Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’
|
August 19 2010
Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson, has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.
NOAA Systemically Excised Data with ‘Poor Interpolations’
Anderson, a successful Materials Physicist with his own laboratory, has looked closely at the evidence uncovered on NOAA. He has been astonished to discover, “Both higher altitudes and higher latitudes have been systematically removed from the measured temperature record with very poor and biased interpolated results taking their place."
Like other esteemed scientists, Anderson has been quick to spot sinister flaws in official temperatures across northern Lake Michigan as revealed in my earlier articles.
I had proven that the website operated by the Michigan State University had published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised.
In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.
Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”
Indian Government Knew of Faults in 2004
I have further uncovered proof that the Indian government was long ago onto these faults, too. Researcher, Devendra Singh, tried and failed to draw attention to the increasing problems with the satellite as early as 2004 but his paper remained largely ignored outside of his native homeland.
Indian scientist, Singh reported that NOAA-16 started malfunctioning due to a scan motor problem that caused a 'barcode' appearance. Singh’s paper, ‘Performance of the NOAA-16 and AIRS temperature soundings over India’ exposed the satellite’s growing faults and identified three key errors that needed to be addressed.
Singh writes, “The first one is the instrument observation error. The second is caused by the differences in the observation time and location between the satellite and radiosonde. The third is sampling error due to atmospheric horizontal inhomogeneity of the field of view (FOV).” These from India thus endorse Dr. Anderson’s findings.
NOAA Proven to have engaged in Long-term Cover Up
My investigations are increasingly proving that such data was flagged by non-NOAA agencies years ago, but NOAA declined to publish notice of the faults until the problem was publicized loudly and widely in my first ‘satellitegate’ article, US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced. Official explanations initially dismissed my findings. But then NOAA conceded my story was accurate in the face of the evidence.
My second article, shortly thereafter, exposed that a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years may be based on contaminated satellite readings. But NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to clarify the extent of the satellite instrument problem or how long the fault might have gone undetected.
Thereafter, in my third article, Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful we saw the smoking gun evidence of a cover up after examining the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary. The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ (NOAA’s admission) since its launch in September 2000.
Subsystem Summary Details Censored Between 2005-10
But even more sinister is the fact that the official online summary now only shows events recorded up to 2005. All subsequent notations, that was on NOAA’s web pages last week and showed entries inclusive to summer 2010, have now been removed. However, climatechangefraud.com is displaying a sample of the missing evidence copied before NOAA took down the revealing web pages after it entered into 'damage limitation mode.'
As events have unfolded we are also learning that major systemic failures in the rest of the satellite global data-collecting network were also not reported. Such serious flaws affect up to five U.S satellites as reported in an excellent article by Susan Bohan here.
NOAA Tears Up its Own ‘ Data Transparency’ Policy
But rather than come clean NOAA has this week ordered their lawyers to circle the wagons. Glenn Tallia, their Senior Counselor, wrote to advise me, “The data and associated website at issue are not NOAA's but instead are those of the Michigan State Sea Grant program. Thus, we have referred your e-mail to the Michigan State Sea Grant program.”
Yes, Glenn, clearly the final data output was published by Michigan but the underlying fault is with your satellite!
With NOAA now hiding behind their attorneys we appear to see a contradiction of NOAA’s official pledge that “ The basic tenet of physical climate data management at NOAA is full and open data access” published in their document, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center Open Access to Physical Climate Data Policy December 2009.
Sadly, we may now be at the start of yet another protracted delay and concealment process that tarnished NASA’s and CRU’s reputations in Climategate. We saw in that scandal that for 3-7 years the US and the UK government agencies cynically and unlawfully stymied Freedom of Information requests (FOIA).
NASA’s disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia. CRU’s Professor Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution by way of a technicality.
The attorney credited with successfully forcing NASA to come clean was Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Horner is now advising me as to how best to pursue a possible FOIA of my own against NOAA if they continue their obfuscation.
American Physicist Pick Out Key Issues
Meanwhile, back on his blog Anderson points to the key issues that NOAA tries to cover up. He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the dodgy data as being an accidental product of the satellite’s malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.
By contrast, Anderson cogently refutes this explanation showing that such bogus data was consistently of very high temperatures not associated with those detected from cloud tops. He advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favorably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.
As Pistis admitted, all such satellite data is fed automatically into records and apparently as long as it showed high enough temperatures to satisfy the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates of those numbers were not going to make careful scrutiny for at least half a decade.
Anderson bemoans, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”
“Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record. This sure suggests this is an awkward question to answer.”
Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities
While NOAA’s Nero fiddles ‘Rome’ continues to burn and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last week NOAA-17 became rated ‘poor’ due to ‘scan motor degradation” while NOAA-18’s gyro’s are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the U.S. twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving “direct readout”(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us - is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?
NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010 NOAA-17 concedes it has “ AVHRR Scan Motor Degradation” with “Product(s) or Data Impacted.”
Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, “direct readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.”
On August 9, 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on ‘poor’ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, “Constant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.”
NOAA continues with tests on ‘17’ with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument. The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking “urgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.” For further details see here. More evidence proving NOAA is running a “degrading” satellite network can be read here.
