New Claims ‘Murky’ Global Warming Statistics Are ‘Guessed At’

Via the GWPF Date: 15/05/15 Levi Winchester, Daily Express

Some surface temperature recordings used as the basis for global warming evidence are guessed at – including in the Arctic and Antarctic.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, has recently launched an inquiry into the reliability of global surface temperature records, with a group of international “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” set to probe current data.With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other, the GWPF say they have received questions and concerns about which records are accurate and why some adjustments in temperatures are made over the years.

But now their inquiry is underway, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, has said he hopes the findings will address the lack of clarity and transparency he claims surrounds temperature records – while admitting his “growing concern” about the gathering of global warming statistics.

One key issue which Dr Peiser claims has caused confusion is a discrepancy between surface temperature data and satellite findings.

Figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) use a network of ground-based weather stations to compile their results and recently predicted that this year will outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”.

However findings from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) – which use satellite data – show a strikingly different picture, with neither showing last month as the hottest March on record, nor 2014 as the warmest year yet.

Dr Peiser told “There’s a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on.

“Given these concerns, we thought there must be a better way of answering these questions.”This is not about anthropogenic or man-made climate change, this is about whether the gatekeepers of the data, the metrological agencies, are providing reliable information.”
Another issue is a supposed lack of widespread weather stations – resulting in some temperature figures having to be estimated, Dr Peiser claimed. One area where Dr Peiser claims there are few weather stations are the North and South Poles, of which melting ice has often been a key concern for some climate scientists.Other issues which Dr Peiser says should be addressed are a change in technology and environment, which he claims needs to be accounted for when displaying temperature results.He said: “In some areas there are hardly any weather stations so [the figures] have to be filled in, so they [metrological agencies] kind of estimate. Particularly in the Arctic and Antarctic, there are very few weather stations so you have to make a lot of infilling.“Then there are other problems. Obviously you have to adjust temperatures for growing cities and so therefore this will have an affect on local temperatures.“Different technologies will also produce different readings, simply because the technology has changed and you have to take that into account.

“But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.

“The panel will look at whether the adjustments are all going in one direction or are they all balanced.”Dr Peiser also highlighted how some of those researchers who provide temperature records are highly opinionated when it comes to warning of climate change.He said: “People ask why they are the gatekeepers of the data if they have such strong opinions. Should they really be the guardians of data quality and high standards?“As in every scientific venture, there should be quality checks just to make sure people know exactly what is happening. In a way, this inquiry is a quality control exercise.”Full post

– See more at:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sturgis Hooper
May 15, 2015 10:09 am

About time. But better to scrap HadCRU, GISS, etc & start over with new, unbiased teams working openly from raw data, separating ocean from land readings.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
May 15, 2015 10:24 am

I understood that HadCRU lost all their raw data … is my memory wrong?

Reply to  MikeP
May 15, 2015 10:57 am

Your memory is not wrong, but you should have put the word “lost” in quotes…

Reply to  MikeP
May 15, 2015 11:04 am

You are correct. Thus HadCRUT is unscientific, as totally unverifiable. But its problems only start there.
It should be laughed out of the room. GISS is even worse.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  MikeP
May 15, 2015 2:11 pm

Not only did they lose the primary data, they also lost all the written agreements they had made with the primary sources to keep the data “confidential”. But they’re certain they made those agreements …

Reply to  MikeP
May 15, 2015 3:38 pm

As prominent global warming scientists wrote to each other in their confidential emails: “Hide the Decline.” How else can they get massive funding for their research, if people keep pointing out that temperatures have been declining?

Reply to  MikeP
May 15, 2015 8:51 pm

You are correct. HadCRU lost all their raw data in office moves in the mid-1990’s.

Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
May 15, 2015 12:26 pm

On the Steven Goddard Blog I recently read where Anthony and other Skeptics were quoted as criticizing Steven’s work…
WattsUpWithThat?? … as Skeptics we need to stick together… Goddard’s work busting continual Data Fraud is amazing… GROUND BREAKING… so I just don’t understand the criticism…
Care to Chime in?

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 12:37 pm

Phil Jones

WattsUpWithThat?? … as Skeptics we need to stick together… Goddard’s work busting continual Data Fraud is amazing… GROUND BREAKING… so I just don’t understand the criticism…

No, not really. There is no political requirement, nor philosophical “need” to “stick together” as sceptics. Rather, when a skeptical writer is incorrect, or has made poor assumption or a actual error, he (or she) needs to be as rigorously challenged as any warmunist or CAGW co-religionist.

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 12:44 pm

“Skeptics”, pretty much by definition are independent. If we feel that someone is wrong or has made a mistake, we will speak up and say so.
As opposed to the warmist camp in which loyalty to fellow travelers is valued above scientific accuracy.

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 1:57 pm

Goddard is good at historical document research. His so-called research is a joke. Occasionally he stumbles across a valid issue, as in a blind squirrel finds a nut everyday, or a stopped clock is right twice a day. His has been an embarrassment to the scientifically oriented on the skeptical side and his embrace by low information skeptics has been very frustrating for those trying to build a logical and coherent case.

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 2:00 pm

I meant is “scientific” research is a joke.

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 4:47 pm

What Goddard does on his website is very straight-forward. He puts graphs of published raw temperature data next to graphs of the published “final product” (massaged) data of NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU, very clearly showing that, in every case, the altered data creates warming trends that don’t exist on any thermometer. He does this with data sets from past and present published official records going back over a hundred years, showing that they have been steadily altered by the above listed agencies, in stages, since the 1990’s. No rocket surgery here. I think that Anthony Watts, etc are mostly put off by the fact that Goddard uses plain (not scientific/polite) language about what is plainly fraud. I also notice, as time goes by, more and more of the very things Goddard has been demonstrating for years gradually seep out into the mainstream, usually “broken” by the same people that keep knocking his work.

Reply to  Phil Jones
May 15, 2015 8:30 pm

I agree with Warren Milbrandt. What Goddard mostly does is very strait forward. He compare raw data to adjusted data and not much more than that. He also states his views of not just climate politics of most politics quite strongly which I sure turns off many people. But with this he brings up many good points even if some are way off base. It is quite reasonably to criticizes him when he is wrong but also a good idea to acknowledge when he is right.

David A
Reply to  Phil Jones
May 17, 2015 3:53 am

Yet much of his data is good. For instance he often compares continuously active stations over the past 100 years, and in most every case, and not just in the US, they support that the 1940s temperature rise, the “blip”, was real, and that there was a .6 degree drop in global NH temperatures that the global data bases USED to show. (They used to show about a .4 degree drop in global t)
This 40s blip was widdled away in continues adjustments, far greater [than] the TOBS adjustments. These records also demonstrate that the vast majority of all time heat records, not just in the US, were set in the late 30s early 40s. Goddard does an excellent job with this.
Tony also does an excellent job of compiling historic data demonstrating that the 70s ice age scare was real, and not just some overblown reporting.
In addition, his documentation of the ever increasing use of fewer stations through the ignoring of over 40 percent of the listed USHCN stations, and the increasing infilling, is excellent. He not only shows this, but he shows what those other stations raw data demonstrate, which is always less warming, or even cooling. (Anthony did make some errors in some pre-mature criticism here)
In addition Tony well documents the divergence between the satellites and the surface record.
I recommend his sight for the short quick hitting summaries and graphics, historical records and data on numerous subjects, and articles showing media deception regarding extreme CAGW claims, quickly debunked with local records.
My only wish is that Tony would do a more thorough job in explaining exactly how he arrived at some of his graphics. If not interested in the politics, just skip those.

mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 10:10 am

They’ve also launched an inquiry into the reliability of Nigel Lawson………

John Peter
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 11:39 am

I don’t think that Nigel Lawson is a gatekeeper of any of the temperature records.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 12:45 pm

Notice how the warmists don’t even bother attacking the science or the data anymore.

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 5:49 pm

Your point?

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 6:14 pm

Mike H.,does this mean you have no problem with what Dr. Peiser stated?
“Given these concerns, we thought there must be a better way of answering these questions.”This is not about anthropogenic or man-made climate change, this is about whether the gatekeepers of the data, the metrological agencies, are providing reliable information.”

May 15, 2015 10:20 am

Is it possible to extract satellite data only for areas where there are surface measurements to see how well that compares? (as opposed to global average). Should we even be looking at an average of daily high temps? I would think that CO2 acts more to help retain heat during nighttime, so would the hi-lo delta be an indicator of greenhouse effect?

Reply to  Joe
May 15, 2015 10:34 am

sattlelite data using infrared scanners is a much better and truer reading than these clowns do. a guage on the ground is subject to all kinds of other factors shade, direct sunlight elevation of readings. you could put a guage on a roof top and though the real temp is 93 it will be well over a hundred! sporting events. clay and asphalt hold heat and the guages will show a 10-15 degree swing from real temps. sattleites are more accurate hence there refusing to use them! it also exlains the baloney of the hottest on record yearly rant!

Reply to  carlb
May 16, 2015 9:27 am

Depending upon the resolution of the measuring device. Remember all optical devices have a resolution in pixels per unit of measure. Each pixel, then inputs a signal to a reader, which translates it to another signal. Which is read by an earth station,, a large pixel area, averages the signal over a large area. Moving the camera would smudge or average the signal. So unless it is like a TV, or movie, where each measurement would be a frame, why? And you could see what you were measuring, and how the tempreture modifies what you are observing? Illogical, wrong question? To prove a point? Not validate the question? But to overall readjust a image to smudge it, which could show air tempretures, surface tempretures, at a resolution that is useful, and helpful, be degraded to a smudge, an artifact, is monsterous. Basically a waste of time.

