSI Team suspected the pattern was a co-conspirator in the extreme winter weather conditions this year in the mid-Atlantic region. But could they find the evidence they would need to finger El Niño and NAO?

See here for the rest of NOAAs story.

See also the Rutgers University global snow lab. There you can click on a series of graphs showing snowfall data for the northern hemisphere since 1967. You will see that snowfall in 1978 exceeded the current winter so far.

A team from the National Incident Command, the Department of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) calculated an “oil budget” for the spill. “The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.” The report is without any documentation. The results are shown in the graphic below.

The Administration announced that much of the oil was eaten by bacteria. A report in Science disagrees with the government estimates:

“Oceanographers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts surveyed the gulf around the BP well from the research ship Endeavor from 19 to 28 June, a period of heavy flow. Led by oceanographer Richard Camilli, the team deployed an array of instruments on both a cable-lowered water sampler and an autonomous underwater vehicle. All told, the instrumentation made more than 57,000 separate chemical analyses of a plume southwest of the well.

“The first thing that the researchers noticed was that the plume wasn’t quite as massive as many news reports had made out. The plume surveyed by Endeavor was only 200 meters thick and about 2 kilometers wide. Although plenty of oil was flowing from the ruptured well, it didn’t look much like an underwater oil slick. The team’s camera picked up a yellowish fog half a kilometer from the well, and water samples farther from the well did not look or smell like oil. “The plume was not a river of Hershey’s syrup,” says marine geochemist Christopher Reddy of the WHOI group.

“The plume did, however, contain more than 50 micrograms per liter (about 0.05 parts per million) of a group of particularly toxic petroleum compounds that includes benzene, the team reports online today in Science. That amount of benzene-related petroleum compounds is roughly consistent with the 1 to 2 parts per million of total oil reported in plumes by some other researchers.

“On the microbe front, the WHOI team also found differences. A report released last week by a group of federal agencies led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated—without documentation—that early signs show the oil is “biodegrading quickly.” Not so in the southwest plume in late June, the WHOI researchers found. Their measurements of oxygen dissolved in seawater, which bacteria consume as they feed, showed that microbes had not appreciably degraded the oil during its first 5 days out of the well.”

The New York Times opines “So far, scientific information about the gulf has emerged largely from government reports and statements issued by scientists. Many additional research papers are in the works, and it could be months before a clear scientific picture emerges.

“The slow breakdown of deep oil that Dr. Camilli’s group found had a silver lining: it meant that the bacteria trying to eat the oil did not appear to have consumed an excessive amount of oxygen in the vicinity of the spill, alleviating concerns that the oxygen might have declined so much that it threatened sea life. On this point, Dr. Camilli’s research backs statements that the government has been making for weeks.”

More disagreement with government estimates comes from University of Georgia researchers. They claim that as much as 79% of the oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon well could in fact remain at large in the Gulf of Mexico, where it still poses a threat to the marine ecosystem. The graphic below shows their oil budget.

Only time and more research will tell who’s estimate is closer to reality.

The Gulf oil spill is estimated at 4.9 million barrels (about 206 million gallons). Let’s put that in perspective.

“A 2003 research paper by Kvenvolden and Cooper in Geo-Marine Letters estimated that natural seeps dump 140,000 metric tons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico each year –over one million barrels of crude per year. In fact, the authors estimate that 47% of all the petroleum found in the sea is from natural seeps – the largest single source, ahead of airborne pollution, ground runoff and drilling/shipping accidents,” says the Energy Tribune.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says there is an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point, the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, California, where 20-25 tons of oil (about 7,500 gallons) have leaked from the sea floor each day for the last several hundred thousand years (at least 800 billion gallons). The Woods Hole scientist say that some oil is degraded by microorganisms and some evaporates, but most of it winds up in the ocean sediments. Could a similar process have produced the Canadian tar sands?

Here is some real data, from NOAA High Plains Regional Climate Center, of temperature departure from normal for January 1, 2010 through July 31, 2010. It shows that the northeast U.S. has been warmer than normal, but about 60% of the U.S. has had temperatures below normal.

Source: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

In the Arctic, spring sea ice melting got a late start, then melted faster than normal, and now has returned to a normal rate (see red line in graph below).

Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

From Dr. Roy Spencer at UAH: “Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago. The following plot, updated through July 29, 2010 shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific continue to be well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST, something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event.

Spencer’s graph of atmospheric temperatures, based on satellite readings, show that 2010, an El Nino year, is warmer than the 1979-2001 average, but still cooler than 1998, also an El Nino year:

Abundant research shows that the Medieval Warm Period, ca. 1100 to 1300 A.D. was about 6 degrees F warmer than now (see one example here.)

Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:

Peru declared state of emergency amid plunging temperatures. Hundreds die from extreme cold in remote mountain villages also struggling with severe poverty. Source UK.Guardian. Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay experience extreme cold. In Bolivia, tropical areas temperatures plummeted to zero causing “millions of dead fish” in rivers that normally flow in an environment of 20 Celsius.

Antarctic sea ice extent is greater than normal (Data from National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.)

When put into perspective, 2010 is not so hot. Last winter when much of the U.S. experienced very cold weather, climate alarmists dismissed that saying short term weather is not climate. In that they were right. But now since we’ve had a hot June, those same people are using a short-term weather phenomenon to claim that the climate is heating up. The climate has cycles of many different periods from years to centuries to millennia to hundreds of millions of years. Where we are now in these cycles seems to depend on who is doing the measuring and data compilation. Lost in the prognostications and press releases is evidence of causation. In the case of those who say we are experiencing unprecedented warming is the implication that humans are the main cause, but those same people are unable to present any compelling physical evidence to support that contention. Personally, I find the physical geological evidence of natural climate cycles both compelling and sufficient to explain the trends. The contention that this year or this decade is warmer or cooler than some time in the past proves nothing.

Dr. Ross McKitrick has just published “A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products,” which goes into great detail about problems with our temperature data sets (73 pages). That paper documents a major reduction in world-wide weather stations since 1970. The remaining stations are skewed toward airport sites, lower latitudes, and lower elevations; each of which produces a warming bias in the data. McKitrick concludes, “The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.”

For some further perspective see a recent report of a drilling project in Greenland. This project drilled more than 1.5 miles into the ice to investigate “the Eemian interglacial period from about 115,000 to 130,000 years ago, a time when temperatures were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above today’s temperatures.” “Ice cores from previous drilling efforts revealed temperature spikes of more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit in just 50 years in the Northern Hemisphere.” So what if the last decade was the warmest since whenever?

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations

“On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.”

Source: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html Scroll about half way down the page.

Global weather dataset being systematically corrupted

“For the past six days, several climate scientists have discovered an alarming trend: clear evidence of alteration of historical data at weather stations around the world, in order to support the contention of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The changes appear to affect the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), a project of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/yat5tgo

Antarctic GHCN uses single warmest station instead of whole dataset

“Of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years. But it’s not just any station, it’s a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydbr4ag

Computer programmer makes case that release of files from CRU was an inside job.

See: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/

How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

See: http://tinyurl.com/yf6r9l3

Politicians take note: It could be that all the sound and fury over climate change is based on bad data. For traders in carbon credits: the house of cards is beginning to fall and your market may be the next multi-billion dollar bubble to burst.