The NASA Temperature Record Is A Farce

Our most accurate planetary temperatures come from satellites. The US space agency apparently doesn’t believe in satellites, and instead uses a very sparse array of UHI contaminated surface thermometers, and then they tamper with the data to produce a fake warming trend.

Satellites show the Earth cooling in the 21st century, but NASA shows it warming.

ScreenHunter_9312 May. 16 05.40GISSvsRSS2001-2015

NASA reported temperatures are diverging from satellite temperatures at a rate of almost one degree C per century – more than the entire claimed warming since 1880.

ScreenHunter_9320 May. 16 05.54

NASA is constantly altering their historical data to create the appearance of a non-existent warming trend.

GISS-1981-2002-2014-global

The NASA graphs are useful for politicians who want to raise taxes, and for insurance companies who want to raise premiums – but are worse than useless for scientists who actually want to understand the climate. They show they exact opposite of what is happening to the climate.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The NASA Temperature Record Is A Farce

  1. Marsh says:

    It is just as well, NASA Rocket Science, has more integrity than their Climate Science ; they would never have made it to the Moon,,, if they bent the Data that much…

    • Gail Combs says:

      No wonder the USA closed down their space satellite program and have to use the Russians instead.

      None of the psuedo-scientists in NASA would recognize the scientific method if it bit them in the arse.

      • Dave G says:

        Climastrologist scientific method….

        1. Receive hypothesis.
        2. Test Data against hyptohesis.
        3. Revise data as required.
        4. repeat step 2

        • Dave G says:

          5. if hypothesis begins to lose credibility, invent entirely new one from thin air.

        • Dave G says:

          6. If that doesn’t work, yell hypothesis even louder and call critics of it really bad names.

      • Brian H says:

        NASA is a complex place; while many launches depend on the Atlas, which is a borrowed Russian design, it also helped fund SpaceX (by giving it its starter contract to resupply ISS), which builds in the US from scratch and already launches way cheaper than anyone. It is testing reusable rocket boosters, trying to land them 1st on a barge, then on land, with return to launch pad under their own power as the goal. That will reduce cost to orbit by about 100X, and transform the industry and world. “Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the solar system.”

  2. “….Temperature records,
    How is temperature measured?
    Not using the principals
    That should always be treasured.
    The temperatures required?
    Politically dictated;
    The halls of good science
    By charlatans infiltrated….”

    From “The One Eyed Politician is King” Read more: http:///wp.me/p3KQlH-CL

  3. SMS says:

    This is such a good scandal and the media usually loves a scandal. But the media is in bed with the alarmists and Hillary. An ugly threesome.

    • omanuel says:

      They deserve each other.

    • Ted says:

      What scandal? You just have your head in the sand. You need to get your priorities straight. Falsifying temperatures in an effort to steal trillions, and enslave the world, is nothing compared to Tom Brady’s balls. And once that one’s over, it’ll be about time to get back to Bruce Jenner’s… Uhhhhhhhhh… Does he still have them?

  4. sfx2020 says:

    The Media is an extension of the wealthy owners.

  5. omanuel says:

    As the Climategate scam continues to unfold, we are led to one inevitable conclusion that none of us wanted to consider: Stalin emerged victorious from WWII during a news blackout of Aug-Sept 1945 events that changed the course of world history [1] and convinced world leaders to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide Ministry of Consensus Science Truths on 24 Oct 1945 to forbid knowledge of neutron repulsion in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.

    Thanks to brave actions by a nuclear geochemist in Aug 1945 [2] – Dr. Kazuo Kuroda – the worldwide effort failed to block public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies [3].

    References:

    1. “ASTON’s WARNING (Dec 1922); CHAOS & FEAR (Aug-Sept 1945)”

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf

    2. BBC News Report on Japan’s missing atomic bomb secrets (2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

    3. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf or

    “Solar Energy for school teachers”
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

  6. Ted says:

    Steven-

    Have you done a comparison of the USCRN data and the other data sets, for the US? Assuming there’s a similar divergence, has anyone tried to explain it yet?

  7. O R says:

    This is truly scandalous! GHCN is tampering with the Amundsen-Scott base, probably the best maintained scientific station in the world:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/7/70089009000.gif

    Warming the past and cooling the present. With the GISS 1200 km extrapolation they cool 4.5 million km2 of interior Antarctica with one degree Celsius!

    • omanuel says:

      The potentially serious consequences of adjusting data to deceive the public about the forces that control Earth’s climate are becoming increasingly obvious:

      https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/the-ice-age-is-coming/

      There appears to be, at least:

      1. A 50-50 chance of global cooling now, rather than global warming, and
      2. A good chance that the Sun’s pulsar core will suddenly reveal itself in an event that cannot be ignored or explained away.