Reply to  Joe
May 15, 2015 11:12 am

Yes, CO2’s alleged effects would result in warmer lows and very slightly COOLER highs relative to those lows. CO2 resists warming less than it resists cooling, but it acts on both ends of the equation… so a decreased average daily deltaT from min to max would be expected.
Some of that is from radiative effects, and some of it from CO2’s specific heat in solution – though that portion is undoubtedly tiny, it is present regardless of claimed GHG effects.
Most critically, warmer lows are almost universally a GOOD thing, except where dew is the most important water source for plants. Then, the added CO2 makes those plants more resilient to drought, so the results could be a wash – or even a net positive even in that case.

Reply to  Joe
May 15, 2015 11:47 am

Satellites cannot measure surface temperature. They measure verical swathes of the troposphere–lower, middle, upper in the case of UAH. Measurements calibrated to radiosonde thermometer readings at different latitudes show the satellite measurements agree withnthe weather balloons quite nicely, r^2 as high as 0.98 (Christy’s 2014 testimony to Koonin’s APS review committee).

Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2015 12:07 pm

Thanks for that. I had always assumed the satellites where calibrated/tested against radiosonde measurements but I never really knew for sure. Guess I was too lazy to look it up.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2015 1:56 pm

Also, at UAH they do not measure infrared frequencies from space, they measure (sample) microwave frequencies, most of that spectrum eminates from O2 molecules (if I remember Dr. Spencer correctly).

Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2015 5:15 pm

ristvan said “…Satellites cannot measure surface temperature.”
Sorry – not correct. Any instrument that can sense in the 10-11 um range of IR can see surface temperature…in a clear sky, of course. This applies to both geostationary & polar orbiting platforms.

Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 10:22 am

Just saw this link on Matt Drudge. Good thing you are on WordPress.
Are the station’s data weighted in influence based on the area they represent? ie Clusters of closely packed stations have less overall influence but higher confidence?

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 10:39 am

Yes. Sometimes this is not enough, though.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 11:45 am

Also, is the data weighted in influence based on the proximity to liberal leftist political donators?

Reply to  Ben
May 15, 2015 4:08 pm

No, it is “homogenised” and revised upwards regardless of proximity to “progressive” donors. A bit like putting an apple and an orange in a blender, pouring out half the mixture and declaring “this is an orange”.

Reply to  Ben
May 16, 2015 6:52 am

“a more ‘correct’ orange”

May 15, 2015 10:28 am

The issue of accurate data sets and the conciliation among the differing data collection and analyses is a very valid scientific topic. However, for the rest of mankind, we can judge today that the technical maturity of this science has not reached a level of certainty that warrants the destruction of massive national infrastructure, I.E. the combustion of carbon. We are risking billions of lives on sophisticated hunches. That is not a criticism of the scientists, it is an accusation of our national leaderships.

Reply to  rlhsrpe
May 16, 2015 8:23 am

I’m with you mostly. But I think its a little dramatic to claim billions of lives are at stake if we don’t continue full throttle with fossil fuels. I remember Christopher Keating telling me that the AGW death tolls mirrored the Holocaust in numbers. Yeesh. Too much drama. As soon as I can go solar, I’m doing it, not because oil and gas are evil, but because solar is going to smoke my gas powered furnace by a hefty margin as the tech develops.

Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 16, 2015 8:47 am

You say

As soon as I can go solar, I’m doing it, not because oil and gas are evil, but because solar is going to smoke my gas powered furnace by a hefty margin as the tech develops.

I copy my reply to Bill McKibben when he recently asserted similar nonsense on WUWT

Bill McKibben (@billmckibben)
Thankyou for your reply to my comment, but I admit that I am disappointed that it provides a ‘red herring’. You say

The idea that if electric vehicles running off renewable power were viable they “would have happened” already seems odd to me. Sort of like arguing that in 1900 powered flight was an impossibility because otherwise it “would have happened already.” We get better at building things, and their price comes down, and then things shift–the rapid fall in the price of solar panels seems an important, non-partisan, reality-based fact that is bound to have implications in the real world. Because things were a certain way when you were young doesn’t mean that it will always be so. This seems self-evident to me.

Your analogy with powered flight is plain wrong: in 1900 powered flight did not exist but wind power has been used for centuries.
Wind energy powered most of the world’s shipping for thousands of years. Vertical-axis windmills to mill corn were first developed by the Persians around 1500 BC, and they were still in use in the 1970’s in the Zahedan region. Primitive wind turbines powered pumps (notably in the Netherlands and England) and mills throughout Europe for centuries. The horizontal-axis wind turbine was invented in Egypt and Greece around 300 BC. During World War I, some American farmers rigged wind turbines to each generate 1 kW of DC current.
There is nothing new about wind turbine technology although materials developments continue as they do with any technology.
As I said in my reply to Chris who also responded to my comment

There have been longer opportunities for advances in wind, solar and batteries than for advances in fossil fuel equipment. But the advances in wind and solar are constrained by the limited availability of diffuse wind and solar energies. And that is why “electric vehicles running off renewable power” has not happened and cannot happen economically: it would require magic for it to happen.

Today, if wind power were economically competitive with fossil fuels, then oil tankers would be sailing ships. Japan has conducted several studies to ascertain if use of automated sails could assist modern shipping. These studies have demonstrated that available wind power is so small a contribution to the powering of a ship that the systems to obtain it cannot recover their capital costs.
Hydropower was not displaced by fossil fuels when the steam engine enabled the use of the great energy intensity of fossil fuels, but wind and solar were.
The reason is the diffuse nature of wind and solar energies.

All energy is free: it was created at the Big Bang. But collecting energy and concentrating it to do useful work is expensive in time, money and effort.
Fortunately, nature has concentrated energy for us. The concentrations from ancient stars is in the form of radioactive materials, and solar energy collected by photosynthesis over geological ages is available as fossil fuels. Hydropower provides solar energy collected and concentrated by evapouration of water over large areas.
There is no possibility of wind and solar power providing sufficient economical energy to operate an industrialised society whatever foreseeable technology is developed. That would require magic to concentrate the diffuse energy.
In other words, what you say seems “self evident” to you is impossible according to the laws of physics. And your only argument is an inappropriate analogy.
I hope this reply helps your understanding.


Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 16, 2015 10:40 am

Thank you for your reply. I am migrating toward LED lighting throughout my house, also am supplanting my power hungry appliances with devices more appropriate to my lifestyle, I have two electric scooters in my garage and I’m waiting for an affordable ev car, I’m growing a garden this year…everything I can possibly do to decrease dependencies, my wife and i are doing. We come at this politically, from a deeply Libertarian mindset. The power draw from my property is going to be a fraction of what it was ten years ago and over time it will draw less and less, because…and here it is, energy tech keeps improving, products keep improving, choice widens. Solar cells, as well as combustion engines have improved enormously over the last 20 years. Expect that trend to continue. Expect that when you buy a new car today, the engineering allows you to travel further on the same tank of gas than it did 20 – 30 years ago. My tablet sucks back a tiny portion of the power my desktop gulps…etc. I absolutely love VAWT wind turbines, and solar. My province is basically run off a hydro grid, which is another type of turbine system. I have no issues with it, its just not “my” grid. And the cost of my electric scooters vs my car…omg. Just waiting for an EV with range…and that’s the game.

Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 16, 2015 11:15 am

I’m a huge geek, I would not expect you to follow trends the way I do. Your opinion is antiquated. I’m not suggesting anybody try to power a large ocean vessel via wind, although it was common practice for centuries. A) we get a lot of sun on the prairies, and B) I’m not sure why you think I should prop up a dependency that I could be free of within 15 years. Its like buying a house vs renting till I die

Ray Boorman
Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 16, 2015 6:55 pm

Owen, your logic is sadly lacking.
You will only be independent of the power grids you hate when every single product you use, plus all the food you eat, plus the materials your house is built from, are produced without the input of a single kilogram of fossil fuels.
Until that happens, you are a leech sucking on the efforts of the rest of society while claiming the moral high-ground.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 18, 2015 6:00 pm

I see you are a bleeding edge adopter. Unless you are prepared to make drastic changes in the “typical” American lifestyle, or have ridiculous quantities of vacant land good for no other purpose, this is no-win at current prices, absent very special circumstances. Without subsidies you can’t compete. Even our host shelled out $2.77 per installed watt for his rig with a lot of his own sweat equity. Coal plants historically run around $1.00-$2.00/watt, and they run at night.
LED’s (one wag I know calls them Light Emitting Decorations) are certainly cheaper than a year or three ago. Come back in three years and let us know how many of yours are still pumping out the lumens. The early hype said we’d get 21,000 hours out of CFL’s. Now they promise about 4,000 at 3x the price of high performance incandescents. Now LED’s claim 40,000 hours but the criteria are different. That’s 40,000 to 70% of original lumen output. A simple light meter can tell you if you’re getting what you paid for. I await your data with interest.

May 15, 2015 10:28 am

“However findings from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) – which use satellite data – show a strikingly different picture, ”
If Land/Sea and satellite are not matching, why are they only investigating Land/Sea? After all, wasn’t the entire UAH record just revised in one month by changing their model that interprets the microwave data?

