MIT Researchers slam Climate Data In New Report

cancel2 2022

Canceled
MIT Researchers Slam Global Warming Data In New Report: In No Way A “Valid Representation of Reality

Many people have suspected that the surface temperature data has been tampered with, here is proof.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
 
Last edited:
It's climate science. It doesn't care that you morons on the right disbelieve that the earth is warming. It will continue to warm. Your disbelief will make it more difficult for the left to save us from you.
 
It isn't "proof". It's one study that was just published. There is always extensive peer review that may or may not validate this particular study.
ThE NOAA ERSSTv4 1998-2014 trend is about twice as large as the trend for HADSST3 and OISSTv2.

So, why are these three , all primarily based on ocean buoys during this period, so radically different?
 
Has any Retardnicon actually linked to the study? Or are they all content with a slaughter of the actual study to the alternet god without looking it in the eye as usual? Just troll using a reliable derivative red meat provisioner.
 
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.




On 9 July 2017, Breitbart News ran a story written by chart enthusiast James Delingpole, which carried a characteristically provocative and demonstrably false headline:

‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds

...

A Peer-Reviewed Study?

Breitbart here lowers the bar for what passes as both “peer-reviewed” and a “study”. This report, published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,” a representative of the libertarian think tank told us.

More at link...
 
Sorry, "peer reviewed" does not in fact mean "downloadable pdf".
So maybe you can answer this question then as Snopes chose not to do?

The NOAA ERSSTv4 1998-2014 trend is about twice as large as the trend for HADSST3 and OISSTv2.

So, why are these three, all primarily based on ocean buoy data during this period, so radically different?

I don't believe that it was claimed anywhere that this study was intended for publication in a scientific journal. I fail to see why sea temperatures are used at all to determine the hottest years when there is so much discrepancy between the various datasets.

I wonder why Snopes fails to mention that the UAH and RSS satellite records are in broad agreement regarding troposphere temperatures and agree with remarkable accuracy with data collected by weather balloons and radio sondes. Satellites are much more accurate at measuring global temperatures than the surface temperature record. NASA claims global warming is rapidly occurring, but satellites show very little warming this century. So the perfectly reasonable question needed to be asked, what could possibly motivate them to ignore their own satellites?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top