Climate Change

Project Launched to Check Global Temperature Records

The Global Warming Policy Foundation calls for evidence for the validity of temperature records

|

GlobalWarmingQuestion
Dreamstime

The U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation has announced the International Temperature Data Review Project project in which a panel of distinguished researchers will try to evaluate the appropriateness of the adjustments made to thermometer-based global temperature records. The panelists are Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist Petr Chylek, University of Alabama at Huntsville applied meteorologist Richard McNider, former University of New Brunswick statistician Roman Mureika, University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. and University of York in Ontario physicist William van Wijngaarden.

The GWPF describes the aim of the project:

Climatologists have long been aware of the poor state of global surface temperature records and considerable effort has been put into adjusting the raw data to correct known errors and biases.

These adjustments are not insignificant. For example it has been noted that in the temperature series prepared by NOAA for the USA, the adjusted data exhibits a much larger warming trend than the raw data.

It has also been noted that over the years changes to the data have often tended to cool the early part of the record and to warm more recent years, increasing the apparent warming trend.

Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms, for many of the global temperature series the details are obscure and it has proved difficult for outsiders to determine whether they are valid and applied consistently.

For all these reasons, the global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy.

In a statement announcing the launch of the project, Professor Kealey said:

"Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open." …

"We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions by telling us what they know about the temperature records and the adjustments made to them. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists – we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not."

The panel has issued a call for evidence with a deadline of June 30, 2015.

We should all wish this effort to evaluate the global temperature records well. I will be reporting their results as they appear.

For more background on the issue of temperature data adjustments see my long blogpost "Temperature Record Chicanery: An Overhyped Scandal."

NEXT: Free-Speech Wannabees Pull out of Free-Speech Gala Honoring Cartoonists Who Died for Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where do these people get off questioning science? Science has made up its mind, now get in line.

    1. Science isn’t about asking questions, it’s about consensus! Just ask Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein – those guys all just went along with the consensus of their times.

    2. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. The actual thermometer readings of the past were wrong, and need to be adjusted to better match the AGW models. What is so hard to understand about that?

    1. No worries, the organization called “Global Warming Policy Foundation” isn’t interested in anything but an unbiased check of the facts which support CAGW.

  3. “Those responsible for sacking those who were sacked, have themselves been sacked.”

    1. “The credits have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute. Executive Producer JOHN GOLDSTONE & “RALPH” The Wonder Llama Producer MARK FORSTATER Assisted By EARL J. LLAMA MIKE Q. LLAMA III SY LLAMA MERLE Z. LLAMA IX Directed By 40 SPECIALLY TRAINED ECUADORIAN MOUNTAIN LLAMAS 6 VENEZUELAN RED LLAMAS 142 MEXICAN WHOOPING LLAMAS 14 NORTH CHILEAN GUANACOS (CLOSELY RELATED TO THE LLAMA) REG LLAMA OF BRIXTON 76000 BATTERY LLAMAS FROM “LLAMA-FRESH” FARMS LTD. NEAR PARAGUAY”

      1. I was bitten by a moose

  4. These people are obviously getting money from Big Oil. Prove that they aren’t. Huh? Prove it. You can’t. Ha!

    1. Big Oil? I thought it was Big GMO!

      I can never keep this straight. THE CONSPIRACY – IT’S SO VAST!!!!

      1. It’s Kochs way all the way down.

      2. If a conspiracy is really vast, isn’t that just the way it is, not a conspiracy?
        /ponder that on on the tree of WHOA!

        1. Mind. Blown.

        2. Yeah, that’s just what Big Conspiracy HOPES we’ll believe….

          *adjusts foil hat*

  5. This effort is pure anti-science.

    It is settled science that CO2 level has increased and that such causes temperature to increase. Sophisticated scientific models have been developed to evaluate how much CO2 increases temperature. About 97% of scientists agree on these scientific models.

    It is a well-known scientific fact that the accuracy of time instrumentation can vary over time. Therefore, to get the best analysis of how much temperature has increased over time, scientists must make the adjustments necessary to correct for inaccuracies. Since scientists obviously know that it is a scientific fact that temperature has increased over time due to rise in CO2 levels, it only makes sense that scientists use their sophisticated models to make revisions in earlier data as necessary to indicate the warming trend.

    1. I am very interested in what you have to say, and would like to receive your newsletter.

    2. B+ I definitely had to check your handle. But your monologue treated me more like an ignorant adult instead of a petulant child.

    3. It’s just common sense, really.

    4. In other news, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia

  6. Cue Jack the bleever any minute with news about fracking!

  7. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists ? we intend to let the science do the talking.

    So, are we paying them to sift through garbage and not publish anything or are we paying them to publish garbage that should already be publicly available?

  8. So the raw data shows a cooling trend. Add in all the “adjustments”, and we get a warming trend… The entire trend is nothing but the “adjustments”.

    Occasional adjustments are expected – but when they all go in one direction and completely reverse a trend, it’s a lie,

    If I did that with financial data at work, I would be fired and possibly indicted.

    1. Or you would be the next Treasurey Secretary.

      1. I can use Turbotax, do I get the job?

        1. Apparently, not. Being unable to use Turbotax is the required experience.

    2. All of the GISS corrections make old data cooler and new data warmer. It is possible that this is improving the accuracy, but usually its a sign of systemic bias.