Reply to  trafamadore
May 15, 2015 12:48 pm

Because UAH made all of their data and their methods and reasons for adjusting the data available for anyone to see.
On the other hand HadCrut is famous for losing their data and they and the others still refuse to reveal their methods.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 1:05 pm

“Because UAH made all of their data and their methods…available for anyone to see”
I am not sure that is true. Could you show me the web site for the code for computer algorithms that were used? I didn’t think so.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 2:09 pm

“Because UAH made all of their data and their methods and reasons for adjusting the data available for anyone to see.”
Really? Where?
The NOAA adjustment code is here. NOAA provides extensive data, adjusted and unadjusted. GISTEMP code is here. All the main codes describe their methods extensively in publications.

Robert B
Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 4:29 pm

An interesting thing about the difference in GISS estimates of GTA from previous years, or raw data and homogenised data is the large systematic error corrected for but little random error. Its as if changes in station position, closing and opening of new stations, and change of time of observation were all coordinated to hide the warming.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 4:44 pm

“is the large systematic error corrected for but little random error”
There is little random error in a global average anyway, because of the very large numbers. I showed here that you could add random noise, amplitude 1°C to the station monthly averages and it made hardly any difference at all.
It is systematic error, or bias, that is the potential problem, and that is what the corrections are designed to deal with.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 5:07 pm

Sorry, but the “corrections” are clearly designed to cook the books. How else do you explain GISS’ previously secret UHI “adjustment” AlGore-ithm which, when finally dragged kicking and screaming out of Hansen, showed that instead of cooling the affected stations, it warmed them?
How do you explain HadCRU “adjusting” its ocean “data” warmer to match their already cooked book land station “data”?
Why are records from past decades cooled while more recent warmed, not just once, but repeatedly, as the present keeps refusing to behave as desired?
The whole corrupt exercise needs to be shut down, and will be if an honest person is elected president to go with the GOP congress.
The systematic bias toward warming is obviously not to make the data better, but to make them conform to the story.

Robert B
Reply to  MarkW
May 16, 2015 12:54 am

Nick, you add essentially zero to every month and get virtually zero difference. Yippee! You could add a Gaussian distribution of ±10°C as there are enough stations for the average to be essentially zero.
There are adjustments that add a large trend to the data, almost a straight line for most of the 20th century. Every year, the average of shifts of stations reduced warming by about 0.003°C per year on average with surprisingly little variation. It would require almost no variation in number of station shifts per year and a conspiracy to put an equal portion of them in a colder spot.

David A
Reply to  MarkW
May 17, 2015 4:05 am

Sturgis, exactly, lets add that HADCRUT can not supply the raw data they lost, and there are continues .01 degree cooling’s regularly made to the past, and the Iceland adjustments are not rationally defensible, and homogenization and infilling is expanding, with up to 40 percent of USHC stations not used.
There is a reason the 40s blip vanished, and the warming slope is ever steeper, as the baseline is ever changing. .

May 15, 2015 10:30 am

Growing concern, lack of transparency… we are not in 18th century call it what it is… LIES! Manipulation and guessing of temperatures to reach a pre-concieved solution. High School kids do it all of the time. These scientists just never grew up and out of it!

May 15, 2015 10:33 am

Wonder why Drudge would link to this article right under a headline that it is snowing in AZ? Agenda?

Reply to  Marc Frischhertz (@legalissue)
May 15, 2015 11:37 am

The agenda is entirely on the part of the UN/IPCC and the government. The “dangerous man-made global warming” narrative is intended to pass a carbon tax.
That would give governments something they’ve always dreamed about: a way to tax the air we breathe.
Both of the satellites that measure global temperatures show that for almost twenty years now, there has been NO global warming! Yet they are still trying to frighten the public with their ‘global warming’ scare (which has morphed into “climate change”, because global warming has stopped.)
This chart shows that the temperature stations that were eliminated were the ones showing no global warming. Only those in regions with local warming were left:

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 12:15 pm

Best graphic ever.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 1:02 pm

Wow over a 1 deg artificial increase (is that C or F?)

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 1:52 pm

They just don’t care how many facts are given…They want to tax us for breathing and this is the best way to do it.

Reply to  Marc Frischhertz (@legalissue)
May 15, 2015 12:49 pm

I guess the true believers have had the ability to understand irony surgically removed.

May 15, 2015 10:34 am

No surprise to find that the areas with the FEWEST monitors are the one’s that are the main focus of the alarmists concern……

Reply to  Dave
May 16, 2015 5:59 am

Dave, pay attention to your use of apostrophes, massive FAIL.

Geoff Withnell
May 15, 2015 10:36 am

“Different technologies will also produce different readings, simply because the technology has changed and you have to take that into account.”
Did climate scientists and temperature measurement technical experts ever hear of something called “instrument calibration”? If I measure a length with a micrometer, a laser rangefinder, or for that matter a ruler, the precision of the measurement may vary. But if the instruments are properly calibrated*, the mean of a series of measurements using each technology should be the same. Why are not temperature measurements calibrated routinely?
*calibration The comparison of a measurement instrument or system of unverified accuracy to a measurement instrument or system of known accuracy to detect any variation from the required performance specification. (American Society for Quality Glossary)

Reply to  Geoff Withnell
May 15, 2015 10:44 am

Yes, they have heard, but it is not so simple in the end. There are systematic biases even when the temperature as such is ‘precis’ correct. Like, did you let the grass grow? It slows wind and decreases mixing of surface air – affects the local lapse rate.

Reply to  Geoff Withnell
May 15, 2015 8:22 pm

Not sure of your point on calibration, but it seems odd to go back and adjust decades old data more than once. Strangely the older data is adjusted downward to exaggerate warming. How does one calibrate thousands of temperature readings collected decades ago with any certainty?

Reply to  Geoff Withnell
May 15, 2015 8:47 pm

“For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” –
See more at:

May 15, 2015 10:37 am

There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (MMGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, MMGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda.
Real science, for example:
1. says “Question everything”. MMGW says “Questioning MMGW is reckless because it threatens the planet.”
2. never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. MMGW tries to break that cycle by claiming “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. “SETTLED SCIENCE” IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.
3. develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. MMGW ISN’T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore’s movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to MMGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of MMGW. There is no observation that MMGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong:
4. relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. MMGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:
5. grants awards for disproving accepted truths. MMGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity:
6. has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but MMGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes:
7. doesn’t claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
8. keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein’s Relativity is still being tested a century later. MMGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn’t like:
9. accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When MMGW predictions are wrong they don’t question the hypothesis…they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
10. never recommends that skeptics be JAILED:
11. doesn’t create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
12. tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. MMGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth’s climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

Greg Hastings
Reply to  Mike Herman
May 15, 2015 12:26 pm

Thank you. That is one of the best comparisons I have ever read. I will pass it on.

Reply to  Mike Herman
May 15, 2015 12:52 pm

12. When the data doesn’t match the theory, regular science adjusts the theory. MMGW adjusts the data.

Reply to  Mike Herman
May 15, 2015 1:08 pm

Excellent summary Mike. Thanks.

Reply to  Mike Herman
May 15, 2015 4:14 pm

This needs its own post.

Steve P
Reply to  Mike Herman
May 16, 2015 7:51 am

However, I would suggest everyone stick to the same set of acronyms, in this case CAGW instead of your MMGW. The waters have been muddied enough as it is with the alarmists continually concocting new terminology like “climate d e n i e r” so that the masses are more easily confused and baffled.
Also, I suggest the use of italics or bold for emphasis, in place of ALL CAPS.

Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 10:40 am

This reminds me of estimating lobster populations. When I was an undergrad, in a bio1000 lab a professor explained to me how he got lobster population numbers for his research. He relied on the fishermen. Lobster fishermen would report a tagged lobster to [the professor] when the fisherman happened to catch one. They also would report how many lobsters they caught over all. Now [the professor] tagged live lobsters and previously dropped them in areas where he knew that the fisherman would fish. By his reasoning, the fraction of the tagged lobsters, the number of originally tagged lobsters, and the total lobster catch yield the number of total population. So he thought. My point here is that they ended up measuring populations where they had access to measure, not considering un-fished populations and migration. The professor assumed that the fisherman knew where all the lobsters were. I mentioned this to him and I got a really nasty response and a less-than-perfect grade on that lab. I questioned his model.
It seems to me that temperature sensors are located based on ease of access, not relevance of location. In a perfect world, would it not be better to have a uniform hollow spherical distribution of sensors over the
entire planet, not just where it is easy to get at.
Notice the oceans are empty? Hey maybe we can convince the lobsters to take data!

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 10:53 am

One last observation, The red dots are deceptively large. The USA is almost entirely red. USA likely has a large number of Stevenson Screens, A Watts has pointed out that scientists in the USA are blind to certain areas of the USA also. Add to that his criticism of the reliability of the data coming from them and UHIE.
Someone please post a link to his paper.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 11:00 am

“Notice the oceans are empty? Hey maybe we can convince the lobsters to take data!”
Reports indicate that lobsters turn red in hot temperature. 🙂

Reply to  AnonyMoose
May 15, 2015 12:08 pm

poor pinchy….

