Fact Checks – Scientific Method

OPS-47 The fact checking phenomena currently employed by social and mainstream media is a joke. To start with, the fact checkers routinely interject their biases into their responses. If you believe that fact checkers do not have biases, then you should not have any problem with letting anyone take on that role. Donald Trump is currently unemployed and has the time and financial clout to put a team together and thoroughly investigate claims from the entire public spectrum. Do I want Trump as a “fact checker”? No, and I do not want Dorsey, Zuckerberg or CNN et al either. I (and hopefully most of the world’s population) can look at a variety of sources and make up our own minds (right or wrong) regardless of the subject.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

My long-term focus has been “climate change”. And from a fact checking perspective, the fact checkers are doing a really lousy job (if you look at the subject from a realistic point of view) or a really great job (if you believe the CAGW narrative). So, all you fact checkers out there, bring forward an empirical CO₂/Temperature data set that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale (a basic scientific method requirement) or start applying your fact checks/context to every “Global Warming” document that hits the public domain.

The concept of context is also interesting and virtually meaningless. Unless you are talking about universal constants (like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, etc.) there is always going to be context in the discussion. That applies in science and even more so in social circumstances. What is the temperature of the planet right now? What was the temperature of the planet in 1853? What will the temperature of the planet be in 2100? There is no definitive answer to any of those questions. There are many scientists that put forward an answer, but those answers are a consolidation of their research, other’s research, their assumptions, their biases, their integrity, their greed, the data/proxies (manipulated or not) they choose, etc. So yes, there will always be context at play regardless of where you sit on the scientific, political or social spectrum.

Manipulated data (kind of important in fact checking) is a scientific discipline unto itself. There is no question that the surface temperature data has been manipulated (the process is called homogenization and is not applied in a standard fashion). The NOAA weather station data is easily accessible online and the data manipulation is readily visible. An extreme example would be the Darwin airport in Australia. The measured temperatures have trended down since 1880 and the “homogenized” temperatures are trending up. Convenient for the CAGW alarmist crowd. There are justifiable reasons for homogenizing (time of day difference, station location (urban versus rural) and relocation, etc.). The most accurate and extensive weather station distribution in the world is in the United States. To evaluate temperatures without the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), NOAA established a network of 137 high quality weather stations in completely rural “stable” settings. The temperature data can be viewed on NOAA’s website at their Climate Reference Network page.

Interestingly, the February 2021 Temperature Anomaly (-2.40 ºC) is the lowest “ever” recorded in the USCRN data. That is also a drop of (5.77 ºC) since the 2017 February Temperature Anomaly high (3.37 ºC). If I left these statements as is, I could be accused of cherry picking the data (per the CAGW alarmist technique (i.e.: can anyone remember a “HOTTEST YEAR ever recorded” lately). The earth has been significantly warmer (for most of the earth’s history) than the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present) and significantly colder. The USCRN was only initiated in January 2005. As a result, the data is somewhat limited. But on a qualitative basis, the lowest Temperature Anomaly “ever” and a Temperature Anomaly drop of 5.77 ºC over the last 4 years is not good for the CAGW alarmist narrative. After all, we live in an era where CO₂ is virtually the only climate driver (at least according to the IPCC computer programmers and their virtual reality, OPS-22 – Computer Models – Real Simple). In the real world, CO₂ has been increasing steadily but the temperature has fluctuated significantly.

There is more required in the models than just CO₂’s radiative forcing. In fact, as I have shown in my OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model and the Addendum to my Open Letter, the MTR can be modeled closely without CO₂ contribution using only the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Beta testing of the new CMIP6 protocol (high energy particles and cosmic rays were added to the solar forcing, CMIP5 used only TSI forcing) was also able to model the MTR without CO₂. Hmmmm……

The CAGW alarmists like to focus on the MTR since that is the period where most of the human CO₂ emissions have occurred. Interestingly, 86.3% of human emissions occurred after 1950. Strange that temperatures began rising centuries before that without the help of CO₂ (human or otherwise). They did not call that period from around 1300 to the mid-1800s the Little Ice Age (LIA) for no reason. It was cold. Conveniently for the CAGW alarmists, the MTR corresponds with the temperature rise out of the LIA. Their models are calibrated to just the temperature/CO₂ data over the MTR which means they cannot model the temperature fluctuations over the Holocene, the temperature drop into the LIA or the temperature fluctuations through the LIA. I have done a lot of computer simulation work over my career and if I had submitted a simulation to my boss that could not match the history, I would not have had a career. If you cannot match the historical data, you cannot forecast the future with any credibility (GIGO).

For more a more detailed history of the US temperature data and “over-homogenized” data manipulation, I would suggest that you take some time out and review Tony Heller’s detailed work. At this point the CAGW alarmists are getting ready to pull their hair out and point out that Tony Heller is a climate denier of the worst order. But until someone (scientist or not) shows that the NASA/NOAA data he is presenting is incorrect, the alarmists do not have a leg to stand on. Consider that a disproportionate number of high temperature records occurred during the 1930’s and the number of hot days (and maximum recorded highs) have been generally declining ever since then. That is not what the “official” homogenized data shows. The record heat of the 1930’s and the declining US temperatures (visible in the measured data) have been conveniently wiped out by the homogenization process. I am sure the people that lived through the dirty 30’s would be happy to find out that life was not as bad as they thought it was.

Are Official US Temperature Graphs Credible? – YouTube

Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part One) – YouTube

Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 2) – YouTube

Alterations To The US Temperature Record (Part 3) – YouTube