This is something I’m proud of – an article in the nationally published Epoch Times covering my work on weather stations. My friend Dr. Roy Spencer is also mentioned as well as a regular commenter here, John Shewchuck. If there is one article in your lifetime you should read about the state of the surface temperature network, this is it.
The government can’t even run the DMV well, what makes you think they can run a weather station network well?
To all of you that have contributed time and money to this, I thank you. Please share the hell out of the article on social media.
To read the article, you’ll have to register for a free account, but trust me when I say it is worth it, and they won’t spam you.
Link to article:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/trillions-spent-on-climate-change-rely-on-inaccurate-temperature-readings-and-faulty-modeling-5575177
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As my 2nd favorite t-shirt says…Well shit, that didn’t work.
The first thing I saw was “You have reached your limit…”
Me too. It was a paid subscription
Install the uBlock Origin extension in your browser and disable javascript, you can view the page without the paywall. This works for most news websites.
Or, pay for high quality journalism like Epoch.
Sorry, as a professional writer, I hate seeing people steal material.
They have a special on now, a few bucks for a year’s worth of logical, useful idiot free reporting.
Yeah, I was fine getting in, it does not appear to be a paid subscription; unless maybe you’ve been visiting there a few times already?
I saved it as a pdf.
We really need to get $BAT working. I’d drop a dime, but not a regular subscription.
I’m using the Firefox browser and the Noscript add-on, and can read the article at that link.
I think this sums it up nicely. From the link:
“Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.”
The title of the article is a self serving lie, so why would anyone with sense want to read the article?
Poor siting of US weather stations has almost no connection to climate scaremongering and wasting money on climate change.
If the weather stations in the US were properly sited, and let’s assume UAH numbers eliminate siting issues — would the use of UAH statistics, rather than questionable surface statistics, have prevented climate scaremongering, which just happened to start in 1979?
OF COURSE NOT.
The surface station survey was evidence NOAA performs sloppy science, does not care that we conservatives know that, and the leftist biased mass media do not care either.
But even after we conservatives have evidence of NOAA’s careless science, many conservatives ignore that fact and claim NOAA’s USCRN network, and the US average temperature statistic they claim to derive from USCRN, is perfectly accurate? That is bizarre anti-logical thinking.
NClimDiv with poor siting can’t be trusted but USCRN can be trusted?
No suspicions about EXACTLY why both networks have similar average temperature statistics for the US.
Either you trust NOAA or you do not trust NOAA.
If you do not trust the organization, then you should not trust ANY of their data.
The average US temperature is whatever NOAA decides to tell you … and you have no way to doublecheck their statistic.
“If the weather stations in the US were properly sited, and let’s assume UAH numbers eliminate siting issues — would the use of UAH statistics, rather than questionable surface statistics, have prevented climate scaremongering, which just happened to start in 1979?
OF COURSE NOT.”
The use of UAH statistics would have saved us from about 10 years of NOAA scaremongering.
Recall that NOAA claimed about 10 years between 1999 and 2015 were the “hottest year evah!”, and they managed to finagle their computers into making each successive year one-one hudredth of a degree warmer than the previous year, so they could claim that year after year was hotter than the last year, implying a steady increase in temperatures because CO2.
Yet, if you look at the UAH chart, there are NO years between 1999 and 2015 that were warmer than 1998, so going by the UAH statistics, NOAA could not declare even one of those years as being the “hottest year evah!”, so UAH Would have prevented climate change scaremongering, had it been used.
Here’s the UAH satellite chart. See how many years you can find between 1999 and 2015 that were warmer than 1998. Obviously, there are none. Not much climate change scaremongering to be had with UAH. That’s why NOAA doesn’t use UAH. They can’t scare anyone with it.
and here’s how NOAA treated the years after 1998, one “hottest year evah!, after another. It’s Alarmist Climate Change Fraud.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
‘one hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous year’
That’s a bit blatant of them. Accuracy to 1/100th of a degree (C or F?), and the same amount every year!
Definitely dodgy and careless of them.
