61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now Fake

The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data.  Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity.  The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products by Ross McKitrick :: SSRN

In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.)

The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search

The Press-Courier – Google News Archive Search

But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA.  Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.

NASA 1999   NASA 2016

The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations.  The red line shows the graph they release to the public, and has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.

Spreadsheet         Data

If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it.  Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.

The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.

Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory.  The ultimate junk science.

Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up.  In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.

I grouped the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:

  1. Measured and adjusted (blue)
  2. Estimated (red)

Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.

The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data.  Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.

Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.  Of course they still has a few more months to heat the US up six degrees.

The Press-Courier – Google News Archive Search

They may be having some success tonight.  All the hot air from the “Green New Deal” seems to be melting the snow around Washington DC.

District of Columbia Doppler Weather Radar Map – AccuWeather.com

There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to 61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now Fake

  1. DCA says:

    61%? Holy cow!
    How can they even pretend to call it science when they are just making stuff up?
    The term “policy-based evidence-making” comes to mind.

  2. Mr Sir says:

    I’ll just leave this here:
    https://i.imgur.com/MNnqzYP.jpg

    • spike55 says:

      Meaningless nonsense, like everything else you post.

      And nothing to do with the FACT that the temperature records are base-level FRAUD in every sense of the word.

      Do you REALLY condone that sort of MANUFACTURE of data ?

      • WolfgangBlack says:

        That sort loves to scream “muh science proves it” and “97% of scientists agree” yet don’t understand the scientific method at all.
        It is part of their programming by the media.

    • Gator says:

      You should have left it where you found it. Once again Little Man shows his even tinier intellect.

    • dave1billion says:

      Did you draw that? If you did, then at least you’ll get some respect from me since that requires talent.

      If not, please make your own arguments in your own words. It’s okay if you’re even paraphrasing others, but a smug little meaningless cartoon only shows where you’re coming from.

      Your post carries as much weight as a cartoon showing Hillary Clinton with devil horns and a pitchfork. If you saw that, would it go any way towards convincing you that she’s literally the devil?

      Also, try replacing the cross in the third panel panel with “IPCC” and the text with “If Global Warming isn’t Real, then Explain This!”

      But I doubt that you’re capable of that level of perspective.

    • LexingtonGreen says:

      That has to be the lamest cartoon I have seen. And there have been bad ones.

  3. Johansen says:

    NOAA directly contradicting NASA and Hansen only 3 years later. Classic!

  4. John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

    One of the bad things about these global data adjustments is that it will put back real Climate research and our understanding of climate cycles. All papers published using these fraudulent time series as a basis for their findings will be worthless. Sad!

  5. Vasco says:

    Science is tangible when you have a car, a phone or any gadget or service. Climate science theories are very difficult to prove and feel, a science that you cannot replicate experiences or theories. It is just a statistically exercise about past data, with a clear objective: ideology. By alarming people, they can forced the money for climate investigation which in turn is use to support anti-capitalist politics and ideology (US democrats, socialists and any extreme left wing party worldwide). And with the support of the new born activists-capitalists that sell green technologies. This is what I call “climate terrorism”.

  6. steve case says:

    The latest GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago, and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December 2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted down.

    This goes on every month.

  7. Gator says:

    Imagine the noise from the left if skeptics were caught altering data. Just for fun we should start our own official temperature adjustments. We could start with the obvious UHI which alarmists do not account for, and easily justify cooling modern temperatures while raising historic values.

    Then get the popcorn and watch as lefty heads start exploding. It would be a wonderful teachable moment.

    • -B- says:

      It would be used to discredit everyone who doesn’t believe the official narrative. And since they have the media it will be nothing but headlines of how skeptics proliferate fake data/news. It’s not a tactic that will work. Better to put them in the position of trying to hide the information of what is going on.

      The tactic I prefer is to show that the entire warming signal is the opinion of government funded experts who’s results are then used as justification for more and higher taxes to fund more government and micromanagement of people’s lives. It’s very difficult to argue against, because there’s no debate that they adjust the data. It moves “settled science” into the opinion of experts. It’s not science at all, it’s authority. I usually leave off with that people can believe authority if they wish. A bit of shaming them into thinking for themselves.

      Understanding why what authority is doing with temperature data is invalid only requires a fifth grade understanding of science. Well at least I learned it in fifth grade science class. People just need to be knocked out of their laziness.

      While it would be nice to adjust the data properly for UHI it is not really needed to make the point. It wouldn’t have that big of an effect over a large data set like that of the USA. What will it do? Increase the cooling trend from the 1930s? Not warming is enough to show that the CO2 theory is invalid.

      • Gator says:

        While it would be nice to adjust the data properly for UHI it is not really needed to make the point. It wouldn’t have that big of an effect over a large data set like that of the USA.

        You clearly do not understand UHI. It is not just an urban problem, it can be found anywhere there is pavement, and extends well beyond the boundaries of large cities. All of the observed 20th century warming can likely be explained by selective station siting, and UHI.

        And as for creating our own numbers, again, it would be a great teachable moment where we might all agree to stop screwing with data. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

        • -B- says:

          How do you make your determination that I do not understand UHI? I’ve understood UHI since I was 10 years old and found it much colder on summer evening ten feet into the undeveloped land a block and half from my parents’ house. Yet at different times under different weather conditions there would be no drop at all.

          Each and every station would need to be looked at to see where it is and what’s around it over time. Then measurements taken near and far away from the station under different weather conditions to determine the proper correction for each and every station for every day in the record. It will still be imperfect but at least it won’t be the garbage the establishment is doing. It is what needs to be done if you want to have any chance at all to be accurate instead of essentially pulling a number out of your ass like the establishment climate “scientists” do.

          Sure you could come up with a model and use nearby stations to produce a correction but you don’t know how much UHI those stations have either. You’ll be doing what the establishment does. You’ll just have your own correction model and it will be just as much bullshit as theirs.

