I've been waiting for this statement, and the National Climate Assessment has helpfully provided it

The National Climate Assessment report denies that siting and adjustments to the national temperature record has anything to do with increasing temperature trends. Note the newest hockey stick below.

NCA_sitingh/t to Steve Milloy

Source: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/low/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_LowRes.pdf?download=1

Yet as this simple comparison between raw and adjusted USHCN data makes clear…

2014_USHCN_raw-vs-adjusted

Click for graph source – Source Data: NOAA USHCN V2.5 data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

…adjustments to the temperature record are increasing – dramatically. The present is getting warmer, the past is getting cooler, and it has nothing to do with real temperature data – only adjustments to temperature data. The climate reality our government is living in is little more than a self-serving construct.

Our findings show that trend is indeed affected, not only by siting, but also by adjustments:

Watts_et_al_2012 Figure20 CONUS Compliant-NonC-NOAA

The conclusions from the graph above (from Watts et al 2012 draft) still hold true today, though the numbers have changed a bit since we took all the previous criticisms to heart and worked through them. It has been a long, detailed rework, but now that the NCA has made this statement, it’s go time. (Note to Mosher, Zeke, and Stokes – please make your most outrageous comments below so we can point to them later and note them with some satisfaction.).

 

 

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Slayton

Note to Mosher, Zeke, and Stokes – please make your most outrageous comments below so we can point to them later and note them with some satisfaction.).
I dunno, Mr. Watts, Dad used to say to let sleeping dogs lie.
: > )

emsnews

Puck the Magic Hockey Stick lived by the sea… 🙂

They will make a warming trend regardless of the actual data.

Latitude

I wonder if people realize the adjustments are more than the claimed global warming…..
and without the adjustments……it would show cooling

klem

“..quality analyses of these uncertainties have not found any major issues of concern affecting the conclusion..”
And if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.

I have question reagarding another graph used in the NCA report. it’s the one showing average global temperature data (black line) since 1900 with a green bar showing model predictions with natural influences only. It implies that human activity has recently caused warming. But How do they explain 1910 data which shows average temperatures much lower than it would have been with natural forces? This seems to imply that humans caused cooling just after the turn of the century. Does anyone what the reasoning is?

The Adjustment chart is really the smoking gun isnt’t it? After seeing that, it is hard to consider the surface record as credible.

Anything is possible

The post-normal scientific method :
“If the data does not fit the theory, adjust the data.”

Yes, but the basin is getting larger so you have to add an adjustment to compensate for that. Or something.

MattN

What is their justification for a 1.6F positive adjustment?

Latitude

Matt…..because you adjust up for UHI

Dudeashaneo

I present The Climate Change

tom s

Disgusting.

Rud Istvan

I have written an entire Essay on this for the next book on energy and climate. Essay title, When Data Isn’t. Getting worse, steadily worse. USHCN V2 over V1, GHCN after YE2013(new nClimDiv), HadCRU4r2 over r1, Aus BOM, NZ BM, everywhere except the satellite records UAH and RSS. All cool the past and warm the present, the opposite of proper homogenization for UHI. Calculates at least 3/7 of the global record since 1900, and more likely half. Many places, cooling was turned into warming. Reykjavik, Sulina (Rumania), Darwin (Aus) some better known specific examples of complete inversion.

tom s

Latitude says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
Matt…..because you adjust up for UHI (/sarcasm)…there, fixed.

obviously they left Alaska out?
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg

DC.sunsets

All science is Political Science when politics writes the grant-money checks.

Mike Singleton

Time to let lose the hounds.

The present is getting warmer, the past is getting cooler, and it has nothing to do with real temperature data – only adjustments to temperature data.

Sorry, my last post escaped and was incomplete.
Anthony said;
“The present is getting warmer, the past is getting cooler, and it has nothing to do with real temperature data – only adjustments to temperature data. ”
Mosh has explained to me several times why his algorithm makes it OK to cool the past but I still don’t really understand his rationale. Perhaps YOU can explain it?
tonyb
REPLY: Other than to say it is bullshit of the highest order, I can’t. In business, people would go to jail for doing things like that. Ever since Mosher joined BEST, he stopped thinking rationally about this issue. – Anthony

