New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’

MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED

Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots

Nationwide study follows up widespread corruption and heat biases found at NOAA stations in 2009, and the heat-bias distortion problem is even worse now

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022) – A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and  uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

NOAA’s “Requirements and Standards for [National Weather Service] Climate Observations” instructs that temperature data instruments must be “over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station and at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface.” And that “all attempts will be made to avoid areas where rough terrain or air drainage are proven to result in non-representative temperature data.” This new report shows that instruction is regularly violated.

READ THE REPORT (PDF).

For more information, or to speak with the authors of this study please contact Vice President and Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.

This new report is a follow up to a March 2009 study, titled “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? which highlighted a subset of over 1,000 surveyed stations and found 89 percent of stations had heat-bias issues. In April and May 2022, The Heartland Institute’s team of researchers visited many of the same temperature stations as in 2009, plus many not visited before. The new survey sampled 128 NOAA stations, and found the problem of heat-bias has only gotten worse.

“The original 2009 surface stations project demonstrated conclusively that the federal government’s surface temperature monitoring system was broken, with the vast majority of stations not meeting NOAA’s own standards for trustworthiness and quality. Investigations by government watchdogs OIG and GAO confirmed the 2009 report findings,” said H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute who surveyed NOAA surface stations himself this spring. “This new study is evidence of two things. First, the government is either inept or stubbornly refuses to learn from its mistakes for political reasons. Second, the government’s official temperature record can’t be trusted. It reflects a clear urban heat bias effect, not national temperature trends.”

An example of the bias problem

The chart below, found on page 17 of the report, shows 30 years of data from NOAA temperature stations in the Continental United States (CONUS). The blue lines show recorded temperatures and the trend from stations that comply with NOAA’s published standards. The yellow lines are temperatures taken from stations that are not compliant with those standards (i.e. near artificial hot spots). The red lines are the “official” adjusted temperature released by NOAA.

“If you look at the unperturbed stations that adhere to NOAA’s published standard – ones that are correctly located and free of localized urban heat biases – they display about half the rate of warming compared to perturbed stations that have such biases,” Watts said. “Yet, NOAA continues to use the data from their warm-biased century-old surface temperature networks to produce monthly and yearly reports to the U.S. public on the state of the climate.”

“The issue of localized heat-bias with these stations has been proven in a real-world experiment conducted by NOAA’s laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and published in a peer reviewed science journal.” Watts added.

“By contrast, NOAA operates a state-of-the-art surface temperature network called the U.S. Climate Reference Network,” Watts said. “It is free of localized heat biases by design, but the data it produces is never mentioned in monthly or yearly climate reports published by NOAA for public consumption.


The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank founded in 1984, is one of the world’s leading organizations promoting the work of scientists who are skeptical that human activity is causing a climate crisis.

Heartland has hosted 14 International Conferences on Climate Change attended by thousands since 2008, published the six-volume Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and for 21 years has published Environment and Climate News. The Heartland Institute has also published several popular books on the climate, including Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015), Seven Theories of Climate Change (2010), and Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (2009).

###

4.8 174 votes
Article Rating
868 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 27, 2022 5:38 am

Not quite as blatant as GISS “correcting” the record, but . . .

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 27, 2022 5:54 am

You beat me to it by ten minutes. See below

Derg
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 27, 2022 8:22 am

The Final Nail will be upset 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 27, 2022 9:35 am

The usual suspects will just declare that this data just proves that skeptics are ignoring the science.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2022 9:34 am

I would have thought that the surface stations projects in the US would have spawned global weather station auditing by now. I recall there was a group in New Zealand that took the weather felons to court and won. The official “Clime Syndicate” (thnx Mark Steyn) NIWA was ordered to advise that their network is not suitable for climate evaluation.

I’m nor sure what they do now. They voted in one of the stupidest doctrinaire PMs there is who is wiping out their meat farmers industry if Nadern wants an outcome of such policies, UK just slaughtered and burned ⅓ of their hogs (it would have been nice to invite the poor to pick up pork for the price of butchery).

Here is another bit of Clime Syndicate work on Capetown, S.A’s Temperatures (note the the raw temp pattern is identical to that of the US with the 20thC highs in 1930s-40s):

comment image

Here’s the Clime Syndicate’s
handiwork:

comment image

Disgusting, shameful! And now GISS’s Gavin Schmidt has been forced to admit climate models are running a way to hot. And the adjustments to temperature were made to satisfy the CO2 “T Control Knob”. They even have an algorithm that makes hundreds of tiny cumulative adjustments to the aggregate global ‘record) per diem (!) based on this falsified cult science. The Temperature Fiddlers even use ‘station moves and closures to get rid of those not showing warming.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 31, 2022 1:12 pm

 I recall there was a group in New Zealand that took the weather felons to court and won. The official “Clime Syndicate” (thnx Mark Steyn) NIWA was ordered to advise that their network is not suitable for climate evaluation.”

Your memory is very bad:

“In the High Court judgement, released today, Justice Geoffrey Venning ruled that the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust had not been successful in any of the challenges they brought against NIWA.

Justice Venning also decided that NIWA’s cost should be paid by the trust and he said that if an agreement on the costs could not be reached he would make another ruling at a later stage.”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 31, 2022 3:02 pm

Well Nick I was wrong on some details but NIWA did fold considerably as a result of the challenge. Here is what happened to NIWA’s iconic ever upwards temp record as a response to the lawsuit:

“But now, para 7(a) of NIWA’s Statement of Defence states that “there is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand Temperature Record”.

In para 8(b) it says the NZTR is not a public record for the purposes of the Public Records Act, using the exemption of “special collections” defined (in para 4(b)) as non-public records used for “research purposes”.

In para 4, NIWA denies it has any obligation to use the best available data or best scientific techniques, while conceding that it has statutory duties to pursue excellence and to perform its functions efficiently and effectively.

The juxtaposition of these conflicting stances leaves NIWA looking decidedly awkward. Should it go all out to defend its most famous product, or throw the NZTR under a bus?”

The replacement of 7SS doesn’t repeat the Salinger adjustments but it is to include any adjustments agreed between NIWA and BOM, both of whom will supposedly apply state-of-the-art homogenisation technology.

So the old 7SS has already been repudiated. A replacement NZTR is being prepared by NIWA – presumably the best effort they are capable of producing. NZCSC is about to receive what it asked for. On the face of it, there’s nothing much left for the Court to adjudicate.

Big ‘tell’ here: NIWA took out the disputed “Salinger adjustments” and sent the unfinished stuff to the BOM, Australia’s infamous climate fiddlers, to let them adjust it as they see fit!!! Obviously BOM is the big daddy they have to collaborate with (probably had a hand in making NZ temp conforming in the first place). You can’t have New Zealand cooling while big brother next door is approaching meltdown. BOM has mellowed a bit from attacks on their massive adjustments. An eye over the shoulder has that kind of affect.

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/whats-left-of-the-niwa-case/

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 31, 2022 11:28 pm

Gary Pearse,
If you seek a detailed look at what adjustment can do, here is an Excel page from BOM official data for Alice Springs T max daily, adjusted to give in turne versions 1, 2, 2.1 and 2.2. An earlier High Quality set was withdrawn after protest.
These numbers are not like the score for an orchestra to play sublime music. They are the discordant, non-harmonious ramblings of composers without a clue, resulting in white noise.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/alice-springs-adjustment-versions.xlsx

Simon
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 1, 2022 5:53 pm

Well Nick I was wrong on some details “
That’s one way to say you said the wrong team won. And as I recall they were asked to pay 80k to Niwa.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 4, 2022 10:10 am

“In para 4, NIWA denies it has any obligation to use the best available data or best scientific techniques,”

That in itself is enough to start the guffawing and permanent dismissal of any of their conclusions or recommendations.

jay willis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 1, 2022 11:12 am

Nick Stokes.
It’s great to see your comments. Well researched and picking up on others’ exaggerations and errors. It’s a great service for the accuracy of these comment threads. The helpful confirmation for me is that you say nothing substantive to refute the core assertions made in the main post. You clearly have all the available resources, including time, punctuality and extensive knowledge, and remain unable to effectively argue against the bombshell in the main article.

As usual thanks again for the contribution you do therefore make albeit by highlighting your incapability to put a cogent argument forward in this case.

Reply to  jay willis
August 1, 2022 2:33 pm

Nick Stroker presents himself as an expert on temperature data, but when asked questions about those data, specifically about infilling and UHI adjustments, he has no answers.
He is no expert.
He is a science fraud.
A defender of al government bureaucrats
as if he is on the payroll.

The weather station siting is bad news, both in 2009 and 2022. Stroker’s response is that NOAA adjusts the data to fix all the siting problems.
How they adjust the data — concerning the details of these adjustments — he has no idea — just trust them. because he says so!

Then Stroker pulls the ultimate sleight of hand.
He insists the USCRN weather stations are sited properly therefore must provide accurate numbers.
That is false.
The numbers from those weather stations are compiled by NOAA government bureaucrats — the same bureaucrats who could not care less that so many other weather stations are not properly sited.

The same bureaucrats who believe in a coming climate crisis and want to see faster temperature rises, because most of them have predicted just that.

