The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part VII
/With every passing month this just gets more and more bizarre.
So we're now deep into August, and the question on all of your lips has to be, where did July 2015 stack up in the world temperature history record books?
Checking first with the satellite records (that go back to 1979) we find that July 2015 was roughly a middling month. Recall that these satellite measurements are worldwide, taken in the lower troposphere, with each equal volume of air counted equally. Joe D'Aleo of the ICECAP website helpfully provided me this chart compiled from the UAH satellite data ranking the Julys of the last 20 years from warmest to coldest; July 2015 ranks ninth out of just these twenty, rather far behind number one, which is July 1998:
Checking next with US HCN (Historical Climate Network) data (going back to 1895 and covering just the U.S.) we find that July 2015 was again roughly a middling month. This data comes from a network of ground-based thermometers in the U.S. only. Tony Heller of the Real Climate Science website has compiled the data into this chart in which 2015 ranks 51st out of 120 years:
OK, dare we now check in with the guys at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)? Here is their release of July 2015 temperatures. These data are worldwide, again from a network of ground-based thermometers, although the density of coverage varies greatly from one area to the next. The data here have been "adjusted" by so-called "homogenization" algorithms, which the bureaucrats in charge refuse to disclose the details of. Key quote:
July 2015 was warmest month ever recorded for the globe. Global oceans record warm for July; January-July 2015 also record warm.
It's the hottest month EVAH! And remember, these are the guys who previously loudly proclaimed that May 2015 and March 2015 were the hottest March and May on record respectively.
So really, how could these different data sets be showing not just somewhat different, but wildly different results?
The increasing divergence between the UAH/RSS satellite records and the NOAA/GISS/HadCRUT thermometer records was the subject of a long comment posted at Watts Up With That in June by physicist Robert Brown of Duke University. That comment deserves quoting at some length:
The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong. . . . [T]he growing difference is strong evidence of bias in the computation of the surface record. . . . [E]very new version of HadCRUT and GISS has had the overall effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present! This is as unlikely as flipping a coin (at this point) ten or twelve times each, and having it come up heads every time for both products. . . . If [the divergence between the data sets] grow[s] any more, I would predict that the current mutter about the anomaly between the anomalies will grow to an absolute roar, and will not go away until the anomaly anomaly is resolved.
In short, the divergence is just not plausible at this point. My only quibble with Brown is that he is way too nice in using the word "bias" to describe what is going on with the NOAA/GISS/HadCRUT data sets. I'm sorry, but there is no way this can be anything other than intentional reverse engineering to create an artificial warming trend. What the divergence does is make plain to anyone who cares to inquire that the entire trend of increasing temperatures reported by NOAA/NASA has been artificially created by their "adjustments," which they resolutely refuse to explain.
So how is this subject reported in the news media? CNN: "NOAA: July hottest month on record . . ."; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. The Weather Network: "Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month of ANY Ever Recorded"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Science Daily: "July 2015 was warmest month ever recorded for the globe"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. USA Today: "July was Earth's hottest month ever recorded"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Slate: "July Was Earth's Hottest Month Ever Recorded"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. LA Times: "July was warmest month on Earth in 136 years, NOAA says"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. UN Climate Change Newsroom (OK, you knew you couldn't trust these guys): "July 2015 Hottest Month Ever Recorded"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Time: "July Was The Hottest Month Ever"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. CBS News: "July was Earth's hottest month in recorded history"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Fortune: "July was the hottest month in the hottest year on record"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. BBC: "July was Earth's hottest month on record, NOAA says"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. ABC (Australia): "Global warming: World sweats over July breaking warmest month record, 2015 hottest year so far"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Washington Post: "July was the hottest month in Earth’s hottest year on record so far"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. AP: "Feeling the heat: Earth in July was hottest month on record"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Reuters: "July was hottest month recorded worldwide: U.S. scientists"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. The Independent (UK): "Climate change: July was the Earth's hottest month on record – while 2015 could be the warmest year, scientists say"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence. Bloomberg News: "July Was Earth’s Warmest Month in Records Going Back to 1880"; no mention of satellite record or of divergence.
Really, you could go on literally as long as you want with this. How stupid do these people think we are?
Brown predicted that the current "mutter" about the "anomaly between the anomalies" will shortly be turning into a "roar." It certainly should. Actually, it should have already. But remember that all the climate reporters at all those mainstream media outlets are perfectly aware of the satellite records and of the divergence between the satellite records on the one hand and the "adjusted" NOAA/NASA records on the other. And to a person they are intentionally suppressing any mention of the satellite records or of the divergence. It's remarkable, but it's how groupthink works. Anybody who mentions the actual facts is subject to being shamed, ostracized, and run out of the profession. See, Larry Tribe. The whole affair is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.
To review parts I through VI of this series on "The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time," go here.