Janice Moore

This is a completely GOVERNMENT-controlled report:
“USGCRP is a confederation of the research arms of 13 Federal agencies, which carry out research and develop and maintain capabilities that support the Nation’s response to global change.
USGCRP is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS), and overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).”
{Source: http://www.globalchange.gov/about/organization-leadership — emphasis mine}
Full of boldfaced l1es and recklessly unsupported conjecture such as this:
“Climate change is happening now. The U.S. and the world are warming, global sea level is rising, and some types of extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe.”
{Here: http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change}
it is OBVIOUSLY biased to the point of uselessness.
**************************************************************
{from my comment yesterday on this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/05/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-95-new-temperature-record-of-102-in-wichita-but-look-where-they-measure-it/}
NOAA is just a propaganda machine for the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers (such as windmill project investors):
For “Breezy” — NOAA’s graphic is….. you guessed it! A bunch of windmills:
from: http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=33.448376495000446&lon=-112.07403860799968&site=all&smap=1#.U2gI0sJOVDw
(yesterday about a 3PM)
“This
Afternoon
Breezy
http://forecast.weather.gov/images/wtf/medium/wind.png
(windmill graphic)
Breezy”
******************************************************
Also related are these WUWT posts:
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/why-the-noaa-global-temperature-product-doesnt-comply-with-wmo-standards/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/questions-for-noaa-and-nps-death-valley-that-have-gone-unanswered-related-to-the-100-year-celebration-of-the-hottest-ever-temperature/
****************************************
HOWEVER…. TAKE HEART!
The Average American Isn’t Buying It
USGCRP Man {knock, knock, knock – front door}:
Joe the Plumber {opens door, cocks head, narrows eyes}: What do you want?
G Man: To talk to you about climate change. Trust me. I’m from the government.
JP: Yeah, sure…… . LOL!
G Man: You can feel it getting warmer, er, colder, er… more extreme.
JP: Nope. I don’t. Sorry, but you’ll have to go. You’re making me miss the game. {gentle nudge and…. firmly SHUTS the front door…. G man left standing on front porch…. alone.}
*********************************************
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaa! CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. More extreme weather events — NOT.
You can SMELL the desperation — that report reeks of it, heh, heh, heh.

Thanks, Anthony.
The blade in the new hockey stick does not look robust enough for the task of turning the skeptic tide coming in.

wventura

What happened to the hockey stick of 1998? Did it move to 2014 by magic?

As with the IPCC, the Adaptation Chapter lays out the guts of planned actions. It also suggests Learning by Doing. That would be what Marxists call Theory in Action. CAGW is just the excuse.
Don’t miss the Risk Disk.

Janice Moore

“REPLY: … it is bullshit of the highest order, … .” An-tho-ny {to TonyB at 11:46am}
Precisely!
Amen.

CRS, DrPH

Here’s an interview with the lead author, Alan Robock, who still thinks the Soviet Union is in power (I kid you not):
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11824
ROBOCK: John Holdren, his science advisor, knows that. The question is: politically what can you do? And money talks. You know, so as they used to say at a clothing store New Jersey, money talks, nobody walks. So money is very important in power.
And, now, you say the problem is capitalism. We could get in a whole discussion of what other economic system. But the Soviet Union, which isn’t that capitalist, is living on their fossil fuels and they’re selling them. They aren’t even–.
JAY: In Russia.
ROBOCK: In Russia, yeah.

michaelozanne

“Other than to say it is bullshit of the highest order, I can’t.”
Gosh, and they call me terse…

ralfellis

.
They are trying to Hide the Recent Decline by padding the temperatures. But how long can they keep padding, until the petticoats of reality begin to show beneath the fabricated hemline?

.
Its a bit like the UK Labour Party trying to keep a straight face, while promising that the money supply and government spending was not out of control. The give-away was when Gordon Brown said he had ended the economic boom-bust cycle – everyone then knew that we were in for a great monetary bust.
You can only dam the tide of reality for so long…..
Ralph
P.S. Thanks for your inept gold sale, Gordon, I made a packet on that one…

Michael D

This is so discouraging. How can we communicate this to the media in such a way that they understand it? Can the auditor general check the facts, and check your calculation, so that there is a formal statement from a national official? Can the scientific and political resources of other large countries (e.g. Australia?) provide a critique?

michael hart

So, technically, it’s a second-order hockey stick. Right?

Michael D

re: “You can only dam the tide of reality for so long” :
How long? How many more times can they push down the past temperatures?

Janice Moore

@ Andres Valencia (11:50am) Very nicely put.
Cheers! #(;))

Latitude

climatereason says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:46 am
Mosh has explained to me several times why his algorithm makes it OK to cool the past
=====
cr, here’s a trick question for Mosh….
Ask him how is it possible they can publish adjusted data….from stations where they have no raw data
============
Steve has some great ‘blink’ charts on the adjustments………
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

Latitude

oh for crying out loud…..what bad word did I use that time
I’m trying to not use any and thought I had most of them figured out by now…
got a post in moderation hell again…………..

Honestly that Table 28.6 on page 683 could be renamed as Barriers to the Intended Revolution whether Voters Want It or Not. For someone like me who has taken the intentions of changing the US social, political, and economic systems based on the supposed Age of Abundance from 1960 to 2014, it really does read as the unstoppable nonconsensual political coup that has been sought for so long.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

The small adjustment made by most datasets for UHI could be disproved it they considered only the rural stations over the period. I mean the real rural stations, not the satellite chosen ones. Stations unencumbered with streets, buildings, people, vehicles and the like should give an accurate record of temperature.
REPLY – Fear not. Our team is ALL ABOUT microsite. We have isolated the well sited stations and obtained the “true signal”. ~ Evan

Conspiracy theorists are crazy.
I think not in this case.
I’m a Criminal Conspiracy theorist.
In this post there’s some of the evidence.
In “Climategate” there’s more.
Let’s here Algore say ” This is the type of catastrophic fraud we can expect as ‘Climate Change’ progresses.” in his condescending preacher’s voice.