We have evidence that NOAA does not care about good science (poor weather station siting) and their employees are biased -“pro-warming”…

But we must trust USCRN because NOAA says it is accurate. And Nick Stroker repeats that claim like a well trained parrot.

The bottom line is we do not know if USCRN is accurate and we do not trust NOAA.

So when Mr, Stroker claims other NOAA data MUST be accurate, because they are similar to USCRN, he is deceiving us.

Both USCRN and other NOAA data could be similarly WRONG.

Having properly sited weather stations does not mean the resulting temperature average reported to the general public will be accurate.

Having properly sited weather stations and an accurate national average temperature does not mean the climate scaremongering will stop.

How many times must climate realists be lied to and deceived about the coming climate crisis (predicted the past 50 years — where is it?)
and falsely blaming bad weather on “climate change” … until we DO NOT TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT CLIMATE DATA
… think of the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 that has mysteriously “disappeared” from the history books. NASA-GISS did that.
Should we trust them now?

Reply to  jay willis
August 1, 2022 6:59 pm

The core assertion of the post is
Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots
Nationwide study follows up widespread corruption and heat biases found at NOAA stations in 2009, and the heat-bias distortion problem is even worse now”

And what I have been saying over and over, which is absolutely central to the post, is, let’s look at the results. In the post we read
“By contrast, NOAA operates a state-of-the-art surface temperature network called the U.S. Climate Reference Network,” Watts said. “It is free of localized heat biases by design, but the data it produces is never mentioned in monthly or yearly climate reports published by NOAA for public consumption.

And so I say, again, let’s compare:

comment image

Just the same. What happened to that “purposeful placement in man-made hot spots”?



Jay Willis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 2, 2022 1:42 am

Nick, that is not proof of anything. It makes your argument worse. Without doubt, as Anthony explained above, some sites are very poorly placed to give accurate readings. Therefore they cannot be included in analysis to improve accuracy. The fact that both sets of data from good and bad sites have been fiddled to match each other is not proof of accuracy. Anthony’s graphs show the doubling of warming caused by poor sitingvusing original data. Again, if this is all you’ve got, it increases my confidence in the primary assertion that NOAA can’t be trusted.

AlanJ
Reply to  Jay Willis
August 2, 2022 5:43 am

The CRN has not been “fiddled.” It is the reference series. Anthony Watts himself acknowledges that the stations in the CRN are well-sighted and maintained, he even laments that they are not more widely displayed. The fact that this pristine reference series matches the ClimDiv network strongly suggests that there are no significant effects from siting issues in the network.

If you want to claim that there’s fraudulent data tampering happening at NOAA with the CRN you’ve got to provide some evidence for that.

jay willis
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 9:23 am

Alan, no, you are wrong. Anthony shows that there are major siting issues. Therefore the raw data do not match – he shows this with his graphs. you say:.”pristine reference series matches the ClimDiv network” What do you mean? Some overall average number for the USA? The global average? Some number for the average of the CRN network? What? What adjustments are made to the ClimDev network to ‘match’ the CRN?. Where are the error bars on all these graphs? What’s the variance?

This is all a load of unscientific claptrap in any case. But you can’t have 1). Clear evidence of siting issues + 2). No evidence of siting issues in some aggregated number for some different area. The whole ClimDiv is unfit for purpose, Anthony clearly shows this, and the ‘it all comes out OK in the end’ argument is complete rubbish, and self evidently is bound to cause major errors in the record.

To look at it another way: the siting issues should turn up in the overall network record, or it is unfit for purpose.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  jay willis
August 3, 2022 12:48 pm

Your points are very cogent and well stated. These folks want to use statistics but only part of them, i.e., the mean. Not one of the CAGW proponents will discuss even the minimal piece of statistics that goes along with a mean, e.g., variance.

Although I received pushback about calling variance the amount of data dispersion surrounding the mean on another thread here, I’ve seen no reference that contradicts that definition.

Quoting a mean without also quoting the variance/standard deviation shows how lackadaisical the people calculating the mean are in handling measurement data and how little they care about accurate statistics.

This doesn’t come close to dealing with the uncertainty in measurements or how Significant Digit rules are totally ignored.

Only the mean providing the answer they want is important.

Reply to  jay willis
August 3, 2022 10:07 pm

What do you mean? Some overall average number for the USA?”
I showed you just above. The US average, which is the measure of warming. Here again is the monthly comparison.

comment image

To look at it another way: the siting issues should turn up in the overall network record, or it is unfit for purpose.”

No, that is just faith-based. Your “proof” of siting issues is just a bunch of amateurs going around saying – “Gee, I don’t like the look of that”. No-one has shown that measurements are affected. That the “issues” didn’t turn up in the record is an observation. An actual result. The speculation about bad effects is undone by measurement.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 4, 2022 5:55 am

Nick, your argument is that the changes don’t affect anything. Then why spend the time, effort, and money to even do them? The money could certainly be spent more wisely assisting poor people than spending it doing busy work.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 4, 2022 2:27 pm

Malarky! Measurement uncertainty makes it impossible to define a “true trend”, including direction.

Fred Hubler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 9, 2022 6:19 pm

The USCRN stations are stations selected specifically to to eliminate citing issues.

paul courtney
Reply to  jay willis
August 4, 2022 2:20 pm

Mr. willis: An excellent retort, I note Mr. Stokes didn’t dispute you either.
Now I see him down the line, better read that first

Last edited 2 months ago by paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2022 10:33 am

A common tactic of eco-bleeps is to define words differently than most people do.

That’s a standard method of Marxism, which most eco-bleeps believe at heart, and consistent with related ideological teaching that words create reality.

So for example ‘dialogue’ means agreeing with them, not discussion or debate.

They use ‘science’ to support their anti-human agenda.

TallDave
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 27, 2022 5:11 pm

oh come on, everyone was doing acid and listening to disco in the 1970s, it’s no wonder they thought the world was headed to an icy, well-deserved doom

modern scientists may have no idea how many genders there are but surely they can re-interpret a thermometer far better many decades later

Last edited 2 months ago by TallDave
ATheoK
Reply to  TallDave
July 28, 2022 10:55 am

everyone was doing acid and listening to disco”

Say what?
Acid and disco? Sounds contradictory.

Cocaine and disco, maybe. There was another drug that the discoettes liked because they could dance for hours.

Yitzi Kaner
Reply to  TallDave
August 1, 2022 4:07 pm

That’s saying they actually wanted to be accurate with the thermometers. Big government is not here to save you.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2022 3:37 pm

record, but . . .

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2022 3:53 pm

See below

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2022 3:56 pm

The usual suspects will just declare that this data just proves that skeptics are ignoring the science.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2022 3:56 pm

Not quite as blatant as GISS “correcting” the record, but . . .

Willem post
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 2, 2022 6:35 am

The only accurate data are 42 years of satellite data since 1979
All the rest is bull manure and agenda driven

willem Post
Reply to  Willem post
August 2, 2022 8:01 am

SOME COMMENTS ON TEMPERATURES

The average temperature has gone up just over 1 C in 100 years.
Temperatures go up and down 5 to 10 C, or more, every day, so that really is not a big deal!
If you step out from the shade on a sunny day, you experience a 10 C or so increase.
The alarm of an increase of 1-plus/100y cannot be justified as catastrophic!

100-plus years ago:

-There were not many weather stations worldwide. They covered less than 2% of the world land area.
– Above the entire ocean area (71% of the planet’s surface), there were no air temperature measurements at all!
– Thermometers were used only on land. Many were not 1) high quality, 2) properly-calibrated, or 3) cross-checked.
– The only accurate data are 42 years of satellite data since 1979. The graph of the data indicates much lower temperatures than of computer-generated graphs, which are based on agenda-driven, massaged/adjusted data 

Thus, the BASE-POINT of the 100y-old temperature reference from which to judge what has happened during the past 100 years is extremely dubious, to say the least.

  • Carbon dioxide is not dangerous. It is about 0.042% in the atmosphere, 4% in exhaled breath,
  • 0.2% in an auditorium or pub, or 5 times greater than in the atmosphere,
  • 0.4 to 0.5% in a submarine, or more than 10 times greater than in the atmosphere. 
  • Submariners live in that safe CO2 environment for periods of 6 months or so.
  • Sea levels have been measured worldwide for well over a century and the level-increase is only about 2mm/year (or less). Some land areas like in Scandinavia are actually subsiding. There is no sea-level crisis anywhere in the world, and no sudden upsurge has been recorded anywhere at all in the world.
  • Artic and Antarctic sea-ice areas and thickness are on average the same for the last 50 years, and within the normal annual ranges. There are no sudden changes anywhere. Floating-ice shelf areas larger than the size of Australia melt every 6 months, and are reinstated in the next months at both poles.
  • Carbon dioxide is the vital ‘food stock’ for all plants, shrubs, crops, and trees. The small increase in carbon dioxide over the last few decades has marvelously caused ‘global greening’, and crop and vegetable yields have risen 15 to 30 percent.

Carbon dioxide is added in actual Green Houses to increase plant and crop growth rates! Carbon dioxide has been a real boon in all food producing countries in the world.

