Once again, the warming alarmists published bogus data. In particular, NASA's October temperature report falsely depicted a "glaring" almost 0.8 degree C anomaly in the month, which would be "the largest ever for October, and one of the largest anomalies ever recorded." After bloggers checked NASA's math, the agency revised its October data, which bloggers promptly reviewed. And--surprise, surprise!--new errors were spotted.
The examination and errors are complicated, but PaulM at globalwarmingquestions posted an excellent, link-filled, summary.
Last week's events are part of a pattern:
Predictions Forecasts of future temperatures by the IPCC and NASA have been well higher than observed readings:
source: The Blackboard
legend: blue vertical line - central tendency for trends projected by the IPCC in the AR4.
bell-shaped curve - trend spread by adding weather noise.
orange vertical line - IPCC's lower +/-95 % confidence interval.
green vertical line - trend of observations (merged NOAA/HadCrut/GISS Land-Ocean data).
source: Climate Skeptic
As Professor Don Easterbrook concludes, "The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 stand little chance of being correct." Indeed, we can more from the alarmist errors--including failing to account for changes around weather stations or the Urban Heat Island effect--because these mistakes disproportionately overstate future temps, likely evidence of bias.
Retroactive changes: Yes, data sets often are corrected for valid reasons. But official NASA/NOAA temperature records of years past appear to to have been revised 70 times by the government. These new numbers sneak into NASA's database without notice. And almost all the changes force the figures up to "prove" recent warming:
source: Climate Skeptic
As Climate Skeptic remarks, "It is amazing that all of the manual adjustments they add to the raw data constantly have the effect of increasing historical warming." At this point, much of the recent data may be corrupt.
Conclusion: Some scientists and some bureaucrats have sponsored a fraud and a panic. Although contrary, fact based, science and research exists, it is downplayed. The experts who produce them have their ethics challenged (wrongly) or are exorcised--and given less credence than uninformed European royals. Meanwhile, the IPCC is run by "a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science," who fudges and lies but somehow is more credible than any skeptic. Reality seems hopelessly obscured.
Yet I'm optimistic. The Democrats are about to complete their take-over of Washington. In two months, they'll be in charge. And they will realize that cutting carbon is hugely expensive--quite a strain given the current financial crisis and the President-elect's other spending priorities. Nor, in any event, would the benefits of carbon capture exceed its costs. And hypothetical warming/rising seas raises only a distant threat (defined as anything after November 2012). So I've predicted "we won't have to hear anything about global warming after January 20, 2009."