NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again

NOAA_Warm-cool_knobTwo years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be “adjustable” in NOAA’s world. See the examples below.

Josh has been busy again and writes at Bishop Hill with a new cartoon:

The temperature adjustments story has been brewing for weeks principally due to the many posts at ‘RealScience’ but taken up by others, for example, Paul Homewood, see here and here. Judith Curry has a great post about it here, as does Anthony here.

Josh_kansas

H/t to Real Science/Steven Goddard for suggesting including Toto. Cartoons by Josh

Bruce at Sunshine Hours has been doing some unthreading, er plotting, and at my request, prepared some USHCN maps of Kansas, first May’s high temperatures.

USHCN v2.5.0.20140627 May 2014 - KS

I’ve annotated the plot, to include “zombie” weather station that have been closed for years, but still show “estimated” data from NOAA. Those marked NRF are “no report found”…typically meaning NOAA hasn’t gotten the data from the observer yet, which is often mailed in on paper B91 forms.  It is interesting to note how NOAA has been changing the data, in most cases adjusting it higher, though in a couple of cases, lower.

Bruce also plotted some other maps of Kansas, for July 1936, and for July 2012. Note how in July 1936 the Tmax temperature are almost all adjusted cooler, and in 2012, most all Tmax temperatures are adjusted warmer. Click images for larger versions.

Kansas_USHCN_July1936_Tmax

Kansas_USHCN_July2012_Tmax

Whatever happened to just using actual measured data? There is no justification for this.

And, NOAA can’t even keep their story straight about July 1936 temperatures. From a report I did in 2013:

NCDC’s SOTC July 2012:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/07

Screencap of the claim for CONUS Tavg temperature for July 2012 in the SOTC:

NCDC_SOTC_HL_July2012

Note the 77.4°F value for July 1936. It is actually still in their SOTC for July 2012 today.

Now let’s look at some plots from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance. I just happened to have one from two years ago. It also says 77.4°F on the plot. The numbers match with the SOTC report. The annotations are mine.

NOAA_USAvg_temps_July_focuson_1936_from_2012

Today, I ran the same plot again, and here is the NEW number for July 1936. The annotations are mine.

NOAA_USAvg_temps_July_focuson_1936_from_2014

NOAA helpfully provided the data which I have saved as an Excel file, it has both 1936 and 2012 July data: NOAA_Tavg_Data_July_1895-2013 (.xlsx)

You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures.

This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.

But wait, there’s more. In January 2013, I ran this story based on an article in the Wall Street Journal: July (2012) Was Hottest Month on Record
My story was:  Does NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keep two separate sets of climate books for the USA?

In that essay, I revised the WSJ graphic. At that time, it looked like this based on new numbers for July 2012 that I found from NOAA:

NYT_revised_july2012

Now, with the new numbers in the Excel File above, output from NOAA, I had to revise it again. It looks like this now:

WSJ_July2012_temps

Now, once again, July 1936 is the hottest month in the US, even if by the slimmest of margins, all thanks to post-facto adjustments of temperature data by NOAA/NCDC.

I suggest that NOAA/NCDC have another one of those meetings like where they decided to keep long dead weather stations reporting as “zombies”, like I showed with Marysville, yesterday, and work on getting their story straight.

This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bullshit of the highest order. It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.

NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.

That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

We already showed yesterday that NOAA can’t get their output data files correct, and we are waiting on a statement and a possible correction for that. But I think the problem is even larger than that, and will require an investigation from an unbiased outside source to get to the root of the problem.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Adjustments/Corrections, Climate data, Government idiocy, NOAA. Bookmark the permalink.

189 Responses to NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again

  1. HenryP says:

    Ja, ja
    these NOAA people are the same guys who say that Alaska is still warming….
    http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg

  2. dellwilson says:

    “it’s bullshit of the highest order.”

    Unexpected from you, but warranted. Has anyone put forth a reasonable argument as to why the adjustments favor cooling the past while warming the present?

  3. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    How does incompetence square up with revising earlier temperatures downwards and more recent temperatures upwards? It seems that the errors are not random, but frequently in a direction that produces more warming.

  4. lorne50 says:

    So right all along we all seen it Anthony why didn’t you ? ;>)

    REPLY: I’ve seen it before, I wrote about it before, Goddard made one claim that I thought was badly wrong, that’s not ignoring everything “all along”. Go look at the WUWT archives and see all the stories I’ve done along these lines.

    Don’t presume to judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. – Anthony

  5. stewart pid says:

    That knob needs numbers … and numbers that go to 11 :-)

  6. Jimbo says:

    The fact that they have to keep adjusting the past is indicative that they don’t actually know what the temperature was. Or they do but CAGW needs to kept alive – it’s currently in intensive care.

  7. Gunga Din says:

    Small typo.
    “But I think the problem is even larger than that, and will require an investigation from and unbiased outside source to get to the root of the problem.”
    Should be:
    “But I think the problem is even larger than that, and will require an investigation from an unbiased outside source to get to the root of the problem.

    Otherwise, thanks for working towards, “Let’s all just be honest about this.”
    (To an honest person, crow is welcomed. Proverbs 17:10)

  8. That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has [Corrected] their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

    That is an old saying, but often it is incorrect. What if the convoluted methodology is known to produce results that are desired? What if the convoluted methodology evolved because cooling the past and warming the present were seen to be highly desirable? What if the convoluted methodology evolved via human guidance with today’s results in mind? What if many people on the inside already knew what we all know now and kept their mouth shut about it?

    As an aside, I have be saying for years that there was wholesale cheating going on with the data sets and now there is proof. How the heck did I know? It is the nature of bureaucracies (and group-think) to provide the ruling elite with the results desired. Why would the “scientists” keeping the temperature records be any different from the minions of the rest of the agencies?

  9. Bob Greene says:

    So the difference is 0.03°F with no estimates of error and no statistical tests of means? Three significant figures with one decimal place and four significant figures with 2 decimal places. Without some more statistics the only thing you can safely say is there was no difference.

  10. noaaprogrammer says:

    Shades of 1984.

  11. richardscourtney says:

    Anth0ny:

    Many thanks for this.

    Some of us have been trying to publicize the frequent data adjustments – and what they mean – for a very long time (see e.g. this) but with no success.

    The fact of “July 1936 now hottest month again” could be the news about data adjustments that may interest the main-stream media (MSM).

    In my opinion, it is now important to determine how to publicize your news to the MSM, and I commend people to post any suggestions they have for the publicity when they make comments in this thread.

    Richard

  12. junior says:

    It seems the past is still under debate, lucky for us the future is much more certain.

  13. jimash1 says:

    “I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering.”

    Really ?

    “never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

    Unless, of course, the malice is a given.

  14. Caleb says:

    Let us go back to early August, 2007, when NASA had to readjust its adjusted temperatures due to the work of Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit. That was a real wake up call for me. I cried foul, but everyone was telling me to calm down. It was just an “understandable mistake,” perhaps due to “confirmation bias.” I know human nature, however, and smelled a rat, and went up like a sheet of flame and was so apoplectic that most of my comments got snipped on most sites. I wish I had saved them, now that the data has been re-re-re-re-re-readjusted.

    The only good thing to come out of this “adjusting” is that, when Steve McIntyre’s site crashed due to abruptly getting a zillion hits, I heard about another site, called “Watts Up With That.”

    Anyone interested in ancient history should look back at the posts from August 8, 2007 at Climate Audit and WUWT.

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/

    In my opinion Skeptics have been amazingly patient and amazingly polite, as they have pointed out error after error after error after error. But for crying out loud! This has been going on for seven bleeping years! I think it is high time to state that obfuscation, at the very least, has been occurring and is of the highest order. It is high time to remove the babies from the bathwater, and dump the bathwater in the sewer. (And you bathwater-people know who you are.)

  15. ossqss says:

    If memory serves me, 1934 was the hottest year on record. Then it mysteriously wasn’t a few years ago. Another victim of the adjustment process?

  16. Stephen Richards says:

    NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.

    And that was what made AW throw his toys out of the pram. Instead of following through on the SG’s method and analysis he threw the toys and came up with the wrong conclusions.
    It took guts for SG to face down AW at a time when he has been struggling to find work because he was exposed through skeptic blogs.
    This episode was one of the most digusting I have witnessed from a skeptic blog since the whole thing started. Yes AW has apologised and yes that is far more honest than any team climate scientist but it was still very wrong.

    This issue when SG raised it was about as serious as anything yet seen in the climosphere. This is fabrication, it is cheating both themselves and the pûblic who pay their salaries and it has enabled the EU, Obama democrats, the UN and every other public teat succour to rob the poor of their hard earned cash while they live the life of absolute luxe.

    junior says:

    June 29, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    It seems the past is still under debate, lucky for us the future is much more certain

    Brilliant !!

    Anthony, I really do appreciate very much your work but please avoid this damage in the future. We need a coherent skeptic blogerie. Thanks

    REPLY: “And that was what made AW throw his toys out of the pram.” No, it was because Goddard originally claimed 40% of USHCN STATIONS were missing, which I knew from my survey to be wrong, and then he changed it to DATA after I complained but did not note the change in hist story. It seemed like sweeping the issue under the rug. Plus I could not get his code to run to replicate the problem, and our own USHCN data didn’t show the problem.

    Let me make one thing clear, if somebody says something that I think is patently false, I’m not obligated to go along with it. That’s tribalism like we see from Mann’s buddies not speaking out about his work being a train wreck, and there is no place for it here. – Anthony

  17. JimS says:

    I wonder what NOAA has to say about this statement by the Chief:
    “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
    Obama said that in 2013. Does anyone within the federal agencies have the guts to say, “Hey, you are quite wrong, Mr. President.”

  18. Reg Nelson says:

    Have there been any UHI adjustments to any of these data sets? And if not why not?

    The argument for TOBS is that the conditions (time of measurement) have changed. Same holds true for UHI (conditions have changed).