But you read it, and by your own condemnation of it consign yourself as senseless.
Which comes as no surprise to anyone.
So you assume that even though the US data is bad, the rest of the world’s data must be good?
Funny, after spending weeks bashing conservatives RG now claims to be one.
Or install the “Archive Page” extension for Chrome/Firefox. Get around most paywalls with one click.
Here’s my favorite shirt – I love CO2.
New Study: 2001-2020 ‘Global Greening Is An Indisputable Fact’ And It’s Driven By CO2 Fertilization (notrickszone.com)
Here’s a badge anyone can use.
Getting the Epoch article cost me $A10 for a year’s sub. I think Epoch author has a typo,
“The satellites are calibrated with the highest quality, laboratory-standard platinum resistance thermometers. If NASA is going to fault remotely-sensed satellite data, they might as well shut down their myriad Earth satellite programs, which have the same (supposed) ‘defect.’”
should read “shut down their myriad Earth programs”?
As always, the article mentions nowhere that the USHCN network has a. been superceded by the NClimDiv network and b. the adjusted NClimDiv network is perfectly consistent with the raw, pristine, unadjusted reference series:
So the adjustments being applied certainly must account successfully for any urbanization or other systematic bias affecting the full network.
And, as always, the article shows and refers only to US temperature data when claiming that the data are “always” adjusted to show more warming. In fact, globally the data are adjusted down to show less warming than the raw data:
Why do you allow such inaccuracies to stand, Anthony? Surely you don’t condone this kind of misinformation being spread, do you? I’m sure a quick letter from you to the Epoch Times would result in a prompt correction being issued to the article.
In fact, globally the data are adjusted down to show less warming than the raw data:
Only the oldest temps are adjusted down to pretend a faster and stronger warming.
The trend in the adjusted data is lower, meaning that less historic warming is shown in the adjusted data. If scientists are truly committing fraud on a mass scale to try to make global warming seem more severe than it actually is, as this article suggests, they’ve apparently gone the wrong way round.
“The trend in the adjusted data is lower“
Another piece of misinformation.
The trend in the “CO2 era” ie since the 1970 (new ice age scare), is actually increased.
You are fooling ONLY yourself . !!!
For at least the last 10 years, probably longer, NOAA has been turning cooling trends (by the actual data) into warming trends (through their adjusted “data”) all over the world. There have been many articles showing this for particular locations.
Occasionally I have seen uncomplimentary comments on NOAA’s work by people responsible for collecting and analyzing the weather data in a few of these adjusted countries but I suspect, in the main they don’t bother. It goes back to the question of who wins a mud wrestling bout with a pig.
Up to at least 1998, if not later.
ROFLMAO!
Of course the “the adjusted NClimDiv network is perfectly consistent with the raw, pristine, unadjusted reference series:”
How stupid would they look if the “adjustments” made it vary wildly or keep increasing.
So yes…. , ClimDiv is “ADJUSTED” to match USCRN…. well done !!!
note ClimDiv actually started a bit higher than USCRN in 2005, but has been getting closer and closer as they “adjust” their “adjustments”.
——
And the second graph is NOT raw data against unadjusted data.
It is one manically adjusted fabrication, graphed against a slightly less manically adjusted fabrication.
Zeke really has you fooled, doesn’t he. !!
.
We would hope that the adjustments bring the full network in line with the pristine reference series, would we not? So why do you object to this being the case?
That is incorrect. The black line is uncorrected raw data and the blue line is NASA GISTEMP, as stated. If you wish to argue otherwise you need to present some contra-evidence instead of just making unsubstantiated assertions.
“We would hope that the adjustments bring the full network in line with the pristine reference series, would we not“
ROFLMAO.
You just don’t get it, do you. !!!
OF COURSE, they “adjust” the ClimDiv data to match USCRN.
“The black line is uncorrected raw data “
WRONG!
The black line is already MAL-ADJUSTED data.. it is NOT raw data
It is just another re-incarnation of the highly corrupted surface data.
That’s right, it is not raw data. AlanJ is trying to pull a fast one on us.