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 12:18 pm

That’s a perfect example of soft science and soft scientists getting mad when you mention their fallacies.
I’ve been battling the soft science at the FWS for over a year now on the listing of Lesser Prairie Chickens as threatened and their extortion on any industry activity in these areas. I run into things like distance of “mean avoidance” in the literature with not a single other supporting statistic or observation. As if the average distance that tagged chickens are from infrastructure is somehow scientific evidence that these animals purposely avoid the object of interest despite half of the chickens being within that distance and a plethora of direct observations of chickens standing right next to infrastructure.
I think that as bad as “science” and pal review has gotten there needs to be some sort of grading system on publications like there is on course work. Requiring scientists to have a degree in science instead of arts would be a good start, and that would automatically do away with most of the climate science industry.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 15, 2015 6:32 pm

“I questioned his model.”
Kiss of death. There are some very small minds occupied in academia who are not fit for purpose.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 16, 2015 9:04 am

I surveyed for Mountain Pine beetles, in Western Canada, and I can tell you we employed 3 different types of survey and control. They were all scientific, that is, they were all based off of well founded assumptions. But only one method, “full survey” yielded anything close to precision. Full coverage is another name for full survey. So much was missed with the other methods, we were returning year after year to the same control sites. In the context of surveying the earth and all its layers for temp readings…omg. Only full coverage and resolved fluidics math can answer the bug questions. So much speculation and bias pervades climate science.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  owenvsthegenius
May 16, 2015 6:53 pm

Owen, You might know GlynnMor of Skywall 🙂
Yes my point exactly. So when they were surveying, was much done by the roadsides rather than steep slopes in bear country?

May 15, 2015 10:43 am

“Global Warming-Climate Change-Whatever handle fits at the moment” is unquestionably the biggest scam and money grabbing scheme ever to have been thrust upon mankind. The veracity and objectivity of the so-called “scientists” has always been highly suspect, with seriously skewed data based on models, rabid personal opinions and the exclusion of certain data that contain “inconvenient truths”. The only fact associated with this travesty is that it has created a multi-billion dollar industry where millions of scam artists world-wide have a stake at perpetuating the lies. And lets not forget where most of the…ahem…scientists…get their money from; governments, loopy millionairs (like Al Gore) and wealthy ditzy Hollywood celebrities. So the data crunchers will produce whatever results are needed to sustain the narrative and their very lucrative jobs.
Sooner or later they get found out, but a great deal of damage is done in the meantime. Now, I think I’ll just dig out my 1970’s articles, written undoubtedly by some of the very same scientists, and enjoy the predictions of the looming ice age….which should have happened by about now!

May 15, 2015 10:43 am

We have had previous temperature records “updated” and weather stations placed in airports and other heat islands, Despite this, AGW is still unproven even when people like myself are insulted with the term “d@nier” and “the science is settled” keeps getting churned out ad nauseum. I will pre-empt the GWPF’s findings by:
a) Predicting there is guesswork involved and
b) The temperatures were lower in the past than they are now and there is an exponential rise

May 15, 2015 10:45 am

We’ve all seen in the infilling they do. Station 1,2,3 form a huge triangle, all showing 80F. There are no stations in between. They guestimate that the entire area in between should be closer to 85F, due to some variation excuse… and voila! IT’S WORSE THEN WE THOUGHT!!!

Reply to  Eric Sincere
May 15, 2015 10:17 pm

Or like Carnarvon,in Western Australia. Doubt the data. Homogenise with temperatures from the surrounding area that are inland.

Ursus Augustus
May 15, 2015 10:46 am

“But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. ”
Someone doesn’t seem to understand the philosophy of “adjustments”.
“Adjustments” are the difference between the actual recorded data value ( the “raw data”), as obtained from the instrument in question, and the value required to satisfy the forecast value ( the “raw adjusted data”) i.a.w. the mean of a selected set of models plus a bonus margin in order that the “adjusted” data will yield a record value sufficiently ahead of the next scheduled international Climate Science conference and facilitate an economic number of least publishable paper units to be pal reviewed, published and financially rewarded (the “LPU adjustment margin”).
The notion that “adjustments” “should balance each other out” is clearly a complete misapprehension and only serves to deny the correct climate of scientific endeavour required to maintain the forecast of CAGW.
To any who are not fully across the concepts outlined above, can I suggest the COOKMOOC Denialism 101 course on line run by the University of Queensland which is entirely funded by LPU and is one of the most sustainable education models currently operating anywhere on this or any other planet.

William Sidis
May 15, 2015 10:46 am

All those dots represent thousands and thousands of people sucking off of tax payer money…

May 15, 2015 10:46 am

The last part of Levi Winchester’s article in the Daily Expressseems to have been omitted….

However, other researchers have blasted the inquiry as nothing more than a “political stunt” to “manufacture doubt about the temperature records”.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said: “The adjustments to temperature records when weather stations, for instance, replace old measurement instruments, is monitored by the World Meteorological Organisation, as well as bodies such as the Met Office.
“The adjustments make no significant difference to the obvious upward trend in global average temperature over the last century.
“The Foundation is a political lobby group, and funded by secret donors, not a transparent scientific organisation.
“I suspect that it simply wants to manufacture doubt about the temperature records to create a distraction while countries are negotiating a new international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, to be agreed at a summit in Paris at the end of this year.”
Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed as chair of the review team.
The other five commissioners of the data review project are Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden and are all associated with North American universities.
The deadline for submissions to the GWPF’s enquiry is June 30. It is not clear how long the investigation will last.

Reply to  David
May 15, 2015 12:11 pm

David May,
Satellite temperature data is the most accurate data we have. It does not depend on land-based temperature stations, which ignore 70% of the planet.
Satellite temperature measurements clearly show global cooling for many years now.
That’s why the “global warming” scare has morphed into “climate change” — a vague term that means nothing. The climate always changes.
Finally, all the arm-waving is over a 0.7ºC fluctuation in temperature, over a century! That is as close to flat and unchanging as you will ever see in the temperature record.
Fact: There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. The “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is just a money-grubbing hoax. Read this website for a while, and you will clearly see the scam. There is no credible science supporting climate alarmism. None at all.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 2:21 pm

DBstealey…So if as predicted the satellites show warming this year (with the El Nino), will you conceded the planet is still warming? I am curious only because every other indicator on the planet… ice … sea level…. the main land based data sets … all show warming continues.

Billy Liar
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 2:36 pm

you do realize that ice will carry on melting even if the temperature falls. The clue is in the name of the period we inhabit, an interglacial. Once we enter the next glaciation, Canada is toast (so to speak!).

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 2:54 pm

Billy… and your point is? If you are saying the world may have stopped warming and that the ice could still be melting. I guess that is possible. It’s also what happens in a warming world and given both the arctic (including Greenland) and antarctic are pretty warm at the moment, my guess is it’s melting coz the planet is warming up. And lets not forget the glaciers are melting (well most of them anyway). But hey, ice is only one of the indicators.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 3:01 pm

For the past going on 20 years, the planet has not been warming up. It is warmer now than 320 years ago, in the depths of the LIA, warmer than 160 years ago near the end of that cold interval, but probably not (we don’t know because of the cooked book “data” sets) warmer than 80 years ago, during the previous warm cycle of the Modern Warm Period, which followed the LIA, just as the LIA followed the Medieval WP.
We do know that the Modern WP so far has been cooler than the Medieval WP, which was cooler than the Roman WP, which was cooler than the Minoan WP. The planet has been in a long term cooling trend for at least 3000 years and possibly 5000, since the end of the Holocene Optimum. The Modern warming cycle has so far not reversed that trend.
Soil radionuclides from the edge of the EAIS show that it hasn’t moved in 3000 years. Its next move, scarily, is likely to be extension rather than further retreat from its Last Glacial Maximum extent, c. 20,000 years ago.

Billy Liar
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 3:03 pm

You need to educate yourself if you think that Greenland and Antarctica are ‘pretty warm at the moment’. Your guess is wrong, the ice has been melting, more or less, for close on 20,000 years.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 3:52 pm

DB…. I only bring this up because this thread is very much about data and what it is telling us. You have told us on many occasions that you are a man who trusts the data… and you trust very much the satellites, so will you adjust your view if the two satellite data sets show warming?

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 3:55 pm

To Billy and sturgishooper … sorry boys, believe what you want, but please I am way past discussing the myths you bring up. Find someone with a foil hat.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 4:54 pm

Simon says:
…will you adjust your view if the two satellite data sets show warming?
If global temperatures begin to rise and accelerate according to satellite and other data, and if it continues for several years, then yes, of course I will change my mind. I’m a skeptic. I’ll look for all the reasons that might have caused it.
That’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists. If and when the data changes, skeptics will listen to it and change their minds if necessary — while the alarmist crowd cherry-picks only those factoids that support their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ belief.
Global warming stopped rising almost twenty years ago. But here you are, simon, still looking for those factoids to feed your MMGW confirmation bias.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 5:00 pm

May 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Only in “climate science” are the hard data I cited “myths”.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 5:40 pm

DB…. Thanks for responding. We can now watch with interest and see how things pan out.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 6:22 pm

Let me see if I have this straight, more ice means the planet is warming.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 7:14 pm


Let me see if I have this straight, more ice means the planet is warming.

Sort of.
Depends on where the “more ice” is, and when you have established the “” baseline point to decide if you have “more ice” or “less ice” . And, on land, there is no single sentence that works pole to pole.
See, down south, “more ice” means a cooler planet, because the southern sea ice is much closer to the equator at all times of the year than the Arctic sea ice. Thus, but ONLY down south, the oft-repeated mantra (more sea ice means more energy reflected from the ocean, so the ocean cools off) is true.
Up north? Not so much. Only in April-May-June-July is that story true. Only in those months is the sun high enough and the Arctic ice present close enough to the equator that the sun is high in the sky far enough that the sun can actually heat the newly open waters 0 in stead of just reflecting off back into the sky. The rest of the year, the melted sea allows much energy to be lost from the open ocean by evaporation, convection, conduction and radiation losses than is absorbed by the ocean from the sun. So, from today’s sea ice extents under today’s conditions, losing sea ice up north cools the plant – 2/3 of the year.
So, some places, more ice (more falling snow on land) means more humidity and more falling precipitation and frozen water – perhaps from warmer air over open waters, perhaps from other things. In some areas, more (sea) ice means a colder ocean; in other places, more sea ice means a warmer ocean – some of the time.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 6:23 pm

Simon, the ice has been melting for almost 400 years. Is CO2 responsible for the melting that occurred hundreds of years prior to the rise in CO2?