  19. temp says:

    unless papers get retracted its all just another run of coverup.

    The past is a moving target and it doesn’t matter if the papers are not using the wrong numbers as long as they support the proper goal.

  20. richardscourtney says:

    Caleb:

    At June 29, 2014 at 1:17 pm you say

    This has been going on for seven bleeping years!

    No, much longer than a mere seven years.

    I again draw attention to this which cites, quotes and discusses a climategate email (from me) about this subject dated 23 November 2003.

    And please note that the paper about the data alterations which was blocked from publication had 18 signatories.

    Richard

  21. DirkH says:

    richardscourtney says:
    June 29, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    “The fact of “July 1936 now hottest month again” could be the news about data adjustments that may interest the main-stream media (MSM). ”

    No. MSM stopped doing reporting a long time ago.
    That’s why noone’s watching it anymore.
    Guess they’ll have to make it mandatory.

  22. cjames says:

    Just did a little checking at NCDC Climate at a Glance site. I’d like to include the actual graphic in this post but I don’t know how so here is the URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ You can plot the data for Michigan from 1895 to 2014. The trend is given as +0.2 degrees F per decade. However, I have archived an older plot from 2010 (wish I could show it to you) that gives the decade trend as +0.01 degree F. The new plot has cooled many of the temperatures prior to 1930 by 2 to 3 degrees F giving a century trend that is now 200 times warmer than their previous plot. Astounding!

  23. Clay Marley says:

    The IRS, the EPA, the Justice Department, BATF, all filled with corruption and cronyism. I should think NOAA is no different. NOAA’s head, Kathryn Sullivan, has made a number of alarmist statements, many debunked here at WUWT. On the NOAA web site is their statement on AGW, alarmist and backed up by the very data we are questioning. So no, the null hypothesis is not incompetence.

    I am sure there are good people over at NOAA but I cannot expect a satisfying response, especially if the real data shows no warming, or shows the past as being warmer than today. This is going to be a long hard slog through the slime of post-normal science.

  24. Lawrence13 says:

    All the persistence by Steve/Tony was a steady drip, drip but it was Christopher Booker that really made this a serious news item and has raised Tony’s kudos despite people on his side trying to diminish his reliability to new giddy heights. So I think Booker deserves some respect as he has frequently put his neck on the line in criticising AGW theory.

    But now everyone of the sceptics is on board and maybe the luke warmers- what next?

    If the Las Vegas do next month does anything surely it is to shout from the rooftops how government officials (NOAA) have either been totally incompetent or IMO lied just as with Lerner
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/29/issa-lerners-attorney-has-outright-lied/

    Surely if I can be forgiven for speaking in cliché’s , this is a game changer.

    It’s got to give Mark Steyn a fillip as well.

    Well done all and especially Steve/Tony who I hope makes his mind up soon as to what he bloody wants to be called ;-)

    One last word: do you think Mann, Obama, Mooney, Stoat, Cooke and all that crowd are wincing and writhing these last few days?

  25. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Please Sir? Can we call it “fraud” now? It’s staring to look more like it…

  26. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures.”

  27. Rud Istvan says:

    The problem is endemic. Successive versions of NASA GISS have also cooled the past, even though their website uses Tokyo to show how the past should sometimes be warmed to compensate for UHI. Dr. Morohasy has documented the same for Australia BOM. HadCrut4.2 warms more than HadCrut 4.1 (provable by simple comparison of archived 4.1 to present 4.2. NIWA was sued over this issue in NewZealand.
    If it was just NOAA, then it could probably be the usual government incompetence. But when NASA, CRU, BOM and NIWA all get caught out doing the same things ‘independently’, there are two possibilities. First, the fundamental homogenization algorithm logic is wrong (the Bob Dedekind hypothesis). But then why have none of these organizations spotted the flaw(s)? Confirmation bias? Second, malice at least in the form of willful blindness on top of confirmation bias. The growing pile of global evidence points strongly to the latter.
    This is going to become an equivalent of AR4 Himalayan glaciers. And happening at the perfect time, an election year, for old ‘the science is settled’ Obama and Holdren.

  28. scf says:

    I agree with Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    June 29, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    When something like this has been going on so long… When the adjustments literally change a temperature drop to a temperature increase across the entire nation… When you see the changes occurring year after year after year, all moving the long term trend towards more warming in the present and cooler temperatures in the past.. When there is no credible and conceivable reason why the temperatures in 1930 need to be adjusted downwards conitnuosly through the 2000s… When the alarm has been raised (most prominently by Goddard, but also by Courtney above, and lots of others) yet no action has been taken…

    … then it’s more likely to be explained by malice than incompetence. Perhaps not malice, but like a white lie, a deliberate deception intended for the greater good. They’ve been trying to create a clear upward trend in the temperature record and they’ve been successful. The fabricated data is displayed prominently in both academic papers and in the media.

  29. TimO says:

    Wow… 77degrees. If it got to 77 here in Florida, the residents would be putting on their winter coats.

  30. norah4you says:

    Repeating an earlier statement of mine – the so called experts forgotten or deliberatly avoid all Theories of Science…..

  31. Having taken a quick peak at the homogenization code (referenced here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/) and having a little more familiarity with the data and now realizing they change the data daily:

    “The raw database is routinely reconstructed using the latest version of GHCN-Daily, usually each day. The full period of record monthly values are re-homogenized whenever the raw database is re-constructed (usually once per day)”

    And also realizing that estimating mostly just reinforces trends ….

    It may not be anything nefarious. The data sucks. It is inadequate for climate. Math won’t help. But the BEST cult members and the AGW cult members think if they apply just the right amount of math they can turn crappy weather data into good climate data. And they are wrong.

    Its a trap they’ve fallen into. And they can’t get out of it or don’t want to get out of it.

    The data is crap for climate.

  32. Alan McIntire says:

    “stewart pid says:
    June 29, 2014 at 12:44 pm
    That knob needs numbers … and numbers that go to 11 ”

    A “Christopher Guest” fan- I appreciated your “Spinal TaP” allusion.

  33. Rud Istvan says:

    CJames, D’Aleo posted the same thing yesterday for Maine. And someone else posted it for California (I think here back in April). It is endemic in the newest GHCN, nClimDiv, compared the previous version Drd964x. The switch was made near yearend 2013.

  34. cjames says:

    Re: Sunshinehours1

    Yes. Isn’t it convenient that their new methodology increased the warming trend by 200 times? What is the correct warming trend?

  35. SandyInLimousin says:

    Anthony
    Expect a call from the BBC at any moment
    I’m sending the link for this story to their Have You Got A Good Story link here
    http://www.bbc.com/news/10725415

  36. Felflames says:

    So, are there any senators etc. in the U.S.A that might want to use this information ?
    Surely there is at least one ?

  37. Caleb says:

    RE: richardscourtney says:
    June 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    I stand corrected. And thank you for standing for the Truth.

    I should have written, “I’ve known about this bleeping (f-word, but not the 4 letter one; rhymes with “odd”) for seven bleeping years, and others even longer…”

  38. A C Osborn says:

    Anthony, can I draw your attention to the Graphs that Zeke supplied of Global and US Surface Temperatures which supposedly shot down Steve G in flames. Graphs 7 & 9 on the “On ‘denying’ Hockey Sticks, USHCN data, and all that – part 2″ Thread?

    Are those graphs for real and reproducable, if they are then you can see in one pair of graphs what this is all about.

    Do they bear any relationship to an MM Hockey Stick?

    Do they bear any relationship to any other current graphs out there that is used for all sorts of Climate analysis?

    Do they bear any relationship to slowly rising temperatures induced by a steady increase in CO2?

    The answer to all 3 questions is NO!!!

    If those graphs are for real then they blow the whole UN/IPCC narrative out of the water.
    They cannot possibly let the poublic see those graphs after having the Hockey Stick rammed their throats for the last 15-20 years.
    The Hockey Stick must be maintained by hook or by crook.

  39. crosspatch says:

    I believe there is no one single cause going on here and we are seeing an accumulation of various errors, assumptions, and processes. I seem to recall that sometimes, when a value is missing for a specific day (not a monthly value) an average is selected for that station for that same date across the entire record. A modern warming trend would tend to increase that average. So every month when the new data are produced, new averages are computed for the missing day. When you have a larger amount of missing data over time, we see this average playing a role of increasing weight.

    Another problem seems to be in how they adjust for inflection points in data. A good recently publicized example is this one:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/dont-miss-jennifer-marohasy-speaking-in-sydney-wednesday/

    What appears to have happened here is that there was a step change in the data in 1980 or 1981. In response to that step change, they make a few assumptions. 1) they assume the data after the step change is more accurate than the data before. 2) they assume that the trend after the step change was occurring before that change. It seems not to dawn on them that trends can change. You can have 20 years of cooling and 20 years of warming. They appear to simply take the trend after the step and adjust all prior data to reflect that same trend even though it clearly did not exhibit any warming trend before the step change. Assuming newer data is more accurate than older data is bad enough, but assuming a recent trend trumps an older trend is just plain wrong. I believe Australia shares some of the same adjustment processes with NOAA but I do not know with certainty that it is true that they do.

    When you start adding all of these things together, what you end up with is baloney. There is no reason to go back into the record and retroactively change a number unless previously missing data are discovered and the record is being made more complete. Using modern temperatures to influence past data is a recipe for disaster.

  40. Alpha Tango says:

    Hmmm – call me a cynic – but this sounds like a good way to bust the pause – quietly massage recent years down – then hey presto – pretty soon they’ll be able to say them temps are on the rise again. Sweet.

  41. crosspatch says:

    Correction, there IS a slight warming trend in the data prior to the Australian station inflection point but it seems to be exaggerated by the “adjustment” process.

  42. Roy UK says:

    So according to NOAA the whole of the USA is a near dustbowl (like 1936).