  • It is so important to see that water vapor is over 20 times higher in concentration than carbon dioxide, and is over 50 times more effective with all radiation [over 5,000 higher in concentration than methane, and over 4,000 more effective too with radiation].
  • THE REAL PROBLEMS: The real problems are not the gases themselves, such as carbon dioxide or methane from farming, or from vehicles or industry, but from incomplete combustion and atmospheric pollution (both chemicals and particles).

Pollutants such as heavy metals, unburned carbon particle, dioxins, organic chemicals like benzene and fluorocarbons, toxins, and many more can come from natural fires, all combustion process, industry, volcanic eruptions, and more.
Sea levels have been measured worldwide for well over a century and the level-increase is only about 2mm/year (or less). Some land areas like in Scandinavia are actually subsiding. There is no sea-level crisis anywhere in the world, and no sudden upsurge has been recorded anywhere at all in the world.

  • Artic and Antarctic sea-ice areas and thickness are on average the same for the last 50 years, and within the normal annual ranges. There are no sudden changes anywhere. Floating-ice shelf areas larger than the size of Australia melt every 6 months, and are reinstated in the next months at both poles.
  • Carbon dioxide is the vital ‘food stock’ for all plants, shrubs, crops, and trees. The small increase in carbon dioxide over the last few decades has marvelously caused ‘global greening’, and crop and vegetable yields have risen 15 to 30 percent. Carbon dioxide is added in Green Houses to increase plant and crop growth rates! Carbon dioxide has been a real boon in all food producing countries in the world.
  • It is so important to see that water vapor is over 20 times higher in concentration than carbon dioxide, and is over 50 times more effective with all radiation [over 5,000 higher in concentration than methane, and over 4,000 more effective too with radiation].
  • THE REAL PROBLEMS: The real problems are not the gases themselves such as carbon dioxide or methane from farming, or from vehicles or industry, but from incomplete combustion and atmospheric pollution (both chemicals and particles). Pollutants such as heavy metals, unburned carbon particle, dioxins, organic chemicals like benzene and fluorocarbons, toxins, and many more can come from natural fires, all combustion process, industry, volcanic eruptions, and more. There is where we should invest and focus.

 

Corey
July 27, 2022 5:42 am

All about the money 💰

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Corey
July 27, 2022 9:24 am

“The problem with following the science is that the science follows the money.”

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 27, 2022 11:31 am

Gee, who would have thought 😡

another ian
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 27, 2022 2:42 pm

Tracking in a circle usually means you are lost

Kevin R.
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 3, 2022 5:55 pm

Just wait until the people getting the money for this no longer live in a country with an economy to buy anything.

Joe Crawford
July 27, 2022 5:48 am

Might just be time for the ‘power of the purse’ to step in after the election.

Steve Case
Reply to  Joe Crawford
July 27, 2022 6:07 am

Wishful thinking, the 2022 election is going to be more corrupt than 2020 was.

KcTaz
Reply to  Steve Case
July 27, 2022 4:58 pm

I fear you are correct, Steve.

Yitzi Kaner
Reply to  Steve Case
August 1, 2022 4:09 pm

We can’t afford to think that though. We still must vote.

Steve Case
July 27, 2022 5:52 am

“By contrast, NOAA operates a state-of-the-art surface temperature network called the U.S. Climate Reference Network,” Watts said. “It is free of localized heat biases by design, but the data it produces is never mentioned in monthly or yearly climate reports published by NOAA for public consumption.
_________________________________________________________

But GISTEMP is mentioned by media and so far here are the number of adjustments each month for 2022.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
291 243 252 401 346 261

And of course, over the years these adjustments add up to to significant changes, and that looks like this:

NASA GISTEMP 2010 2020.png
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 27, 2022 9:23 am

Do you have any idea what the rationale is for changing the 19th C temperatures?

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2022 9:37 am

THat’s what was needed to get the data to match the models.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  MarkW
July 27, 2022 10:25 am

Why a negative vote? This statement is both honest and correct. It show that at least for true believers the model output is more important and more correct than the actual measured data since computers are always right. Actual measurements may contain errors. (/s) :<)

TallDave
Reply to  MarkW
July 27, 2022 5:19 pm

so true

many people have heard the saying

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

but what they don’t know is with that second “it’s” Feynman actually meant experiment is wrong

Last edited 2 months ago by TallDave
DrEd
Reply to  TallDave
August 4, 2022 8:45 am

Of course you are being sarcastic. Everyone knows Feynman wasn’t that stupid.
That would be like climate “scientists” claiming that, if the data did not agree with the models, the data must be wrong and must be changed. Sorry, “adjusted”.
/sarc/

Steve Case
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2022 5:17 pm

I finally figured it out, you meant the 19th Century. Jesus Christ, is there some God Damn reason people insist on using undefined acronyms & abbreviations? To answer your question here’s what NASA’s Reudy Rito had to say several years ago:

   “Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get
   affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few
   late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that,
   assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument
   that is placed in a different location than the old one,
   so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about
   half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature
   series for that station consistent, you will either have to
   lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the
   old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second
   option is preferred, because you can use future readings
   as they are, rather than having to remember to change
   them. However, it has the consequence that such a change
   impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station
   record.”

You can interpret that any way you want. In any case the changes continue month after month, year after year in a steady drone cooling the past and warming the recent.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve Case
July 27, 2022 6:48 pm

Reto is wrong. Transfer functions don’t adjust temperatures. They transmit uncertainty. I’ll show that in my next paper on air temperature measurement.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 27, 2022 7:25 pm

I apologize for causing you some consternation. But, C following some number, such as “20th” has been a common abbreviation for century for a very long time. However, after some online checking, it appears that I may have violated the recommendations of one or more style guides. The reason was to save some typing. I’ll try to be more verbose in the future.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2022 10:29 pm

My comment was in response to Steve Case, Clyde. Sorry I was unclear. No need for any apologies.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 28, 2022 8:07 am

And, in turn, my comment was intended for Steve Case. Sometimes comments seem to end up in strange places in the thread.

DrEd
Reply to  Steve Case
August 4, 2022 8:49 am

If a site is moved slightly, then why is the temperature record adjusted more than once? Did the site move a few feet every year? Why did the adjustments continue?
Rito’s explanation is bullshit.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Steve Case
August 9, 2022 7:57 am

Only in Climate “Science” would such an “adjustment” of past data be acceptable. In any other physical science or engineering discipline it would be considered data tampering or even outright fr@ud.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Graemethecat
August 9, 2022 11:55 am

It is fraud. Adjusting has no scientific basis to it. If a station has changed, it is measuring a new microclimate and probably has a new instrument included.

The ONLY reason for ARTIFICIALLY CREATING a long record is for statistical purposes. It IS NOT for a demonstrable instrument calibration purpose since there is no physical proof that the previous instrument was incorrectly calibrated.

If you’re going to adjust one station based on another, then you are just making the information up. That is what homogenization does. It smears temperature information all over the place.

PCman999
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2022 10:10 pm

They want to flatten out any “climate change” that happened before fossil fuel took off.

Doonman
Reply to  PCman999
July 28, 2022 11:38 am

The little ice age flattened out climate change for 400 years before fossil fuel took off. But no scientists ever ask why or how that happened. That’s because there is no money available for the trough to find out. If there were, you can bet there would be all kinds of papers explaining that cooling.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 27, 2022 10:25 am

The 2009 surface station study attracted me to this excellent website and this update is great too.

The number of adjustments to the raw temperature data are important too.

More important is the wild guesses — infilling — that can never be verified.

In the 1800s there had to be a lot more infilling than actual measurements.

Even today there is still too much infilling. I do not have accurate numbers — perhaps someone else does — but I believe at least 20% of surface grids have one or more infilled numbers every month. There are areas of the planet where grids are 100% or nearly 100%, infilled numbers — such as in central Africa. Areas where NASA-GISS claim are making high temperature records (TMAX) based solely on NASA-GISS infilling !

Now let’s imagine that the UAH temperature compilation is perfect, and the surface numbers are very similar. There was global warming since the 1970s.

Now consider if that imaginary perfect global average temperature would make a difference to the coming climate crisis scaremongering.
I say no.

Historical temperature records are NOT used for the prediction of climate doom.
The Climate Howlers call for a rate of future warming at least double the rate of warming in the UAH record since 1979. They are not extrapolating prior temperature trends because those trends are not dangerous, and would nor scare anyone.
They are completely ignoring the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 too.

The Climate Howlers scare people by predicting rapid, dangerous warming. Climate Howlers have made the same predictions for the past 50 years, and will probably be making them for the next 50 years too. They program their computers to make the same predictions. And the accuracy of temperature history records will make no difference. The climate predictions of doom will continue to generate fear … while actual global warming since the 1970s has been very pleasant.

Science + Politics = Politics

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 27, 2022 1:48 pm

It seems to me that most of the world outside of Western Europe and north America is all infill all the time? It seems reasonable that most of the readings we have from the rest of the world back to 1900 are all from cities and likely mostly part of European empires and therefore are far more corrupted by UHI?
I always thought it suspicious the two graphs Hansen had side by side in his 1998 paper, the “world” graph showed far more linear warming?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
July 29, 2022 3:41 am

You must be referring to this:

comment image

NASA has deleted the webpage that had this graphic but the Wayback Machine still has it.