          And because you’ll being do what the establishment does they’ll know exactly how to use it to discredit anyone who opposes them. Your good for the goose good for the gander approach assumes they are stupid rather than fraudsters. They know exactly what they are doing mathematically and even if they are stupid enough to believe their own lies they’ll still make sure that any use of the same techniques against them but with the opposite result discredit their opposition.

          • Gator says:

            I’ve understood UHI since I was 10 years old and found it much colder on summer evening ten feet into the undeveloped land a block and half from my parents’ house.

            Then you understand that even the temperature of the undeveloped land is also higher than it would be were there not infrastructure nearby.

            You’ll just have your own correction model and it will be just as much bullshit as theirs. And because you’ll being do what the establishment does they’ll know exactly how to use it to discredit anyone who opposes them.

            Sooo close! Not sure how you missed it, but try again!

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        It takes only 60 people per square kilometre to raise the average temperature by one degree Celcius.

        The Global Average Urban Heat Island Effect in 2000 Estimated from Station Temperatures and Population Density Data

        You can do the math yourself of the average population density of the US with time.

        The key graph of the study is this one.

  8. Jay says:

    Tony,
    What is the counter argument to all of this? Surely some adjustments are legit?

    • tonyheller says:

      There is no excuse for making up fake data.

      • Patrick says:

        Why would Mann or Hansen care? Faking the scientific data isn’t a federal offense any more unless those in charge of indicting people feel the need to do so.

    • -B- says:

      The only counter argument I’ve seen boils down to ‘they are the experts’. The reasoning behind the adjustments amounts to opinion. And nothing justifies presenting the result of their opinionated data analysis as measurements. They aren’t measurements.

      In a data set this large errors are going to cancel themselves out. The measurements should be used as is without a very compelling case not to. The most compelling case for adjustment is UHI but that has to be done by studying each station individually and the change in its surroundings over time. Which of course is not done so we don’t know how much warming is from the urban heat island effect. Over the entire data set it may not amount to much anyway, but for individual stations can be rather dramatic. I wouldn’t expect unbiased study into UHI anytime soon.

    • Anon says:

      As a scientist, I might be willing to accept that one data set has a problem. But all of them beggars belief. And that all of them are adjust upward, to conform with each other, is another statistical puzzle. Interestingly, with all of these errors, they seem to never make a mistake in the other direction. The other explanation is that you have one of the most incompetent group of scientists involved in this field. And if you accept the later explanation, one might then ask how this group is trusted with anything, never mind their advocacy to completely change the world’s energy supply?

      If you are trying to really figure out what is going on, I suggest that you compare and contrast these two articles:

      Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
      Richard S. Lindzen – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

      http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

      The Sugar Conspiracy

      In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

      https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

      All of the same elements are in play: critical skeptics, unjust persecutions, ruined reputations and careers, corruption of scientific institutions, corruption of grant funding institutions, corruption of peer review, glib congressional investigations and a guileless, scientifically ill-educated and dependent public reliant on appeals to scientific authority to make medical decisions. .

  9. sol says:

    So is there ANY data we can still download and analyze ourselves that is still relevant?

    • tonyheller says:

      The raw data is online. They are doing this tampering quite openly.

    • DCA says:

      At the moment, Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent appears to be unadjusted, since it shows no trend.

    • Disillusioned says:

      sol,

      Look at the top of this page. In black, you’ll see UNHIDING THE DECLINE. Choose your format. Click. Watch the video. Follow the directions.

    • sol says:

      I’ll pull it all and play with it. I’d thought to try working with it in compiled Labview (‘app builder’) – which is good at handling large multidimensional arrays (day/month/year/site; am I missing anything?) – for fun, and see what kind of processing speed I can get. My initial question was kind of to determine whether I should choose USHCN or GHCN first, and I should have phrased it better.

  10. AZ1971 says:

    Tony,

    Where is the source for all of those ‘E’ readings you’re tabulating to 61%?

  11. Robertv says:

    Climate change continues to present problems for New Jersey’s aging infrastructure. The state was pummeled with more precipitation in 2018 than in any other year since record keeping began in 1895.

    https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/02/06/remedy-flooding-rain-tax-infrastructure-bill-goes-gov-phil-murphy/2777957002/

  12. Patrick says:

    What’s the avenue of exposure during the Trump Administration? It’s not like this is the #1 website for forwarding liberal policies. DEEP STATE scientists will continue on their own path of least resistance and will continue to have our U.S. Government behind them no matter who is in office. They will also continue to post as representatives of “NOAA” and/or “NASA”, which simply means that Trump himself is backing their claims. Dummy Craps seem to be a high % of government employment. 3,000,000+ employees? White House Administration officials will continue to undermine U.S. citizen’s “right-to-know”, because we simply can’t fire them.

  13. Patrick says:

    Why would Mann or Hansen care? Faking the scientific data isn’t a federal offense any more unless those in charge of indicting people feel the need to do so.

  14. tom0mason says:

    I note that Hawaii has reported having snow!

    From http://strangesounds.org/2019/02/not-your-typical-maui-weather-first-time-snow-falls-in-a-hawaii-state-park-on-feb-9-2019.html
    Titled Not your typical Maui weather: First time snow falls in a Hawaii State Park on Feb. 9, 2019

    The Hawai‘i DLNR Division of State Parks reports that for perhaps the first time ever, snow has fallen in a Hawai‘i State Park on Saturday, Feb. 9, 2019. Polipoli State Park on Maui is blanketed with snow. It could also be the lowest elevation snow ever recorded in the state. Polipoli is at 6200 feet elevation.

    • ClimateYogi says:

      Snow in Hawaii is not unusual at the higher elevations . It may be a first for that area of Maui however snow at that level on the Big Island happens now and then . The real story is the winds from that storm . Mauna Kea had sustained winds of 130mph with gusts to over 190mph . Our area near Honokaa suffered major damage from wind to our electrical grid . And the wind was from the opposite direction than our normal trade winds . And it was cold wind !

