#NOAAgate: NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’

The latest is a news article in the Washington Times:

NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday that it would review a whistleblower’s allegations that the agency manipulated climate data in order to eliminate the global warming “pause” for political reasons.

The whistleblower, John Bates, who retired in December as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, rocked the climate change debate Sunday with his claim that a top NOAA climate scientist selectively used data to discredit the global warming hiatus in a key 2015 study.

“NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists,” a NOAA spokesman said in an email. “NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Mr. Bates laid out his allegations in a lengthy article Saturday on the Climate Etc. blog, run by former Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, and in a Sunday interview with the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail.

She [Dr Curry who had a detailed piece from Mr Bates on her website] cited the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has tangled with NOAA over document disclosure related to the “pausebuster” paper.

“The House science committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility,” Ms. Curry said. “NOAA should respond to the committee’s request for documentation including emails.”

The key here is that there will now be an internal enquiry by NOAA, and obviously we can be pretty sure that the new administration will ensure that that enquiry roots out all the dirt from the Obama era.

I suspect that also means the “(not) Pausebuster” paper will be withdrawn quite speedily – and I’d be very surprised if it were ever republished.

And note the irony here: if NOAA had complied with the original oversight committee subpoena, they could have fought this withdrawal – taken the rap and then speedily re-issued the paper leaving the Republicans a thorn in their site for when Trump came in. However by not taking the rap … the paper is now so easily attacked that it has to be withdrawn under a Republican President.

That would then suggest NOAA will have to return to pre- “(not)Pausebuster” temperature series with it pronounced pause. (SMILE!!)

With NASA rumoured to be ceasing with its climate work, and NOAA’s temperature having it’s wings clicked, Republicans will in one fell swoop have eliminated to two most outrageous “temperature” series.

Indeed, when I think about it the ocean buoy data that was falsely used by other organisations to fabricate their own “(not) pause-busting” metrics is under the control of NOAA. So it is all too likely that this will become “unavailable” (probably the PC will suffer a catastrophic failure as happened to Hilary’s email server and the PC on which the “(not) PauseBuster” work was done).

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to #NOAAgate: NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’

  1. Very good article Mike,
    NOAA seems to be following the lead of NASA Goddard\NCAR on the measurements must be adjusted to what the silly biased “models” produce. The ‘only intent’, at least in the USA, was an attempt to harm the coal industry in order to promote the gas (CH4) industry! Blame everything on atmospheric CO2! That attempt did not turn out so good!
    The underlying global warming hypothesis the models support has always been based on the mistaken Idea that IR-EMR exit flux originates at Earth’s surface. The S-B equation now can be used to show that the ‘minimum’ radiometric temperature of whatever is ‘radiating’ must be at least 255 K, but the surface has a higher thermometric temperature. The atmosphere is measured to have temperatures bracketing that minimum. This demonstrates that exit flux originates many somewheres in the atmosphere, never from the surface. It is the mistaken idea (now taught in Universities); that all matter produces\radiates electromagnetic flux proportional to the fourth power of it temperature, in each\every direction, quite independent of opposing “radiance” at each frequency. This is complete nonsense. A contradiction of both Maxwell’s equations and the quantum mechanical limit of combined probability to 100%.

    “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” -J. Robert Oppenhimer-

    It is the incessant kvetching about CO2, by arrogant academics, that understand nothing of the generation and propagation of thermal electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that now seems to lead to the destruction of civilization! Mankind has always fouled its own nest with never the corporate\governmental actions properly assessed by those qualified to assess.
    So far as we understand; the designers of this Earth knew quite well how to compensate for such nonsense among the current top predator! If such can be maintained when the predator’s main nutrient becomes itself; is doubtful!
    Is it perhaps time for a new top predator? Roaches anyone?
    All the best! -will-

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      I wasn’t very clear on your explanation. So, perhaps let me put forward my own quick explanation and we can see if or where we differ:

      The simple way to explain the greenhouse gas effect is to average the heat energy radiated. If a Black body earth radiates at an average of 255K, then with a thin atmosphere in equilibrium, the average radiative temperature of IR heat escaping must also be 255k.

      Some of that IR will escape directly from the surface some from the atmosphere, but on average, the heat temperature must be 255k.

      If, we assign an “average height” to all the molecules and surfaces of h, then due to the lapse rate of -6.5k/km the temperature of radiation is 6.5 x h below the surface. This is the “greenhouse temperature”.

      • No not at all!
        The “only” thermal EM flux “even generated” by a higher temperature mass at each frequency and in each direction is always strictly by the opposing ‘specific intensity’ now called ‘spectral radiance’ at each frequency and in each direction -Gustav Kirchhoff-.
        The atmospheric CO2 does not absorb surface 14-16 micron thermal radiative flux. The ‘radiance’ of the atmospheric lowest 2 meters content of CO2 prevents such flux from being generated. This is the reason for no mid troposphere temperature increase since CO2 levels reached 165 ppmv. In that wave-band all radiative exitance to space is generated at the tropopause or higher altitude. At any wavelength greater than 2 microns, the nighttime difference in spectral radiance (measuring downward – measuring upward) is always positive and always increases with increasing altitude until 50 km. Above that I have not measured. Thus exit flus to space is mostly generated by all parts of the atmosphere not the surface.. I cannot say that atmospheric CO2 does nothing to surface temperature; but I can defend through measurement, that the so called greenhouse effect has no science and only fantasy, (likely for financial gain)!

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          Will, there’s always a great problem talking about “the greenhouse effect”, because the way it is explained on many sites and to his shame even on WUWT, is basically bullshit.

          It kind of explains roughly what is happening in a kinda sciency sounding way – but as everyone who has ever investigated it in detail has found out, it falls apart when you try to look at in in detail.

          The truth is that what is happening is a lot more complicated than we ever get told and the “Noddy science” you get on places like WUWT which is an appallingly bad simplification of what is really going on just doesn’t make sense to a lot of people.

          However, there is a simple change of perspective which dramatically simplifies the greenhouse effect, and that is to view the earth from outside. Now, you are no longer interested in radiative flows within the atmosphere, only those flows that exit the atmosphere.

          The basic rule to remember, is that emissions to space and absorption from space follow the same rule. So, if we were to shine in an IR laser down into the atmosphere and see where it is absorbed, and plot this absorption by height, this profile will be the same for emissions of IR into space.

          From simple equilibrium considerations, we know energy in = energy out. From this we know the average temperature of radiated IR is 255k.

          So, if we average all the temperature (or more accurate T^4) of all molecules and surfaces in proportion to their energy emitted, this temperature will be 255k.

          The temperature at any height can be calculated roughly from the lapse rate of the atmosphere and the height.
          Obviously there is not one place in the atmosphere that radiates heat, but if we sum all the contributions and find their average temperature (in proportion to their energy output), it must be 255k.

          You’ve given some numbers above. In theory, I could start considering different wavelengths, each of which would have a different atmospheric height graph – which again could be rolled up together as an pseudo figure of “average temperature” which equates to an “average height” for emissions at that wavelength. If you then integrate over all bands …. the average must be 255k

  2. Sorry! strictly by the opposing … strictly limited by the opposing

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>