Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For "Warming"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “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,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

The so-called "Climate Scientists" have been "cooking the books."

so what will cnj shoot up next.

I have conducted my own experiment to prove that Global warming is true.  Six months ago, I put some ice in a cup outside my front door.  The ice didn't melt for a couple of days.  This past weekend, I conducted the same experiment.  Guess what, the ice melted within 20 minutes!  See, global warm is real. ha ha ha

I will be happy to publish the link to the paper itself. You can find it embedded in the text of the Daily Caller article.

Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and other "movers and shakers" in the AGW movement have spent their careers in manipulating the data and hiding their methodology. Why? Government research grant money fuels their individual "empires," and, of course, their bank accounts.

Is this the reference? It looks like a blog at wordpress.com, not a publication in a peer reviewed journal.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

The "study" (i.e. wordpress.com blog) has no description at which academic institution (if any) the authors are employed at. Are they even climate scientists?

Dr. James P. Wallace III
Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo
Dr. Craig D. Idso

And what is up with the section "The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:"? This section includes an economist and an retired Aerospace Consultant among others.

This section does not read like a serious scientific study, more like a petition?

The problem with this "study" (blog) is that it is mainly quoting previous blogs by same author and other blogs from climate deniers with cherry picking facts such as http://www.climate4you.com.

The "study" (blog) is not an attempt to make a serious scientific publication; nor does it appears to have been accepted by any scientific peer reviewed journal.
Here is the link to the "study":
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Massive ocean acidification seems real.It could be caused by massive CO2 absorption.

Here is the study:

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Does anyone thing for a second that the charlatans who control access to the so-called "climate science" journals are going to allow access to evidence contrary to their dogma?

Judge the work on its merits.

Jamie, it is a self published blog, not a publication in a peer reviewed journal. 

Many papers care are independently published when journal access is not available. It used to be they were presented orally at conventions and symposia, and published after the fact in proceedings.

My question to you is, have you found flaws in their work?

Yes, it does not look like a serious scientific study and does not engage with the key scientific literature on the topic. Instead of quoting peer reviewed work, it quotes the authors previous work and other climate deniers blogs like http://www.climate4you.com.

It looks so unprofessional that I am not sure that other scientists will take it seriously and respond to it in peer reviewed journals or at conferences.

There are some signs of pathological science:
1) Does not publish findings in peer reviewed journals
2) Does not cite leading studies for and against hypothesis from peer reviewed journals
3) Often cite previous studies by same authors
4) Cite discredited studies as if valid

Pathological Science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science 
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Pathological_science

The cited study bears most of the hallmarks of pathological science:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Who cares about temperature changes?  We have bigger issues.  I have noticed that it is getting darker about 1 minute per day.  If this trend continues, we will be in total darkness!

Many scientists say it's abundantly clear that Earth is entering its sixth mass-extinction event, meaning three-quarters of all species could disappear in the coming centuries.

That's terrifying, especially since humans are contributing to this shift.
But that's not even the full picture of the "biological annihilation" people are inflicting on the natural world, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gerardo Ceballos, an ecology professor at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and his co-authors, including well-known Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, cite striking new evidence that populations of species we thought were common are suffering in unseen ways.
"What is at stake is really the state of humanity," Ceballos told CNN.

Their key findings: Nearly one-third of the 27,600 land-based mammal, bird, amphibian and reptile species studied are shrinking in terms of their numbers and territorial range. The researchers called that an "extremely high degree of population decay."
The scientists also looked at a well-studied group of 177 mammal species and found that all of them had lost at least 30% of their territory between 1900 and 2015; more than 40% of those species "experienced severe population declines," meaning they lost at least 80% of their geographic range during that time.
Looking at the extinction crisis not only in terms of species that are on the brink but also those whose populations and ranges are shrinking helps show that "Earth's sixth mass extinction is more severe" than previously thought, the authors write. They say a major extinction event is "ongoing."
"It's the most comprehensive study of this sort to date that I'm aware of," said Anthony Barnosky, executive director of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study. Its value, Barnosky said, is that it makes visible a phenomenon typically unseen by scientists and the public: that even populations of relatively common species are crashing.
"We've got this stuff going on that we can't really see because we're not constantly counting numbers of individuals," he said. "But when you realize that we've wiped out 50% of the Earth's wildlife in the last 40 years, it doesn't take complicated math to figure out that, if we keep cutting by half every 40 years, pretty soon there's going to be nothing left."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/world/sutter-mass-extinction-ceballos-study/index.html