And here’s the text of that webpage via the Wayback Machine. Below is Hansen’s lame excuse for why the U.S. temperature profile differs so dramatically from the global temperature profile. Hansen says the U.S. has been following a different course than the rest of the world! No, James, the temperature profile of the world looks just like the U.S. temperature profile with the Early Twentieth Century showing to be as warm or warmer than the present day. Your Hockey Stick Fraud is exposed with your own words.

Hansen: “How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.”

That’s so lame! He expects people to believe that lie.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 30, 2022 5:11 pm

Tom
Why are you still using the (old) graph that stops at 2000 when you have been given(last week) an updated version that went all the way to 2020 and clearly shows todays US is warmer now than at any time in the time shown?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 27, 2022 4:40 pm

More important is the wild guesses — infilling — that can never be verified.”

+100!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 29, 2022 3:46 am

Most important is the fact that historic recorded temperatures conform to the temperature profile of the United States where the temperatures in the Early Twentieth Century were just as warm or warmer than today.

When you have the same temperature profile recorded all over the world, then that is the temperature profile of the planet. People can complain that there wasn’t enough coverage of the areas of the Earth, but the areas that *were* covered all show the same temperature profile. All over the world.

And the temperature profile looks nothing like the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature lies.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 27, 2022 5:01 pm

“Science + Politics = Politics”

Or Science + Politics = Politics – Science?
Science + Politics = Politics (squared)?
Science + Politics = “selective” science?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 29, 2022 3:49 am

You are on the right track.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 28, 2022 12:11 pm

It’s worth considering what may be the most important question:

Do you trust the people compiling the global average temperature number?

Were certain climate beliefs important for getting their jobs?

Do they demonstrate unbiased science and strive for the most accurate measurements possible?

Do they accept new measurement methodologies that could be more accurate, such as satellite data and the USCRN network?

Do they celebrate the Russian INM model that least overpredicts the rate of global warming?

Do they refine their climate models to make more accurate predictions?

Do they publicly predict a coming climate crisis, creating a pro-warming bias with their raw data adjustments and infilling?

Ae there any consequences for wrong climate predictions?

Do they have the freedom to express opinions contrary to the current global warming consensus?

I would not trust government bureaucrat “scientists’
to tell me the time.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 29, 2022 3:52 am

“It’s worth considering what may be the most important question: Do you trust the people compiling the global average temperature number?”

Absolutely not. What they compile ends up looking nothing like the written temperature record.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 29, 2022 6:44 am

Meanwhile Nick Stokes maintains up and down that the adjustments make no difference in the “trends”.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 30, 2022 6:15 pm

No he doesn’t maintain it, he proves it with verifiable data. In fact as you have been told countless times, the unadjusted data is warmer than the adjusted.

comment image

And you guys bang on about honesty. Shish!!!!

Last edited 2 months ago by Simon
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 29, 2022 10:13 am

I would add. Are they trained mathematicians or trained physical scientists with a background in physical measurements?

Sparko
Reply to  Steve Case
July 28, 2022 7:17 am

Apparently, those adjustments look sorta gaussian. If you plot them in a histogram and squint, that means you can justify treating them as randomly distributed about a mean when calculating the contribution to the errors.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Sparko
July 28, 2022 3:09 pm

But they show a non-random pattern in time.

Sparko
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 30, 2022 1:12 am

Exactly, bur that’s what they do, apply CLT to the adjustments.

Sparko
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 30, 2022 1:15 am

Exactly, but that’s what they do, Assume that they can apply CLT to the adjustments.

Steve Case
Reply to  Sparko
July 30, 2022 5:34 am

What the is “CLT”? My [Ctrl F] search on “CLT” turned up just the 2 from Sparko and Kevin Kilty above.

Why do people find it necessary to use undefined acronyms.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Case
July 30, 2022 7:10 am

Central Limit Theorem

Sparko
Reply to  Steve Case
July 30, 2022 10:06 am

Central limit theorem. Applies to measurement error that is assumed to be randomly distributed about a central mean, but not to systematic errors or bias.

Brent Wilson
Reply to  Steve Case
July 28, 2022 8:11 am

Steve,

If USCRN data are not reported published by NOAA perhaps we (or the Heartland Institute) should file a FOIA request.

Brent Wilson
Reply to  Brent Wilson
July 28, 2022 8:19 am

Oops! Belay my last comment, I see the graph in the right sidebar. Sorry.

Michael Peinsipp
Reply to  Steve Case
July 29, 2022 10:28 am

That graph is crap. It shows the 30-40’s colder than now… Tone Heller at realclimatescience has the facts of those times and that ‘graph’ is Govt BS!

John Loop
July 27, 2022 5:56 am

We have a thermometer [in the shade] by our pool [in the sun] in central FL. It NEVER shows the morning low reported on the weatherstation, always maybe 5deg above. Pool of course is from 86-89 deg here in the summer. Just more peripheral evidence.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  John Loop
July 27, 2022 7:25 am

AP headline tomorrow:

Florida Pools Cause Global Warming!

Subhead:

Governor DeSantis At Fault.

HotScot
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
July 27, 2022 8:07 am

🤣

Derg
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
July 27, 2022 8:23 am

Or Trump’s fault 🙂

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Derg
July 27, 2022 10:10 am

DeSantis is the new Trump.
Please keep up with your boogeymen.

Derg
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
July 27, 2022 1:22 pm

Trump was never a politician…that scares them more.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 27, 2022 1:30 pm

Trump was never a politician…”
And it is starting to show more than ever. I see he is now finally under criminal investigation. About f@@king time.

John_C
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 1:49 pm

True, true, the investigation is criminal, and baseless.Now they’re just stirring the ashes of the previously scorched earth investigations to see if there’s an intact corner of a process crime the lab can reconstruct. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” doesn’t mean the crime has to be real.

Bill
Reply to  John_C
July 30, 2022 3:26 pm

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” doesn’t mean the crime has to be real.

Just ask Martha Stewart.

spren
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 2:27 pm

For what, genius? All your Democrats are actually criminals and nothing ever happens to them. But please show your mental deficiency by telling us what did Trump do that was criminal. I know you can’t because none of you have functioning brains.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  spren
July 29, 2022 4:10 am

“But please show your mental deficiency by telling us what did Trump do that was criminal. I know you can’t because none of you have functioning brains.”

There’s that, and there is the fact that they can’t name anything criminal that Trump has done. “Orange Man Bad” is as far as their thought process goes.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 3:07 pm

Hahahaha the colluuuusion clown appears. Did you find any yet?

Oh wait it’s not your turn to borrow the brain from Griff.

All you are left with is searching for colluuuusion and inflation…good one clown.

Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 3:09 pm

For the “crime” of being Donald Trump.

mal
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 3:23 pm

Trump is the most investigated President what on God green earth are you talking about, when you say “its about time”? You do understand in this country it was once considered illegal to investigate someone when you have no evidence to a crime.

Simon
Reply to  mal
July 27, 2022 6:48 pm

You do understand in this country it was once considered illegal to investigate someone when you have no evidence to a crime.”
And so it should be…. but that is clearly not the case here. They have been quietly collecting evidence for some time now. Will be great to see what they have when it is released. But I tell you this, if it leads to a charge, it won’t be nothing.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 7:27 pm

You are waiting for Griff’s brain.

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 7:06 pm

The same kind of BS “evidence” of Russia, Russia, Russia, for which the taxpayers shelled out tens of millions of dollars investigating to come up with the real criminals being the accusers. Shove it, clown!

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 4:01 pm

Lavrentiy Beria smiles at this “criminal investigation”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 4:42 pm

Our Founding Fathers weren’t politicians either! Our problem today is professional politicians and their toadies, the Bureaucratic Hegemony. Not a lot of difference between pre-Revolution France and today’s USA.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 29, 2022 8:42 pm

Read our Declaration of Independence – very little difference in the overreach of current U.S. gov’t and that of King George.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 5:05 pm

And Hunter Biden still walks free.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
July 27, 2022 6:35 pm

Hunter Biden was not the president.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 6:54 am

Yeah but his biz partner is.

paul
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 1:55 pm

doesn’t matter, any other person did what he done would be locked up by now, & that includes you fool

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 5:07 pm

Hunter Biden committed crimes, Trump didn’t.

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 7:08 pm

His equally corrupt father IS!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 4:14 am

The “Big Guy” is the president. The Big Guy is lying about his involvement in Hunter’s foreign deals.

When January rolls around we will find out a whole lot more about the Big Guy and his crime family.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 1, 2022 6:01 pm

Come on Tom you have said that stuff before…

Reply to  MarkW
July 28, 2022 7:07 pm

As does his complicit father.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 5:21 pm

TDS-boi here is about to have a meltdown when his scheme is finally exposed.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 27, 2022 6:36 pm

We shall see.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 7:03 pm

OMG THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON TRUMP!!!

Actually it’s the drugs you’re taking Simon. The walls are fine.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 7:02 am

That fake news article over which you had an 0rgasm about DJT being “investigated” was attributed to four anonymous sources.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 7:00 pm

Says the guy who, if American, almost certainly voted twice for an unindicted felon. Or perhaps for the slaver, Bernie Sanders.