And utterly FAILING !!
Looking forward to a citation here.
YAWN.. DENIAL of the manic adjustment of data, worldwide, when it is shown even on the GHCN web site..
…. shows just how much you are prepared to LIE to push your putrid little AGW cultist agenda.
Who pays you to push your continued lies and deceit?
The GHCN website provides the raw, unadjusted station data alongside the adjusted version of the dataset. Where are you seeing that the raw version has been adjusted?
You did not prove that Zeke only used the raw data.
Zeke saying something…. is meaningless !!
You have FAILED !! AGAIN.
Again, the onus lies with the accuser. You say Zeke is lying, that he didn’t do what he said he did, now you have to prove that. Otherwise the operating assumption is that Zeke did the thing he said he did, there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
*crickets* despite a flurry of activity throughout he rest of the comments section. Shall we take this to mean you are unable to prove the lie you claim?
Given his track record.. you need to prove Zeke is NOT lying !!
His “RAW” is just GISS 2001.
It contains many of the FAKED adjustments from GHCN
As I said it is one fabricated POC against another fabricated POC.
All based on surface stations that are known to be totally unfit for climate purposes.
Zeke doesn’t have to do much to fool a gormless and gullible worm like you… does he.
Not how this works, of course. You don’t get to make allegations and then refuse to back them up. Otherwise we shall just dismiss the allegations as lacking substance.
This is false, the raw data is the GHCN raw dataset, combined with raw SST data. If you have evidence to the contrary then you have to present it, otherwise we are forced to contend that you are just making things up.
“That is incorrect. The black line is uncorrected raw data and the blue line is NASA GISTEMP, as stated.”
The only way they could get that black line is to bastardize the unmodified temperature data. The unmodified temperature data shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
Can you prove this by providing the unmodified data you refer to?
Look at the GHCN web site.
It is all shown there.
Here is one classic example of that manic “adjustment”
There are hundreds more of them.
And they keep continually changing !!!!!!
It is up to YOU to prove Zeke is using the original raw data for every site.
… we know that basically everything else he does is one big con, just for cultist idiots like you.
Another one for good measure.
In the image I provided, the black line is constructed using the GHCN raw records (red in your image), the blue line is constructed using the GHCN adjusted (blue line n your image). Hopefully this clarifies things for you.
I don’t need to prove that Hausfather did the thing he said he did, you are the one claiming he is lying, so the onus is, in fact, on you to prove the lie.
“black line is constructed using the GHCN raw records”
NO, IT IS NOT.
You only have CON-MAN Zekes’s word for that.
And he is a known LIAR.. Just like you are.
The blue line matches the 2001 GISS version
Which is also known to use faked and adjusted data.
This what Zeke passes off as “raw” when it most definitely isn’t.
YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED, because you are gullible twit !!
It certainly is, unless you can definitely prove otherwise. Here’s my own analysis of the raw land-only data, no adjustments whatsoever, using only the unmodified values you show examples of above (black line):
I’m happy to provide the computer code so you can run the analysis yourself. Hausfather’s analysis just incorporates the SST data, so it’s more refined, but is using the same raw data I am.
Thanks for showing FAKED data from massive urban warming and mal-adjustments !
Same junk data.. same fabrication crap.. same answer. GIGO !!
Even someone as dim-witted and brainwashed biased as you must realise here is no possible way it gives a proper representation of global temperature trends.
The fact that you are content to use data that you know to be MASSIVELY CORRUPTED and TOTALLY UNFIT FOR PURPOSE…
… says all that needs saying about you.
ZERO INTEGRITY .
SSTs !
ROFLMAO
Show us where ocean temperatures were measured .. even up to say, the 1960s.
You really are a gullible little mutt, aren’t you !
Really going down the GIGO fakery path. !!
I do it all the time. You’ve seen the unmodified, regional data I post. You are being disingenuous.
Here’s Australia’s unmodified Tmax chart. It shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century in Austraila as it is today.