    I flew back to the UK yesterday, from Atlanta GA, and I seem to remember that on friday there were lots of green trees and fields everywhere. Maybe it changed overnight after I left. Maybe the rest of the US is in the same place as it was in 1936 right now. But I would truly love to see the pictures comparing today to 78 years ago.

    Anyone? Please?

  43. cjames, I’m not sure there is a warming trend long long term. Or if there it is it is tiny.

    For example, TMAX raw December (gridded on a 1×1 Lat/Long grid) 1895 to 2013

    trend = .01C/decade,

    Some of the months are just below 0, some are 0, some are slightly above like December.

    https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ushcn-v2-5-0-20140627-tmax-dec-gridded-1×1-1895-2013.png

    TOBS increases the trend. Final Increases the trend.

    But essentially the raw trend is dead flat since 1895.

  44. milodonharlani says:

    Felflames says:
    June 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Senator from Kansas’ southern neighbor:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

  45. David says:

    Any change to the raw data should be peer reviewed, documented and easily available (transparent). If better techniques come up, they can be easily implemented. If errors were made, one of the thousands scientists (from any field) can spot it, and test his ideas against the community of other scientists. That should be the case for any scientific endeavor, but is even more important in this case because of the policy implications.

  46. KRJ Pietersen says:

    “it’s bullshit of the highest order”.

    Absolutely right. When we are told daily that “Sorry, the debate is over or in fact never existed in the first place; we know the world is warming and AGW is the culprit; now, let’s consider what new taxes and regulations can be introduced worldwide to crowbar the temps back down again”, damn straight it’s bullshit of the highest order.

    It turns out, unsurprisingly, that the global temperature records, the basic fuel for this AGW machine, are just so much collateral damage in the fight by the climate change industry to win a political war.

    We were told very very recently that May was the “hottest on Earth since records began”. Well, maybe it was in the imaginary world of adjusting new temps up and old ones down, but I very much doubt it in the real world, frankly.

  47. sinewave says:

    What’s really sad about this is that if everything wasn’t so politically charged over the whole CO2 debate all this work by Anthony Watts could be seen as a nice contribution to process improvement for reporting present and historical weather data by the various government agencies, a heroic volunteer civic effort.

  48. A C Osborn says:

    scf says: June 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm ” Perhaps not malice, but like a white lie, a deliberate deception intended for the greater good. ”

    This hits the Nail right on the head, many of the warmists have openly come out and stated that the “Means Justify the Ends”.
    Stealing, Lying, Fabricating, they have been caught doing it all, because they think it is necessary and justified.

  49. crosspatch says:

    And why to we need TOBS adjustments to automated stations?

  50. Berényi Péter says:

    Eh, they are just preparing for another one of their splendid “warmest July on record” moments with press release &. great noise &. all.

    Please note temperature of July 1936 was decreased from 77.4°F to 76.8°F, making way easier to surpass it at some future date. The fact July 2012 was adjusted downward a bit more, is immaterial in this respect. Old news is never news.

  51. gregole says:

    Excellent that this is picked up. We have to push for real answers.

    And this is by far the most clever Josh cartoon ever. Layer after layer of irony! Josh, you are a genius!

  52. cjames says:

    sunshinehours1…. Yes, I agree, there is likely no trend. Unfortunately, anyone checking NOAA’s site would never come to that conclusion and isn’t that the site most researchers and politicians (if they can read a graph) use?

  53. NikFromNYC says:

    I busted the NOAA within days of their opening of the Climate.gov web site as being propagandists with my own little graphic arts effort:

    http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg

    What a gift this graphic deception was since I was ready with its exposure when Climategate afforded so much attention to skepticism. I posted it and a few other infographics tens of thousands of times to news sites along with little read along comments so I didn’t come off as just spam. It was easy converting conservatives that way, but liberals, oh boy, no, not so easy. I was even attacked for drawing a line at all, and often banned when I mocked attackers right back.

    But now that Goddard’s zombie stations are found to be real, do they really form an adjustments hockey stick? This graphic artist amateur would like to know, as I’m sure would the media.

  54. itocalc says:

    On the surface of things it seems some eager undergraduate or first year graduate student could spend some time with the newspapers of July 1936 and diligently record the official temperature data as given at that time, then write a nice paper. Or is this naive?

  55. Taphonomic says:

    To quote a recent Secretary of State: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    So the temperature data has been revised so many that it’s like the Talking Heads’ hairstyle (“I changed my hairstyle, so many times now, I don’t know what I look like!”)

    This is just one of the things that the government keeps revising. Now gross domestic production, when they revise that (twice) so that it goes from a quarterly increase of 0.1% to a decline of 2.9%, we’re in for a bumpy ride keeping track of all the government lies as we go deeper into the recession.
    http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

  56. Tom J says:

    ‘As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.’

    I really hate to say it, but that statement is completely inaccurate. Believe it or not I happened to have known the original author of that statement (trust me :-) and the truly correct wording that he/she originally gave it was, “Never attribute incompetence to what can be explained as simple malice.”

    He/she has repeatedly complained to me that the words ‘incompetence’ and ‘malice’ were switched around by someone who was either incompetent when repeating their statement or was acting with malicious intent.

    REPLY: Maybe, but without a reference your comment is simply an opinion, not a fact. What I wrote reflects exactly what I wanted to say, no need to rewrite or adjust it. – Anthony

  57. John Goetz says:

    Is there a written description of the algorithm being used and has that description been compared with the code used to make adjustments? I am guessing that the algorithm makes adjustments to data – old and new – based on the entire temperature record available, which grows every month.

    For example, adjustments made in 2014 to the temperatures of 1936 have nine years more data than adjustments made in 2005 to the temperatures of 1936. If there is a trend one way or the other from the beginning of the record to the present, the adjustments would reinforce the trend.

    This is what GISS is doing with their process of estimating monthly and seasonal temperature values when they are missing from the GHCN record. The estimates are revised as present data comes in, as if temperatures recorded in 2014 somehow influence temperatures 20, 50, or a hundred years ago.

  58. Chip Bennett says:

    This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act…

    NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.

    That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

    Mere incompetence – artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering – would reasonably be expected to produce a normal distribution of error, especially given the hundreds of thousands of data points impacted.

    But that’s not what we see. All of the error serves to cool the past, and to warm the present – in other words, all of the error serves to bolster the very assertion being promoted. At the micro level, as original, historic station data are being adulterated on a monthly basis, the data are modified upward or downward subtly. But at the macro level, the net adulteration always – always – serves to cool the past, and to warm the present.

    It is utterly implausible that the observed error is random.

    REPLY: I never said it was random, you inserted that idea. I said it was likely due to incompetence, and confirmation bias tends to push that one direction – Anthony

  59. Ric Werme says:

    Bob Greene says:
    June 29, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    So the difference is 0.03°F with no estimates of error and no statistical tests of means? Three significant figures with one decimal place and four significant figures with 2 decimal places. Without some more statistics the only thing you can safely say is there was no difference.

    At a minimum, I’d say that USHCN’s error bars should reflect the amount a temperature sample varies in the database. I don’t see how they could possibly argue for less than that for their infilled/zombie data.

    I’m uncomfortable using the word “fabricated,” but I do like “zombie.” I wonder how NCDC reacts to zombie. I wouldn’t be surprised if they adopt it themselves in internal meetings.

  60. Anthony Watts says:

    John Goetz, I’ve asked for a flowchart, and was rebuked.

    Your idea makes a lot of sense though.

  61. Rud Istvan says:

    In 2007 NOAA published ‘documentation’ of USHCN homogenization V2. It is available on line at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn. Turgid prose. No flow chart. No valid back testing comparisons to V1. About all that can be learned is that the explicit separate UHI adjustment in V1 was eliminated as ‘no longer required’ by the new automated “PHA”. V2 has provably been tinkered with since 2007, but I can find no documentation of the subsequent modifications.

  62. Mike Maguire says:

    After erasing the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, huge adjustments to centuries of well documented data, what’s the big deal with a degree or 2, here and there and there and here and here and there (:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html

  63. The temperature adjustments story has been brewing for weeks …

    A little understated I should have thought. Real Science has been banging on about this for years. See Thermometer Magic posted September 2010. Anthony has highlighted the issue on these pages countless times. Jennifer Marohasy
    has been busy for several years trying to get some transparency on adjustments in Australia. The following from a post by Michael Hammer on Marohasy’s site, dated June 2009.

    The corrected data from NOAA has been used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming yet it would appear that the rising trend over the 20th century is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the “corrections” applied to the experimental data, at least in the US, and is not visible in the uncorrected experimental data record.

    This is an extremely serious issue. It is completely unacceptable, and scientifically meaningless, to claim experimental confirmation of a theory when the confirmation arises from the “corrections” to the raw data rather than from the raw data itself. This is even more the case if the organisation carrying out the corrections has published material indicating that it supports the theory under discussion. In any other branch of science that would be treated with profound scepticism if not indeed rejected outright.

  64. NotAGolfer says:

    Anthony, wake up! It’s intentional. They are trying to make it appear that the warming trend is greater than it is. It’s beyond obvious. Do you still believe Clinton didn’t inhale?