And if not American, certainly would have done were he.

Simon
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 27, 2022 7:31 pm

Says the guy who, if American, almost certainly voted twice for an unindicted felon. Or perhaps for the slaver, Bernie Sanders.”
Ummm no. Most of the convicted vote fraudsters seem to be Republican. I have never and would never vote twice.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
July 27, 2022 10:27 pm

Hillary: used an unsecured server. Felony offense. Unindicted.
Destroyed 33k emails in the face of a Congressional subpoena. Unindicted.

Joe Biden: took a $1.5 billion bribe from China. Felony. Unindicted. Used his power as VP to extort $50k/month from Burisma. Impeachable high crime. Unindicated.

Blows smoke: Simon.

Simon
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 27, 2022 11:59 pm

“Joe Biden: took a $1.5 billion bribe from China.”
Bollocks.
“Used his power as VP to extort $50k/month from Burisma.”
Bollocks again. You my friend are talking Shite…. If there was any truth in those two there would be some evidence and there isn’t(except on the crazy right wing conspiracy sites).
And the Clinton thing was potentially a crime, but a very long shot at best. And anyway if she is guilty, then prosecute her I say. I’m no big fan of her.
Trump on the other hand looks to have committed a number of very prosecutable crimes including tax and election fraud, and an attempt to overturn an election using force. So blow your own smoke and break out the popcorn I say.

Last edited 2 months ago by Simon
Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 6:58 am

Subjective prosecution of politicians will eventually lead to civil war. What you sow is what you reap.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 28, 2022 7:05 am

TDS-boi is part of the Nov. 3 color revolution that installed a puppet government in USA.

Simon
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 28, 2022 2:06 pm

Buuuuut….. what if they are guilty? Just saying.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 5:10 pm

A DC jury pool will never convict a Democrat or allow a Republican to go free.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 29, 2022 4:30 am

That’s a possiblity.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 7:04 am

Do kiwis routinely bury their heads in the sand? This kiwi certainly has done so.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 9:58 am

Joe Biden self-admittedly using his VP powers to extort graft from Ukraine. To benefit Hunters $50k/month payola with 20% for the big guy.

Biden and the Chinese billions.

SLAC is a DoE lab. I had to take a DoE workshop on protecting sensitive government information. Willful violation is a felony. Every single email Hillary sent on her unsecured server constituted a felony. That’s 33,000 felonies for Hillary and zero points for you.

tax — small potatoes, at best.

election fraud — now rationally undeniable.

and an attempt to overturn an election — Given the clear fraud there was no election.

using force — disorganized crowd, FBI provocateurs, no weapons.

Wrong on all counts, Simon, as usual. You voted for criminals and point a finger. Typical.

Simon
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 28, 2022 2:16 pm

Re that first clip. I was embarrassed to be the 572nd viewer to that. It is so well documented that Biden had full authority from Obama to get rid of the crook (Shokin) and so that is why he withheld the money. Why the hell we he admit in full view to the world if he had taken a bribe?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

As for Clinton… as I have said if she is guilty then they should prosecute her. But that doesn’t alter the fact that Trump is also currently in deep dodo so if you are, as you imply, all for law and order, then why would you not want him investigated? Now that is selective.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 3:19 pm

full authority from Obama to get rid of the crook (Shokin)

The crook Shokin who just happened to be investigating crooked Burisma, where Hunter was collecting $50k/month for doing nothing.

Of all the crooked politicians in crooked Ukraine, Obama and Biden just happened to focus on Shokin.

I see you’ve abandoned defending Hillary, and have sidestepped the Biden $1.5 billion bribe by China.

Last edited 2 months ago by Pat Frank
Simon
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 28, 2022 5:54 pm

“The crook Shokin who just happened to be investigating crooked Burisma,”
Did you even read the article I sent? At the time that Shokin(the crook) was investigating Burisma (2012) Biden hadn’t even started working for them. It is a BS story. And it wasn’t just the US who wanted Shokin out. He was a notoriously corrupt man. Half of Europe wanted him gone.
“In July 2015, shortly after his appointment, reformist minority member Yehor Soboliev advanced a motion to dismiss Shokin for corruption, gaining 127 of the required 150 signatures including several members of the ruling parties.[56] Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal,[2] as did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[3]

Last edited 2 months ago by Simon
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 3:24 pm

Colluuuuusion stupid.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 28, 2022 5:58 pm

Oh look it’s Monte the Moron with nothing worth adding except his renowned childish comments.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 8:48 pm

TDS-boi heads to Ironyville…

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 2:28 am

You are the moron dude.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 2:26 am

You are so stupid…wow.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 10:08 am

It is matter of public record that Hunter Biden “worked” for Burisma.

Ask Tony Bobulinski bout the Biden Family corruption. I suspect he knows a little more about it than you.

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 29, 2022 2:01 pm

It is matter of public record that Hunter Biden “worked” for Burisma.”
I don’t recall saying he didn’t. He just wasn’t on the payroll when Shokin started his investigation so the line that Biden sacked Shokin to stop and investigation into his son through Burisma, is absolute rubbish.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 6:10 pm

Hard to imagine how stupid this person is…

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 28, 2022 11:41 am

‘Destroyed 33k emails’

You believe a Clinton number?
It could have been 133,000 !

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 7:10 pm

Nope, probably more like a dozen or so.

Doonman
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 11:51 am

To investigate a crime there must be a crime. All federal crimes are codified in United States Code.

In regards to Donald Trump, No one has ever stated what US Code is being investigated.

One would think that public servant Merrick Garland would tell us since he is in charge. If he can’t do that, then it’s a fishing expedition

Simon
Reply to  Doonman
July 28, 2022 2:17 pm

One would think that public servant Merrick Garland would tell us since he is in charge. If he can’t do that, then it’s a fishing expedition”
I think it’s coming….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 3:26 pm

I think

Just stop, its not working for you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doonman
July 29, 2022 4:33 am

Garland is as corrupt as the other Democrats.

paul
Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2022 1:51 pm

TDS much ??

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 4:05 am

Yeah, the Democrats are carrying out a Soviet-style political show trial.

Of course, they are going to indict Trump. That’s the whole purpose of this political hit job.

They are doing all this in an attempt to prevent Trump from running for president again, because they think he can win and if he wins then they lose their poltical power and their socialist paradise. And Trump has vowed to root the Democrat/Swamp evil doers out, if he gets back in.

The Evil Democrats won’t be successful because Trump has committed no crime. It’s not illegal to question the integrity of an election. It’s not illegal to seek any legal remedy for a corrupt election process. That’s all Trump did.

The Evil Democrats have been trying to nail Trump with something/anything for the last five years, criminally using the power of the federal government to do their dirty work and they *still* haven’t laid a glove on Trump.

Trump is the most vetted, innocent man in American politics. He owes nobody anything and is not obligated to anyone except the American people. The perfect person to clean house in Washington DC.

And Trump is still leading the Republican pack by a substantial margin and he’s not even trying yet.

Trump has to be elected again. Otherwise, the Evil Democrats and their efforts to undermine our government win, and if they win, then the rest of us lose Big Time.

We can’t let the criminal Democrats get away with their crimes. It’s time to hold them accountable for their lies and their crimes against the United States and our way of government.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 29, 2022 2:07 pm

“Yeah, the Democrats are carrying out a Soviet-style political show trial.”
Not just dems though is it.
“They are doing all this in an attempt to prevent Trump from running for president again,”
And do you honestly think he should. Here’s a man who promoted a violent group to attack the capital in an attempt to stop the democratic process. Then sat on his hands while it all erupted. Against the advice of all his advisors and family) costing lives.
” It’s not illegal to question the integrity of an election. It’s not illegal to seek any legal remedy for a corrupt election process. That’s all Trump did.”
No it’s not Tom.
Trump is the most vetted, innocent man in American politics.”
Here I’ll correct that so it is true. Trump is the most vetted, man in American politics. And for good reason. He has numerous charges against him pending. Some of them very serious. Tax and election fraud just two. But let’s not forget the sexual assault charges too. Ohhh and he is the only president to have been impeached twice. That takes some doing.
“Trump has to be elected again. Otherwise, the Evil Democrats and their efforts to undermine our government win, and if they win, then the rest of us lose Big Time.”
It is called democracy.
“We can’t let the criminal Democrats get away with their crimes. It’s time to hold them accountable for their lies and their crimes against the United States and our way of government.”
Good point. OK so what are their crimes?

Last edited 2 months ago by Simon
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 6:09 pm

Here’s a man who promoted a violent group to attack the capital

LIAR!

You are just a dupe for your communist masters.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 30, 2022 2:10 am

Liar you call me. Well what is this then? I’ll look forward to your answer…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 30, 2022 7:11 am

TDS-boi believes the fake news, how dumb is this?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 30, 2022 1:41 pm

….and Carlo Moron believes his lord and saviour tRump when he says it’s fake. You are a true disciple. Now, tell me what part is fake? ‘d love to know.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 30, 2022 4:29 pm

You call me a moron but you believe all the lies pumped out by Adam Sh*thead and allies. How dumb is this?

You should go back to Fakebook and Twatter, this reality stuff isn’t working for you.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 10:04 am

Then tell us about Hunter Biden and the Biden Crime Syndicate, moron.

