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.
h/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…
…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:
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.).
For those who thought that last data point on the chart up top looked fishy, see this:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/05/nonsense-plots-of-ushcn-adjustments.html
It’s pretty interesting.
“playing from the same charts?”
Coming late to this, the major error may be faith in Steve Goddard. Perhaps someone might inquire about that last step and y axis scale?
REPLY: Nick made some errors of his own, but we’ve got it all sorted now. Look for a new post showing the reason behind the spike. – Anthony
Claimsguy says “This is interesting”
It is, and the comments are interesting, and the identities of the commentators more so.
Suffice it to say that the last point in Goddard’s graph is spurious, and there are problems with the rest of it as well.
“It is, and the comments are interesting, and the identities of the commentators more so.”
Very interesting, especially given how this discussion was started:
“(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.).”