      Here is a photo from the back porch in February 2002 .

  15. Hi Tony- What are your thoughts on the topic of chemtrails, geoengineering, solar radiation management, Haarp, heavy metals being sprayed in the sky, etc. Have you done any researh on these topics? Do you beleive this impacts weather and /or climate change? Has there been any dialogue that you know of between climate scientists/academics such as yourself talking about the relationship between real climate science and chemtrails/weather control programs.

    Thank you for your brilliant work and all that you do keep truth and sanity alive!

    Rebecca Bronson

  16. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Tony:

    Please clarify what the “0” represents in these climate temperature graphs?
    Also, what is considered to be the adverage global temperature of 2018, 2917, 2916?
    I am finding it difficult to find the answer to these questions.
    Thank you so much in advance for answering
    Regards
    Phil

  17. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Tony:
    To clarify, what does the “0” represent in all these climate temperature graphs? What was the average global temperature in 2018,2017, and 2016?
    Thank you in advance for this information. I am finding it hard to get the answer to these.

    Regards
    Phil

  18. BG says:

    Tony, you said:

    “There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.”

    How do we get this message through to Pres Trump? I don’t send anything to his White House contact page because I don’t trust any of his staff.

    Has Barry Myers been appointed NOAA Administrator yet?

    Trump has delivered on all his promises (except his wall so far). He did promise to stop NASA publishing politicized science in relation to climate change. He said he wanted them to concentrate on what they did best – Space.. I see Gavin Schmidt still sticking it to Trump.

    Trump promised to drain the swamp. He hasn’t delivered on draining the NOAA and NASA-GISS swamps yet.

    You’ve surprised me with the current NOAA method of adjustment. They are now using climate models. They were all using an algorithm that truncated the 1850-1910, lowered the old and raised the recent temperatures. Including the UK Met Office. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology are still using this algorithm. They are not using models – yet.

  19. Cal Lawrence says:

    Your blog is 100% fake.

  20. Mohib says:

    Tony, I’m a little confused by something that was mentioned in post by Bob Tisdale over on WattsUpWithThat, a few years back, in the update at the bottom of this post:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/

    Based on what you’ve shown here, the most (all?) of the warming in the USHCN data is coming from data points created from models, rather than actual instrument readings.

    In the update in the above post, they show this graph comparing USCHN and USCRN (supposedly the gold standard of data).

    Bob writes:
    ————
    Something has been puzzling me and I don’t have a good answer for the reason behind it, yet. As Zeke pointed out in comments and also over at Lucia’s, *USCRN and USHCN data align nearly perfectly, as seen in this graph. That seems almost too perfect to me. Networks with such huge differences in inhomogeneity, equipment, siting, station continuity, etc. rarely match that well.*

    Note that there is an important disclosure missing from that NOAA graph, read on.

    Dr Roy Spencer shows in this post the difference from USHCN to USCRN:

    Spurious Warmth in NOAA’s USHCN from Comparison to USCRN
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/spurious-warmth-in-noaas-ushcn-from-comparison-to-uscrn/

    The results for all seasons combined shows that the USHCN stations are definitely warmer than their “platinum standard” counterparts.

    Spencer doesn’t get a match between USHCN and USCRN, so why does the NOAA/NCDC plotter page?

    [read the rest at the link]
    ————
    Since the most (all?) of the warming USHCN is coming from model data and not instrument data, so the warming is not related to with which stations you use, where they are cited, etc., how can USCRN match USHCN (let alone so perfectly), leaving aside all the instrument/citing differences between USCRN and USHCN Bob talks about, and leaving aside USCRN data is supposedly free of adjustments, to begin within?

  21. Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says:

    Open Letter to IPCC/UNFCCC/WMO/UN

    Sub: Comments on IPCC’s 24th September 2019 Report on “The Ocean and Cryosphere in a changing climate: Summary for Policy makers”

    From: Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy Hyderabad/TS/India/28-9-2019

    Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 24th September 2019, the 3rd Special Report “The Ocean and Cryosphere in changing climate: Summary for Policy Makers” [SROCC]. The 1st one refers to “Global Warming of 1.5 oC” [SR1.5] and the 2nd one refer to “Climate Change and Land” [SRCCL]. I submitted my comments on the 2nd report [Reddy, 2019a]. The 2nd and the 3rd are primarily the hypothetical outcome from the 1st report only, which is clear from ‘A1 – A3’.
    Earth’s climate is dynamic and it is always changing through the natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system only. It is beyond human control. We need to adapt to them [Reddy, 1993 & 2019b, c & d]. The fact is: global warming is not climate change but it is only small component of climate change [Reddy, 2008 & 2016].

    A1: Over the last decades, global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high Confidence), reductions in snow cover (high Confidence), and thickness (very high Confidence), and increased permafrost temperature (very high Confidence).