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 29, 2022 2:08 pm

No you tell me. You seem to know something I don’t. Hunter is a crack head. Beyond that I’m not aware of any crimes that J Biden has committed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2022 6:07 pm

How does that sand taste, TDS-boi?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 29, 2022 7:26 pm

Haha. Says the man who admitted he wont read anything but right wing information.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 30, 2022 7:12 am

Yep, stuck in the sand.

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 29, 2022 7:32 pm

I’m genuinely keen to know what crimes J Biden has committed or is being charged for? I mean you call them a crime family.
All the time Trump faces numerous civil and criminal charges. But he’s not right?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 30, 2022 7:13 am

Your lies are more and more transparent by the day.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 30, 2022 7:53 pm

Maybe you can tell me oh honest one. what crimes has J Biden committed?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 31, 2022 1:15 pm

Crickets.

willem Post
Reply to  Derg
August 3, 2022 6:22 am

Trump refuses to be a politician… that double-scares them

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
July 27, 2022 3:08 pm

AP headline the day after tomorrow:

Florida Pools Global Warming Worse Than Previously Thought,
Scientists Say !

KcTaz
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 27, 2022 5:07 pm

AP headline two days after tomorrow:

Florida Pools Warming Twice As Fast As Pools Everywhere Else!

Yooper
July 27, 2022 6:01 am

NB:

“By contrast, NOAA operates a state-of-the-art surface temperature network called the U.S. Climate Reference Network,” Watts said. “It is free of localized heat biases by design, but the data it produces is never mentioned in monthly or yearly climate reports published by NOAA for public consumption.

How about we have a section on WUWT that publishes this data, eh? Their website says it is downloadable, someone qualified just needs to start putting it together. Contrasting it to the”official” data might be fun.

Math
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 7:43 am

It would be nice if the US temperature graph (surface) started in 1979, just like the global temperature graph (satellite).

Yooper
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 8:25 am

Ooops, my bad. How come UAH and CRN are so different?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 8:42 am

UAH is not the surface temperature, but is instead a convolution of the 0-10km altitude profile and the microwave sensor response.

Editor
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 8:54 am

Which UAH data are you referring to? https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt lists “lower tropospheric” data broken down to several regions. For USA data, see global, land, northern hemisphere, northern extratropical, USA48, and USA49.

Richard M
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 8:59 am

UAH is global. CRN is US land only.

Reply to  Richard M
July 27, 2022 7:04 pm

US = Hawaii & Alaska + 48 contig !

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve in seattle
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Steve in seattle
July 27, 2022 9:53 pm

Does that include DC? How about Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and American Samoa?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 7:02 pm

In 2018 -19 I submitted an MS xcel produced trend graph of uscrn data vs Hawaii co2 data ( both monthly ) ! Next year I would like to revisit and update the graph !

Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 6:32 am

LOL

Patrick B
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 6:36 am

Is there a way to graph the USCRN data for a single site? The NOAA website allows you to graph the combined data. I’m interested in creating a graph of a single site.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Patrick B
July 27, 2022 8:27 am

Is there a way to graph the USCRN data for a single site?

I’m interested in creating a graph of a single site.

Some browsers no longer support FTP natively (you may need an “add-on”) but the following NCDC “…/pub/data/…” link contains the raw data you are asking for :
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/

The “./monthly01/” subdirectory contains all available per-station data directly.

The “./daily01/2000/” to “./daily01/2022/” contents will need more work on your part to put together for the specific station(s) you are interested in.

NB : See also the “./monthly01/readme.txt” and “./daily01/readme.txt” files.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 8:55 am

As I recall, the USCRN was begun under Bush (43) specifically to get better data on temperature trends. Its build-out was halted by the Obama administration because it was producing the “wrong” answers.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 27, 2022 1:13 pm

There was no halt. But more significantly, it produced the same answers as ClimDiv.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 27, 2022 3:28 pm

Adjusting data 😉

Are you interested in people dying from your policies?

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 27, 2022 8:26 pm

Climate change is used to justify gov spending on weather stations (USCRN), satellites, etc. and as soon as the data doesn’t match the narrative, it goes silent.

Thomas
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 9:27 am

Contrasting it to the”official” data might be fun.

The Climate Reference Network is official data. It shows no warming for 11 years.

Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 1:17 pm

“Contrasting it to the”official” data might be fun.”
 
 NOAA does that. And USCRN almost exactly matches the “official” data
 
&nbspcomment image
 
 

Eisenhower
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 2:36 pm

Insta-Fact Check – TRUE Nick is a PKIA

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 2:37 pm

They use the USCRN data to ADJUST nClimDiv data to closely match.”

Any evidence that that is done? Or even how it could be done?

But what is the point here? You now claim that the nClimDiv stations are corrupted, but they throw away that data and use USCRN anyway?

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 27, 2022 7:50 pm

Any evidence that that is done? Or even how it could be done?”
Any 2 sets of data that match that closely is collusion.

Reply to  Mike
July 27, 2022 11:33 pm

Any 2 sets of data that match that closely is collusion.”
I calculated that data myself, beginning with the raw station data for both CRN and GHCN V4. I described it here. In the graph MoyCRN is my calc from raw CRN data and GHCN_u and GHCN_a are my calc using GHCN unadjusted and adjusted respectively. They all agree to about the same very great extent. This reflects the fact that they are measuring the same thing with very dense station coverage – far more than is needed.

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 3:27 pm

If as you claim, the adjustments/data frauds make no difference to the answer, why bother with them?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 2:20 pm

Nick, in that graph the ClimDiv value is 11.9% higher than the USCRN value at the 2009 mark. At the 2018 mark it’s about the same amount lower.

Do you consider a 23.8% variance “an almost exact match”?

Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 28, 2022 2:48 pm

Those would be the maximum deviations. But the key thing is, do you think ClimDiv, with its supposedly corrupted stations, is telling a different story than USCRN? Is the agreement just coincidence?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2022 3:45 am

The important question is “Why did the graph swing one way, and then the exact same amount the other way?”

The variance can’t be handwaved away just because the graph matches nicely elsewhere.

a_scientist
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 1:23 pm

Has anyone run a regression on the USCRN data lately? (like Lord Monckton does)
Last time I did it there was a slight warming trend.

This is the best temp monitoring network in the world, and needs wider distribution.
Of course warmists point to its short duration, but it is the best we have got.

I use it often when a warmist says X has become worse in the USA (pine bark beetles, tornadoes, what ever) during the past 10-15 years. Then point them to the USCRN and say, well probably not due to temperature and therefore the hypothetical CO2 caused warming.

Reply to  a_scientist
July 27, 2022 7:07 pm

I did it once, crn vs Hawaii c02, in MS xcel and will update next year !

Reply to  a_scientist
July 28, 2022 3:11 am

I did one here in Feb 2020 for 2005-2019:
USCRN 3.10 °C/century
ClimDiv 1.96 °C/century
The extent of trend is surprising from the graph, but is not apparent by eye because of the shortness of the period. The difference is also surprising, since the curves look very close, but again the short time makes a small difference into a big trend. The difference is probably not statistically significant. I did my own calculation of the spatial averages from station data, with similar results.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 7:05 am

Latest and greatest trendology results.

Yawn.

a_scientist
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 9:35 am

Thanks for the link Nick.
Keep updating it.

Graham
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 1:34 pm

Nick You are a bullshi! artist ..
You take 15 years of data then multiply the minimal warming by 100 years .
There is no way that the world will see 3C warming in 100 years .
You should know and we know that you do that this present mild warming has occurred 4 times over the last 12,000 years .
You should also know that the effect of CO2 on warming is logarithmic and will not and cannot warm the world much more if at all .
You should also know that the UHI is corrupting temperature records and this warming can never be blamed on rising levels of CO2.
You should also know that CO2 is NOT a pollutant but it is essential for all life on earth .
If you do refuse to accept these facts then I would say you are a Know All who twists the facts to suit your story .

Reply to  Graham
July 28, 2022 2:19 pm

You take 15 years of data then multiply the minimal warming by 100 years .”
The request was for regression on USCRN data (ie trend with time). 17 years of data is what we have. It isn’t trying to predict 100 years. It is just asking how we are currently going.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 3:28 pm

What is the optimum concentration level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?

Graham
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2022 2:17 pm

Nick stop twisting what you wrote ,and what so many so called climate scientists do .
You said you had run the figures from 2005 to 2119 = 15 years .
Then you state that the rise in the USCRN data shows a trend of 3.10 C per century .
This is the unsupported scare mongering that the News Media splashes across the pages and the TV news .
“We are all going to cook ,a scientist has calculated that it will be over 3 C degrees warmer in 100 years ”
BS Nick.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2022 2:24 pm

When you’ve only got two clocks and they’re 15 minutes apart, you have no way of knowing which is correct — or even if either of them are.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 28, 2022 2:54 pm

If they stay 15 minutes apart, you know at least they are both working as clocks, or something very coincidental is going on. And then you know a lot more about the time than if you had no clocks.