  65. FlyingFox says:

    In case it has not occurred to you, someone, AW, should send the cartoon to Lamar Smith.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/lamar-smith-what-is-the-epa-hiding-from-the-public-1403563536

  66. This was already reported over at American Thinker two months ago in an article entitled “July 2012 was Not the Hottest Month in U.S. History”: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/july_2012_was_emnotem_the_hottest_month_in_us_history.html

  67. Leigh says:

    “That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, ”
    Yes they have.
    Why else would the “oops slips” adjustments always reflect global warming.
    This “one”may have been an “accidental adjustment” but it was still a deliberate action by someone to again adjust temperature records away from the available raw data.
    With the evidence that is availiable around the world only a fool wouldn’t believe that.
    And a fool you are not.
    Do I or others really need to remind you that they are in control of historic weather data around the world are continuall “adjusting” the raw data to suit the fraud?
    If they didn’t there simply would be no “justification” for continuing the fraud.
    If you hadn’t already read it and I suspect you have.
    This is for others who might be under the impression of “only in America”.
    Yes bureau’s of meteorology right around the world are “controlling” the weather.
    From rainfall gauges to temperature records and every thing else that will prop up this fraud.
    America is not alone when comes to calling out what these fraudsters are doing.
    http://joannenova.com.au/?s=bom+records+before+1910

  68. Latitude says:

    “No, it was because Goddard originally claimed 40% of USHCN STATIONS were missing, which I knew from my survey to be wrong, and then he changed it to DATA after I complained but did not note the change in hist story. It seemed like sweeping the issue under the rug. Plus I could not get his code to run to replicate the problem, and our own USHCN data didn’t show the problem.”
    ===
    You know……I honestly hope you stop saying this
    (hey, I can have hopes too)

  69. evanmjones says:

    Shades of 1984.

    We can adjust for that, too.

  70. B says:

    Surely they aren’t using an algorithm that purports to determine what the temperatures of the past are based on future temperatures?

  71. “That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

    That is an overly generous interpretation of what looks like plain old fraud. It is fraud generated by a bureaucracy that wants to provide its masters with exactly what they are looking for. It is also the action of a bureaucracy that sense a chill wind blowing from some unknown quarter and senses that there may be questions asked later and perhaps a bit of a witch hunt or two.

  72. Toto says:

    Hey, that’s my favorite movie!

  73. John Slayton says:

    Unless they have reinstituted temperature measurement since I was there last year, Buffalo and Cherokee OK will need to be added to the zombie list.

  74. Tom J says:

    Tom J on June 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    My sincere apologies. I meant no offense. I guess the joke didn’t work.

  75. Sweet Old Bob says:

    And why do the Zombie stations in Kansas seem warmer than their neighbors ?
    More fudge anyone ?

  76. DaveW says:

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.” – attributed to Albert Einstein. The ‘cocked-up vs conspiracy’ meme has been around for a long time, and is reasonable when a process is more or less free from political agendas, but that is not true here. I think it is time to move on to malice: stupidity isn’t a sufficient explanation.

  77. Angech says:

    B sadly this is exactly what Zeke says they do, each month, past temperatures are adjusted down as new monthly data comes in.

  78. Bill Illis says:

    We should not believe the numbers produced by the NCDC.

    Just take 0.35C off whatever trend they produce. This is what other analysis suggests is the unjustified adjustments.

    We need to bring in an independent team of forensic auditors and real statisticians to see what has actually happened. Then it should be turned over to a national statisical agency who do not have a stake in advancing the AGW agenda. Population, employment, GDP numbers are produced in this way (and almost everyone who has a stake in this data believes the national statistical agencies are doing a good, objective job in maintaining this data) so why is the global and US temperature data done in a different way. This is what as referred to as the “best practise”. Write your congressman.

  79. DaveW says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.” – attributed to Albert Einstein. The ‘cocked-up vs conspiracy’ meme has been around for a long time, and is reasonable when a process is more or less free from political agendas, but that is not true here. I think it is time to move on to malice: stupidity isn’t a sufficient explanation.

    This is absolutely true. How could all the people working on the data set not know what is going on? Each month the past cools and the trend line is therefore made to look better for the alarmists. No one will ever be able to say “we just did not know this was going on!!” There is just no credible way to explain this situation without invoking malice and on a grand scale at that since every single employee knows what is going on. (unless they have some blind people working there of course)

    Angech says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    B sadly this is exactly what Zeke says they do, each month, past temperatures are adjusted down as new monthly data comes in.

    Every day the data changes as it turns out, not just at the end of the month.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/luling-keeps-changing/

  80. u.k.(us) says:

    Tom J says:

    June 29, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    Tom J on June 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    My sincere apologies. I meant no offense. I guess the joke didn’t work.
    ================
    Don’t ya hate it when that happens.
    The written words, lose the humor.
    I feel your pain.

  81. clipe says:

    FlyingFox says:
    June 29, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    In case it has not occurred to you, someone, AW, should send the cartoon to Lamar Smith.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/lamar-smith-what-is-the-epa-hiding-from-the-public-1403563536

    To get around the paywall on the WSJ article…

    https://www.google.ca/webhp?complete=0#complete=0&q=What+Is+the+EPA+Hiding+From+the+Public%3F+

    The “/webhp?complete=0″ is just my personal choice to switch off Google search auto-complete.

  82. Angech says:

    Anthony, this is a Catch 22 situation for temperature measurement and assessment and I cannot see a clear way around. The methods used all involve infilling and data from surrounding stations which is needed to maintain a set data base 1218 in the case of USHCN. When they infill they have developed rules that allow them to input and use data from previous years and also to then refill previous years (smoothing?) .
    One option would be to say,no, only infill the current month based on the best information we have for that month and leave it alone.
    The problem may have been compounded from the desire to fix past observations with TOBS changes, but having opened this can of worms the changes were not cast in stone immediately but left in place to continually alter the past based on what happens in the present.
    The option here is to stop using TOBS alterations altogether.
    Put a caveat on past absolute records saying “methods were not as robust as in current measurement”
    then use that system as our baseline with infilling as suggested only allowed once each month with no reference to the past.

  83. jimash1 says:

    “Every day the data changes as it turns out, not just at the end of the month.”

    So the whole record has become a roulette wheel of sorts.
    The ultimate application of Monte Carlo Methods.
    And the house always wins.

  84. SIGINT EX says:

    This is “off-topic” but could become ON-TOPIC in a few hours.

    EPA-Denver Ofc, “Trouble In The Jungle of EPA [Vietnam]“.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/epa-pooping-hallways_n_5530650.html

    From the report it appears that the rank-n-file at EPA-Denver know full well that
    EPA and they as employees are doomed.

    Doomed by the Religious Righteous of Obama, Holdren and the EPA Admin.
    to their detriment.

    Fragging the Lieutenants is starting … such as feces in hallways … and we can expect the stakes
    to go higher for sure! Not just EPA-Denver but all over the USA.

    Rightly the rank-n-file know full well that EPA is the laughing stock in the “Global Warming”
    circus, including IPCC at the top of the list.

    Well, the morgues are waiting for the “chosen” hopefully those will be the admins of regional and National Office.

    Oh dear. I should click the ….

    LOL

  85. Pamela Gray says:

    On the other hand, this is kind of like the TSI/SSN data series. There are, as we have discussed, different reconstructions and observations that differ from one data set to another. The fact that it is being corrected is a matter of scientific correction. Not necessarily evidence of wrong doing.

    Could this be a good sign when dealing with a very horrible set of measuring issues?

  86. NikFromNYC says:

    Ric Werme mused: “I’m uncomfortable using the word “fabricated,” but I do like “zombie.” I wonder how NCDC reacts to zombie. I wouldn’t be surprised if they adopt it themselves in internal meetings.”

    I coined the term “zombie station” about a month ago:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/if-current-trends-continue-100-of-ushcn-data-will-be-fabricated-by-2020/#comment-362395

    …then Goddard in paranoid fashion attacked me for wanting to continue the scam when I enthusiastically asked for plots of those stations since I lacked the software set up to do my own.

  87. John Goetz says:

    Anthony,
    I grabbed a copy of the code Friday evening and started looking through it. I grabbed it to see how they were combining multiple time series for a single station. It is a later version of Fortran than I am familiar with, but with enough time I should be able to make heads and tails of it.

    REPLY: John, thanks, and welcome back. The last time I used FORTRAN was in the punch card era.

    Menne’s papers might provide some insight

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/31/best-menne-slices/

    - Anthony

  88. Truthseeker says:

    Anthony,

    It is you that have been fighting a strawman of your own making …

    No, it was because Goddard originally claimed 40% of USHCN STATIONS were missing, which I knew from my survey to be wrong, and then he changed it to DATA after I complained but did not note the change in hist story. It seemed like sweeping the issue under the rug. Plus I could not get his code to run to replicate the problem, and our own USHCN data didn’t show the problem.

    This is what Steven Goddard actually said …

    This is the line Anthony is referring to, from his original E-mail

    This claim: “More than 40% of USHCN final station data is now generated from stations which have no thermometer data.”

    Is utterly bogus.

    I didn’t say the stations were missing. I said they had no thermometer data, which is exactly what is happening. Every month in 2014, about 40% of the stations have no thermometer data.

    What Steven Goddard has always been saying is that the reported data has an increasing proportion of estimated data rather than measured data and that proportion is now up to 40%.

    REPLY: But then when I complained about the STATIONS MISSING issue, he went and changed his text on his website:

    BEFORE: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/goddard_before.png
    AFTER: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/goddard_after.png

    So if it wasn’t about stations being missing, and my perception of it being about that, why did he need to change it? That suggested to me he had made a mistake. Had I been able to get his code to compile, it might have been different.

    Its all water under the bridge now, unless you just want to keep on playing some sort of “gotcha” game. Me, I’m moving forward, I have work to do. Kindly move out of the way. -Anthony

  89. Lloyd Martin Hendaye says:

    Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern; and beyond three-point patterns, consistent anomalies constitute a trend.

    In law and logic, discernible patterns are evidence of non-arbitrary incentives, motivations, tendencies. Regardless of bruited cause-and-effect, Ockham Rules: Whether by ideological diktat, incompetence, or sheer stupidity, NOAA’s manifest dereliction renders this malfeasant agency’s productions strictly worthless.

    When “official” becomes synonymous with “lie,” the question does become: Qui bono?

  90. Lawrie Ayres says:

    The BoM in Australia has been fiddling the books for ages in order to arrive at “the hottest summer ever” and when an audit was about to take place cancelled that system and started another which was just as fraudulent. We do have a new government with a representative that’s a real scientist. He has been calling for another audit and will probably get it as many Coalition members are skeptics. The whole land based temperature system is in disarray as the keepers of the records all seem to be warmists except for the Russians and Chinese.