    The inferences were made using model based “HOAX” Projections that are far from reality. This is not new, IPCC in its AR4 concluded that “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035” and Al Gore concluded in his Inconvenient Truth that “Greenland would become ice free in 5 years”. We questioned these conclusions. R. K. Pachauri, the then Chairman of IPCC, dismissed the criticism, claim it as “voodoo science”. While this is going on IPCC & Al Gore jointly received Nobel Prize. After this event, both these conclusions were withdrawn by apologizing. IPCC says that the Himalayan Glaciers won’t melt by 2035 & expressed regret by saying that established standards of evidence not applied properly.
    According to a 2013 IPCC report “glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide” [about 8 out of 10 Chance] that Northern Hemisphere spring snow continues to decrease. Reddy (2016) discussed some of the results of different scientific groups. In 2014 a study of 2, 181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding [this was also informed to Indian Parliament by the minister of forests & environment and climate change after his return from Paris meet in December 2015]. Heavy snowfall was reported in the latter two years in Himalayan zone.
    There are several local and regional causes for ice melt [Reddy, 2016]. In Arctic and Antarctic zones in addition there are several other activities like drilling for gas and oil and Earthquakes and volcano eruptions affect the ice melting or ice destruction. Also, natural cyclic variation plays the major role on sea ice extent over Arctic and Antarctic and thus on sea level rise or fall. They presented high seasonal variations — summer to winter — & annual patterns around the mean. Such variations of Arctic and Antarctic present opposite patterns similar to Atlantic and Pacific oceans temperature cyclic variations [Reddy, 2008, 2016 & 2019b]. Geological Survey of India monitoring few important glaciers in Himalayan region. Gangotri, is one of them, feed the main river Ganga. Due to formation of fault zone the ice started receding and now it started recovering. These are factual localized conditions but the present IPCC report talks of confidence limits based on poor quality model assessments based on the projected global warming.
    India Meteorological Department (IMD) brought out a meteorological monograph on “State level climate change trends in India” [Rathore, et al., 2013]. The report used 280 met stations data and 1451 rain-gauge stations data out of 500 and 2500 stations respectively for 48 years – 1951 to 2010, which forms the so-called global warming period. Annual mean temperature trend was zero in major part of central India. Even in other parts, some showed positive (increasing) trend and some others showed negative (decreasing) trend. The basic problem here is that majority of the met stations selected for the temperature analysis are from urban areas wherein urban-heat-island effect contributes to positive side. Average number of days per station in each year reaching or exceeding 100 oF in 982 stations of the USHCN data base (NOAA/NCEI, prepared by J.R. Christy) during 1895 to 2014 in US showed the highest around 1935.
    The Sun emits energy, which is constant, present a natural cyclic pattern in association with the Sunspots cycle. Sun’s energy reaching the ground [global solar radiation – short wave part] and balance after the Earth’s emittance of absorbed radiation [net radiation – longwave part] present the Sunspot cycle [Reddy et al., 1977]. They are 10.5±0.5 years and its multiples. Global annual average temperature anomaly presents 60-year cycle. After separating the natural variability {varying from -0.3 to +0.3 oC} from trend {0.3 oC per century or 1951 to 2100 is 0.45 oC} [WMO (1966); Reddy (2008)]. Unlike model projections presented by IPCC in its report they are far far less. This is with adjusted data series. Also IPCC in its reports showed decreasing trend in climate sensitivity factor [1.95 to 1.55] which indirectly suggests that the global warming component from 1951 to 2100 is practically zero or insignificant to influence nature.
    The rainfall data used present misleading results basically because it is a truncated data set of cyclic variation data series. To answer a question raised in Indian Parliament Indian scientists used one 60 year cycle data – Sine Curve of high to low – and said Indian rainfall is decreasing. If they would have shifted backward or forward by 30 years the trend would have shown increasing trend. All-India annual average rainfall presented 60-year cycle and thus Indian rainfall follows the natural variability with no significant trend [Reddy, 2019e & f]. These patterns influence temperature and thus the selected temperature period plays vital role on conclusions. Nobody bothers on this vital aspect.

    In ‘A2’ the report talks of — marine heat waves (frequency & intensity) —-, and in ‘A3’ the report talks of —- sea level rise. Also the report says that “Increases in tropical cyclones winds and rainfall, and increases in extreme waves, combined with relative sea level ice, exacerbate extreme sea level events and coastal hazards —.

    Reddy & Rao (1978) presented heat & cold wave phenomenon in India. The high pressure belt condition around Nagpur drives the western disturbances in summer and winter around Indian regions. They vary with year to year; zone to zone. Here the general circulation pattern existing at that time plays the major role.
    The coastal zone on the east coast has been destroyed to meet the human greed, under the disguise of tourism, commercial establishments within the SEZ zones that were encouraged by government’s environment ministry — Today a report presented that on the orders of Supreme Court of India illegally built structures in SEZ zone were demolished in Koch zone. The major casualty is destruction of mangroves that causes coastal erosion under high tides as this zone is prone to frequent cyclonic activity. Also, aqua culture farms also affecting the coastal zone in terms of erosion and polluting the coastal waters. Today’s Deccan Chronicle (Vizag Edition) of 26-9-2019 presented a report “Earth is running out of time: Intellectuals”. Above the text presented a photograph “Plastic waste accumulates on the shore near Lawson’s Bay in Visakhapatnam on Thursday”. This is the scenario that is affecting the life in the coastal waters in terms of quantity and quality. This is creating livelihood problem to fisherman. Coastal waters have been polluted with urban sewage, industrial effluents, etc. Mangroves provide shelter to rich sea food and as well act as protective wall to stop tidal fury. Here the basic problem is human greed and not fictitious global warming.
    Reddy (2018) presented the historical data on Texas major hurricane landfalls and western gulf of Mexico sea surface temperature, major land falling hurricanes in Florida since 1900; sea level rise at stations along the Gulf coast, etc. Over the last 150 years, the number of major hurricanes hitting Texas has been the same when Gulf of Mexico water temperatures were below normal or when they were above normal. Land subsidence has been creating sea level rise syndrome. For example it is seen along the Gulf coast due to several human greed related actions and natural phenomenon.
    Reddy (2000) studied Andhra Pradesh rainfall. The annual march of southwest monsoon and northeast monsoon rainfall for the coastal Andhra met sub-division presented reverse mirror images for the two seasons, though the magnitude in mm differs. They followed 56-year cycle but in opposite direction – similar to 60-year cycle in Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean temperatures –. The frequency of occurrence of cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal followed the southwest monsoon 56 year cyclic patterns with mean as 10 [Reddy, 2016].
    The report observed that “Climate change is likely to mean monsoon systems affect larger areas over longer timescales, and rainfall during monsoon season is likely to intensify while becoming less predictable. The largest effect, which is already being observed today, is an increase in the year-to-year variability of the monsoon strength and the associated extremes of rainfall”. This statement is not based on factual information but based on hypothetical imagination. Reddy (1993 & 2019b) presented the natural variability in rainfall and adaptation of agriculture to these over different parts of the globe. Here the basic problem is, misusing of the word “climate change” as de-facto global warming. See for more information Reddy (2019 b, c, d, e &f).

    Summary

    The IPCC special report on the 1.5 oC goal, for example, said it was possible to keep the rise in temperature to within 1.5 oC, but for that the world would need to bring down its greenhouse gas emissions to half of its 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by 2050. — Some countries have already announced their intention to achieve this target, but the most prominent emitters China, US, India have so far not done so. Yet, with this scenario Indian temperature presented heterogeneous pattern, some areas showed no change, some areas showed decreasing trend and some other areas showed increasing trend. Here we must remember the fact that majority of the met stations selected were in urban areas and thus urban-heat-island effect contaminates the temperature data. The intensive irrigated agriculture growth in Punjab and Haryana impacted by cold-island effect. The central Indian regions were affected by both. Even with number three in CO2 emission scenario [after China & US] there is no uniformity in temperature trend in India – same can be seen in Southern and Northern Hemispheres. That means whether you control emissions or not temperature trends were controlled by several other localized factors. Same is the case with US and China.
    The report was built on the false foundations, such as “There is already a lot of irrefutable scientific evidence to suggest that human activities have been altering climate in a way that would have disastrous consequences for the planet.” Though it is true but it is not due to global warming but due to direct intervention of humans on nature. For example, if we destroy the water flow system, flood intensities and frequencies will increase. This is a fact with urban flooding – in Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Srinagar, Uttakhand, etc. [Reddy, 2019f]. The important feature is Western Ghats: on wind-ward side heavy rains occur and on lee-ward side less rains [rain shadow zone]. But this is modified by cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal. So, if Western Ghats are destroyed the whole rain system collapses and thus the temperature pattern.
    The report says that the frequencies of extreme El Nino and La Nina events are the Pacific Ocean is likely to increase in the coming years that could possibly result in more intense wet or dry periods in India. This is erroneous conclusion (Reddy, 1993 & 2019b, c, d, e & f) as Indian rainfall follows natural cyclic pattern but varies with region and so is the case around the Globe. During 126 years [1880-2006] : Out of the 18 El Nino years, deficit in 7 years, below normal in 5 years, normal in 5 years and 1 year excess rainfall was received. Out of 24 La Nina years, 10 years received excess rains, 7 years above normal and 7 years normal. In 84 normal years [without El Nino or La Nina], 37 years received normal rainfall, 13 years below normal, 14 years deficit, 14 years above normal and 6 years excess. In 126 years, deficit rainfall was recorded in 21 years; excess rainfall was recorded in 17 years; and normal rainfall in 49 years. The excess and deficit years followed natural cycles.
    It also pointed out that the global food system, which would include activities such as agriculture, cattle-rearing, food processing industry, energy consumed in these processes, and transportation of food items, could account for as much as a third of all greenhouse gases. It said nearly 25 per cent of all food produced globally was either lost or wasted. And even the decomposition of waste food released emissions. I myself presented food-waste in India [radio talk in 2011] is around 30-40% and thus the inputs used to produce that [FAO reported this as 30% for the globe] (Reddy, 2019c). This does not consume energy. It is due to non-availability of storage facilities, unusual weather events, etc. But, IPCC forgot the major component of energy waste – IT sector and Multinational Companies agriculture technology which in addition created air, water, land and food pollution and thus health hazards and thus pollution due to drug manufacturing industries-hospitals and the vicious circle moves on. Stan Cox’s book of “Sick Planet: —“, highlighted this issue. Paris 2015 Agreement did not include these vital aspects [only temperature was included] in the Agreement document with MNCs lobbying even after Pope Francis, US President and as well UN Secretary General emphasised this aspect. Even in 60-70s environmental movement on pollution [carbon dioxide is not a pollution – we breathe air and use oxygen and release carbon dioxide] side lined with fictitious global warming with very poor quality data set at Rio Summit.
    With the human greed and apathy from governments caused the destruction of coastal belts and polluted the shore lines that affected the sea life in India.

    Few Suggestions for Consideration

    Here are few suggestions to UN:
    • IPCC must be disbanded and the money spent for IPCC may be transferred to upliftment of downtrodden people in developing countries.
    • Also, UN must think on how to bring down the population growth and how to save energy. One of this is urban planning.
    • Give top priority to bring down pollution [air, water, land & food].
    Here are few suggestions for India:
    • India should dump the “GARBAGE” reports of IPCC which are speculative that create fear psychosis among public and use this to get billions of dollars.
    • It is clear from IMD monograph that there is no global warming threat to India.
    • FLOODS, DROUGHTS, HEAT-WAVES & COLD-WAVES were there in the past, are there now and will be there in future. However, they vary with location to region (Reddy, 2019d & e). The Paris agreement has no role on these.
    REFERENCES
    1. Reddy, S.J., 2019a: “Comments on IPCC’s 7th August 2019 Report on “Climate Change and Land”, Acta Scientific Agriculture, 3.9 (2019):147-150.
    2. Reddy, S.J., 1993: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries’, (JCT, Secunderabad, India), 205p – Book Review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol., 67, pp. 325-327 (1994) — http://www.scribd.com/.Google Books.
    3. Reddy, S.J., 2019b: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries [2nd Edition]’, “Brillion Publishing”, New Delhi, 372p.
    4. Reddy, S.J., 2019c: “Workable Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate Change”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 221p (2019).
    5. Reddy, S.J., 2019d: “Water Resources Availability in India”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 224p.
    6. Reddy, S.J., 2008: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, http://www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p.
    7. Reddy, S.J., 2016. Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
    8. Rathore, L.S., Atri, S.D. & Jaswal, A.K., 2013: “State level climate change trends in India”, Meteorological Monograph No. ESSO/IMD/EMRC/02/2013, Government of India, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Earth System Science Organization, India Meteorological Department.
    9. Reddy, S.J., Juneja, O.A. & Lahore, S.N. (Miss), 1977: “Power spectral analysis of total and net radiation intensities”, Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics, 6:60-66.
    10. WMO [World Meteorological Organizations], 1966: “Climate Change”, Tech. Note 79, Prepared by J.M.Mitchel, et al., Genewa, Switzerland, 81pp.
    11. Reddy, S.J., 2019e: “Climate Change and it’s Impacts on Water Availability in Rivers and Crop Productivity”, Acta Scientific Agriculture, 3.10 (2019):155-163.
    12. Reddy, S.J., 2019f: “Climate change & Urbanization: a threat for urban flooding & water quality”, Invited Talk presented at All India Seminar on “Water and Sanitation Management”, on the occasion of Centenary celebrations of IEI, March 19-20, 2019, Hyderabad, pages:xxv-xxxvi.
    13. Reddy, S.J. & Rao, G.S.P., 1978: “A method of forecasting the weather associated with western disturbances”, Indian J. Meteorol. Hydrol. Gephys., 29:515-520.
    14. Reddy, S.J., 2018. Role of Climate Change on Recent Weather Disasters. Acta Scientific Agriculture 2.4: 22-29.
    15. Reddy, S.J., 2000: “Andhra Pradesh Agriculture: Scenario of the last four decades”, 104p.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
    Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences
    Convenor Forum for a Sustainable Environment
    Jeevananda_reddy@yahoo.com

    Misnomer on Climate Change

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    Now a day, every day we find reports on the “impact of climate change” in media. Unfortunately, man on the street to reputed Scientific Institutions using the word climate change as an adjective or as de-facto global warming. People are shy of using the word “global warming”. IPCC & UNFCCC clearly defined the word “climate change” but rarely followed this. IPCC published several reports. I presented my observations on IPCC Synthesis Report [AR5] released on 1st November 2014 and as well “IPCC’S WG-II AR5 with reference to India” – my observations were posted on line by several websites on December 7, 2013 and later. The presentation in Synthesis Report of AR5 is quite different from the previous two reports of AR5. This report was filled with ambiguous statements. However, to avoid the confusion particularly in relation to the impact aspects instead of using the generalized word climate change, used the specific part of climate change, namely global warming, ecological changes, natural variability, etc. This gave clarity to public on the issue of global warming. However, this was not followed while presenting IPPC’s 7th August 2019 report on “Climate Change and Land”. The following are my comments on this report submitted through an open letter [given below]:

    Open Letter to IPCC/UNFCCC/WMO/UN
    Sub: Comments on IPCC’s 7th August 2019 Report on “Climate Change and Land”
    From: Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy Hyderabad/TS/India/11-8-2019
    Under “Summary for Policy makers”, the report states that “This report addresses greenhouse (GHG) fluxes in land-based ecosystem, land use and sustainable land management in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation, desertification, land degradation and food security”. That is, tried to link all these to global warming/GHG. However, all these factors are localized and regionalized but not globalized. Mississippi River in USA receives heavy doses of chemical wastes from farm field runoffs and created Gulf of Mexico a dead zone, etc., etc. Destruction of nature to meet human greed, the “same extreme weather event’s” impact is amplified” multi-fold. Decades back a WMO report brought out some such facts.
    As usual, this is one another “Time-pass Report – Wasting Public Money” from IPCC a UN body. Most of the descriptions in the report are of hypothetical in nature derived from the Air with the pre-conceived notions and are not based on physics/Science. Unfortunately, they even did not take note of what they said in their earlier reports such as AR4 & AR5 in terms of definition of “climate change”, climate system, climate sensitivity factor, etc.
    The main fallacy in declaring an event as unusual is based on the past few years’ records. The meteorological records started only around 1850s and that too at fewer locations. With the progression of time they increased in number covering wider space. Prior to 1850 only some documents-folklores narrated unusual weather events but they are rarely available to public to consult like data. The modern politicians-UN agencies-some scientific groups-NGO groups have been attributing the unusual weather events to global warming for the lapses committed by the government bodies-public; and the media gives them hype (Reddy, 2018a& b). In all the unusual weather events they used invariably the word “climate change” but while discussing the events they talk of impact of “temperature”, which refers indirectly to “global warming, a component of climate change. However, such people avoid using the word global warming.
    “We cannot expect the Paris Agreement to solve the crisis associated with these extreme weather events. The way was to minimize their impact is through the mechanism in which they occur by quantifying the agro-climate of the region” – Ecologise.in, 6th June 2016; “Precautionary measure for natural calamities: A letter to the Prime Minister” – such analysis was carried out for few countries and the summaries were included in Reddy (1993, 2019a)
    The traditional agriculture was soil and climate driven farming systems that encompasses the animal husbandry (Reddy, 2019b). It provided socio-economic, food and nutrient security with the healthy food. Those were the “Golden Days” in the history of farming. Traditionally farmers adapted to this based on their forefathers hundreds of years of experiences. Now, quality milk & Aqua products have become rare commodities. To achieve food security, we need sustainable agriculture system under variable soil and climate conditions wherein the soil is static and the climate is dynamic (Reddy, 1993 & 2019a). Climate is beyond human control and thus needs to adapt to it. Climate is always changing through the natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system only. The two main climatic parameters that play vital role in agriculture are temperature and precipitation. Temperature presents high seasonal and annual variations. Table presents the Hyderabad Temperature Extremes from climate normal book. The range shows more than 10 oC. At all India level 2002 & 2009 were drought years. This resulted raise in temperature (0.7 & 0.9 oC).
    Month Temperature (oC)
    Tw Tmax Tmin Thm Tlm Th Tl
    Highest 23.7 38.7 26.2 42.4 22.5 44.4 19.4
    Lowest 17.2 27.8 13.4 30.6 09.9 33.3 06.1
    Range 06.5 10.9 12.8 11.8 12.6 11.1 13.3
    Tw = mean afternoon wet bulb, Tmax = mean maximum, Tmin = mean minimum, Thm = highest mean, Tlm = lowest mean, Th = highest in a day, Tl = lowest in a day,
    Agriculture was/is adapted to such variations in temperatures. However, in the last two decades groups are polluting agriculture research under the disguise of global warming, a component of climate change (Reddy, 2016). Moisture is the limiting factor in tropical warm countries where most of the developing countries are located. Moisture is expressed by rainfall/snowfall.
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    The term “climate change” was defined by IPCC & UNFCCC. However, at local and regional levels they are affected by Climate Systems & General Circulation Patterns (Reddy, 2016). These are part of natural variability. Also, with the population growth and their action on nature are adding new twists to climate change. This is termed as human induced trend. Trend is a permanent feature. In rainfall, only natural variability is present. However, in temperature both trend and natural variability are present. Let us see these in brief [see references at the end].
    TEMPERATURE:
    The carbon dioxide levels in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) are far lower than those in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). It is also true with country to country. Same is the case with the temperature. That means it is not global phenomenon but it is a regional phenomenon and averaged. We must not forget the fact that wild animal dominated the world before industrial revolution. Domesticated animal replaced the wild animal population globally. Methane gas has short life while carbon dioxide (CO2) has long life in the atmosphere. So, methane gas contribution to greenhouse gases is not an important component. Same is the case with other air pollutants that have very short life but have direct impact on life forms on the Land and in the Oceans (Reddy, 2013 & 2014). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are linearly related to population. By bringing down the population growth drastically, CO2 will also comedown drastically.
    IPCC report showed 1.53 oC changes for land. This cannot be called as global warming but it is only an average. Also, it is contaminated by urban-heat-island effect factor. — And 0.87 oC for land + ocean from 1850-1900 to 2006-2015. The second fallacy is, all those presented in 1st para at global level has no meaning and on the contrary they should be calculated those parameters at local, regional, national and thus global level instead of harping on global warming a non-existed parameter. The temperature anomaly estimates have large limitations. For example:
    (1) The network of met stations has been increased with the time and with the satellite era they have been gradually coming down on land surface. Though oceans occupy two-thirds of globe, the network is dismal low and accuracy is big question. Also, there is no balance between urban [densely distributed over smaller area] and rural [sparsely distributed over the large area] met network. This makes imbalance contribution to global anomaly by overemphasizing the urban heat island component and underemphasizing the rural cold island component; and thus as a result positive contributions to average.
    [2] According IPCC, 1951 was the starting year of global warming; and in human impact component [trend] more than half is contributed by greenhouse effect and less than half by non-greenhouse effect. So, the changes in temperature presented above are not global warming. If we assume that in more than half, 50% is due to global warming, then they are: 0.765 oC & 0.435 oC.
    [3] Reddy (2008) presented the natural variability and trend using the data series of 1880 to 2010. The moving average suggested the natural variability follows the 60-year cycle, varies between -0.3 and +0.3 oC & the trend showed 0.6 oC/Century. Thus the global warming is 0.6 x 0.5 = 0.3 oC/Century. Then from 1951 to 2100 it is 0.45 oC. This is for linear trend. IPCC presented climate sensitivity factor gradually coming down. That means it follows the non-linearly, gradually coming down in entire greenhouse effect as the energy emitted by the Sun is constant with natural variability associated with the Sunspot cycle; and net radiation from the ground followed the same (Reddy, et al., published this in 1977)). Also, night temperatures are showing higher rise over the day temperatures, which is primarily associated with the urban heat-island effect. So, urban factor is contributing to higher rise in average land temperatures. This would have countered by the rural factor but this is missing.
    [4] By taking all these factors in to account, we can safely say that practically there is no global warming – original satellite data supported this but this was removed from the internet (Reddy, 2008). However, urban heat island effect is going up and up with bulging of unplanned urban areas. Rise in temperature is not confined to ground level but also to higher layers of the atmosphere depending up on the vertical structure [distribution/density]. This is affecting power consumption [more CO2 — not a pollution; we inhale air, use oxygen and release CO2 — is released]. This is the major issue to be talked by governments on priority basis. Now Indian Government made Ladak as UT and this may lead to unplanned/reckless growth, which will severely change the climate and destruction of natural resources [water bodies/rainfall/snowfall], etc. Thus, what IPCC said in 1st para may be possible in Ladak in near future due to human greed but not due to GHG.
    [5] Heat & Cold waves are part of natural system. In India, they are associated with Western Disturbances, a general circulation pattern, in the northwest India. Reddy & Rao published in 1978 how the heat or cold waves move over different parts of India. Even today there is no change. Unfortunately UN agencies don’t care to look in to such systems as their agenda of climate change is different. Under the general circulation pattern, low pressure system in West Bengal creates dry conditions in Hyderabad.
    IPCC reported that Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035 and Al Gore reported that Greenland ice will melt in five years. On our questioning on the veracity of such conclusions, IPCC & Al Gore waited for Nobel Prize and withdrew their conclusions but did not return the Nobel Prize money. After returning from COP21 Paris summit on climate change in 2015 the environment minister informed to the Indian Parliament that 86.6% of Himalayan Glaciers are stable out of 2181.
    If sea levels are rising, why Al Gore acquired Beach House? That means, really speaking there is no sea level rise associated with global warming; but in some areas these are associated with sinking of coastal zones due to extraction of water, oil & gas [southern parts of USA] and destruction of coastal protective walls [mangrove forests], etc. (Reddy, 2016 & 2018a).
    [6] WMO Press note on extreme weather events on the occasion of WMO Day (23-3-2014) it was observed linking global warming to droughts in SH nations. I sent a reply saying they are part of natural variability in rainfall and has nothing to do with global warming [which is non-existing] and suggested to refer my book available in WMO Library for verification on facts.
    RAINFALL:
    In rainfall, there is no trend but there is shift associated with changes in localized or regionalised Climate System. WMO in 1966 brought out a manual on climate change. This manual presented methods to separate natural variability from human induced trend. It also presented methods to characterize the cyclic nature in rainfall data series. This manual was prepared by eminent meteorologists from met departments around the globe.
    In Indian Parliament a question was asked on Delhi normal date of onset of monsoon. We were assigned to respond on this. In that connection, I collected the dates of onset and withdrawal for all met sub-divisions in India from DWR, WWR, & MWR – no data was available in electronic systems. I worked out a method for forecasting the onset of SWM [linking with Stratosphere winds over Singapore]. As part of it, time series of onset dates for Kerala were platted. The 10-year moving average showed a 52 year cyclic pattern; I published this in 1977. Same was also seen in Fortaleza rainfall in northeast Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere around the same latitude; I published this in 1984. I studied the rainfall of Mahalapye in Botswana in 1981; also studied the data series of Mozambique and Ethiopia {published in 1986 & 1990). These are presented by Reddy (1993 & 2019a). They all showed systematic rhythmic variations. Recently there was a hue- &- cry on drought conditions in Cape Town in South Africa and wet conditions [Idai Cyclone] in Beira in Mozambique. I predicted them and published in 1986 – for Beira with the average rainfall of 1480 mm: the wet 2012 to 2038 with 2023-2027 dry periods; and for Durban with the average rainfall of 1050 mm: the dry 2010-2042 with 2024-2028 wet periods.
    In 2000 in a book I presented the cyclic nature of Indian rainfall and Andhra Pradesh Rainfall. Now in all India annual rainfall started below the average 30 year part of the 60-year cycle. These were linked to water availability in Godavari River, etc. (Reddy, 2019a, b & c). Andhra Pradesh state annual rainfall presented 132 year cycle. One full cycle completed and the second cycle started in 2001 starting with below the average 66 year cycle part. In this part more drought years are possible – it is already experienced by the states. Krishna River water followed this pattern. However, SWM and NEM rainfall series showed 56 year cycle but in opposite direction [similar to Atlantic and Pacific Ocean temperature 60 year cycle]. The cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal showed similar to SWM 56-year cycle. At local level in Kurnool, the analysis showed drought in 45% of the years. This followed the SWM rainfall pattern of 56 years cycle and thus during below the average period the drought condition will be in 70% of the years and in the above the average period, it is only 30% of the years.
    These play vital role to achieve sustainability – however scientists-institutions are misleading governments on rainfall and water availability issues — in agriculture and food security issues (Reddy, 2019b & 2019c). However, both quantity and quality of foods are important both on land and in water/oceans. The quality is affected by pollution (Reddy, 2013, 2014 & 2019b & c). On request submitted my suggestions in this regard to “Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030”, From 3 December 2018 to 28 January 2019, http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/discussions/global_FSN_narrative, on online. My suggestion is 13th in the list [www.fao.org/fsmforum]. One of the ten points under this is:
    How and why do diets change?
    “One is associated with the food production through farming systems practices in agriculture and the other is non-agriculture system – animal meet and sea food. Under traditional agriculture farmers used to produce nutrient rich food including milk. With the chemical input agriculture technology this is drastically modified and now people get poor quality polluted diet including adulterated food. Even the sea/river/pond foods are contaminated with pollution. Cereals and pulses were important food components under traditional system. Now vegetables are consumed more but they are contaminated with polluted water use in producing them.”
    In 1985 presented and published the analysis results of rainfall data of India, Upper Volta [Burkina Faso], Senegal & North Western Australia — included water balance simulations to North Western Australian stations [Pine Creek, Argyle Downs, Derby, Atherton, Mt Surprise, Woodstock, Clermont, Marlborough, Mitchell] and Niger stations [Niamey Ville & Maradi]. This study brought out the fact why commercial agriculture failed in the North Western Australia. Also a bulletin was brought out in 1981 presenting the rainfall condition in West Africa [Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger and Tchad]. In all these there was no GHG impact.
    REFERENCES
    Reddy, S.J., 1993: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries’, (JCT, Secunderabad, India), 205p – Book Review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol., 67, pp. 325-327 (1994) — http://www.scribd.com/.Google Books.
    Reddy, S.J., 2008: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, http://www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2013: “Impacts of pollution on environment: Myths & Realities!!”, Compendium, Platinum Jubilee Celebrations of Andhra Pradesh State Centre (1938-2013), The Institute of Engineers (India), 9-16pp.
    Reddy, S.J., 2014. Water-logging and water productivity in Agriculture. Proc. 4th International Conference on ‘Hydrology and Watershed Management [ICHWAM-2014], Vol. II, pp. 683-692.
    Reddy, S.J., 2016. Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2018a. Role of Climate Change on Recent Weather Disasters. Acta Scientific Agriculture 2.4: 22-29.
    Reddy, S.J., 2018b. Impact of “Climate Change & Human Interference” on Water Resources Availability in India. Presented at AICE’18 Total Water Solutions held at Hyderabad on 16-17th November 2018 by American Water Association [AWWA].
    Reddy, S.J., 2019a: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries [2nd Edition]’, “Brillion Publishing”, New Delhi, 372p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2019b: “Workable Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate Change”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 221p (2019).
    Reddy, S.J., 2019c: “Water Resources Availability in India”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 224p.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
    Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences
    Convenor Forum for a Sustainable Environment
    Jeevananda_reddy@yahoo.com

  22. Andreas E says:

    On https://skepticalscience.com/no-conspiracy-noaa-adjustments-closer-to-pristine.html and http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/ I found temperature adjustment graphs where the “raw” and “adjusted” labels are attached to the opposite data sets, claiming that around 1900 raw temperature was lower than adjusted temperature… What’s going on?

Leave a Reply to Phil Taylor Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.