Conspiracy theorists are crazy.
I think not in this case.
I’m a Criminal Conspiracy theorist.
In this post there’s some of the evidence.
In “Climategate” there’s more.
Let’s here Algore say ” This is the type of catastrophic ‘intentional falsehood’ we can expect as ‘Climate Change’ progresses.” in his condescending preacher’s voice.

Consp1racy theorists are crazy.
I think not in this case.
I’m a Criminal Consp1racy theorist.
In this post there’s some of the evidence.
In “Climategate” there’s more.
Let’s here Algore say ” This is the type of catastrophic ‘intentional falsehood’ we can expect as ‘Climate Change’ progresses.” in his condescending preacher’s voice.

Julien

So indeed, there isn’t anything new here that we didn’t already know. Instead of detrending urban stations to get natural temperature variations without any side effect of UHI, they adjust the temperatures trends of rural stations upwards to hide the UHI phenomenon…

James Strom

The graph of temperature adjustments from Steve Goddard is devastating. In view of the critical remarks about Steve’s methods often made by one of your more cryptic commenters, it would be good to have a full discussion of the data that went into that graph.

Nick Adams

MattN says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:25 am
What is their justification for a 1.6F positive adjustment?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

ckb42

Anthony, I know we have only data for a relatively short time, but what does the REFERENCE network show versus the full USHCN at this point? I assume the network of reference sites is still intact?
I’m really just curious – my belief is that surface temperature (at least in the way we are currently measuring it) is useless for climate studies (but great for weather) and we should turn mainly to the satellite data.

Evan Jones

The conclusions from the graph above (from Watts et al 2012 draft) still hold true today, though the numbers have changed a bit since we took all the previous criticisms to heart and worked through them.
Talk about the endless nights, the lost weekends . . . I’ll be needing to attend HCN Anonymous.
Our final results are (roughly):
Class 1\2 (raw+MMTS): 0.185 C/decade
Class 3\4\5 (raw+MMTS): 0.335 C/decade
Class 1\2 (NOAA-adjusted): 0.324 C/decade
Class 3\4\5 (NOAA-adjusted): 0.325 C/decade
To demonstrate conclusively that the stations we dropped are not a result of cherrypicking:
Class 1\2 stations we dropped (raw+MMTS): 0.118 C/decade
Class 3\4\5 stations we dropped (raw+MMTS): 0.213 C/decade
That’s after dropping TOBS-biased stations, dropping stations with known moves, and adjusting for MMTS conversion. Those were the objections back in 2012. Anthony’s decision to make a pre-release was one of great wisdom and foresight: It elicited these criticisms which allowed the corrections before we hit peer review. I’ll be making a set of new maps Real Soon Now.
“quality analyses of these uncertainties have not found any major issues of concern affecting the conclusion..”
Well, except for the “quality” part. (Okay, and the “analysis” part.) But fear not! “Rev. Anthony and his screeching mercury monkeys” are on the job!

Two hockeysticks equals one boomerang

Bob Kutz

Sorry, but I can’t seem to find the USHCN final minus raw graph on the link.
Any help?

Joseph Murphy

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.

Anthony,
Methinks the last point in your raw vs adjusted USHCN graph is in error.
As far as the need for homogenization goes, we’ve been over this time and time again. There are certain network transitions (TOBs, CRS to MMTS, de-urbanization of stations post 1940s) that introduce some pretty significant biases into U.S. temperature records, most of which are (unfortunately) in the same direction. Not correcting for these gives you a skewed picture of what is actually going on. Its relatively easy to check if pairwise homogenization approaches are leading to systemic bias; simply create experiments using synthetic data like Williams et al did (which is cited in the paragraph in your post). They found that worlds with positive biases were addressed just as effectively as worlds with negative biases. We found similar results when testing the Berkeley homogenization approach.
Also, your initial graph conflates TOBs adjustments with other homogenization (e.g. for station moves or sensor transitions). TOBs represents the bulk of the adjustment, at least for minimum temperature; homogenization in the U.S. actually reduces the century scale trend in minimum temperatures relative to TOBs-only adjustments.
I was pretty amused to find the Assessment citing Fall et al of evidence that homogenization is effective in removing biases in the station network. I can’t comment on your new work until the data is available, so we will have to see how it turns out.

Anthony said in reply to me (with respect to cooling the past)
‘REPLY: Other than to say it is bullshit of the highest order, I can’t. In business, people would go to jail for doing things like that. Ever since Mosher joined BEST, he stopped thinking rationally about this issue. – Anthony’
I’m glad its not just me, I thought I was being incredibly stupid in not understanding the rationale, as Mosh says it with such assurance.
tonyb