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.).
“It has been a long, detailed rework, but now that the NCA has made this statement, it’s go time.”
So the above statement could perhaps appear to be taken by some as a threat, or something else entirely.
So has Watts, et. al. (201X) even been sent to any journal to date?
Or should we all expect Watts, et. al. (201X) V2.0 (or is it now V3.0) to be published in draft form on the interwebs once more?
Also, why wait specifically for the NCA, by the time you actually get Watts, et. al. (201X) published in a journal NCA will be long gone.
Doing this at the aggregate is a questionable methodology. Each and every site adjustment needs a peer reviewed paper and public comment. There are too many local variables that need to be considered.
“…It has been a long, detailed rework, but now that the NCA has made this statement, it’s go time… ”
Anthony, this is important. I will send the link to everyone in the position of power I can think of to bring the truth to the public. I even have a niece who is an NYC reporter for CBS.
Also Sharyl Attkisson (retired from CBS) has a website and still has influence, I think. She has reported on failed energy projects related to “climate change” in the past.
There are no words for this, but perhaps a picture will do
Station moves and instrument changes also introduce real bias.
Indeed they do. As for moved stations, the short answer is that we simply drop them.
I’ll be interested to see how MMTS transitions are dealt with in the final paper.
I use Menne (2009 & 2010) as the basis. In short, since this is a step change and not a “blip”, the closer MMTS conversion is to the middle of the study period, the greater the adjustment and the closer to either end, the lesser the adjustment. The final results conform with Menne’s.
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.
Thanks.
Well, as I said, once y’all plug in the new set of station ratings (Leroy 2010), we may find ourselves in better agreement than you might imagine. The ratings used by BEST are via Leroy (1999)
And let’s not forget all the volunteers. A shout out to every man present who has observed a station. Every man who has observed a station is my brother.
So the above statement could perhaps appear to be taken by some as a threat, or something else entirely.
We like to think of it as “kind assistance”.
(Okay, maybe not the kind they are after.)
Based on what Zeke said, I don’t believe he’ll accept anything we publish. Like with Mosher and his defense of the indefensible, they’ll always find some way to adjustify the unjustifiable. And no Zeke, I’m not going to answer your questions. Having been burned by my trusting BEST at the get go, I won’t share any information again until after publication.
If you’re fishing for catfish you use a bait that stinks.
Perhaps they are fashioning a hook rather than a hockey stick?
These are not the temperature adjustments you are looking for.
Move along. Move along.
Apologies to George Lucas. 🙂
Doing adjustments is not an issues on its own , its doing adjustments without good reason based on sound science. The lack of information on what they did , how they did it and why they did it , along with failing to retain the unadjusted data that is the problem for climate ‘science’
Wait Whut… do you mean to say that the last year’s temperature adjustment was UP 1.0 degrees relative to all of the other adjustments?
REALLY?
That can’t be right.
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.
Yeah. And homogenization also deletes utterly the signal of the well sited stations and has almost no effect on the poorly sited set. To paraphrase le Carre, “It is an outrage. I shall tell everybody.”
We drop all TOBS-biased stations, and to confirm this J-NG ran TOBS-adjusted data on our final set and that result is even a little lower than our results. We also drop moved stations. And we account for MMTS conversion.
evanmjones,
We may well be in agreement using the new Leroy ratings; I look forward to have the chance to run the numbers myself. If your results hold up, there is also the question of why CRN12 stations are subject to such large adjustments. Showing trend differences correlated with CRN rating is a useful first step, though additional work needs to be done to track down the causation (e.g. what exact breakpoints are being detected in pairwise comparisons, and why are they being made?).
Anthony,
If homogenization is “indefensible” than the bulk of the scientific literature in the field is wrong. This may well be true, but as Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’ll be a skeptic till I run the analysis myself 🙂
An in Zeke’s reply, he illustrates perfectly the problem of the mindset of the university AGW culture. He’s already dictating terms to me without having data and procedure in hand.
I feel sad for you. You have the same affliction as Venema, who thinks I’m anti-homogeniziation.
Homogenization, done properly, is a useful tool. The simple fact is, it is done improperly by NCDC and is a oversized hammer, and the wholesale bludgeoning of the true climate signal with that homo-hammer ends up creating confirmation bias and a signal that is not representative of reality.
As always I will wait to examine the data as used
And code as run.
That means the data used to classify stations
The actual data not merely links.
The protocals
Who did the rating
How they were trained
Records of differences between raters.
