Italian meteorologist – Data manipulated to make people believe in global warming

There are ongoing attempts to distort the data in global temperatures, says Italian meteorologist Colonel Paolo Ernani.

This process is particularly evident in surface temperature data from the United States. Plus, look at the exchange of e-mails between the various researchers worried that actual temperature measurements conflict with their theory.

I personally denounced this misbehavior on December 4, 2015 in an article entitled ” Global Warming and Climate Change! What a mess.”


Excerpts from above article by Col. Paul Ernani, climatologist.
(This was in Italian. Please let me know if I have paraphrased it incorrectly.)

Why is there this desire to convince the public that the Earth is heading towards an inexorable rise in temperature? What’s behind it? What interests are being served? The majority of the media is always talking about Global Warming as something already acquired, as if it were real, when in fact there are many scientists and scholars who do not agree on that.

Supporters of Global warming, the so-called “caldisti”, use that term less and less. Today it is increasingly popular to use the term “climate change”?

What does that (climate change) mean ? It’s ambiguous. It lends itself to multiple interpretations. Perhaps their models are imperfect and not very reliable. We have suggested they include “Sunspots” in their models  to improve reliability, but it did not help.

The temperature of our planet is quite correlated with this variable. Recent studies reinforce even more the link between temperature on Earth and sun spots. The news these days say the Earth’s temperature could rise between 4-6 degrees Celsius degrees by the end of the century, and dues to melting ice, many coastal cities will be submerged.

Does it seem strange that these hypothetical disasters are announced in conjunction with the conference on climate change in Paris?

It is good to remember that one of the largest and most powerful controllers of climate is water vapor. Even so, they want to sponsor the Green Energy.

The I.P.C. C. subsidizes many research institutions and universities, and this is certainly fine. But, hypothetically, if their research shows that the temperature of the globe is not increasing, they my remain silent in order to not create embarrassment to those who finance them.

Solar activity underestimated

More disturbing is the fact that the President is not preparing the country for the coming difficult times because of the dangerous changes in solar activity. The sun is the primary source of climate change. Reducing the energy radiated will lead to a new cold climate and we will all face a more difficult future totally unprepared.

Thanks to Dr Mirco Poletto in Italy for these links

12 thoughts on “Italian meteorologist – Data manipulated to make people believe in global warming”

  1. What’s even worse, is the attempts by so called respected Solar Scientists to modify the Solar Sun Spot records to remove the recent solar warm period from the record, and this solar minimum in order to support the Warmist agenda, and the remove the possibility that the Sun has a much higher energy impact on the climate than the IPCC currently suggests.
    The Warmists are very aware of the impacts of this unexpected solar minimum. It’s a pity they didn’t take into account the prediction made by Landscheidt that a solar minimum period would occur after 1990.
    TSI = 1% + only applies during high energy out output periods during solar warm periods like the one which ended in 2008. During Solar minimum periods like now, EUV output varies by as much as -16% that variation has to affect TSI levels.

    • Just wish you had posted this on the post covering John Casey’s video. Anyway, the next 5 years or so should indicate which way things are beginning to go?

  2. the IPCC ONLY funds or supports those who solely push the MANmade warming using Co2 and a bit lean now to methane and sulphurs etc as THE only /sole/ cause of ALL warming pushing goals back to 1850
    biased and one eyed and refute all other research to conrary

  3. Ernani could have been even more effective had he further presented that GW is not the same as AGW, and that CC is not the same as ACC.

    Indeed, what are they talking about?

  4. Don’t worry, your paraphrase is correct!
    Just for record: Colonel Paolo Ernani comes from the Italian Air Force; you know that meteorology for the air force is a fundamental point so I have no doubts about his competence.

    • But!

      Why doesn’t Colonel Paolo Ernani support his statements with temperature data from Italy? [Perché non il colonnello Paolo Ernani sostenere le sue affermazioni con dati di temperatura dal’Italia?]

      Using US data is pointless. US data can no longer be trusted, it has been manipulated and abused so much it has no more weight in this discussion.

      We need data from around the world that has not been tampered with to make the anti-warming case.

      Mi dispiace colonnello, lo so che lei voi dire bene, ma le vostre opinioni e le parole non bastano. Qui in Italia abbiamo molte persone che esprimono le loro opinioni, ma senza sostanza, manca la prova!

      The previous paragraph states: I sorry Colonel, I know you mean well, but your opinions and words are not enough. Here in Italy we have many people who express just their opinions, but without substance, lacking proof!