But this is more like 15 seconds. It’s a disparity far less than the behaviour we want to know.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2022 3:48 am

I dunno… 3.1 and 1.96 are about 50% apart. I wouldn’t be happy with those results,.

a_scientist
Reply to  Yooper
July 27, 2022 2:44 pm

The USCRN is the best temperature monitoring network in the world. It deserves more mention and wider exposure.

Has anyone run a regression lately (like Lord Monckton does) on the monthly data? I did a while back and saw a small warming trend.

The only defect the warmists will point to is the short record length. But is a nice retort to “the past 10-15 years have seen an increase in X in the USA” (pine bark beetles, tornados whatever)
We can point out that any degradation in X must not be due to temperature or the hypothesized influence of the CO2 increase.

Doonman
Reply to  a_scientist
July 31, 2022 12:38 am

Don’t forget, it wasn’t too long ago that 97% of climate scientists used to agree that 15 years with no warming trend was reason for them to start worrying about the hypothesis. Of course, back then it was polar bears, ocean pH and sea level rise they were worried about. Now its forest fires, barkbeetles and human extinction.

Reply to  Yooper
July 28, 2022 2:06 pm

The problem with the USCRN is that it started in 2005 with something like 7 stations. More have been added every year, but it’s a hard data set to parse.

Sam Capricci
July 27, 2022 6:20 am

Is it a correct assumption that there are more temperature recording stations located in and around urban areas than there are in rural areas which of course would lead to over sampling of higher temperature areas?

Thomas
Reply to  Sam Capricci
July 27, 2022 9:29 am

Yes Sam. Also, the urban areas have been build up over the past century, which adds a spurious warming trend.

Kemaris
Reply to  Thomas
July 27, 2022 10:49 am

And, as Anthony noted in 2009, a good number of stations with “continuous” records for more than a century even though the station was relocated several times to avoid urban expansion.

Derg
Reply to  Thomas
July 27, 2022 3:30 pm

Since I was born there is a lot more blacktop for sure.

Andrew Dickens
July 27, 2022 6:23 am

We had a couple of hot days in the UK last week. Two 40C+ temps were quoted: from Heathrow airport and Coningsby airport.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
July 27, 2022 7:13 am

Exactly. The UK temperature stations are in a very similar state to the US ones, for exactly the same reasons. I wonder if the GWPF could be persuaded to head up a UK temperature station survey? I think it needs to be done soon and maybe, just maybe, we can get a little more traction.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Richard Page
July 27, 2022 7:48 am

I would be happy to go and look and take pictures.

CoRev
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 27, 2022 8:01 am

If paid per diem, of course. 😉

Kim Swain
Reply to  CoRev
July 27, 2022 8:18 am

Re my and Oldseadog’s reply to Richard Page – I said volunteer which, generally, means for free – certainly in my case.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 27, 2022 10:57 am

We’ve been seen coming from a long time and a long way off

The significant stations are at military bases or ‘air-side’ at airports.

One can not just casually wander into and around those places taking photographs – well – certainly not the hideously paranoid world we now find ourselves you can’t.

Kim Swain
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 27, 2022 12:55 pm

Indeed – I put the published coordinates for RAF Coningsby into Google Maps and it put the location somewhere near a runway. Of course, this is just Google Maps and you can’t just walk onto an RAF base; however, surely the majority of sites should be accessible in some way?

Richard Page
Reply to  Kim Swain
July 28, 2022 4:00 am

The airport and airfield locations are, indeed, a no-go but we know that the location that makes them useful for aircraft eliminates their usefulness as weather network stations. I think we can confidently categorise those stations as contaminated and concentrate on the other stations in the UK; the Met Office website should have a list of those stations and their co-ordinates.

Sparko
Reply to  Richard Page
July 28, 2022 7:25 am

Most are on MOD sites and therefore inaccessible

Kim Swain
Reply to  Richard Page
July 27, 2022 8:15 am

I should be happy to volunteer time to locate and photograph/describe the locations if such a project was to go ahead.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
July 27, 2022 8:09 am

Peak temps for perhaps a single hour of those two days.

I live only 50 miles from Heathrow. It was a hot day but nothing to write home about.

Kim Swain
Reply to  HotScot
July 27, 2022 8:23 am

I am but 20 miles as the crow flies from Heathrow. It was certainly hot (particularly when walking across a supermarket asphalt carpark) but felt just like holiday temperatures experienced in Spain. Just missing the swimming pool and a drink with a little umbrella in it.

AndyHce
Reply to  HotScot
July 27, 2022 7:52 pm

A few year ago there was an HURRAY put out by Skeptical Science about a new highest ever temperature. It was at Heathrow. Someone posting on WUWT attempted to get the data for that claim from MET Office, who had reported the claim to the Skeptical Science group. Met office said it was available for a rather large sum of money.

But, it turned out that the data had already been provided to Skeptical Science and was available ON their web site. It showed that the reading lasted only some number of seconds, well below the official 2.5 minute average calculation for electronic temperature sensor stations that can take a reading every second. Investigation showed that the temperature sensors were very near a major runway.

Suggestions that the reading was induced by aircraft operations were vehemently denied as certainly not true, or even possible, by Skeptical Science and other True Believers.

Investigation found that airport security camera recordings were available on-line and that at the exact time of those exceptionally high readings a large passenger jet, just out of the sky, was going right by the sensor position, all jets at full reverse thrust to slow the behemoth. The security camera time stamps matched the MET Office temperature tie stamps. Quiet prevailed thereafter.

Chris Wright
Reply to  AndyHce
July 28, 2022 4:01 am

Fascinating.
Several times since this event I made comments similar to: “The only question is whether it was caused by a 747 or A380….”
Is it possible to see the video? Maybe it would answer my question….
Chris

AndyHce
Reply to  Chris Wright
July 28, 2022 1:08 pm

I can never find a past WUWT article. However they are indexed, tagged, or whatever is used by the search function, seems to something incomprehensible to me. I don’t remember a search ever being suscessful, so you are on your own unless there is an insider’s secret section somewhere that explains it.

Tony Goad
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
July 27, 2022 9:48 am

The third site, Charlwood, is at the end of the runways at Gatwick

mal
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
July 27, 2022 3:29 pm

Where I live 40c is below average for this time of year. Oh by the way we have not come close to 40C in the last few days.

Chris Wright
Reply to  mal
July 28, 2022 4:03 am

Since the heatwave peak on Tuesday last week it’s been steadily getting cooler. The last few nights I put on my sweater, and last night I was actually thinking of switching on the electric fire.
Chris

Roger
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
August 1, 2022 1:54 am

The UK records are absolutely genuine. The Met Office says so. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/record-high-temperatures-verified
Though I think the Hawarden Airport weather station, which recorded Wales’s highest ever temperature, has been moved recently closer to a service road.

Peter
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
August 4, 2022 6:56 pm

Indeed. Airports.
For how long were those temperatures measured? It can not be more than a few minutes.
If we would have measured with the system of the old days (checking the mercury level a few times per day) would we have gotten the same result? I bet we would have missed that peak, and stayed below 40C.

Mr.
July 27, 2022 6:27 am

Soon though, someone from the alarmist acolytes camp will be along to declare –
“but look, the straight line is still heading upwards”.

While totally missing the point about thumbs on the scales.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 7:26 am

Which gave rise to the adage: Different Stokes for different folks!

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
July 28, 2022 2:28 pm

Come on now. Nick is unfailingly polite and is always willing to explain his methods. I’ve had several conversations with him at his site, and while we didn’t always agree, ad homs are not his style.

MarkW
Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 28, 2022 5:19 pm

ad homs aren’t his style, but evasions, nit picking and goal post moving, are.

Eisenhower
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 27, 2022 2:38 pm

The PKIA?

AlanJ
Reply to  Mr.
July 27, 2022 6:49 am

comment image

What thumb on the scale do you see here?

Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 6:59 am

What’s amazing is that you don’t! What’s the temperature difference between the 40s and now?

AlanJ
Reply to  bob boder
July 27, 2022 7:02 am

I see that the adjustments reduce the net warming trend, but I don’t think that’s the “thumb on the scale” Watts et al are trying to allege.

Meab
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 8:11 am

Have another cup of coffee and look again.

The “adjustments” lowered the old temperatures from the 40’s through 1980 (easier to get away with lowering old temps than raising new ones) which raises the “adjusted” trend starting in 1970, the 50 year trend that they often quote.

Not only that, but there are UHI biases built into the newer raw data, as bad or even worse than the old data. The new data should have been adjusted down just as much or more. But it wasn’t.

That’s a CLEAR thumbprint on the scale.

AlanJ
Reply to  Meab
July 27, 2022 8:47 am

The adjustments have very little (<0.1 degrees) impact on the trend since the 1970s. Most of the impact of the adjustments is on the historical trends, and the adjustments lower them. The amount of warming shown in the raw data is greater than the amount of warming shown in the adjusted data.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlanJ
GuyFromBerlin
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 9:07 am

Simply not true unless the captions of the two curves on your graph are reversed. The raw data shows about the same temperature rise brom 1880 to 1940 (with little CO2) as from 1940 to 2000 (with more CO2) and doing so, falsifies the idea that modern warming is anything special or “unprecedented”.

Reacher51
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 9:32 am

The impact on the trend since the 1970s is entirely irrelevant.