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 6:25 pm

Simon, people who understand science are capable of understanding that a one year, minor temperature increase does not a trend make.
And that is no myth.

mike hamblet
Reply to  David
May 15, 2015 12:45 pm

Thanks for completing the picture. I put more faith in Bob Ward’s statement. We pay his wages and he has no vested interests. Lawson, on the other hand…..

Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 2:21 pm

Ah yes, the standard, anyone who works for govt is incorruptible, line of thinking.

Billy Liar
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 15, 2015 2:33 pm

You must work for fund manager Jeremy Grantham if you pay Bob Ward’s wages. I thought Jeremy Grantham has $112Billion of vested interest (as of 2013).

May 15, 2015 10:53 am

Earth stations cannot be relied upon for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the manipulation proven to be in evidence (climate-gate etc.) Therefore the only data that can or should be relied upon for genuine scientific or engineering research is independently audited This also applies to the data collection of so-called greenhouse gasses.
Let the real science begin.

Leonard Lane
May 15, 2015 10:56 am

I hope their research into sparse data and resulting estimates and adjustments to raw data will be unbiased and comprehensive. Then, we need to find a way to guard the raw data and make sure they are preserved exactly as recorded/measured to have a baseline to determine any bias in previous and subsequent adjustments and homogenizations.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 15, 2015 11:07 am

Recently even the raw data are biased toward warmth. NOAA’s instrument readers preadjust them. Some commenters on WUWT have noticed the discrepancy between readings of their own thermometers and those at nearby NOAA stations.
Climate science is now thoroughly corrupt.

Phil H-H
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 1:03 pm

Really? I’ve never even considered that as a possibility. How sad that it has come to that.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 5:11 pm

Sad and infuriating.
But not IMO really a surprise. NOAA’s lowliest flunkies know upon which side their daily bread is buttered. Trough-feeding toadies, one and all.
But when a new piper is playing the tune, they’ll dance to it as well.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 5:15 pm

Bear in mind that this is the agency which set up an extra reporting station in Death Valley, sited (opposite a south-facing stone cliff) so as to, it was hoped, break the long standing heat record there. Yet it still hasn’t panned out for them.
This is the agency which is systematically going back over state record highs so as to eliminate those which it deems unlikely to be broken soon. Same thing the international criminals did with the world heat record from Libya.
The depths of their evil deception have not yet been plumbed.

May 15, 2015 10:58 am

I always wondered where the 3% of “scientists” who deny human influence in climate change hang out…now I know.

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 12:10 pm

shouldn’t your post read “where are the “3%” of scientists”?

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 12:21 pm

Lyn Wilson,
Your bogus “97% of scientists” narrative has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked that only religious True Believers in dangerous man-made global warming still but into that nonsense.

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 12:29 pm

Send in the clowns….

Reply to  RH
May 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Don’t bother, they’re here

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Another acolyte who believes what she is told to believe and doesn’t dare think for herself.

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 12:58 pm

Of course a grand total of nobody denies that humans can influence the climate. But if it’s more comfortable to believe lies about those who disagree with you, than it is to actually understand what others say and believe …

Reply to  Lyn Wilson
May 15, 2015 6:19 pm

Lyn, consensus arguments is worthless, REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science learning..

May 15, 2015 10:59 am

Global Warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.*

May 15, 2015 11:02 am

What troubles me is the lack of actual science going on here. Adjustments require some kind of knowledge as to what the actual should be. For instance, the recording of the neutrino that went faster than light needed adjustment because of instrumentation problems, mainly a faulty fiber optic attachment and a slightly fast clock oscillator. We know it can’t travel faster than a light particle, thus something was wrong. Local temperature records don’t have this hard-known actual that can be adjusted to. We can’t know for certain the “real” temperature without some form of comparison point. All we can tell is what is recorded by the instrument and that is what should be recorded and published, not a what-if guess.

Reply to  LaughingTarget
May 15, 2015 12:24 pm

Which still leaves out quantum entanglement. And or time displacement, which faster than light would imply. I could find fault with either/and both the faster clock and faulty fiber. Light on a fiber either works or it doesn’t and the clocks have to be matched for the signals to be read. The light signal doesn’t back up like on an electrical signal and inject errors as in bridge taps or impendence mismatches for example. The only thing you can have is a reduced db signal, and it fails only if it is below the minimum. Then you have signal components, do they take some of the bit stream to check or is entirely timing with injected errors to count the time. Otherwise you have errors. Additionally, there is redundancy on light systems. If one side or the other is out, it is shut down and alarm occurs, but not for the entire circuit unless it all fails. There is no partial failure. Also, on many of these, the systems are self healing. Speaking of entanglement, some of the switches and the networks are kinda spooky.
Do I believe the faulty connection and clock story? Not really. There is probably some other reason.

Reply to  LaughingTarget
May 15, 2015 12:39 pm

LT, your analogy is spot on. Just as physicists knew that the neutrino couldn’t travel faster than light, there are many climate scientists who “know” that the temperature is still rising, so the observations must be wrong.

Reply to  RH
May 15, 2015 5:07 pm

RH, you’re not thinking. At least try.
LT says:
We can’t know for certain the “real” temperature without some form of comparison point.
Metrology/calibration has flown right over LT’s head. Aside from that, let’s pretend his argument has merit, and that we’re not certain of any particular temperature point (within error bars, we are).
That still doesn’t matter. Because the trend is what’s important.
The global temperature trend has been flat to declining for many years now, as the data from both global temperature satellites shows (RSS and UAH). Even the IPCC admits that global warming has been in a long term “pause” (by which they mean: it has stopped).
Next, RH, your comment here is pure parody:
… there are many climate scientists who “know” that the temperature is still rising, so the observations must be wrong.
Sure: “Throw out the observations! Make the ‘theory’ fit our beliefs!”
Anyway, you don’t name those “scientists”, so I assume you just made that up.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  RH
May 15, 2015 6:08 pm

So there is a basic physical law of the universe that says that the earths temperature must still be rising? Basic physical laws are more than gut feelings!

Reply to  LaughingTarget
May 15, 2015 8:56 pm

We don’t know for certain that nothing can go faster than light, we just strongly believe it base on our best current theory, but everything should be open to experimental verification, and if a well conducted experiment disproves even the most strongly believed theory, then the theory must be wrong.

May 15, 2015 11:08 am

quality control ? in climate science ? surely you jest …

Mark from the Midwest
May 15, 2015 11:17 am

We have an official NOAA measurement station about 12 miles from our house. About 4 years ago an adjacent orchard of mature fruit trees was replaced with grapes. For anyone who’s ever worked in an orchard and then in a vineyard you already know the rest of the story. My guess is, all other things being equal, the orchard cooled the adjacent environment by as much as 3 to 4 degrees F, while the grapes allow the sun to cook the ground rather directly.

Doubly Doubtful
May 15, 2015 11:19 am

As we learned in Six Sigma training, Gage R&R, which stands for gage repeatability and reproducibility, is a statistical tool that measures the amount of variation in the measurement system arising from the measurement device and the people taking the measurement. I said all along that the conclusions of Global Warming proponents were suspect due to the lack of a gage R&R analysis

May 15, 2015 11:34 am

What is the latest information from the US reference stations network? I have been surprised that they have not been discussed more prominently. GISS and NOAA have continued to tout the adjusted data, but I don’t see comparisons to the reference stations.

Reply to  Wolfman
May 15, 2015 12:36 pm

The USCRN, with its pristine rural sites, and calibrated redundant Pt aspirated sensors shows NO warming for over ten years in the US.
This confirms the pause at least in the USA.
No adjustments needed.

Wojciech Peszko
Reply to  J
May 15, 2015 3:36 pm

So when NOAA data shows “pause” then data is reliable?

Reply to  J
May 15, 2015 5:58 pm

No, that just means it matches the satellite data at the time.

Reply to  J
May 15, 2015 7:16 pm

I was wondering why the USCRN has not been more widely reported.
Have they or someone provided a plot of the data for the last 10 years.
Why do NOAA and others avoid reporting on it?

Reply to  J
May 16, 2015 8:22 am
There is little publicity because there is no way to spin these numbers. NO warming, and maybe a bit of cooling. It does not fit the narrative.
The warmists say, but the US is only 3% of the earth surface, but this data is the best we have, and it confirms the pause.

May 15, 2015 11:35 am

Temperature data from stations that used to be rural and now are surrounded by pavement have shown increased temperature readings, but that data is useless when using it to make an honest analysis.
If the wild predictictions made by the global cooling nuts of the 1960’s, and the global warming kooks of 10-15 years ago had come true, we would all be dead by now

Reply to  Kevin
May 15, 2015 1:05 pm

Someone (Daly?) ran a study of stations in California. He found that there was a strongly positive correlation between warming and present day population of the county in which the station was located. In fact those stations in rural areas showed almost no warming.