  9. “Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms…”

    Those broad terms include “Fraud” and “Hoax”

    1. My favorite broad term is ‘Babe’.

      What?

      1. Sugartits.

      2. I like a dame with a nice set of pins.

      3. I tend to call women sweet heart, but I mean it with respect.

        1. They do respect her, but
          They love to watch her strut
          -Bob Seeger

          1. Really? I thought it was:

            They do respect her butt. No?

        2. Darlin’. Any woman who responds poorly to darlin’ is giving me valuable data about the type of person they are.

  10. “We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions. . . .The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists ? we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not.”

    On all sides of the debate, helping the public understand climate data is about politics rather than science.

    The question of why people should care more about something else rather than their standard of living cannot be answered with math.

    It’s about politics. It’s about ethics. They’re barking up the wrong tree if they want to help people from all sides of the debate understand climate change. The public debate isn’t about science.

  11. Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising.

    Nyuck nyuck nyuck. If the model does not accurately reflect reality, modify reality to fit the model.
    .
    Meanwhile, in an “opinion” piece in my alma mater’s (The Colorado College) newspaper I saw* yesterday, some credulous buffoon claimed “the most sophisticated models” show a complete disappearance of polar ice by 2020.
    .
    *My amusements are many and perverse.

    1. Well, snow in the US disappeared like 10 years ago or something. I miss it.

    2. They already missed the first deadline for the disappearance of polar ice.

  12. How are we to dig a rat-hole wide enough to allow the useful idiots and true-believers to escape as each passing year makes it more and more obvious that their fatuous credo has all the plausibility of the now somewhat discredited notion that the world was to be snuffed out at this year’s winter solstice?

    Every student of the arts of diplomacy in the civil-service and staff colleges of the U.K. hears much about the rat-hole problem. How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face?

    We have finally reached the rat-hole moment, just as Lord Moncton said we would. We’re never going to see Hansen hanging from a lamppost, so the best we can do is grit our teeth and let them save as much face as possible.

    1. Excellent link, Tonio. Thanks for posting.

  13. Project Launched to Check Global Temperature Records

    Andrei, you’ve launched another program?”

  14. this will just be another whitewash like was done with the climate gate emails. people investigating themselves is always useless.

    1. Re: Ron,

      Oh, no, don’t be so cynical! There can be no doubt that this panel will be exhaustive in its investigation, leaving no stone unturned and no paper trail on the side, so as to make sure the data is proven correct and thus silence those pesky climate change deniers once and for all! No bias there!

  15. “We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions by telling us what they know about the temperature records and the adjustments made to them.

    “With that said, let’s begin the hearing. First to call, doctor Moore Lyin. Doctor Lyin, good morning.”
    “Thank you. I want to begin my statement to this distinguished panel by first thanking them for this opportunity…”
    “Sorry, doctor Lyin, but in keeping with the limited time we have, let’s cut to the chase. We only have one question for you. Have you ever changed the temperature data to make it seem like the earth is NOT warming?”
    “No, sir. Never!”
    “Then God bless you and you’re free to leave. This meeting is adjourned!”

  16. Even if a few renegade scientists like Jor-El disagree, responsible citizenship demands that we take the progressive path chosen by our beloved LEADER.

  17. The interesting question is why now? I suspect that they know we’re entering a cold cycle of a few years or decades and know that the public will abandon CAGW hysteria after a few successive cold winters. During the down time when they are evaluating the data they will also miraculously discover a flaw with the models. As pointed out by Restoras in the AM Links the control freaks will simply find a new Impending Doom Theory.

  18. Let me save them the time and trouble and come up with my own model:

    y(t) = p*y(t-1) + 100000000000000000000000000000

  19. Sure, we wish them well.

    It should be noted, however, that the Global Warming Policy Foundation was formed right at the time of the supposed climategate conspiracy. Their first action was to demand private investigations into the fact that they were sure data was manipulated.

    Well, they didn’t get just one investigation, they got 6. And all 6 said there was no manipulation of data. So of course, GWPF had to just say that they all got it wrong.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/flawed-…..e-science/

    They hardly took the results of what they called for professionally.

    In fact, simple perusal of all their press releases tells you that they hardly are a middle of the road observer to climate change. Their titles: Warming Interruptus, Former Cabinet Secretary Questions Blind Faith In Climate Alarmism, GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community, Climate Control: Brainwashing In Schools, Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science, and more.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/topics/

    There isn’t one press release that indicates anything toward a fair analysis on anything to do with climate change. Not one.

    So fine. Investigate. It will probably turn out to the same as the investigations into climategate. No there there.

  20. You remaining “believers” must be slow learners;
    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worthy politicians.

    Climate change “belief” was a crime against Humanity and exaggerating vague science and telling kids science isn’t allowed to be “certain” they are doomed was not progressive let alone civilized.

    The last 34 years of climate action FAILURE is 100% proof that science’s 34 years of 97% certainty was NOT certainty, no matter how much you hissy-fit-hate fear mongering neocons.

    Who’s the neocon now?
    Only unstoppable global denial and war crimes trials are certain!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.