The adjustments very obviously make the natural, “pre-anthropogenic” warming of ~1910-1940 look a lot less sharp than it really was, while at the same time make the supposedly anthropogenic warming of ~1980-2020 look much more remarkable relative to the natural warming period that preceded it.

In other words, Hausfather manufactured data to tell a story in which the few decades of recent warming appear to be noticeably different from the warming periods of the past. This is data mangling in service of a narrative, not science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 9:42 am

The amount of warming shown in the raw data is greater than the amount of warming shown in the adjusted data.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked by an optometrist? The issue, because alarmists are blaming humans for causing rising temperatures, is that the trend line for temperatures since the 1940s is steeper in the ‘corrected’ data than the ‘raw’ data.

What is the basis for the historical adjustments? Have the researchers been able to locate the original thermometers and check their calibrations?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 27, 2022 5:31 pm

Nicely put. But we aren’t supposed to believe our lying eyes.

‘Course it helps if one actually is capable of reading a graph, and knows the difference between the data and the trend of the data.

Steve Case
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 28, 2022 2:41 am

The issue … is that the trend line for temperatures since the 1940s is steeper in the ‘corrected’ data than the ‘raw’ data.
_________________________________________

BINGO!

Derg
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 3:32 pm

Lol..good one

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 7:25 am

GISS handles land (and ocean) temperature measurements derived from orbiting satellite instruments, not land based measuring stations.

The corrections indicated in the graph that you provided may not be a “thumb on the scale” type that you insinuate, but instead necessary corrections to adjust for various satellite measurement-introduce errors and/or calibration factors. Hard to say since you did not provide a reference/link to the source of your graph.

As to the whole point of UHI contamination of land-based temperature measurement stations, one would logically expect this to be a world-wide problem since most such station are—for convenience and security and especially for easy access to power and ease-of-maintenance—located in urban areas, quite often at airports near large areas of concrete and/or asphalt.

(This reply was incorrectly positioned below)

AlanJ
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 27, 2022 7:29 am

GISS handles land (and ocean) temperature measurements derived from orbiting satellite instruments, not land based measuring stations.

That is incorrect, from the GISTEMP website:

“The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis ver. 4 (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change. Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using current data files from NOAA GHCN v4 (meteorological stations) and ERSST v5 (ocean areas), combined as described in our publications Hansen et al. (2010) and Lenssen et al. (2019). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and also late reports and corrections for earlier months.”

Urbanization is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, and adjustments have been developed to handle trend inhomogeneities resulting from it. The US has a fairly unique problem, though, in that it has an incredibly dense surface station network that has been entirely run by volunteers. The bottom line is that the issues Watts’ new survey outlines are very well understood by scientists already and the literature describes the efforts implemented to deal with them. Watts’ new study does not address how adequate those measures are, it’s just dismissing them en masse with little justification.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 8:09 am

AlanJ,

Your are correct, and I was wrong in my posting regarding GISS being involved only with satellite temperature measurements.

I should have stated they are involved predominately with satellite temperature measurements:
“A key objective of Goddard Institute for Space Studies research is prediction of climate change in the 21st century. The research combines paleogeological record, analysis of comprehensive global datasets (derived mainly from spacecraft observations), with global models of atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic processes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies

That being said, I am curious about this statement in your above post:
“Urbanization is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, and adjustments have been developed to handle trend inhomogeneities resulting from it.”
Can you cite a reference or provide a link that gives the details on such “adjustments” . . . I would greatly like to read about such.

Thanks.

AlanJ
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 27, 2022 8:17 am

See Menne, et al., 2009 “Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons.”

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 9:42 am

AlanJ,

The reference to Menne and Williams [2009] that you alluded to (downloadable pdf available at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf ) is fundamentally flawed in its methodology.

The basic flaw is seen in this statement of their “homogenization” approach given in Section 3(a) of their paper:
“The pairwise algorithm starts by finding the 100 nearest
neighbors for each temperature station within a network
of stations.”

Their proposed approach would only work if most of the temperature measuring stations under consideration were fairly sited with respect to the range of the primary variable in question: in this case, possible UHI effect.

However, as the above article clearly points out, approximately 96% of the temperature monitoring stations being evaluated are incorrectly sited, leading to average temperature reporting on the high side for the overwhelming number of stations.

Thus, all the “homogenization” corrections offered by the Meene and Williams approach serve to do is to incorrectly adjust the “outliers”, in this case the fairly sited temperature reporting stations upward in temperature based on the preponderance of their 100 nearest neighboring station having existing UHI bias.

It is laughable to suggest that NOAA has developed such automated adjustments as those offered by Menne and Williams to “handle trend inhomogeneities” resulting from the UHI effect.

Last edited 2 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
AlanJ
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 27, 2022 10:19 am

The PHA produces almost the same number of downward trend adjustments as upward trend adjustments for the CONUS:

comment image

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 10:53 am

“The PHA produces almost the same number of downward trend adjustments as upward trend adjustments for the CONUS”

Yeah, but I never asserted or implied that some of the UHI-affected stations would not themselves be biased artificially high compared to other 96% of all stations that are incorrectly sited.

The graphical data that you present only goes to show that the “adjustment” for inhomogeneities in the data sets amounts to little more than driving peaks and lows toward the average. That is a mathematically construct . . . not something rooted in reality.

Meab
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 8:22 am

There have been multiple studies that already show that UHI corrections are inadequate. This is easy to see as the trend from properly sited stations (and the satellite land trend) is substantially lower than the “corrected” GISS trend.

Watts’ study showed this. I suspect that you missed this clear and obvious point because you didn’t want to see it.

On your other point, just note that Dressler has a habit of making stuff up and never acknowledges his error – even if he was caught red handed.

Last edited 2 months ago by Meab
AlanJ
Reply to  Meab
July 27, 2022 8:28 am

UHI is not an error that needs to be corrected – it is a real phenomen that has real impacts on the surface temperature. UHI is fundamentally an oversampling challenge. The language being thrown around on this website is quite inaccurate.

There is also a difference between an “improperly sited” station and a station that is merely located in an urban area. Watts’ analysis makes no distinction as far as I can tell. The graphic shown in the main post is primarily showing a difference between stations situated in urban areas and stations situated in rural areas rather than a difference between badly sited stations and well-sited stations. We don’t want to remove the stations in urban areas from the record, we just want to ensure that they aren’t being oversampled.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlanJ
Jim Gorman
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 8:59 am

You are deflecting. The purpose of the temperature databases as being used is to show what effects CO2 has. That is a totally different subject than UHI being included. If you want to accurately assess the effects of CO2, then you MUST remove the UHI because UHI has a different cause than rising CO2.

AlanJ
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 27, 2022 9:13 am

That is completely and utterly incorrect. The purpose of the surface temperature analyses is to understand how the surface temperature is changing over time. Figuring out what has caused the observed changes is an independent endeavor to measuring what the observed changes are.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlanJ
Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 4:34 pm

Alan J,
The number of stations in urban or rural places has to be in proportion to the areas of urban and rural in the nation or on the globe. Geoff S

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 27, 2022 6:08 pm

Points cannot be proportional to polygons.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 6:15 pm

Did I propose that they were?
Geoff S

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 27, 2022 6:37 pm

You said they had to be.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 6:54 pm

Alan J,
And I wrote ‘polygons’ precisely where?
Geoff S

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 27, 2022 7:02 pm

Stations: points

Areas: polygons

MarkW
Reply to  AlanJ
July 28, 2022 5:24 pm

Nice evasion there. Have you been taking lessons from Nick?
If the ratio of points or polygons that are located in urban areas is not proportional to the number of points or polygons that are not in urban areas, they you are not accurately measuring what is happening to the planets temperature.

Graham
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 7:16 pm

You got that completely wrong AlanJ.
The debate about global warming is about the warming potential of CO2 .
The urban heat Island UHI is not at all connected to CO2.
Any one should know that and if you had any knowledge you would know that walking bare foot over grass is ok but step onto tar seal and you can burn the skin off your feet .Conversely step onto a white painted line on the seal and it is not at all hot .
The news screams about high temperature in the cities but this has nothing to do with CO2 warming the world .
There is far to much dishonest fudging of temperature recording to push this climate warming scare .

Reply to  AlanJ
July 30, 2022 4:28 pm

Why, then, are we constantly scolded that the warming shown in the record is the result of our use of fossil fuels and the CO2 output thereby?

“Figuring out what has caused the observed changes” has fallen into the category “the science is settled!”

Steve Case
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 28, 2022 3:02 am

The purpose of the temperature databases as being used is to show what effects CO2 has.
_________________________________________

BINGO!

Human activity has more effect on the temperature than just CO2 emissions, but it’s all attributed to just CO2, CH4 and most recently N2O. Dams, deforestation, irrigation, aircraft contrails, and of course urban heat effect are ignored. Natural cycles are also ignored if not intentionally erased from the record. It’s all about the so-called greenhouse gases.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AlanJ
July 27, 2022 9:15 am

Alan, your “UHI is not an error that needs to be corrected – it is a real phenomen [sic] that has real impacts on the surface temperature.” misses the point. In CliSciFi UHI is used to support the “CO2 is what dunnit” narrative. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.