May 15, 2015 11:37 am

““But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.”
1. you would NOT expect them to be balanced.
2. they are in fact balanced. In Berkeley earth the mean of all adjustments is zero.
3. they are not balanced in space and time.
4. UAH and RSS likewise do not have balanced adjustments in both space and time.
5. The ocean adjustments are cooling.. unbalanced.
The problem here is the prior. You have non experts speculating that the adjustments should be balanced.
There is no reason to expect this. In fact, our experience with the ocean informs us that when looking at the land we should NOT expect balance.
‘Another issue is a supposed lack of widespread weather stations – resulting in some temperature figures having to be estimated, Dr Peiser claimed. ”
ALL DATA HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. When I accept a data record as given I am assuming that the record is correct. I estimate that the chances of a transcription error are low for example. I estimate that the chances for a small temporary drift in the sensor is low.
As Willis has shown in his last post the temperature at a location can be estimated to a high degree with simple geometry.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 12:12 pm

Mosh: enough equivocation. it’s beneath a man of your talents and intelligence.

Reply to  davideisenstadt
May 15, 2015 8:57 pm

Actually it really isn’t.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 12:26 pm

Yes, ‘you would expect’ isn’t technical. Maybe he consulted his astrologist.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 12:26 pm

As the satellite data has shown global temperatures are no longer rising.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 12:28 pm

Mosher is in the camp of change, ignore ,or manipulate the data if it does not support AGW.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 12:31 pm

Agree. When almost every “adjustment” they make results in what appears to be more, faster, and scarier global warming, we should ask: Cui bono?
Fact: satellite measurements (the most accurate measurements we have) show NO global warming for the past 18+ years. “Adjustments” by government entities are just backing and filling to support an agenda: the push for carbon taxes.

Wojciech Peszko
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 3:10 pm

Somehow the satellites didn’t read your post and still show increase in temps.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2015 4:20 pm

Wojciech Peszko,
Maybe not on your planet. But here on Planet Earth, global warming has stopped. <—[satellite data; the most accurate kind]

Wojciech Peszko
Reply to  dbstealey
May 16, 2015 3:10 am

You mean this upward slope means it is horizontal?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 2:06 pm

Yep, estimated up the fractions of a degree to always show a warming. The fox is in charge of the hen house.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 3:44 pm

The problem here is the prior…..yes it is
When a temperature record is published…..and the exact same temperature record is published again, 5 years later……changed to show it was 2 degrees cooler

Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2015 9:03 pm


Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 6:26 pm

“2. they are in fact balanced. In Berkeley earth the mean of all adjustments is zero.”
Steven Mosher, does that mean that whenever Berkeley Earth wants to increase recent temperatures, all they have to do is lower past temperatures to make sure the mean of “all adjustments is zero”? That does not reassure us. All it proves is that you can maintain a zero mean and still create a fake warming trend.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2015 9:08 pm

Oh we all bow down to you Mosh, the expert of all experts concerning all things, because only experts can ever be right..

May 15, 2015 11:37 am

Follow the money, like Al did.

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
May 15, 2015 11:43 am

it seems to me that alarmists are taking a page out of hardcore creationism when it comes to global warming. They only count climate data from 1800 or 1850 onward, and write off the rest of the geologic record. Truly, we should have running averages of atmospheric co2 and GAT, so we can compare them to current levels. That isn’t done though, because that destroys the alarmist narrative.
Below is a nice link about NOAA getting busted big time for adjusting surface station temps:

Reply to  Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
May 15, 2015 12:05 pm

Of course Brakey will be dismissed as in the pay of Big Oil. But NOAA can’t d*ny he busted them.
The climate con men do indeed mimic creationist sc*m artists. But they’re worse, since the courts have reined in lying creationists, while governments encourage and protect the equally anti-scientific, clownish climate criminals.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 12:27 pm

Exactly. The only data that is not biased is satellite data.

May 15, 2015 11:46 am

I doubt this will address anything other than to confirm what CAGW already believes. A politically driven science agenda can’t reach any other conclusion. Too much money is involved, too many people have staked their reputations on CAGW and a lot of harsh rhetoric has been spewed forth from the all knowing consensus on those that dare question the validity. In the event that anything contradicts any idea of anything but disasters, the evidence will be clear that it’ll happen in another 10 years. Nothing short of a new ice age will shut CAGW people up. Then somehow, we will be responsible for that too.

May 15, 2015 11:48 am

The marxists attacked the oil industry, primarily the frackers. Saying that fracking is causing earth quakes. But I have not read a single article about the pumping of ground water, natural cisterns, aquifers, etc. The fact that those that drill wells are having to go deeper. How much of this is caused by water bottling companies sucking the Earth dry so Lovey and Biff can parade around with their designer water bottles? get a fawcett filter and drink your own tap water. How many trillions of gallons of water are stored away in warehouses worldwide? Or are you telling me that these conditions are not playing a vital roll in surface temps and droughts?

May 15, 2015 11:55 am

There are many variables that make calculating land-based global temps accurately very difficult including: intermittent data from war-torn areas, no global standardized temp data protocol, no standardized global temperature recording device used, huge areas of the globe with little or no historic temp data, no global standardization for Urban Heat Island adjustments, many temp stations relocated/abandoned over the past 16 decades, no global standardization for in-filling missing temp data, and many other factors too numerous to mention.
To top it off, NASA’s temp adjustments show a bias to cool base-year temps and increase more recent temps, which obviously generates larger temp anomalies.
It’s a mess. Hopefully GWPF’s global temp audit can determine how accurate global land-based temps are.
Since satellite temps don’t have any of these shortcomings and can be confirmed through radiosonde data, perhaps satellite data is the best to calculate global temps; at least from 1979.

Reply to  SAMURAI
May 15, 2015 1:09 pm

You can throw in no uniform training on how to read or maintain the stations. No uniform quality control on either the stations or the data being gathered.
The idea that we can estimate the earth’s “average” temperature within even 5C using this system is absurd on it’s face.

May 15, 2015 12:05 pm

Cousins across the Pond may well be unaware of the context of the article ?
The Daily Express, AKA The Daily Diana, is owned by the pornographer Richard Desmond, he who has donated a cool Million to UKIP. The organ as a purveyor of actual ‘News’ is probably on a par with the National Enquirer in the USA, and alternates its front page between breakthrough cures for Cancer, Altzheimers and such, and alarming forecasts of imminent weather events that never happen.
So, the article is something of a breakthrough for the Express inasmuch as it concerns a subject of real concern. Given that the organ is pitched at the lower end of the IQ scale, its a sad fact that most of the readers will likely be unimpressed, and move quickly on to the next page in the hope of the more usual Salacious Fare 🙂

Reply to  Fanakapan
May 15, 2015 12:11 pm

Actually, the National Enquirer is quite reliable. It has to be, or would face constant law suits. The quality of its reporting is far superior to the NYT, LAT or WaPo. However the subject matter upon which it reports is indeed generally trivial, at best.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 12:40 pm

You surprise me, is Elvis able to bring suit in the USA ? 🙂
Although to be fair, I have not looked the the Enquirer in many years, maybe it has moved upmarket ?
Its also worth remembering that the UK is smaller than most US States, which in turn makes possible a truly National circulation. Something not really possible in the USA ?

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 1:11 pm

Didn’t the National Enquirer break both the Monica Lewinsky and John Edward’s scandals?

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 3:12 pm

It isn’t up market, since it usually covers celebrities rather than “hard news”, but it has also broken big political stories (see below). It just has the highest journalistic standards. It adheres to the traditional need for multiple independent confirmations before printing a story, unlike the so-called Mainstream Media.
The bombastic tabloid did indeed break the John Edwards and Gary Hart stories, but not IMO the Lewinsky scandal:
Could be wrong.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 7:21 pm

Argumentative fellow aren’t you 🙂
I imagine if the owner had been a left leaning fellow, you’d be quick to want to know ?
But as it is, I’m quite happy to concede defeat to you, and admit that my prejudice against pornographers is hopelessly out dated.
You have a nice day now.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 15, 2015 7:31 pm

I could be wrong, but I recall the Drudge exposed the Lewansky/Clinton scandal. Another news media uncovered it but decided to withhold publication. I read every day, they give a good summary of what’s going on via links to other sites.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 16, 2015 1:17 pm

The Enquirer is not a pornographer. I fail to see your point.
Mine is that the NE practices the highest journalistic standards, of necessity, and, as shown, has at times scooped the so-called prestige media on important political stories. Without its watchdogs, we might have suffered a President Hart or Edwards.

Reply to  Fanakapan
May 15, 2015 1:11 pm

Fascinating how someone’s prior occupation and political affiliations are sufficient to disqualify anything his paper publishes.

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 3:05 pm

Well being an active (not prior) Pornographer is pretty extreme is it not ?
Time was when it was a way to earn quite a bit of money, but at the price of being relegated to the fringes of society.
As for political affiliations, there was a time (as above) when political parties might have at least kept contributions from pornographers quiet 🙂

Reply to  MarkW
May 15, 2015 6:30 pm

It still has no bearing on whether the story is true or not.
If that’s the best that you can do, and after two tries, it appears to be, then why not go ahead and admit that you have lost.

Reply to  Fanakapan
May 15, 2015 7:22 pm

Uffa, my reply was aimed at MarkW not Sturgis, apologies for my cakhandedness 🙁

Reply to  Fanakapan
May 16, 2015 1:18 pm

Ah, that explains it.

dave schwartz
May 15, 2015 12:09 pm

Any water well driller could solve the problem of taking reliable average surface temperatures. Put a temperature sensor 40 feet down in the ground. You will read the average temperature for several years, with some lag. But with one reading you will get the long term trend very easily and very accurately. Counties keep water well records including temperatures taken when they are drilled, so there is an historical data base available now. Then go around to current water wells and run the pump for a few minutes and take a well head temperature. Surprised that no one has undertaken such research to at least verify the surface averages in a given location.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  dave schwartz
May 15, 2015 1:52 pm

It is very difficult to map this ground temperature into an average air temperature. While the average air temperature is a true average of temperatures, the subsurface temperature is actually a function of heat flux at the surface and there are many variables that impact this heat flux, including the disturbance of the surface from development of the well or related structures.