      Then the National Academy of Sciences, federal research agencies, publishers and editors of formerly reputable research journals might be held accountable for putting the very survival of humanity at risk.

      Although those who deceived the public after WWII about the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshoma perhaps thought they were saving the world from annihilation, those good intentions might not shield them from being charged and prosecuted for HIGH TREASON by a terrified public in case of events #1 or #2.

      The chance of event #1 and/or #2 are probably >50%. It is therefore in the best interest of everyone to openly discuss and debate evidence the source of heat and light for planet Earth is the same source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Aug 1945.

  8. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Your graphs expertly demonstrate that as the CO2 increases so do temperatures. Mann-made global warming indeed.

  9. Whatsacomeanago says:

    Orwell didn’t predict the future – he projected what he knew about his present/past – and understood Talmudic double-speak all too well.

  10. renbe2010 says:

    If a government wants to raise taxes, why would they invent climate change to do so? Isn’t it easier to just raise the taxes without such an elaborate conspiracy?

    • Ted says:

      Two answers:

      First, it has little to nothing to do with taxes. The goal is power. The goal of anyone in power is always to, at minimum, maintain that power. Expanding that power is preferable. The entire world runs on oil and coal. With the possible exception of nuclear, there’s no other technology with any hope of replacing them within the lifetimes of anyone in power today. It’s no secret that wars are fought over oil. Why would psychological warfare not be included in that? If we can reduce American oil consumption far enough, it might be possible to someday pull out of the Middle East completely. I fully support that goal. And, like Steven, I use as little oil as I can get away with. I drive perhaps 1,500 miles in a heavy year, while I average 10,000 miles a year on a bike. But I don’t support the politicization and falsification of science, regardless of the outcome. The data simply doesn’t support the theory.

      The second reason for this huge conspiracy is that it isn’t really a conspiracy. Scientists are human beings, with egos and failings, just like everyone else. Finding an interesting result is always preferable to finding a boring one. When temperatures actually were rising, 20 years ago, scientists rightfully looked for answers. Plenty of them concluded it was just natural variation. Those conclusions made no headlines, scared no one, and prompted no further actions. Other scientists concluded that there was a problem, and that humans could do something about it. They found their studies published, not just in industry journals, but on the nightly news. People were scared. Further action was demanded. More studies had to be done. It became even clearer that finding a problem was better for your career than not finding one. Suddenly, average people started hearing the names of climatologists, but only the ones who said we were in trouble. Students in school, having now heard of climatology, became more interested in majoring in the subject. The dirty little secret of science is that it’s not actually done by the names you know. Actual science is almost exclusively conducted by grad students. For grad students to get their doctorates, they need to impress their professors. To do that, their research needs to support the conclusions of those professors. And those professors have their positions because they were the well known climate scientists. The ones who’d published interesting results.

      Combine those two reasons, and there really was never any other possible outcome. Warming temperatures lead to findings that we’re all going to die. Cooling temperatures lead to findings that we’re all going to die. And continuously advancing technology, along with the short attention spans of the general public, allow for the back and forth we’ve seen for at least a century, but with each swing reaching greater heights. Within the next 30 years, either the warmist theories will be vindicated, or they’ll be back to telling us all we’re going to freeze to death. I obviously find the latter more likely. I suspect that the next swing will be the last, though, as we’re already long overdue for another ice age to start. The primary justification for the next scare will be that whatever causes ice ages is just too strong for CO2 to overcome. (Milankovitch cycles are know to be too weak to cause ice ages on their own, which is part of the current justification for the CO2 dominance) After that, I don’t see what will be left to blame another swing on. But I won’t be surprised if something new is found. After all, a new climate forcing would be interesting.

  11. omanuel says:

    Are NASA, EPA, Michael Mann, Phil Jones etc.>/i> to blame? The central question is just this: Can the National Academy of Sciences be held accountable for

    1. Deceiving Congress, and
    2. Abusing NAS review of budgets of federal research agencies to deceive the public about the energy that provides heat and light to planet Earth and sustains our lives?

    See: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/

    “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”

  12. omanuel says:

    CORRECTION:

    The central question is just this: Can the National Academy of Sciences be held accountable for

    1. Deceiving Congress, and

    2. Abusing NAS review of budgets of federal research agencies to deceive the public about the energy that provides heat and light to planet Earth and sustains our lives?

    See: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/

    “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”

    Can the present descendants of ”a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars” in 1863 be accountable for “providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology” in 2015 ?

    The answer was clearly given in the 2009 Climategate emails.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s