The view from Mars

NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update

The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures. It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments. It is not thermometer readings. It is models all the way down.

In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time. I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).

At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.

What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA's website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)? The answer is 0.66˚ C.

How did warming accelerate if we are looking at the very same years?

Apparently, the Earth is getting warmer faster than it was five and a half years ago, but not because of actual recorded thermometer readings in those last five and a half years. It is getting warmer faster because NASA adjusted the data to show faster warming.

When you go to the NASA website, you can download temperature anomalies "1880-present." But those data change every month. NASA adjusts it. You cannot find any older versions. NASA makes available only its most recent version. And NASA does not explain how it adjusts the data. You must simply trust it.

[snip]

We need to answer four questions before we take real action to address man-caused, catastrophic global warming:

Is the globe getting warmer?

If so, is man doing it (or most of it)?

If so, is it bad?

If so, is the massive-reductions-in-CO2 approach the best way to deal with it?

The temperature record does not even address the last three of these questions. Yet even that first, most basic, question is on shaky ground. One could say that warming is man-caused: men adjusted the temperature record.

I know that NASA adjusted the temperature record in a way that accelerated the warming trend. What I don't know for sure is how much of the warming trend is due solely to such adjustments. One peer-reviewed study says "nearly all" of the warming is fabricated.

I would sure like to look at the science of global warming. But without physical observations one can trust, how does one do that? It is all one big "trust us." But that is not science. The "temperature record" is not a record of thermometer readings. It is a summary of what government-funded people with science degrees think is OK for us to see.

NASA's cultural and religious bigotry for all to see.

Watch: NASA’s chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt claims Texans won’t listen to ‘liberal, Jewish atheist from NYC’ about ‘global warming’

From the comments:

Shame on you Gavin. The people in texas are polite, intelligent, and perfectly capable of hearing the message. You're just a stereotyping bigot who can't relate to anyone who isnt a liberal Jewish atheist from New York.

The very real problem demonstrated by the empirical evidence Gavin IS that they don't believe the scientists. How about you dig down in and ask them WHY they dont trust you anymore. I dare you.

What a sad little man you are.

“We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it

Would you entrust NASA to the man who said this?

Although this could give the head of NASA a clue: if the Space Center goes underwater, your feet will get wet. So you'll know it alright.


Also:

Y2Kyoto: Great Moments In Rocket Surgery

NASA Tests Flying Saucer

NASA TESTS SAUCER...

About that "warmest year" hoax.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

And here's the kicker:

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

The earth's average temperature has changed very little over the last decade.  When skeptics say this they're compared to Holocaust Deniers.