Time of rating to see if their is drift over time
Lots of data.
And then the methods to check.
In short the same skeptical treatment all science should
Get.
Nice pre announcement however.
Shocking really. If you tried this sort of thing to your profit figure before floating your company on the stock exchange you’d be in prison.
Maybe off topic but The Weather Channel used to frequently include the record high and low for the day in the local “Weather on the 8’s”.
I haven’t seen the days record temps for my area mentioned since last November.
“Things that make you go ‘Hmmmm'”.
@Latitude at 11:12 am
I wonder if people realize the adjustments are more than the claimed global warming…..
and without the adjustments……it would show cooling
That is easy. No they don’t. And how can they realize it when the smoking gun is titled:
“USHCN Final Minus Raw Temperatures as of May 5, 2014.”
Let’s try:
NOAA fudge factors used to change the US Historical Climate Network temperature record to turn a slight cooling or raw temperatures into an artificial warming to fit Political Objectives.
That is a rather shameful graph – unless it’s true. Sadly there’s no way to know the truth. We do know though that it is a heavily tampered record, and each tampering is an admission they discovered they’d been wrong about all previous data set tamperings, and that will surely be shown to be true with this latest tampering when it too is fudged.
We may well be in agreement using the new Leroy ratings; I look forward to have the chance to run the numbers myself. If your results hold up, there is also the question of why CRN12 stations are subject to such large adjustments.
I can tell you exactly why. Only 20% of stations are Class 1\2 (ave. low trend). 80% are Class 3\4\5 (ave. high trend). Homogenization looks for outliers. So which stations do you think get identified as outliers and in which direction do you think they get adjusted?
If 80% were well sited and 20% were poorly sited, homogenization would work as intended. I am a wargame designer, and any developer worth half his salt would pick that problem in no time during playtest. These guys don’t have a facility with numbers.
They are mathematicians, surely, but they do not roll around in the numbers like a wargamer and they can’t seem to figure out that after the tenth snake-eyes in a row it is time to examine the dice.
If homogenization is “indefensible” than the bulk of the scientific literature in the field is wrong.
The bulk of the scientific literature in the field is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Homogenization reduces the error bars, doesn’t it? After all, you have just adjusted away your outilers, haven’t you? See my error bar. See how pleasingly small it is. Drinks with little umbrellas all round.
Meanwhile, the pea (the correct signal of the Class 1\2s) has vanished.
What is left is not even pea soup. All trace of the true signal has been eliminated. They have made complete pap out of their data. It is a travesty.
This may well be true, but as Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’ll be a skeptic till I run the analysis myself 🙂
We make an extraordinary claim. We provide extraordinary proof. You will be able to run the analysis yourself; full data and methods will be provided and complete replication will be possible.
From the Climategate emails # – 2328
date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:07:25 +010 ???
from: “Parker, David”
subject: RE: Tom’s thoughts on urban errors …
Everybody wants to add an estimate of what UHI bias might be into their error bars, but it seems to me that rather than trust folk lore that there is a uhi bias, they first need to find one systematically in the network. Until they do that, the former is just hand waving to appease the know-littles. Jim Hansen adjusts his urban stations (based on night-lights) to nearby rural stations, but if I recall correctly (I’ll send that paper shortly), he warms the trend in 42 percent of the urban stations indicating that nearly half have an urban cold bias. Yet error analyzers want to add a one sided extra error bar for uhi…..
Regards,
Tom
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1057.txt&search=Hansen+adjust
Bold in the original.
Can we FOIA this paper and confirm that Hansen thinks UHI makes 42 percent of cities colder?
Zeke Hausfather says:
May 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm
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.
__________________________________________
I would simply point out that not only are the biases (nearly) always in the same direction, they seem, somehow, to be (nearly) monotonically increasing from the beginning of the record to present time. This seems all too convenient to me and doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Please, Zeke, I ask that you show both the unadjusted and unadjusted “global mean temperature anomaly” on the same plot. Just once. It will give all some very important context.
Of course by “monotonically increasing” I meant “monotonically warming” in case it wasn’t clear.
One last request from Zeke and Mosher: when would you predict that the network will be stable enough such that the trend in the adjustments (from decreasing Ts in the past to increasing Ts in the present) flattens?
BEST wanted another scientist.. so they hired Mosher . roflmao !
The ONLY real reason they could have for hiring Mosher is because they want a low level journalist !
Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.
— George Orwell, 1984