May 15, 2015 12:20 pm

The shape of the Earth libration orbit precession depends on the albedo of the planet,and not from the albedo depends on the person climat.Climate Change is a measure of the Speed and one of the flags katastrrofy.
Monumental Earth Changes.
This Changes Everything.Een aute aanval van ontlastingsdrang die “ERNSTIG EN NAKEND” is.,,
1.Change shape of the Earth , 1582.html
2.Change gravity's-gravity-dips-from-antarctic-ice-loss-141001.htm
3.Change pcession
4.Change orbit,; CultureCode=en
The changes were mixed and the planet to shift the center of gravity in the Earth-Moon system which violated and violate the timing of rotation in the Earth-Moon system catastrophically rapid climate Change has happened and willhappen because of the proximityof the Moon to the Earth,Which led and will lead to the tsunami and the earth’s happened happens at the speed of the Earth around its axis at a time.
[??? .mod]

Reply to  князь истоков (@istokov)
May 15, 2015 4:17 pm

принести больше свежих шлюх и виски для нас мужчин!

Steve P
Reply to  Max Photon
May 16, 2015 8:41 am


Reply to  Max Photon
May 16, 2015 12:45 pm

Ummm … is that because:
a) you don’t get the humor in relation to the seemingly drunk poster?
b) you want everyone to think you’re a “sensitive male”?
c) you’ve already had your fill?
I saw that line on a bumper sticker on a pickup truck in Berkeley circa 1980. I’ve chuckled at the unlikely juxtaposition ever since.

May 15, 2015 12:22 pm

No concerns, only the finest scientific methods are employed in determining global temperature, especially at the Poles.
This illustration is NASA, EPA, NOAA, and DNC approved

dave johnson
May 15, 2015 12:24 pm

It’s laughably bad science behind the global warming…er, climate change agenda. You can bet those with strong belief in its reality are skewing the data; after all their funding and their “stature elevation” depend on it.
The credibility of Al’s big bs hoax is GONE. We’re going on 18yrs with no measurable temp increases but there’s no dissuading those who’d like to see a worldwide chokehold on every facet of our lives by big world government.

Village idiot
May 15, 2015 12:46 pm

“With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other….”
Er….apples and pears?

May 15, 2015 12:51 pm

“People ask why they are the gatekeepers of the data if they have such strong opinions. Should they really be the guardians of data quality and high standards?”
Exactly. Its the fox guarding the hen house. A classic conflict of interest. The ammunition for action on global warming comes from the temperature data, so there has to be some independent auditing of the data keeping because the people keeping the data benefit if the temperatures rise.
Once the satellite system went up to measure sea level rise the man made tide gauge measurements seemingly became obsolete. At least tide gauge measurements are never quoted anymore as a source of sea level measurement. So why is it that the ground measurements of temperature, that need adjusting, are still quoted more than the satellite system measurements of temperature? It seems the climate community has chosen satellite measurements for sea level rise because that shows more of a rise than ground measurements, and they choose man made ground temperature measurements because they show more of temperature rise than satellite measurements.
The altitude of the the Jason-2 sea level measuring satellite is 1336 km (circular orbit). Jason-2 data is reported in measurements of sea level down to tenths of a millimeter. At 1336 km, the ocean in 1,336,000,000 millimeters away. Changes in tenths of a millimeter of sea level distance is a change in the eleventh significant figure of that distance measurement made by the Jason satellite. And we think that eleventh significant figure of a satellite measurement is more accurate than the second significant figure of tide gauge measurement made by man on the ground. But then we trust a temperature measurement on the ground with a man made fudge factor in it (NCDC data) more than a satellite measurement (RSS) data. I’m throwing the BS flag.

Reply to  Steve
May 15, 2015 1:25 pm

Precision vs. accuracy. Extreme precision can be useful if you don’t want someone to notice the lack of accuracy.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  Steve
May 15, 2015 6:22 pm

You got it!

May 15, 2015 12:54 pm

Funny how these moronic climate “scientists” claiming the sky is falling are always caught fudging their data and deleted suspect emails every few years. Also funny how they all seems to be Dumocrats and liberal idiots.

richard verney
May 15, 2015 1:57 pm

Even today spatial coverage is severely lacking; witness the large swathes of Northern Africa, the north of South America, the south of South America, Northern Canada, Central Australia, Northern Scandinavia, the vast majority of Russia and India, as well as the poles which have little in the way of station data.
Who really considers that there is sufficient global coverage for a claim that we have global temperature data going back to the 1880s or 1850. In reality, we only have info going back to say the mid 20th century and even that as can be seen from the spatial coverage of today, is patchy at best.

May 15, 2015 2:14 pm

The wmo give urban stations zero points for quality, just under three percent of the world is urbanised and 27 percent of temp stations are in these areas, the few in Africa are all in urban areas. With Africa one fifth of the world’s land mass it is frightening to think they are using this data to convince the world there is a problem.

Reply to  richard
May 15, 2015 2:29 pm

Even if these stations were accurate to 0.1C, the lack of coverage would mean that any average would only be accurate to 5C or so. Through in the non-existant quality control on the immediate station environment, the macro station environment and the station record keeping and it’s obvious that no qualitive statements can be made from this data regarding the earth’s temperature.
The idea that we can use this mash-up of a network to determine the earth’s temperature to within 0.1C doesn’t even rise to laughable.

Reply to  MarkW
May 16, 2015 7:06 am

Don’t worry, “scientists” have an Al-Gorythm to fix these problem.

GI Joe
May 15, 2015 2:28 pm

The science is settled, Global Warming is a total hoax designed to enrich Al Gore and all the carbon shufflers, and control the people of this earth.

May 15, 2015 3:03 pm

All of this nonsense is such a waste of brainpower

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  jimheath
May 15, 2015 3:35 pm

I agree, but the Warmistas are publicly funded. We have to fight back aga9inst this fraud nonsense.

Chip Javert
Reply to  jimheath
May 15, 2015 3:49 pm

Understandable frustration. However, ignoring this admitted nonsense allows unaccountable politicians to tax your earnings for transfer to their benefit (UN, EPA US Department of Energy easily come to mind), as well as their selected “friends” (Solendra easily comes to mind).

Robert of Ottawa
May 15, 2015 3:34 pm

There are serious heavy-metal academics and politicos in the UK questioning the Warmista insanity. I recommend also Ben Pile’s site, which explores the philosophy of the enviromentalists [sic].

Chip Javert
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 15, 2015 3:51 pm

point of order:
What is a “heavy-metal academic”?

Reply to  Chip Javert
May 15, 2015 4:08 pm

A professor who can’t mind his own bismuth?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Chip Javert
May 15, 2015 5:37 pm

That beamed in from Gosh knows where? How do you put this stuff together.?

Reply to  Chip Javert
May 15, 2015 6:28 pm

CO2 made me do it.

William Astley
May 15, 2015 3:52 pm

In reply to:

Phil Jones May 15, 2015 at 12:26 pm
On the Steven Goddard Blog I recently read where Anthony and
other Skeptics were quoted as criticizing Steven’s work…
WattsUpWithThat?? … as Skeptics we need to stick together… Goddard’s work busting continual Data Fraud is amazing… GROUND BREAKING… so I just don’t understand the criticism…
Care to Chime in?

It appears you are trying to distract us all, from the fact that there is a purposeful warming bias in GISS.
Temperature gate is alive in well. GISS is of course the go fabricated temperature record for the cult of CAWG.
Both HADCUT 4 and UAH continue to show the warmest year on record to be 1997. HADCUT4 and UAH show that 2015 is colder than a half dozen years.
If the facts do not support the cult of CAWG changes the facts.
The GISS based assertion that 2015 could be the warmest year is a complete fabrication, propaganda.
Any comments?
Curious that we are now seeing record sea ice in the Antarctic all months of the year and a recover of both extent and thickness of the Arctic sea ice.
CO2 continues to rise yet the planet appears to be cooling.
Oh what can be the cause of the sudden increase in sea ice both poles? (Hint: It is the sun.)

Jimmy Finley
May 15, 2015 5:16 pm

My complaint is that they take these point data, and then smear them across hundreds of kilometers to make a “map” that glows bright red in the north. Perhaps Spitsbergen’s airport is a good station, that isn’t affected by jet blast and tarmac, but to project its T out to the North Pole is simply BS. I wouldn’t object if the “world temperature” was based simply on taking each reporting station as a discrete datum, and mashing them all together. Then, we could take work such as Anthony and crew did, evaluate and discard the bad stations, and come up with a more accurate figure. Then we might actually know if the earth is warming of cooling. Whatever, the present system is BS, and one that I truly believe is being manipulated by unscrupulous people for various agendas.

May 15, 2015 5:25 pm

I like the approach of using all the temperature data that go into initialization of the global forecast models four times each day. This data set is much more comprehensive spatially than the GHCN and has a period of record similar to satellite derived estimates. In recent years it shows fairly large departures from GHCN derived global temperature anomaly estimates.comment image
It is also very important to keep in mind the large uncertainly associated with the GHCN derived global temperature anomaly trends. I believe the graph below is a conservative estimate.comment image

May 15, 2015 5:44 pm

This is only a problem because some teams are determined to ensure that each succeeding year is a new record. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

May 15, 2015 6:40 pm

I have a 97% consensus in my head that the surface data is rigged!