  91. Caleb says:

    This stuff gets me so hopping mad I can’t enjoy the web. Because I’m no good at math I can’t attack by going through thousands of itty bitty numbers like some of you do. Instead I go out and chop wood or shovel the stables, thinking of nasty things to say.

    The best I could come up with this:

    Someone gave these NOAA data manipulators the same advice I got before my first date: “Start out by massaging, and pretty soon you can take advantage.”

  92. Jose Tomas from Brazil says:

    Menne?

    As in “menne menne tekel upharsin” ?

  93. michael hart says:

    “July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again…”

    Which means that after the 2012 temperatures are duly adjusted down, 1936 can later be eased down again slightly and the stage will be set for another new “hottest month on record”.
    Am I being too cynical?

  94. Jose Tomas from Brazil says:

    Now seriously.

    Here is a suggestion for making this go to the MSM.

    I am aware that there are people here who are regular readers and subscribers to the WSJ, specifically James Taranto’s daily column (The Best of the Web Today).

    I have read Macrena Sailor’s name here (it is a small world) who is one of those people and a regular contributor (her name often is listed in the acknowledgements list at the bottom of the column). There are probably others.

    Taranto is in the Editorial Board of the WSJ and is a skeptic himself. And one of the most intelligent and fearless journalists I know of. He is immensely influential and people like Paul Krugman expel foam from their mouths when referring to him.

    If Macrena (or others) cans give him this hat tip, I am pretty sure we can have the WSJ to cover this in no time.

  95. Adam says:

    The temperature is whatever we say it is. So there. Nuhhh-neee-nuuuuh-neee-nuuuuuh-nuuuuuh.

  96. RAH says:

    Clay Marley says:
    June 29, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The IRS, the EPA, the Justice Department, BATF, all filled with corruption and cronyism. I should think NOAA is no different.
    =============
    You forgot NASA GiSS “Science Division”.

  97. When you look at the year by year NCDC data, they have adjusted it multiple times. I noticed them changing it last year, for 2012, and they changed it yet again for 2013.

  98. BallBounces says:

    Obviously present-day AGW is having a nefarious quantum effect on the past, causing previously “settled” temperatures to fluctuate. This means AGW is more dangerously diabolical than previously thought. Not only is our future existence at risk, so is our past! Only strong, immediate, and total government intervention can save us.

  99. James Ard says:

    As hard as malice is to define, especially in this hair trigger libel/slander environment, I think the old saying is just about worthless. It probably isn’t malice that has energy poor citizens cold in the winter, that’s just an unfortunate side effect in the hoaxters quest for riches. But it certainly isn’t incompetence.

  100. Bill Illis says:

    The thing is, let’s say the real warming is only 0.4C instead of 0.75C.

    Then the theory is substantially wrong and everything has to be rewritten. Reputations are forever ruined. Lots and lots of people, thousands of people, face this scenario.

    if you are Tom Karl, the head of the NCDC or, Tom Peterson, the head of temperature measurements at the NCDC, and you have both staked your reputations and scientific career in promoting global warming for 30 years, (30 years of promoting this stuff at the very highest levels including advise to the President, Congressional testimony and dozens of papers), are you going to put your thumb on the scale when you have complete control of the scale and nobody can check where your thumb is and your employees do not dare to talk about the thumb on the scale because they have cushy, high paying jobs and they believe in global warming in the first place or they wouldn’t have been hired by Tom Karl and you have back-up scientific papers about why your thumb was justified to be close to the scale …

    … would you put your thumb on the scale.

    Human nature does not go against human nature. People are what people are and people do not let opportunities like this go by.

  101. Catcracking says:

    Re the MSM. It is not just global warming that is being misrepresented, Some stuff is ignored. This is captured by Ramirez who is my favorite political cartoonist on investors.com.

    http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-062914-press-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.gif.cms

    The MSM will ignore the correction except possibly Fox.

  102. Latitude says:

    Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    This is absolutely true. How could all the people working on the data set not know what is going on? Each month the past cools and the trend line is therefore made to look better for the alarmists. No one will ever be able to say “we just did not know this was going on!!” There is just no credible way to explain this situation without invoking malice and on a grand scale at that since every single employee knows what is going on. (unless they have some blind people working there of course)

    Every day the data changes as it turns out, not just at the end of the month.
    ================
    Mark, you almost got there…..you just didn’t go far enough

    It’s absolutely impossible for the guys running the climate models….by the time they plug in their numbers……the numbers have changed…it’s impossible for them to have not noticed

    Someone could have invented the perfect climate model…and they will never know it

    I don’t know if you guys realize it……this invalidates every climate model ever made or run

    Anthony (just checking, wanted you to see this)

  103. Alan Robertson says:

    milodonharlani says:
    June 29, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Felflames says:
    June 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Senator from Kansas’ southern neighbor:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
    _____________________
    Senator Inhofe just won his June Primary race against all challengers by an incredible 87+% margin of victory.

  104. Jeff Alberts says:

    So “all time” is only since 1895? Who knew?

  105. rogerknights says:

    Bill Illis–you’re my favorite commenter here.

    Felflames says:
    June 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    So, are there any senators etc. in the U.S.A that might want to use this information ?
    Surely there is at least one ?

    A congressman (House member–where the GOP has a majority) would be more influential now.

    Ric Werme mused: “I’m uncomfortable using the word “fabricated,” but I do like “zombie.”

    In the prior thread (yesterday) on this topic, someone nominated “Zombiegate” for this affair, which I seconded. It’s going to need some concise handle, so why don’t we get behind this one? (Maybe Anthony could run a poll?)

  106. Latitude says:

    This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
    =====
    That is exactly what Goddard has been saying all along……
    …..and you had a fit over “fabricating”, it’s not so far fetched after all, is it?

    Do you guys realize what this means?

    It invalidated everyone’s work, it invalidates every climate computer program…

    Every single thing that has anything to do with temperature reconstructions.

    ….let the fireworks begin

  107. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.
    What about Power, Greed, Security, Status, and Fame?

  108. Peter B

    Think the famous quote is from Napoleon.

    “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

    Napoleon Bonaparte

    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleonbo130787.html#KV2yPP7qJoTw255t.99

  109. Greg Goodman says:

    Could this downward rearrangement of recent temperature peaks be something to do with much awaited release of climate reference network data?

    It was rather surprising that, by the time they finally released some numbers, the USHCN was almost identical.

    Seems that there’s some horse trading been going on in data ‘adjustments’ to ensure the the USHCN did not look badly biased by the time they released CRN.

  110. H.R. says:

    “If you like your temperature, you can keep your temperature. Period.” Oh… wait…

  111. Chewer says:

    You said it well Latitude!
    Sh*t has hit the fan and it smells quite odiferous;-)
    Attacking the MSM along with humiliating the criminals must be Job #1.

  112. Latitude says:

    Chewer says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:00 pm
    You said it well Latitude!
    ===
    LOL…the entire world order just changed
    Goddard is/was right all along……left alone, they could have probably beat him down

    Making a huge deal about it by saying how wrong he was all over the internet….
    …and then having to eat it, made it entirely too big a deal to ever go away

    …things work out for the best

    The entire world order just changed today people…..I’m still stunned

    Years of work, based on temperature reconstructions modeled after “whack a mole”…
    …years of work, just turned into garbage

  113. Jose Tomas from Brazil says:

    Oh the irony of it all…

    So it seems that the science is settled, but the temperatures are not?

    Well, this comes from the love of models. They were not satisfied with modeling the future temperatures, they wanted to model past temperatures too!

  114. Jimmy Haigh says:

    So that’s what they mean by “hindcasting”…

  115. F. Ross says:

    Just goes to show that we should never worry about today’s temperatures.
    After all, in fifteen or twenty years or so we can always adjust today’s temps downward in order to make those future temps warmer.
    It’s starting to feel cooler already.

  116. PMHinSC says:

    Latitude says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:45 pm
    “Do you guys realize what this means? It invalidated everyone’s work, it invalidates every climate computer program…”

    Unless, of course, Zeke Hausfather is correct and it “doesn’t” make any difference. I think I’ll wait to see how this plays out before jumping to a conclusion that may be premature.

  117. Rick K says:

    Anthony, just my note of thanks for sticking to the truth wherever it leads.

  118. Joel O'Bryan says:

    I completely understand that real science is quantitative and we don’t ask or demand answers to simple questions of “is it hotter or colder?”. Science demands quanitation (how much) and are differences significant using accepted statistical tests. Anecdotal evidence and experential bias is not science to be trusted.

    That being said, I can remember as a boy freezing my butt off on camping and late-fall hunting trips with my dad and uncles. Those were cold times sitting and waiting for whitetail deer. In the last 20 years, as an adult, those same hunting trips are usually cool but not cold.

    If we are indeed just seeing the beginning of a multi-decade cooldown in the climate, many Americans and Europeans will be none too keen on the Democrat’s and Greens Liberal anti-carbon crusade that is already starting to seriously jackup winter heating bills. The whole Climate Change meme could collapse on the Environmentalists within the next 6 years as we head to a solar minimum. The US enviro-Libs have to be worried about a coming decadal cooldown even if the millenial trend is upward, since most people vote with their pocketbook.

  119. Mike T says:

    Apologies if this has been seen before, but I found this intriguing. My reaction was “has anyone proved the opposite” viz that there is incontrovertible proof that “climate change” caused by humans is real?
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/25/want-to-disprove-man-made-climate-change-a-scientist-will-give-you-10000-if-you-can/comment-page-3/

  120. DirkH says:

    Peter Brinkley says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:46 pm
    “Peter B
    Think the famous quote is from Napoleon.
    “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.””

    A wonderful excuse for the malicious.