Dr. Anderson sums up saying; “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.”
John O'Sullivan is a legal analyst, author and journalist. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O'Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
Secondly, data hasn't been "removed" - older periods have been filled in as NOAA/NCDC digitize and make available old weather obs. I've seen 'em - thousands upon thousands of boxes worth of paper, fiche, and so on. Besides, for obs outside the US, the various NMS are supposed to report to the WMO on a regular basis, but some do not.
This guy may be smart, but he sure doesn't know the facts.
Well written, credible and accurate.
NOAA is in tourble.
what a surprise.
When you deniers can show that we have not increased CO2, and the CO2 isn't opaque to LW, and that all the other impacts of anthropogenic climate change are incorrect, then we can talk. However, that would require you to overturn virtually everything, so it ain't gonna happen.
Y'all seem to think that Mother Nature can be appeased. She's not interested.
Perhaps you can answer your own questions with just a small bit of research and reading. Just like we did.
The information is startleing easy to find.
Begin with looking up the papers on logorithmic decline of CO2's effect with increased concentration.
Then read lookup the temperature affect without feedback of doubling CO2.
Then look at the recent research into water vapor and clouds as feedback souces.
then read the papers on Earths energy balance and the Climate Sensitivity factor.
Once you have satisfied yourself that CO2 is nothing but plant food, ask the obvious nest question.
Why?
What is the real purpose for this scam.
go to thegreenagenda.com for some background.
then read up on "the club of Rome"
then read all the recent papers on "peak oil"
Do that and I guarentee that unless you are religiously committed to a Faith Based position on AGW, you will see thing differently.
Why do you let nutjobs intercede between you and the science? Why don't you go to the original sources, learn enough to understand what's being said, and then make up your own mind? Why do you let yourself be led by the nose by a group with a definite political agenda?
You're completely uninterested in the science.
Than why do you continue to post here? You, and any other alarmist won't change our minds.
You guys are immune to facts, evidence, reason and logic. That's why you're deniers.
Let's play a word game. I say a word and you say the first word that comes to mind.
ok?
Example: I say Climate, you say gate.
I say Hockey stick, you say phony.
ok...ready?
government....grant?
funding
phil
jones
michael
mann
inconvenient
fraud
Medieval
Warming
Period
Sooo. how do you define the lunatics you are interested in?
Globalony grovelers have nothing but dishonesty and Luddite ignorance.
We will overcome you. Resistance is futile. You will be absorbed.
Thanks for the am laugher. All you have are lies, fraud, deceit, intellectual dishonesty, and idiocy. See Watts, McIntytre, Morano, Plimer, Monckton, Delingpole, Bolt, et.al.
Plimer not so much, but the rest of this pantheon of intellectual probity and dogged honesty inspire so much fear on your part, it is awe inspiring.
To my knowledge, many have flamed against the above mentioned men of respect, but no one has rebutted with facts and/or logic.
Your watermelon world is crumbling. Keep responding. Soon, you will be reduced to circle-jerking with other human hating collectivists.
Toodles.
Fear? Rage? Not really - more like amusement at their "science" and disgust at their tactics.
Anyone who gives any of the aforementioned individuals any credibility whatsoever is beyond reaching.
oooh.........you used scare quotes. I must be afraid. I must be very afraid.
Hmmm...requiring an open science inquiry into the rampant climate research fraud and not an East Anglia coverup doesn't disgust you eh?
So revealing.
How come the UAH and RSS satellite-based analyses match up so incredibly well with HadCRU?
Explain.
Keep coming. Every single day another expose' of research fraud and incompetence just shovels more organic dirt on the myth of AGW.
Calling Roy Spencer (one of the handful of denier scientists) a "fraud" and incompetent is a mistake for your side.
None of us doubt man has some influence on Climate. The doubt is all about how much.
Alarmists say Co2 is the biggest driver of warming. That the sun and ocean currents are irrelivant, untill they are used to explain the non-warming of the last decade. So clearly either the sun can overide Co2's effects or it cannot. It can't be one or the other only when convient. Quote: I'm most interested in the science Gator asked you about. You know the stuff that can be independantly verified and tested by the scientific method. The questions you evaded.
The Science you Warmists explain away as un-testable without controls or that is irrelevant. Not the tree rings you present but the tree rings you did not.
This science is that interests us most of all.
Sure seems so.
Absolutely convinced of his/her own rightness and so fearful/hatefull of anyone the would have gaul to disagree.
Quit humorous really.
And the simple fact is that the deniers don't merely "disagree", they deny facts.
Just to let ya know.
I'm still enjoyin' my weekend.
And not worryin'
Oh ha ha
He makes me miss Drewski. At least Drewski would come back with a good Zinger once in a while and make me laugh.
Further, to all I ask, have any of you seen information on H.A.A.R.P. with regard to AGW, the Russian fires and the North Pakistan Floods?I'm just wondering.
The fact that we are being expected to de-industrialise on the basis of what appear to be flawed measurements is the most pressing political problem facing us.
I only hope that there are some independently minded senators/representatives who will demand a full investigation of what appears to be a major scientific scandal.
