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.).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“Other than to say it is bullshit of the highest order, I can’t.”
Gosh, and they call me terse…
.
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…
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?
So, technically, it’s a second-order hockey stick. Right?
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?
@ur momisugly Andres Valencia (11:50am) Very nicely put.
Cheers! #(;))
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/
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.
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…
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.
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
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.
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
Sorry, but I can’t seem to find the USHCN final minus raw graph on the link.
Any help?
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