  121. crosspatch says:

    William Teach says:
    June 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    When you look at the year by year NCDC data, they have adjusted it multiple times. I noticed them changing it last year, for 2012, and they changed it yet again for 2013.

    They adjust it practically monthly. Here is the adjustment history of two temperatures since 2008. The more recent one gets adjusted generally upward and the older one gets adjusted generally downward over time.

    http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif

    More info here:

    http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#NCDC MaturityDiagram

    This information has been posted there for years, by the way. It isn’t like people hadn’t noticed.

  122. Truthseeker says:

    Anthony,

    The before and after shots you have provided show that you missunderstood what was being said in the “before” page and that is understandable because, in isolation, it is a little ambiguous. Having seen the ambiguity based on your response, Steven then clarified the language as you see in the “after” page, but it does not change the meaning of what has been said.

    Having followed Steve’s blog for a while now I had enough background information to know what was meant in the “before” page, but it was badly expressed. However going postal as you did was not a flattering response and your apology, such as it is, is less than it should be as you continue to misquote and misunderstand other things Steve has said in the past and say he has a “history of being wrong”.

    Yes I have every right to be as offended as I want and you have every right to ignore my opinion.

    That works both ways.

  123. As Roy Spencer Said in April 2012:

    “Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes.

    And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/

    It ain’t warming … its adjusting.

  124. lorne50 says:

    Don’t presume to judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. – Anthony

    I’m not friend just saying after reading through the back stuff on here don’t see the station adjustments from drop off just the sitting problems ;>) I still think this blog is the best for science and respect you in every way SIR .!!!!

  125. B says:

    So having had the best temperature recording technology available in history NOAA, one of the world’s leading governmental authorities on determining average regional temperature, admits it’s July 2012 USA temperature determination was almost a full degree wrong….yet has the hubris to ask us and scientists to believe it has reliably and accurately determined the USA temperature100 years ago to the tenth of a degree…

  126. Joel O'Bryan says:

    tB wrote,”yet has the hubris to ask us and scientists to believe it has reliably and accurately determined the USA temperature100 years ago to the tenth of a degree…”

    the global warming/climate change/climate disruption meme will not succeed or fail, in the mind of the public where it matters to policy makers, based on 1/2 degC in some arcane database. It will fail or succeed in the public democtratic vote based on whether heating costs or cooling costs are skyrocketing. That is, it will be tested by reality.

    And Because right now, it is failing, we hear the some green CAGW adherents advocating for Obama to become dictator to force anti-carbon policy prescriptions on an unaccepting public.

  127. Konrad says:

    Mike T says:
    June 29, 2014 at 8:14 pm
    ———————————
    Thanks for that. I have challenged. I have asked where to submit the empirical evidence.

    Should be fascinating. I wonder how he will try weaseling out of paying?

  128. phodges says:

    Regarding the Napolean quote. As a grizzled old 1SG told me…”If it were only incompetence, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

  129. Rud Istvan says:

    Phodges, you have that right. For the fancy homogenization equivalent, see Steriou and Katsoyiannis at the 2012 EGU. Their 163 global GHCN sample was 2/3 biased upwards, and the measured bias could account for up to half of all recently observed ‘global warming’

  130. save energy says:

    cjames says:
    June 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Just did a little checking at NCDC Climate at a Glance site. I’d like to include the actual graphic in this post but I don’t know how so here is the URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ You can plot the data for Michigan from 1895 to 2014. The trend is given as +0.2 degrees F per decade.

    However, I have archived an older plot from 2010 (wish I could show it to you) ”

    I say, –
    There must be some way of getting the older data/plots out on line, anyone with any evidence has a moral duty to expose this fraud for what it is….FRAUD, this is a total corruption of science.

  131. richardscourtney says:

    Konrad:

    re your post at June 29, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    There is no empirical evidence – none, zilch, nada – that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity (i.e. anthropogenic global warming, AGW) have or are discernibly affecting global temperature.

    Furthermore, the data of global average surface temperature (GASTA) often changes for each data set and this compounds the difficulty of obtaining any evidence of AGW. The importance of this is demonstrated by Santer’s failed attempt (in the 1990s) to claim he had detected a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW in global temperature data sets.

    Richard

  132. Greg Goodman says:

    Wall Street Journal article on EPA: “Scientific journals in a variety of disciplines have moved toward data transparency. Ms. McCarthy sees this effort as a threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences in late April, she defended her agency’s need to protect data “from those who are not qualified to analyze it.”

    h/t to clipe for link.
    https://www.google.ca/webhp?complete=0#complete=0&q=What+Is+the+EPA+Hiding+From+the+Public%3F+

    And she, as head of EPA is presumably the ultimate, objective arbiter of who is “qualified” to see the sacrosanct data.

    My God, these idiots are really trying to move us back to a situation like the middle ages when the church had a monopoly on knowledge. Yet another demonstration of the pseudo-religious zealotry all this has become.

    The data does not need “protecting” from open access, since no matter how qualified the reader is they cannot change the data by reading it.

    On the contrary, open access will PROTECT the data from improper and incompetent manipulation. That in truth is what she fears.

  133. Greg Goodman says:

    she defended her agency’s need to protect data “from those who are not qualified to analyze it.” …. and from those who are !

  134. Greg Goodman says:

    Greg Goodman dedi ki:
    Haziran 30, 2014, 1:46 am

    Cool, WP has just decided to talk to me Turkish.
    “Bir Cevap Yazın ” indeed.

  135. Stephen Fox says:

    Greg Goodman dedi ki:
    Haziran 30, 2014, 1:46 am

    Cool, WP has just decided to talk to me Turkish.
    “Bir Cevap Yazın ” indeed.

    Yes, the whole of the other adjustments thread has dedi ki for ‘says’.
    Damn warmists…

  136. DavidR says:

    I compared trends in UAH v5.6 lower troposphere (LT) data for the contiguous USA (column marked ‘USA48′ here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt ) to the NOAA cUSA data for the period 1979-2013, which is the 35 ‘whole years’ period over which they can be compared.

    The trend in UAH’s ‘USA48′ LT is +0.23 C/decade.
    The trend in NOAA’s USHCN is +0.27 C/dec.

    So the total difference between the trends in NOAA surface data and UAH lower troposphere data for the contiguous US from 1979 to 2013 is exactly 0.04 C/dec. That’s probably smaller than the error margins involved. Is the UAH data set produced by ‘incompetents’ too?

  137. Martin A says:

    Those marked NRF are “no report found”…typically meaning NOAA hasn’t gotten the data from the observer yet, which is often mailed in on paper B91 forms.

    Which century are they living in? 20th? 19th?

  138. richardscourtney says:

    DavidR:

    At June 30, 2014 at 3:05 am you ask

    The trend in UAH’s ‘USA48′ LT is +0.23 C/decade.
    The trend in NOAA’s USHCN is +0.27 C/dec.

    So the total difference between the trends in NOAA surface data and UAH lower troposphere data for the contiguous US from 1979 to 2013 is exactly 0.04 C/dec. That’s probably smaller than the error margins involved. Is the UAH data set produced by ‘incompetents’ too?

    No. Adjustments are made to USHCN each month. Therefore, the more months that pass the more ‘adjustments’ are made to past USHCN data. Wait some more years and the USHCN trend for 1979 to 2013 will be much larger than that of UAH.

    The past is being altered by the present and the alterations increase because tomorrow will be another present!

    Richard

  139. beng says:

    This looks exactly like the IRS scandal (and others) where so many preposterous excuses & incidents pile-up that eventually any reasonable person has to conclude that it’s outright fra*d.

  140. Oscar Bajner says:

    Ever attribute to Alice what cannot be explained by simple incompetence.
    (That would be Alice in Wonderland, with the ‘drink me” bottle at hand)

    July, 2014, the “climate” crisis finally ends, with the realization that the ability to adjust the temperature of the past, is also the ability to adjust the temperature of the future.

    BTW, cheers and fortitude to ALL “skeptics”, whether or not you like each other, or squabble
    from time to time.

  141. catweazle666 says:

    “As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

    Quite.

    However, bear this in mind also:

    “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action”.

    We are well past three times now.

    I think you’re way too charitable when it comes to these Government institutions, Anthony. A pity you didn’t see fit to extend the same indulgence to Steven Goddard.

  142. DavidR says:

    richardscourtney says: June 30, 2014 at 4:42 am

    “The past is being altered by the present and the alterations increase because tomorrow will be another present!”
    ______________________

    That remains to be seen Richard; but at present it’s fair to say that there’s no statistical difference between the warming trend recorded in the US NOAA surface data and that recorded in the UAH ‘USA48′ lower troposphere data between 1979 and 2013.

    Yet only one of the two temperature producers whose ‘current’ data displays almost the same warming trend over the same time period and across the same region is being accused of incompetence. Surely if one data set is flawed the other must be too?

  143. John Peter says:

    I wonder if anyone in USA has drawn this NOAA problem with adjustments and estimated readings to the attention of Senator James M. Inhofe. Surely he would be the best person in government to do something about this problem of ongoing adjustments. Lamar Smith could be another person to be contacted by a knowledgeable US resident preferably located in his own state. It is all very well we lament here, but the only people with the power to do anything important are US members of Congress. What is the US Government auditors doing? Under the thumb of The President and John Holdren?

  144. richardscourtney says:

    DavidR:

    You asked a question that I answered here.

    At June 30, 2014 at 6:19 am you have replied by posing another question and asking

    That remains to be seen Richard; but at present it’s fair to say that there’s no statistical difference between the warming trend recorded in the US NOAA surface data and that recorded in the UAH ‘USA48′ lower troposphere data between 1979 and 2013.

    Yet only one of the two temperature producers whose ‘current’ data displays almost the same warming trend over the same time period and across the same region is being accused of incompetence. Surely if one data set is flawed the other must be too?

