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.).
Looks like they de-trended the data…
Did I miss something in the comments? If so, please direct me to them. There is a massive hockey-stick like tail at the end of the graph. It looks, at face, value, utterly indefensible. The elephant in the room. Did Zeke, Mosher et al., address this? Because if they didn’t, that speaks volumes to me. I suppose I’m asking this question because I’d like to know if I should be weighing their commentary as well intentioned (although not necessarily correct) skeptical criticism or as spin doctoring.
“… data … code… .” (Steven M0sher at 1:58pm)
Ingredients…
Sausage making machine…
Stretchers like flour make profits go UP…
Inspectors looking the other way…
There is MUCH more to Mr. M0sher’s words than meets the eye… .
As always I will wait to examine the data as used
Right.
And code as run.
The only “code” we use is for MMTS adjustment and maybe regional weighting, if you can even call it “code”).
That means the data used to classify stations
Leroy (2010) ratings for heat sink, only.
The actual data not merely links.
All data will be included in a very comprehensive SI
The protocals
Will be provided.
Who did the rating
Ultimately, me. (but double checked by Anthony and John-NG and his students)
How they were trained
Leroy U. Class of 2010. (“That’s a fact, Jack!”)
Records of differences between raters.
I made all the final ratings (much rechecking), which are checked by others on the team.
Time of rating to see if their is drift over time
Legitimate concern, but one I have dealt with. Review has eliminated any “drift”.
FWIW, I also check the GE historical wayback machine to judge if a rating has changed over time. if the rating changes, that counts as a station move and the station is dropped.
“… they’ll always find some way to adjustify the unjustifiable. An-tho-ny Watts (1:43pm).
Good one!
And sad, but true.
evanmjones,
Pairwise homogenization approaches by-and-large look for step-change breakpoints in difference series between stations. If there is a good CRN12 stations surrounded by bad CRN345 stations, it shouldn’t be “adjusted upwards” incorrectly unless there are simultaneous breakpoints at the majority of surrounding stations. Its a good check against false positives, as divergent trends will not necessarily be corrected unless they have a breakpoint that is not shared by surrounding stations.
Here is an example of how Berkeley does it for Orland, CA: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Figures/34846-TAVG-Alignment.pdf
That said, its definitely worth looking into in more detail. I’d enjoy the chance to look through the difference series between CRN12 stations and their surrounding neighbors, identifying which step changes are flagged by the NCDC and Berkeley methods, seeing whether those correspond to documented station moves or other inhomogenities, etc.
REPLY: Better yet, why not simply throw out all the questionable data for questionable stations, by giving up on trying to “salvage” obviously polluted data with various corrections and methodologies, and just go with data you know to be free of such problems? Why is there this persistent idea that you have to use all the data, no matter how corrupted, because of a belief it can be “fixed”? – Anthony
REPLY – What Anthony said, in spades. ~ Evan
You have the same affliction as Venema, who thinks I’m anti-homogeniziation.
I have been back and forth with VV fairly extensively since 2012. He damnwell knows I’m anti-homogenization!
You, GO, Evan M. Jones! (smile)
It may just be a typo that causes that last point to be so high. Or taking a value for part of a year
and multiplying it to adjust it for a full year which does not seem like the right way to do it. So Zeke said he thought that was an error. 2014 is not over so that value can’t be the final one.
Bill, you are likely correct. However, you can count on the adjusted adjustment to still be warmer than the same for 2013… know how? Because EVERY adjustment is (nearly) ALWAYS warmer than that for the previous period just a year earlier… but noooooo, that doesn’t mean we’re cooking the books.
Let’s see… looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck……..
It may just be a typo that causes that last point to be so high. Or taking a value for part of a year
I think it may be that new way of calculating US temperatures Anthony reported on recently.
REPLY – Fear not. Our team is ALL ABOUT microsite. We have isolated the well sited stations and obtained the “true signal”. ~ Evan
===
You’re my hero! 😀
Anthony,
Should I throw out Orland? It has two TOBs changes and a station move documented. If I throw out every USHCN station with a documented inhomogenity there would be no USHCN stations. Not to mention that station metadata is spotty at best; there are likely quite a few undocumented station moves and similar things in the past. There is not always a bright line to demarcate “good” and “bad” stations. I’d rather have a consistent approach to deal with all breakpoints than an add-hoc rule of which stations to keep and which to drop.
REPLY: So you are suggesting what we are doing is “ad hoc” now? Jeez. OK I’m done. – Anthony
Why is there this persistent idea that you have to use all the data, no matter how corrupted, because of a belief it can be “fixed”? – Anthony
====
You’ll never fix a problem that way….they’re not really trying to fix a problem though
This all went down the cans….when we started paying them
evanmjones,
There has been no change in the official US temperature record methodology this year. This change that was reported here a few weeks back referred to calculations of climate divisions, a specific product not used in calculating CONUS temperatures.
The National Climate Assessment should have been subcontracted out to the Kardashians or Paris Hilton to give it credibility or even just a bit more gravitas.
Perhaps it should just be called the national Climate Adjustment for the sake of truth in advertising.
“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.”
How about having the modelers re-jigger their models and then attempt to hindcast over the past 20 years, to see if they can FINALLY claim to have models that have a chance at actually predicting something accurately?
It’s like they’re taking their cues from the Twilight Zone. How’s that go again?
“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.”
Isn’t that their modus operandi when it comes to global warming?
No wait, that was the outer limits.
I recommend “Supplement 3” for graphic enticements.
Fig. 5 The 800,000 year ice core CO2 concentration record. Admits that “natural factors” have caused the concentration over time to “vary”, but does not mention the strong heat connection, because, of course, that would undermine what they are selling. Very specious way of slipping a hockey stick into the report. Anti-science to the nth.
Fig. 12 Hockeystick “adapted” from Mann et al 2008. Does “adapted” mean erasing all “proxy based” black ink after 1850 circa? Or is this report claiming the “thermometer” based record is exactly the same, graphically, with the proxies post-1850 or so?
MattN asks: “What is their justification for a 1.6F positive adjustment?”
Very simple: The more the planet cools, the larger the disparity between reality and ideology.
it’s go time
Best (no pun intended) of luck with the gatekeepers (aka review process).
Sorry, I meant “Appendix 3” above, titled “Climate Science Supplement”. See also Supplemental Message 6″ in Appendix three for some funny stuff about “averaging” models.
And here in Montana, my forecast calls for snow showers:
http://www.bing.com/weather/today?q=absarokee%20montana%20forecast&unit=F&FORM=DTPWEO&qpvt=
evanmjones says:
May 6, 2014 at 2:17 pm
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?
====
This deserves repeating…..