So how does NOAA show the Early Twentieth Century as being much cooler than today on their global temperature chart, when all the unmodified charts show the same thing: That it was as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today?
NOAA doesn’t show this on their fraudulent temperaure charts. They didn’t get this “cooling” data from the historic land temperature data. So where did they get it? Answer: They added in sea surface temperatures which were completely made up out of whole cloth, and used this bogus data to cool the past and make the present look like it is the hottest times in human history.
NOAA has defrauded the human race with their global temperature bastardization.
Austrailia:
Showing charts like this with no context is not a productive exercise. How were the records combined? What was the specific methodology used? How do you know the records used are free of systematic bias?
The unmodified charts don’t show that it was warmer in the early 20th century. Here is my analysis of the raw, unmodified land temperatures for the globe:
You can see that the pattern of change is quite similar between the raw and adjusted data. What you’re finding is that on a regional scale, the raw data, owing to the presence of systematic bias, show trends that differ from the data that has been adjusted to account for that bias. But this kind of bias is pretty much a wash at the global scale. In the US, for instance, the volunteer-run network is extremely dense, and has several sources of bias, such as changes to instrumentation and time of observation. But the US is just 6% of the global land surface, and less than 2% of the total surface area, so this bias, while significant at the regional scale, is essentially imperceptible at the global scale.
Same GI.. same GO !!
Still using surface sites which have been PROVEN to be totally unfit for “climate purposes”
You are completely out to lunch.
and that we were rocking 545ppm in August 1944.
AlanJ,
So where is your graph of the Adjusted record?
If the Unadjusted matches the High Quality so well, what is the purpose of adjustment?
Geoff S
Scientists want to get things right, so they spend a lot of time and effort working out details that might seem unimportant to you and I. The adjustments are mostly “cleaning things up around the edges,” at least when it comes to the whole globe. At regional scales they can have more of a noticeable impact. But you certainly don’t have to do all of the effort of the adjustments if you don’t want, or don’t feel that they’re worthwhile. The results are pretty much the same.
Yes they spend a lot of time working out how to “adjust” data to get the answer they want.
In this case they want the ClimDiv to match USCRN
Exactly what we have been saying.
NO, the “adjustments are totally driven by the agenda of trying to make the data look like it has CO2 forcing.
Cooling of the 1930s.. Raising the cooling period to 1960
MASSIVE adjustments from 1975 to 2000..
Slightly less “adjustments” then Large recent adjustments
They want that straight line from 1975 onwards.
and no spike in the 1930s.
AlanJ,
I am a scientist and I want to get things right, so I have spent a lot of time and effort working out details.
I conclude that things are not just wrong – they are incapable of meaningful correction.
Proper science does not admit “feel” or “belief”. It is ever so hard for young people to understand that. Geoff S
“Scientists want to get things right,”
But the people at GISS are NOT scientists.. they are ACTIVISTS…
…. with an agenda.. !!
They are criminals. They use their profession to lie to the people of the world about CO2.
“The adjustments are mostly “cleaning things up around the edges,””
UTTER BS !!
They are WHOLESALE COOLING of the past in many places, especially those places showing the very distinct 1930s/40s warm peak.
Then WHOLESALE WARMING of more recent data.
The whole aim.. as stated loud and clear in ClimateGate emails, is to GET RID OF the 1940s “blip”
It is basically just DATA FRAUD. !!
And you are condoning it.
What does that say about you and your scientific integrity??
It says YOU HAVE NONE..
The context of this email is abundantly clear from the adjoining correspondence, so it is rather surprising to see so many here completely ignorant of it. I rather suppose that’s because this platform engages in a purposeful effort to misinform. Here is the pre- and post- “blip” data the climategate email is referring to:
ROFLMAO..
Even Phil Jones admitted data before whenever was “mostly made up”
Show us where all the SST were measured in say, 1860-1900
… or even from 1940-1960.
Thinking they had a way of measuring whole of ocean temperatures to a fraction of a degree. Delusional !
[citation needed]
You never paid attention , did you.