    Nothing “remains to be seen” because it is a matter of documented fact that the US NOAA surface data is ‘adjusted’ each month and that the UAH data is not. The trends of the two data sets will diverge if they continue using their present methods.

    I accused nobody of “incompetence”: being mistaken is not the same as being incompetent. My views are completely explained by this.

    Two different methods provide the same result. This does not indicate that either, neither or both is flawed especially when they are indicating different things which are measured by different devices.

    Richard

  145. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I don’t see what the problem is, this is just the natural turning of the climate science circle. They have to fit the reality of the past to the climate models so they may create the reality of the future. It’s logical.

    Be thankful for the progress. They’ve tried fitting the models to the reality of the past, and look how that turned out. Now that they’ve rightfully gone in the other direction, the models will be automatically self-validating. Quite an improvement!

  146. B Dubs says:

    There has been a lot of talk about US temperatures – but are global temperatures subject to the same alteration/manipulation?

  147. Latitude says:

    PMHinSC says:
    June 29, 2014 at 7:30 pm
    =======
    Latitude says:
    June 29, 2014 at 6:45 pm
    “Do you guys realize what this means? It invalidated everyone’s work, it invalidates every climate computer program…”
    ========
    Unless, of course, Zeke Hausfather is correct and it “doesn’t” make any difference. I think I’ll wait to see how this plays out before jumping to a conclusion that may be premature.
    ======
    You have no idea what this is about, do you?

  148. DavidR says:

    richardscourtney says: June 30, 2014 at 6:42 am

    “Nothing “remains to be seen” because it is a matter of documented fact that the US NOAA surface data is ‘adjusted’ each month and that the UAH data is not. The trends of the two data sets will diverge if they continue using their present methods.”
    ________________________________

    Your statement “The trends of the two data sets will diverge if they continue using their present methods” remains to be seen, in my opinion, since, as the subject of this post indicates, past temperatures are being changed upward as well as downward by the present process.

    richardscourtney says:

    “I accused nobody of “incompetence”: being mistaken is not the same as being incompetent.”
    ________________________________

    My reference to the term ‘incompetence’ is not derived from anything you’ve said, but from the content of the above post, which states: “As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

    In my view, a suggestion of ‘incompetence’ on the part of NOAA is clearly implicit in that statement.
    ________________________________

    richardscourtney says:

    “Two different methods provide the same result. This does not indicate that either, neither or both is flawed especially when they are indicating different things which are measured by different devices.”
    ________________________________

    It’s clear from the long term data that there is a close correlation between UAH satellite measurements of the lower troposphere and surface station temperatures; as one would expect, given that the LT and surface are closely coupled. In the case of the US region, between 1979 and 2013 the trend in the UAH lower troposphere data closely corresponds to the trend in the NOAA surface data. The fact that two independent temperature measurement processes have produced more or less the same long term warming trend would normally be regarded as evidence supporting this joint finding.

    If the implication is that the warming *trend* identified in the NOAA surface data is the result of incompetence, then it follows that the very similar trend identified in the UAH data must also result from incompetence. However, if the ‘incompetence’ in question is just with respect to the monthly alteration of previous temperatures, rather than the overall finding of a fairly rapid warming trend in the US over the past 35 years, then that’s a different matter.

  149. DavidR: “The trend in NOAA’s USHCN is +0.27 C/dec.” for 1979 to 2013

    I did it by month. And I used tmax (which is what I’ve been working with)

    Month / Raw Trend / TOB Trend / Final Trend
    Jan / 0.42 / 0.51 / 0.67
    Feb / 0.02 / 0.11 / 0.25
    Mar / 0.16 / 0.26 / 0.42
    Apr / 0 / 0.1 / 0.25
    May / -0.03 / 0.05 / 0.19
    Jun / -0.01 / 0.05 / 0.2
    Jul / 0.03 / 0.08 / 0.22
    Aug / 0.08 / 0.13 / 0.27
    Sep / 0.12 / 0.18 / 0.33
    Oct / -0.13 / -0.07 / 0.08
    Nov / 0.24 / 0.3 / 0.47
    Dec / -0.11 / -0.04 / 0.13

    Ann 0.065 / 0.14 / 0.29

    1998 to 2013
    Month / Raw Trend / TOB Trend / Final Trend
    Jan / -0.89 / -0.82 / -0.56
    Feb / -1.81 / -1.73 / -1.5
    Mar / 0.6 / 0.68 / 0.94
    Apr / -0.36 / -0.27 / -0.05
    May / -0.6 / -0.54 / -0.3
    Jun / 0.43 / 0.47 / 0.73
    Jul / 0 / 0.04 / 0.25
    Aug / -0.33 / -0.29 / -0.1
    Sep / -0.42 / -0.37 / -0.17
    Oct / -0.73 / -0.68 / -0.44
    Nov / -0.68 / -0.64 / -0.4
    Dec / -1.1 / -1.05 / -0.78

    Ann -0.49 / -0.43 / -0.2

  150. richard verney says:

    Angech says:
    June 29, 2014 at 4:19 pm
    /////////////////

    They have, in essence (whether they realise it or not), built in a positive feedback loop, the effect of which is to continually cool the past

  151. DavidR, I get -0.085C/dec for USA48 from 1998 to 2013.

    Not as much of a match.

  152. richardscourtney says:

    DavidR:

    Your entire post at June 30, 2014 at 7:49 am is pure sophistry.

    For example, in response to my having written

    Nothing “remains to be seen” because it is a matter of documented fact that the US NOAA surface data is ‘adjusted’ each month and that the UAH data is not. The trends of the two data sets will diverge if they continue using their present methods.

    You reply with this non sequiter that completely ignores my point

    It’s clear from the long term data that there is a close correlation between UAH satellite measurements of the lower troposphere and surface station temperatures; as one would expect, given that the LT and surface are closely coupled. In the case of the US region, between 1979 and 2013 the trend in the UAH lower troposphere data closely corresponds to the trend in the NOAA surface data. The fact that two independent temperature measurement processes have produced more or less the same long term warming trend would normally be regarded as evidence supporting this joint finding.

    In that case, the continuing NOAA surface data ‘adjustments’ are wrong.

    Also, you attribute to me loads of stuff which I have not said. I gave you a link to my true views and you have ignored that, too.

    Clearly, you are not making any attempt at constructive dialogue: you are merely another anonymous troll.

    Richard

  153. richard verney says:

    DavidR says:
    June 30, 2014 at 7:49 am
    //////////////////

    Are the trends really similar?

    The satellite data shows no linear trend, just a one off step change in and around the 1998 Super El Nino!

    The satellite data is picking up on a one off event of natural variation, on the other hand the NOAA surface data shows something rather different.

    What I can’t understand is why anyone would want to use the surface data after 1979. The satellite data has better spatial coverage and is not adversely affected by UHI and station drop outs. Of course, it is not perfect and may have issues with orbital decay and sensor degradation, but then again so does the land based system with equipment and screen degradation. These issues, are merely error bars. A realisitc error bandwidth should be attached to the satellite data to reflect these issues.

    Since the satellite measuring equipment is supposed to represent our most advanced technology and measuring accuracy, it seems weird that anyone would wish to continue with a data set which is far less competent, especially one which is being stretched way beyond its original design purpose and one which has som many fundamental issues with it..

    The land based data set should end in 1979. Thereafter the satellite data set should be the standard. naturally, no attempt should be made to splice the one on to the other.

    One can use the land based instrument record (preferrably just raw data but with approriate error bars to take account that the raw data comes with warts and all) to shed light on what happened between say 1850 and 1979.

    One can use the satellite data set to see what has happened since.

    The only exception I would make is with CET. Given its length, it is useful to preserve that record.

    Thus going forward, we should in essence just be using the satellite data and ARGO. ,

  154. Sean Cash says:

    Does this Mean Goddard was correct… something is seriously rotten at the NOAA…and perhaps worldwide…?

    If so i would love to see polito’fact’ retract the pants on fire rating and change it to 100% true ..
    But don’t hold your breath on that ..

  155. DavidR, I did this pretty quick so I hope I’m right:

    UAH by month doesn’t match up as well to USHCN by month.

    1979 – 2013
    Jan 0.5
    Feb 0.26
    Mar 0.4
    Apr 0.3
    May 0.16
    Jun 0.16
    Jul 0.19
    Aug 0.16
    Sep 0.2
    Oct 0.11
    Nov 0.28
    Dec 0.03

    1998 – 2013
    Jan -0.14
    Feb -0.7
    Mar 0.66
    Apr 0.17
    May -0.46
    Jun 0.33
    Jul -0.1
    Aug -0.05
    Sep 0.03
    Oct -0.28
    Nov -0.21
    Dec -0.27

  156. Gary H says:

    On the new July plot from NOAA’s State of the Climate, pulling the trend, from 1936 – 2013 gets you a straight level line – no trend for the past 77 years. None at all.

  157. A C Osborn says:

    richard verney says: June 30, 2014 at 8:21 am

    I admire your confidence in the UAH dataset. Personally I think it is very misplaced.
    It does not measure the Surface Temperature, which is where we actually live, like the Thermometer stations do.
    Many times the regional “Lower Troposphere” anomalies have borne no relationship to the temperatures that we have experienced on the ground in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

  158. duke1959 says:

    That you chase temperature readings for your own agenda, (as they do also), clearly shows that you have no real concern about what is going on with our society and the people infiltrating it, eh???

  159. DedaEda says:

    never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

    It seems more and more like a malicious incompetence…

  160. Olavi says:

    Where are honest scientists? Is there any left? Where is liability of NASA, NOAA and GISS? What other data is adjusted to look better?

  161. _Jim says:

    Good work guys (and gals, where applicable.)

  162. _Jim says:

    Tom J says on June 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    I really hate to say it, but that statement is completely inaccurate.

    So, you have first hand knowledge of the office procedures at the Weather Bureau (now known as ‘NOAA”) through the 1900′s up to present day?