      The last thing we need here Poletto, is more of the nonsense that the Americans do, provide links to meaningless people, who have a title but no skills in real science or access to real data.

      Warning to everyone: In Italy they give out titles like they are toilet paper. Most people in universities and the military do not have titles because they earned them with competency or hard work, they are given for loyalty.

      Lets not make the same mistakes as the Warmers, ASK FOR FACTS! Poletto and Ernani, have provided none!

      This website does a fairly good job of fact finding. Lets leave the comments and opinions in the Comment Section, not as articles themselves!

  5. Many introductory climate “science” lectures begin by a simple calculation of the Earth’s so called “average temperature” using a so called “law” of radiation balance and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation – what comes in must go out.

    They write that the solar radiation in W/m2 reduced by Earth’s albedo (mirror like property with no units and a value between 0 and 1) multiplied by the area of Earth facing the sun must equal the radiation from Earth multiplied by the surface area of the Earth.

    Remember the area of a circle is pi x R^2 and the area of a sphere is 4 x pi x R^2.

    The constant pi cancels as does the Earth’s radius as both are on each side of the equality and we are left with:-

    S(1 – albedo) = 4 x sigma x T (e)^4.

    Using S as the recognized value of 1367 W/m2, albedo as the recognized value of 0.3 this results in a value of T(e) = about 255 Kelvin or about minus 18 C.

    Something at a “temperature” of 255 Kelvin radiates about 239 to 240 W/m2 to space.

    They launch satellites and find that apparently Earth does actually radiate about 239 to 240 W/m2 to space.

    Apparently finding out that something does what you expected it to do is reason for world wide alarm, indeed panic, and economic and technological suicide.

    Simple to understand isn’t it ?

  6. Here is an actual example of man-made global warming….
    1. Go to any local NWS office in the US website for a site with records back further than 1981. You can use an official station like an airport or even one of the local sites on NOWdata archives.
    2. The “climatic normals” are defined by the NWS as the average of 1981-2010. Pick any month.
    3. Take that month’s average temperature data for 1981-2010, add it up, and divide by 30. This (for the benefit of climate scientists) is known as the “arithmetic mean.”
    4. Compare your arithmetic mean to the 30 year normal that the site says it is.
    5. You will be puzzled to discover that your arithmetic mean is probably 0.6-1.5F above what the site says the normal is. I don’t know why, it just is. Always above. Those figures are the extreme ends of ranges I have seen testing months at dozens of sites.
    6. Look at the station’s results for any recent month e.g. July 2015. If it shows it was 0.5F above normal, it is actually below normal.
    Voila! you have just discovered man made warming in the US. This situation also occurred when they were using 1971-2000 normals but not 1961-1990.
    I asked a few of the station meteorologists why this was done. Most were just as puzzled as I was. No one gave me an answer. One (BWI) sent a document about ASOS (automatic station equipment changes) “adjustments”, where I discovered that the ultra cold January 1977, where the actual data averaged 22.9F, was given 21.2F for ASOS changes in 1996. I always thought max/min thermometers worked the same now as they did in 1977 or 1927…they will give you the max and min temperatures for a time frame you specify.
    I don’t know if they do this around the world, but every time I hear about this being the hottest month “evah” from someone I qualify the result by giving them the arithmetic mean and then data from the 1930s so they can see how much hotter the US was then.

  7. Meanwhile warmists, continually ignore the superior Satellite temperature data,because it shows a warming trend running well blow the minimum per decade warming rate based on their tuned climate models.

    The IPCC reports from 1990 say it should warm about 1C by 2025 according to BUSINESS AS USUAL Scenario A. The Satellite data shows about .35C total warming since 1990,with just 9 years to go.

    They are so far off the mark,it is pathetic.

  8. It isn’t pathetic; it is a brilliant piece of Green/Socialist IPCC propaganda which is achieving its aims. A UN controlled Carbon Credit fund to spend on UN sponsored projects – a new cargo cult for Pacifica, paid for by the Industrialised West.
    Question: when the sea level drops by nearly a meter in Pacifica over the next 30 years due to the Grand Solar Minimum can the West charge the Islanders local Government rent for the extra land space they have gained though the excess Carbon Taxes paid by the Wests working class for the previous 30 years and the next 30 years as well?
    Or, will Pacifica say thank you, for this solar cool sun provided bounty and no, you can’t have your Carbon Credit money back even if it was based on a fraud of epic proportions.

Comments are closed.