NOAA: The Adjustment Bureau’s Latest Blunder Exposed

noaaOne of the charts NOAA used to show that the global warming hiatus was not occurring reveals that temperatures have been rising since 1905, even though carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions didn’t increase significantly until the 1950s.

As reported last week to much fanfare, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report stating there had not been a pause in global warming, despite more accurate, robust datasets showing the exact opposite. NOAA claims that its new chart (Figure 1) proves that man-made global warming has continued unabated during the last 18.5 years, a heavy-handed attempt to silence climate scientists that point out the global warming pause as further proof of no statistical warming.

Figure 1: NOAA’s “adjusted” atmospheric historical temperature chart. (Source: NOAA)Figure 1: NOAA’s “adjusted” atmospheric historical temperature chart. (Source: NOAA)

But even the NOAA scientists failed to read their own chart correctly: It actually shows that atmospheric temperatures have risen less than 1 degree Celsius since 1905, with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions only significantly increasing in the 1950s (Figures 2 and 3). Bear in mind that global temperature recordkeeping is spotty at best, and worse, non-existent the further back in time you travel.

Figure 2: Historical chart of total fossil fuel carbon emissions. (Source)Figure 2: Historical chart of total fossil fuel carbon emissions. (Source)

Figure 3: Historical chart of CO2 emissions vs CO2 levels. (Source)Figure 3: Historical chart of CO2 emissions vs CO2 levels. (Source)

That’s a considerable problem because the theory of man-made global warming states that increased man-made CO2 emissions results in increased global temperatures. Which begs the question: If temperatures have been steadily rising since the early 1900s, and CO2 emissions began in earnest in the 1950s, why didn’t temperatures jump dramatically in the last 65 years? In fact, the planet has been warming less than 1 degree Celsius per century, which is “so slow that it’s virtually undetectable at the decadal timescale,” and more or less indistinguishable on the centennial timescale.

What is clear is that the “adjusted” chart actually proves what it is trying to disprove. Why? If man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of so-called global warming as NOAA and alarmists state with all the relentless ranting of a soapbox politician, then shouldn’t NOAA’s new and “adjusted” atmospheric temperature chart reflect these changes as shown in Figures 2 and 3? There is a clear disconnect between the two charts. The implication is that one of the charts is inaccurate and misleading. Based on NOAA’s history of past foibles, you can rest assured that NOAA’s “adjusted” atmospheric chart is wide of the mark.

This latest NOAA error is only one in a string of failed attempts that appears to lend credence to the troubled global-warming narrative just ahead of the Paris Climate Talks scheduled in December. This new study also aligns itself nicely with President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, his administration’s renewed climate change hysteria, and Congress’ growing irritation with Federal agencies unaware of observable data showing no increase in extreme weather. With that in mind, here are three of NOAA’s most blatant blunders in just the last year:

First, NOAA stated that 2014 would be the hottest year ever. Within days, NOAA had to retract this statement by saying they were only 38% sure 2014 was the warmest year ever. Next, they stated that the emerging 2015 El Niño was caused by man-made global warming. Well, there hasn’t been any global warming and the current emerging 2015 El Niño is likely the result of sub-oceanic volcanism, not atmospheric warming. And last (but not least), NOAA published readjusted atmospheric temperature data that inadvertently debunks itself from the get-go.

NOAA’s credibility is fast approaching zero due to a series of obvious errors, political machinations, and group-think consensus science. The only thing that actually needs adjusting is NOAA’s credibility rating, not atmospheric temperatures.



Thomas Richard contributed to this article. He is a freelance environmental writer for Examiner.com.

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate.

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Far to kind . Even NOAA can’t be that incompetent . My bet is they are being told what , when and how to say things .

    If that is not the case then they need to be replaced. Who were the “scientists” that took over 18 years to sing a new tune ? Who do they vet their press releases to before issuing them ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Bruce Williams

    |

    Been asking around, but does anyone know if the IPCC has been building their models using averages of temperatures? I ask that because several discussions I have watched all talk about averaging temperature readings from here and there, and you can’t average temperatures. Temperatures are a squared function and averaging them does not give you a value for the mix. You need to average the velocities, not temperatures.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.