    Can you chart for us the progress from manual procedures, including data and station sorting, average temperature calculations for each state, to the first use of tube-type IBM 700 series computers and punched cards, through the tape ‘dataset’ era in the 50′s through to DASD (Direct Access Storage Device) and instant, on-line access systems of today?

    It would be very much appreciated if you could detail this for us.

    .

  163. Sean Cash says:

    The argument on the other side is already coming out, to explain a ~70 years of non warming :
    Its GLOBAL warming … and its warming everywhere else but the US…

    Response:
    FINALLY we have a boarder that stops something… not people, but HEAT…
    All that money has managed to stop the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. its amazing… perhaps we should start writing thesis papers on it!!!

  164. Latitude says:

    As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.
    ======
    I’m curious about this……because I see too many case where it would have to be out and out malice.

    Which would it be when you originate a climate model on one set of data…..and when you go to hind cast based on that exact same set of data ……you see there’s a completely different set of data

    Not screaming your head off about it……would that be incompetence?

    …I don’t think so

  165. Latitude says:

    Its GLOBAL warming … and its warming everywhere else but the US…
    ====
    it’s plausible……we all know the MWP only happened in Cherry Hill, NJ

  166. Steve M says:

    I wonder if NOAA gets their data from these weather stations (USHCN)….great project at surfacestations.org

  167. Latitude says:

    NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

    July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

    According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

    “The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

    This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/#ixzz369vSm4WI

  168. old44 says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    June 29, 2014 at 1:24 pm
    NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.

    Stephen, whilst fabricating is a strong word I feel falsifying is more accurate.

    falsify
    ˈfɔːlsɪfʌɪ,ˈfɒls-/Submit
    verb
    gerund or present participle: falsifying
    1.
    alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
    “a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results”
    synonyms: forge, fake, counterfeit, fabricate, invent, alter, change, doctor, tamper with, fudge, manipulate, massage, adulterate, pervert, corrupt, debase, misrepresent, misreport, distort, warp, embellish, embroider, colour, put a spin on.

  169. Nigel Tuffnel says:

    Does the NOAA knob go to eleven?? ….Nigel Tuffnel

  170. Latitude says:

    Latitude says:
    June 30, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
    ============

    You didn’t notice?……….warming the past and cooling the present???

  171. Rich Lambert says:

    I think NOAA owes the public an explanation of this flip flop. Additionally, Congress should hire a third party to audit their processes and procedures for handling data. Does anyone know if NOAA is accredited by any notified body?

  172. Chip Bennett says:

    At the risk of repeating myself:

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

  173. Duster says:

    One point I would suggest is that average temperatures cannot be “correct” unless there is a frozen data set and a fixed method for handling that data. Very likely neither malice nor incompetence are involved. Slight changes in calculation methods, computing languages (there’s a reason that there are software collections that are authorized for use on critical data systems while other software is not), and potentially even hardware changes. Numeric co-processors can be very temperamental for instance. RAW Historical data should be frozen – that is no “adjustments” should be applied, once an adjustment process has been made the data should be stored to a uniquely identified version with metadata that explains all adjustments.

  174. Duster says:

    old44 says:
    June 30, 2014 at 2:30 pm …

    Neither falsifying nor fabricating meet “least” explanatory complexity criteria. The variations look like grad student data mangling. Attempts are made to try and “fix” a perceived problem or improve a computing process with equivocal results.

  175. Sandy McClintock says:

    Wow!
    … In support of Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: June 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    I see senior people in government organisations asking for multiple statistical models to be run; each ‘run’ produces a different outcome depending on assumptions and parameters.
    Now, armed with a multitude of ‘runs’, the one that best supports the personal view of the senior person can be (cherry) picked for publicity purposes. (Alternatively it might be the outcome that supports the government-of-the-day’s spin doctors).
    If the technical person that has done the statistical work knows that ‘Official Outcome’ is unrepresentative of their many attempts, they are most unlikely to risk their careers by speaking-out publically.

  176. Rdcii says:

    It truly doesn’t matter why the NOAA constantly changes their data about the past.

    If the NOAA believes that their data about past temps was wrong, and was wrong again after adjustment, and was wrong again 3 months ago, and 2 months ago, and last month…

    and if they believe that this data will continue to be wrong, as indicated by the fact that they don’t seem to have any plans to shut down the adjustment software…

    Why would anyone use their dataset for any policy or scientific purpose?

    Oh, I understand that it could never be truly said to be correct…but there’s wrong, and then there’s a change in the dataset over just 2 years that changes the trend from 1.24F/century to 1F/century…

  177. Streetcred says:

    June 29, 2014 at 12:39 pm | lorne50 says

    REPLY: [ ... ] Don’t presume to judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. – Anthony

    By which time “lorne50″ will be a mile away and wearing your shoes … ;)

  178. Blade says:

    NikFromNYC [June 29, 2014 at 4:51 pm] says:

    … I coined the term “zombie station” about a month ago:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/if-current-trends-continue-100-of-ushcn-data-will-be-fabricated-by-2020/#comment-362395

    …then Goddard in paranoid fashion attacked me for wanting to continue the scam when I enthusiastically asked for plots of those stations since I lacked the software set up to do my own.

    Really Nik? Is that really an accurate accounting of the thread you just pointed to? Or is that Jones/Mann level of accuracy?

    Well I just looked, and I see that you first made a perfectly sensible comment ( to which Gail rightly gave you a +1 ) but then in response to someone else I see that *you* went on the attack on the very host of the very blog you were commenting on ( Goddard ). No-one likes that, even Anthony, and yet still Steve Goddard replied but with none of the paranoid attack that you describe. So who is really paranoid here? I am serious, who is the paranoid person?

    I hope that others do what I did, call Nik’s bluff and click on that link and see if he is being accurate in his little diatribe above, or is *he* being paranoid by once again launching an attack against Steve as he has been doing here and there in his various comments about “Real Science” ever since this latest news has made the rounds in the past week.

    Your problem Nik, is that you are singularly the most hot and cold poster I have ever seen. No-one comes close. You exhibit classic bipolar tendencies, lurching from highly sensible and scientific to fall-down drunkard crazy spewing at a moments notice like a perp being handcuffed on COPS. There is no indication that there is a sock puppet around or that your handle has been hijacked ( that I’m aware of ) so what the heck is going on?

    Personally I would suggest a cease-fire, stop the incessant ad-homs and let this real issue of temperature fraud gather momentum, but unfortunately I don’t know which “NikFromNYC” will hear the suggestion.

    P.S. I would also suggest the same to all those taking swipes at Anthony as well. I think Steve and Anthony can sort out their own issues and egos without countless 3rd parties poisoning the well further. All this constant sniping accomplishes is to give cover to the Moshers et al to dodge the news of the day and take a stand for or against data tampering.

  179. Richard M says:

    Has anyone went back and checked to see if NOAA’s claims of recent warmest months were still true. Could it be that last Novembers’ claim is also false?

  180. richardscourtney says:

    Blade:

    I write to support all your post at July 1, 2014 at 1:57 am especially its PS.

    We come here to disagree with respect so we can learn from each other.
    We do not come here to be disagreeable because that hinders mutual respect which we need if we are to learn from each other.

    Of course, in the heat of disagreement we can all make mistakes that provide disagreeable actions which prevent learning (i.e. we become temporary trolls). But such times are a matter for regret and deserve to be ‘slapped down’ (as does all trolling) because they are harmful (as are all trolls).

    Richard

  181. Stephen Fox says:

    Blade,
    Exactly right. At no point was Goddard even impolite, let alone paranoid.
    Perhaps the people of NYC are unusually sensitive souls, easily hurt by unintended slights in the rough and – no, I thought not…

  182. During a break for a late breakfast I tuned in Rush L. on the local station. He was on a rant about this adjustment in temperature and mentioned Anthony. Probably the only place likely to do the story, I suppose.

  183. LogosWrench says:

    Down right Orwellian. Anyone happen to know the temp for 1984?

  184. Ragnaar says:

    Anthony Watts:
    With the interest in soccer recently, is the there any chance Josh will render a cartoon of a certain climate scientist ‘flopping’ in an attempt to have a penalty called on the other team?

  185. Kristophr says:

    Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity AND malice.

  186. This is a manifestation of the media-management ethos of the political class: alter the data in whatever way is required to justify media “splash” (not hard, with a compliant media), then quietly revise away the lie – even if discovered, the vast majority of the initial audience will not see the refutation.

    Autrement dit: lie to (tens or hundreds of) millions; let some piddling fraction of those read the refutation.

    This trick was unashamedly touted by the press secretary for George H. W. Bush (Peter Teely – now a professional charity-parasite) in a NYT article on November 1 1984 after Bush was caught lying in a candidate’s debate:

    “You can say anything you want during a debate and 80 million people hear it,” observed Peter Teeley, press secretary to Vice President Bush. If reporters then document that a candidate spoke untruthfully, ”so what? Maybe 200 people read it or 2,000 or 20,000”.

    I can’t remember who it was that said “A lie will travel halfway round the world before the truth gets its pants on” – very poignant, but misses the main point, in that the vast bulk of those who tut-tut at the lie, will never become aware that it has been refuted.

  187. FTA- “As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

    But don’t rule out malice. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/but_dont_rule_out_malice.html

  188. Ockham says:

    How to be sure that the blue and violet graphics are obtained with the same parameters, and the same statitistical treatment ?
    NOAA still pretends : “July 2012 was the warmest July and month on record for the contiguous United States”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/7/supplemental/page-2

    NATIONAL (CONTIGUOUS U.S.)
    July 2012: warmest July on record
    Top 10 July temperature anomalies

    1st July 2012 +3.3°F
    2nd July 1936 +3.1°F

    so it’s like the blue graphic, which is different from the violet one, bur is it a change of datas or two differents methods applied ?
    Moreover cold record for 1950 and 1992 are differents too.

    PS : sorry for my poor english

Comments are closed.