Rob Ricket
May 15, 2015 7:13 pm

Idols of the Cave my friends!

johann wundersamer
May 15, 2015 8:32 pm

‘Particularly / ad libitum / there / ad libitum / you have to make a lot of infilling.’
Me has? We have? To make a lot of INFILLING?
Tell me!

johann wundersamer
May 15, 2015 8:49 pm

obviously obligated /sarc:
we always have to do a LOT of infilling to cope with. Contemporary Climate. Science.

May 15, 2015 9:52 pm

Slingo basically admits they know nothing; Hickman ends the main interview with “Okay, brilliant, thank you very much.” before Slingo responds to 3 questions by email:
15 May: CarbonBrief: Leo Hickman: The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
Prof Dame Julia Slingo has been the chief scientist at the Met Office since February 2009…Earlier this month, she was made a fellow of the Royal Society.
On the 2013/14 winter flooding in the UK: “I can’t give a definitive answer, but all the evidence points to the potential for climate change to have played a role.”
The Met Office’s new supercomputer: “It gives me more confidence in the advice we give to government, to businesses, to public on what climate change might look like.”…
On overinterpreting short-term temperature trends: “There are real issues with looking at too short a time period to define what we believe is climate sensitivity.”…
On the reliability of climate models: “Do I think our models run too warm? No, I don’t.”…
The impact of privatising the Met Office on science: “Oh, it would fundamentally change it …We would not be able to access the observations we need for weather forecasting, let alone climate.”
On transparency and open access to data: “Let’s be clear, everything that’s paid for by the public purse is freely and openly available.”…
CB: Some critics of those models have said that they’re running too warm, or that they don’t match current observations. How do you respond to that, and how will the new computer potentially resolve that?
JS: It’s certainly true that over the last decade, fifteen years or so, the planet hasn’t warmed at the rate one would expect simply from the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. We’ve made no bones about that, we’ve been very clear about that and we’re beginning to understand why that is…
One of the important things about climate models is that those that say they run too warm will say that they’re wrong and I will always say climate models are not wrong; they’re incomplete because our knowledge of the climate system is incomplete. We don’t fully understand yet how clouds work, how cloud microphysics works. All science’s knowledge is incomplete and climate science is no different. Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to represent the knowledge we have in our climate models is constrained by the computer power we have. I can run models at a kilometre scale, I can run them at a few hundred metres with the same codes that I’m running for climate. I don’t have the computer power to do it…
CB: And what’s your latest view on how long this sort of slowdown period could continue for?
JS: Well, we published something recently that certainly said that another five years is possible and, actually, becomes more likely the longer the slowdown progresses. Again, can we make a prediction with any confidence? I’m not sure. Because, again, how far back do we have observations of what the oceans have done in the past on these sorts of time scales? Very, very limited. So, am I confident in the models? As much as I have observations and theory to underpin what they’re doing. And they tell us quite a bit, which, you know, we might be looking at an end of it in five years…

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
May 15, 2015 9:52 pm

The met network is highly non-homogeneous around the all continents. If we look at India and US, this is clearly evident. With the far higher population over US with less area affected by orography and different monsoon and cyclonic activity. In India the irrigated area has increased far high level than US. All these factors play vital role in averaging temperature.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

May 15, 2015 11:51 pm

The current temperature of the north eastern Pacific.

May 16, 2015 1:06 am

On 13th May, Steve Goddard pointed out that Glacier Bay became accessible from 1794 To 1896, when the ice retreated 40 miles, during a period less warm than present!
Glaciers are a product of snowfall, so what changed in Alaska 200+ years ago? SUVs?

May 16, 2015 1:24 am

“….Temperature records,
How is temperature measured?
Not using the principals
That should always be treasured.
The temperatures required?
Politically dictated;
The halls of good science
By charlatans infiltrated.
Computer models
Cannot possibly predict,
The physics not sorted
To allow that edict;
But that is ignored,
You could say it’s denied,
(Isn’t that the term used
If you haven’t complied?)…..”
From “The One Eyed Politician is King” More: http:///

May 16, 2015 2:10 am

The satellite temperature record contains uncertainties and adjustments just like the Ground Station records.
Firstly, satellites do not measure the surface temperature which is most relevant to where we live, they estimate temperature changes several kilometres over our heads.
Secondly, satellites do not measure temperature at all. They measure microwave emissions from the atmosphere. Very complicated calculations are then required to estimate temperature from microwave intensity but, even then, the result does not represent temperature at any given location. The microwave radiation does not all come from the same place, it is an accumulation over various slant paths viewed from the satellite. Furthermore, as the instruments scan across the Earth, the altitude in the atmosphere that is sampled changes as the Earth incidence angle of view changes.

“All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them. For example, RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made (the so-called diurnal drift problem), while we use an empirical approach. This correction is particularly difficult because it varies with geographic location, time of year, terrain altitude, etc.”
Dr. Roy Spencer

UAH has just revised how it calculates temperature and this shows a clear divergence from the previously published figures. So which was correct, version 5.6 which was previously claimed to be correct or the new version 6 which now claims to be correct? We all seemed to have such great faith in 5.6 which turned out to be quite wrong. Should we have a greater faith in 6.0?
I am not comfortable with cherry-picking one set of data whilst ignoring others. To get a balanced picture it is necessary to consider all the data.

Reply to  MikeB
May 16, 2015 4:41 am

Do you believe that Hudson Bay is still frozen?
The measurements can be compared, although they can not be accurate.

Reply to  MikeB
May 16, 2015 4:48 am

Only satellite measurements can give a relative picture of “global temperature”.

Reply to  MikeB
May 16, 2015 6:05 am

This is the gist of a previous response of mine on another site:
‘Take a look at two T’s I have experienced Jan 5th, 2015. I live in Perth, Australia. One Perth station hit just over 43C today max. Another in a suburb called Swanbourne peaked at just over 42C but was also 10C lower than the Perth station.
They are less than 10kms apart.!! It is 19:30 WST now and the difference is still 7C. So what is the temp for this small area today?
These are the two sites in question but will display today’s data. ‘
I don’t know that it is so important that we live on the surface. We don’t live at sea and I am not sure how they measure Mt Everest etc for example. Even where I live another station is about 10km away and 400m higher than Perth yet its T can vary being higher and lower. So much for infilling/homogenization being acceptable within 1200kms.
There is another issue in that electronic thermometers were being introduced in the mid 90’s. Experts claim that these are far more sensitive and give a reading of some 0.9C higher. Certainly in the experience of one meteorologist the data were not compensated. Same happened in Melbourne.
So with these type of issues and the plethora of historical changes some of us get a little irritated with the ongoing adjusted historical surface data.
The satellite can cover much greater areas and volume of air. With fewer past changes I feel at least comforted that the satellite data seems set in “stone” by comparison despite its own error level and the new version. There seem to be far fewer issues with the two services, RSS and UAH, acting as a cross check. I don’t really see that UAH version 6 is so different.

Bill Illis
May 16, 2015 5:47 am

Clive Best has a new post up showing the changes in land temperatures over some time in the NCDC’s GHCN database (used by everyone producing surface temperature data).
GHCN V1 Raw land temp increase from 1880 extended to 2014 about 0.65C.
New adjusted GHCN V3 land temp increase from 1880 to 2014 about 1.2C.

May 16, 2015 5:59 am

Not too many of you folk could gain admission to the University of Western Australia.
Take great comfort in the fact that the Australian state of Tasmania has more weather stations than Brazil.
There appears to be a very strong correlation between the age of dung beetles and the times of high tides in Hong Kong Harbour. Should I apply for a government (or UN) grant to further study this phenomenon and then tie it to global warming (alias climate change)?

Reply to  toorightmate
May 16, 2015 7:35 am

My daughter takes a college level course in 9th grade – AP Human Geography. The amount of brainwashing concerning “Global Warming” in this curriculum is stunning. Rest easy, I am sure publicly funded education will be manufacturing a large crop of admissionable students for places like UWA.

Margaret Gr
May 16, 2015 9:54 am

It’s so hard to see this issue is even still up for debate. The web page below is great because it covers global warming succinctly and explains why it’s still questioned, but it also has actions to take for others that finding not moving on this issue equally hard to watch…

May 16, 2015 11:02 am

I did a study of 2013 records from the CRN top rated US surface stations. It was published Aug. 20, 2014 at No Tricks Zone. Most remarkable about these records is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the average rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and averaged them for station trends.
Recently I updated that study with 2014 data and compared adjusted to unadjusted records. The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.
The study has been accepted and forwarded to the panel of the International Temperature Data Review Project. Full report and supporting excel workbooks are here:

Reply to  Ron Clutz
May 16, 2015 11:11 am

Good on you, mate!

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 16, 2015 11:25 am

Thanks sturgis. Coming from a friend of Apollo your comment is heartwarming.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 16, 2015 11:44 am

I prefer Athena. With her, its a friend with benefits.
Apollo is more of a head- than heart-warmer, in my experience. But then, I look like Ike.

Wojciech Peszko
Reply to  Ron Clutz
May 16, 2015 12:07 pm

“No theory is offered here as to how or why this has happened, only to disclose the records themselves and make the comparisons.” You mean you didn’t bother to look for ones?

Reply to  Wojciech Peszko
May 16, 2015 12:23 pm

My report was a kind of audit, taking a field sample to see if the treatment of historical records was reasonable. The climate centers say the adjustments are done by computers using algorithms. I do not claim expertise to critique those software.

%d bloggers like this: