Texas temperatures peaked between 1900 and 1930, but NOAA tampers with the data to turn a long term cooling trend into a warming trend. Two thirds of the data they use in their “final adjusted” dataset is now fake.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
Recent Comments
- Mike on Climate Scamming For Profit
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Francis Barnett on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Bob G on Time Of Observation Bias
- arn on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Crashex on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Robertvd on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Jehzsa on Climate Scamming For Profit
Tony, you’re on a roll! 😀
if Trump wins, and that’s no lock with all the potential for cheating, he needs to clean house… just like Elon Musk did with Twitter. send the fraudsters packing. They can always learn to code
DEVASTATING COMBINATION: Tony’s data tampering insights & https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/18/the-quest-for-climates-golden-fleece/
Scan down to the paragraph just above Fig. 10. Atmospheric CO2’s apparent effect on global temperatures implies a climate sensitivity of 1.25 degrees as the concentration doubles from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. In contrast, almost half of the climate models shown on Fig. 8 assume climate sensitivities EXCEEDING 4.5 degrees.
Not only is 4.5+ degrees a multiple of lived experience, 4.5+ degrees exceeds the hot end of the range of climate sensitivity estimates shown in Fig. 7.
The nail in the coffin is: The inferred 1.25 degree sensitivity almost certainly OVERSTATES the actual. First, it assumes, presumably for simplicity’s sake, that rising atmospheric CO2 caused all the global temperature change since 1976. Second, as Tony has shown, data tampering caused much of the increase in adjusted temperature series since 1976. If one removes the tampering, the inferred sensitivity is LESS than 1.0 degree–and that reflects ALL feedbacks.
I think that what you say is in line with what all real, not-government-controlled, intelligent scientists say.