I beg to differ. I have read some of the Phil Jones emails. What he did and wanted others to do what fraud not flawed.
later
As I have implied, you are a stupid. ill-informed individual who cannot bring clarity to a difficult problem.
Look for the quote form maurice Strong.
He was one of the main instigators.
His intention was very explicit about the need to destroy the industural ecomonies of the world.
Read it and then try to explain it away.
There were many similar there as well.
So the answere is .... Lots of them
Can I play the same game with you?
Gary: "... need to destroy ... the world".
That is what you wrote, after all.
Every one of those quotes is cited with a link to the origional source.
It is only missleading to those that can't read.
The message was completely clear.....
For now, I suggest that you confine this work to research and stop imposing it on people.
Stop imposing your fading doomer religion on us.
If you did, we might take you more seriously.
Wind and solar just won't cut it. Not without giant leaps in tech.
Hydro and Atomic are also cost effective and reliable.
What about the environmental destruction caused by all that digging? The water use required? Did you consider those costs?
Hydro is just about tapped out - there aren't many big rivers left undammed, and nuclear, well, let's not get into that. In the long-term, solar is definitely the way to go.
They may add a small portion to regular power production but i doubt we will see them replace it any time soon. Might be why China is planning on a coal plant every month for the next five years?
You asked for science...here is a great paper that show the solar variations effects on climate cycles...the work includes 1000 year flows on the Nile.
www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/5326/1/Alexander_Linkages%282007%29.pdf
On the other hand, Alexander seems determined to seek out any source of climate change other than manmade, so it's not surprising that he "found" it. He was also a signatory to a letter to Ban Ki-moon disputing ACC, so I'm a little more dubious of his analysis.
Not many deniers are left that deny the CO2 is radiatively important; perhaps you're one of the holdouts. Or else just another denier blog goofball.
All the "goldilocks" zone means is that liquid water can exist.
good one.
The spike in 1998 was caused by El-nino which over powered the trend. Seems natural cycles can have large effects.
The PDO seems to match the warming and cooling phases from 1900-present. If this holds we should see cooling continue on a 30 year cycle.
www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
And it seems the Climate Sensitivity may have been over estimated.
The PDO doesn't create warming, it's merely moving energy around, like ENSO.
Oh, and it's wrong to say "cooling continue". The planet is not cooling.
The PDO and AMO don't create warming?
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AO_NAO.htm
Funny how they both peaked around 1940 at the same time as temperatures did. Yet cause no warming.
Again around 1970 they both hit their low cycles. It was cooler.
They again both peaked around 1998 along with El-Nino when it was warmest. These changes are linked more to these cycles than Co2.
A 2008 study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)
[http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf] states: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”
As for cooling look at graph showing the cooling after the 1940 peak where the PDO/AMO were both in warm phase. And Solar Cycle 24 may be less active than 23.
It cooled for 30 years into the 70's then warmed untill 1998 when they both were in warm phase again. Should we belive it won't cool again like it has in the past? All the during these up and down cycles Co2 has climbed at a fairly steady rate.
media-files.gather.com/images/d46/d401/d746/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg
new.
And yes, semiperiodic "oscillations" in the climate state do not create energy - they move it around. CO2 is opaque to IR, and as CO2 increases, temperatures increase, i.e., energy is added to the system.
Oh, and it hasn't been cooling since 1998. That's one of the most tired and most discredited denier mantras.
Despite your pretensions to the contrary, you're just repeating the same denier talking-points, just with a lot more verbiage you cut-n-paste and don't understand.
Or that part of the recent warming is related to these natural cycles as the NOAA paper suggests? www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
You did ask for non-denier sceptical views.
I understand your point about Co2 adding heat to the system. With the Missing Heat issue i belive the amount of warming caused by Co2 is over estimated.
But like you say i just don't understand it.
Sorry if i fail to belive oscillations that change weather on a global scale cannot create any feedbacks or affect warming in any way, yet a minute trace gas can. And in fact is the main driver due to a water vapor feedback. It's all mans doing, nothing else.
The evidence for this is based on questionable historic records, land, balloon/ satelite measures, proxies and models that predict extra heat that no one can find yet.
And are suprised when people are sceptical. When after decades and tens of billions of dollars this is the best science can come up with.
Likewise, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Water vapor is (among other factors) dependent on temperature - the warmer it is, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold *ceteris paribus*.
If you were familiar with the work done on observed weather data to use it for climate analysis, you wouldn't so cavalierly dismiss all of it as "questionable". Don't blame only the scientists for the state of science funding. Oh, and after decades and more billions, we still don't have a graviton or a magnetic monopole, or a cure for cancer or the common cold. All that money was wasted by the physics and medical communities. Right?
Warmist camp scientists make vague predictions - hot,cold windy ,calm,wet dry ,floods, droughts etc in a general sort of way stating its co2 to blame and man made at that.
Corbyn accurately predicts climate/weather accurately basing it it purely on the suns output and its effect on earthe systems & manages global accuracy and detail that is absent from any other source!
This is empirical evidence of the highest order that Co2 is not a causative factor re climate.
Where are the accurate predictions from the warmist camp?
RSS feed for comments to this post