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.
They will make a warming trend regardless of the actual data.
There is a warming trend. In order for bad microsite to exaggerate a trend, there must be a real warming trend to exaggerate.
But their homogenization procedure identifies the “outliers” (i.e., the lower-trend Class 1\2 stations, ~20% of our sample) and adjusts them to conform with the poorly sited 80% majority. Homogenization therefore eliminates all trace of the true signal. (At some point I will ask Anthony if I can make an actual post on that.)
Anthony,
Regarding your upcoming paper, I hope you look in detail at what is happening to CRN12 stations in the late 1940s. There was definitely some massive step changes that were being picked up by the homogenization algorithms: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-145.png
What is happening is mainly that stations are being moved from city centers to newly constructed airports and wastewater treatment plants. Many of these stations are (oddly enough) CRN12 despite being located at airports. This move leads to a big step change downward, which is removed via homogenization.
For your new results, how do the 1970s-present trend differences between unhomogenized and homogenized stations look? Is the difference still dominated by a big step change in the 1940s?
Dale Hartz
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.
In East Africa there are just four, REPEAT FOUR, stations currently reporting.
Three are at airports, and the other is at Mwanza, which has a population of 700,000.
All bar Dar es Saleem are classified as rural, as they are dark at night, e.g. the airports don’t operate at night, so the other three have no UHI adj.
At Dar es Salaam, there is no UHI adj since 1960, despite the population growing from about 129,000 to 4 million since then.
Does the word FRAUD spring to mind?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/how-reliable-are-temperature-records-in-africa/
obviously they left Alaska out?
Yes, but Alaska is not part of USHCN. Waste heat rather than heat sink will tend to be more of an issue up there. Both the delta and the dampening.
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutely not just you. In fact, Mosher is on record as claiming that station drop out and hence fewer stations doesn’t affect anything. Well, if that is so, adding stations ought not to affect anything either. He can’t have it both ways, but was silent when I pointed that out.
Paul Homewood,
Berkeley Earth has 78 active and 167 former stations in East Africa: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/eastern-africa
Davidmhoffer
Perhaps the additional stations are magic ones whereas the reduced stations are just plain ordinary ones
tonyb
Zeke
Berkeley Earth has 78 active and 167 former stations in East Africa:
GISS/GHCN have FOUR
Let’s make a $1000 bet — You say the climate will be warmer or unchanged on 1 January 2050 if the USA doesn’t take steps to address the problem! I say regardless of any any steps the United States takes the climate will be warmer, colder or unchanged on 1 January 2050!
I’m pretty sure no one — not even climate-change fanatics — will take this bet! In addition, the climate-change fanatics will have to admit that regardless of any steps the USA may take the efficacy of those steps won’t be measurable until 2060 at the earliest!
But leaving that fact aside, the effects of any steps the USA may take will be negligible unless China, India and the Third World take comparable steps, i.e., China and India will have to reduce their GDPs by roughly 50% and Third-World folks will have to find a more climate-friendly substitute for animal dung when cooking or staying warm!
Make that bet $10,000!
Does anyone here think it is coincidental that Brookings picked today to launch its new Planet Policy blog? http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy
For those who do not follow what Brookings pushes under the name of Metropolitanism or Global Cities, the NCA becomes the reason the already desired changes that used to go by the name Regional Equity suddenly become a federal mandate.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past”
– George Orwell
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.
There is the TOBS issue. Either one must adjust (upward) for that or else drop the biased stations. Or at the very least, split the trends.
Paul Homewood,
Indeed. GHCN v3 has only four. GHCN v4 released next year will have 78 :-p
evanmjones,
Station moves and instrument changes also introduce real bias. I’ll be interested to see how MMTS transitions are dealt with in the final paper. Congratulations on all the hard work by the way; we may not always agree on things, but doing the grunt work needed to get a paper published helps advance science in the long run, no matter which of our conclusions stand the test of time.
@ur momisugly Tony B (12:37pm) — “Mosh says it with such assurance.”
B. S.ers are good at that.
Truth-tellers only assert with high confidence what they firmly and reasonably believe to be true and they tend to assume that the B.S.er does likewise. B. S.ers count on this.
That you want to believe him says good things about YOU, Tony B!
*********************************************
Well, Latitude! I’ve been watching for your moderated post to appear for nearly an hour, now… I wonder what in the WORLD you did say (lol — just mod on lunch break, no doubt), heh. At least you now have a “watch this space” interest going in some of us… .
#(:))
Good luck!
The average reasonable person may not follow advanced math, but they know the smell of bs when they smell it.
This report, attemtping to once again silence skeptics, will fail.
For reference, here are the max and min temperature for stations with MMTS transitions compared to nearby stations without transitions for the 10 years before and after the instrument change. The effect is not subtle, though there is a fair amount of variation at the individual station level.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/MMTSCRStobs_zps40c7749e.png
Adjustments must be up because the sun doesn’t shine at night.
LOL….Hey Janice ( inset wavy hand thingy here)
I figued it out….it was a word in the link
======
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………pages of them
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-xxxxx/
insert f………r………..a……..u……….d where the x’s are
climatereason says:
May 6, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Davidmhoffer
Perhaps the additional stations are magic ones whereas the reduced stations are just plain ordinary ones
tonyb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect you are correct. Mosh didn’t answer the question as to where the extra stations from the past came from either. I see Zeke H has weighed in, perhaps he will enlighten us. But my suspicion is that the extra stations Mosh refers to are indeed artificial constructs.
climatereason says:
May 6, 2014 at 12:37 pm
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
——————————————–
Mosh’s confidence in his work is not evidence that it is correct. And that the data shows such consistency of adjustments is strong evidence that there is an inherent problem, though not neccessarily where that problem may be. Which leads us to the reality that there are currently no usable long term global average temp data sets. All BEST did for me was prove that we started measuring global temp 1979 when the satalites went up.
Also, I have never heard Mosh argue that the adjustments are correct. I have only heard him argue that they are the best we can do. Quite different things. Although, I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
One silver lining is that if modelers conform their models to reproduce the adjusted data they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making accurate predictions of future climate. Not that they were doing all that well anyway.
Have they given any rationale for the huge addition they made to I guess that’s last year’s temperatures? Is no one there honest enough to blow the whistle on these shenanigans?
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…
UHI does play a role, certainly regarding offset — but MICROSITE is king when it comes to trend.
Regarding Mosh: Our Leroy (2010) ratings will be available when we publish. If Mosh substitutes those ratings for what he is now using, I predict he will get a different result.
@ur momisugly Latitude — Hi! (insert wavy hand thingy here) — lol.
Glad you got that figured out. Thanks for letting me know!
******************************************
Well, Mr. Murphy… . New to these parts, eh? LOL, slightly modifying your words, THIS is what Mr. M0sher regularly prevaricates (at least he is consistent):
“I have only heard him argue that they are the best {“adjustments”}
we{he and his henchmen} can do.”