Choosing to remain IGNORANT
Show us where all the SST were measured in say, 1860-1900.
… or even from 1940-1960.
Stop trying to ooze and slither away like slimy eel.
No citation. Expected. No citation of course because Phil Jones did not say thins, and you know that.
Physician, heal thyself.
It’s in the Climate gate mails that were released in 2009 which you never read.
I’ve read the hacked emails, no claim by Phil Jones that the SST data were mostly made up. Of course, if one of you could actually manage to scrounge up a citation…
“CLEANING UP”. What a joke. That is not science. In science DATA is considered sacrosanct. It is not “cleaned up”. Measurements may have “corrections” applied based upon a scientific inspection of a measuring device during calibration. That correction constant or equation is used throughout the calibration period.
“Cleaning up” indicates a problem with measurements. If so, the data should be discarded as not fit for use.
“Scientists want to get things right, so they spend a lot of time and effort working out details that might seem unimportant to you and I.”
You speak for all scientists, do you?
What about scientists that are also criminals? How much faith do you have in those kinds of people?
AlanJ has total faith in climate criminals and liars.
They are his go to source.
Mr. 2000: Mr. J has made it clear every time he comes here that he prefers to be fooled than not. “Why do you allow” such a gaslighting twit to comment here? Well, Mr. Watts appears to be willing to suffer the indignity of Mr. J’s backward comment, and leave it up, for the sake of learning (how to not think). Thanks, Mr. Watts.
Well “AlanJ”….
If they just used the best stations, such as the stations I identified as non-biased, or the USRCN by itself, they wouldn’t need to go through all the gyrations of adjusting the junk data from the COOP network. But they don’t.
Also, NONE of those adjustments do anything to prevent the false highest ever temperature records being reported from biased stations.
This NWS directive is there for a reason, and they ignore it in favor of adjustments.
NWS Instruction 10-1302, “Requirements and Standards for NWS Climate Observations,” April 20, 2018, https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf
“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.”
NOAA never mentions the USCRN network in their monthly and yearly climate reports. NOAA never mentions that many of the stations that are “records” might be biased by their placement. NOAA never mentions they have to adjust data that was out of spec in the first place.
NOAA never mentions that the USCRN does nothing for data (and trend) prior to 2005.
Why? Because it goes against the narrative. It goes against future funding. There’s no funding without a “climate crisis.”
I’m sure a quick letter from you to the NOAA would result in a prompt correction being issued to their reporting practices. /sarc
I stand by the article and the work. Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
The USCRN was not in place until the early 21st century, so using it for the US historic temperature record is not possible. Using the highest quality stations might alleviate some of the issues you cite, but that would mean dumping a lot of historic data (which has its own drawbacks). And it would not alleviate all issues, such as those arising from changes in time of observation, which is one of the larger sources of bias in the US network. Why has there been no effort from your circles to produce a US temperature dataset with only your highest quality stations? Surely that is the next logical step of claiming to have identified a better approach.
As you noted in the article, the COOP is a volunteer-run network. Who will enforce these standards? How can we go back in time to posthumously enforce them? The only thing we can do is work with the historic data we have.
Because NClimDiv is the official network for the US, USCRN is the reference standard. And NOAA has extensive published literature dealing with sources of bias in the US station network and its treatment, so your statement seems a tad disingenuous.
I do note that the article was updated since my comment with a (very brief) paragraph containing a response from the NOAA, which seems to be in line with what I said above:
“In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment about the adjustments to historical data, NOAA’s public affairs officer, John Bateman, said he reached out to one of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) climate experts, who responded: “NCEI applies corrections to account for historical changes in station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, and, to a lesser extent, siting conditions. Our approaches are documented in the peer-reviewed literature. At the national scale, the corrected data are in good agreement with the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which has pristine siting conditions.””
Mr. J: Pretty sure our host used the best sites to post results, just because you’re new here doesn’t excuse your failure to look. You also use the expression “dump historical data”, no sir, nobody here dumps anything, why did you project that on him? Oh, and thanks for the follow up from NOAA’s “public affairs officer.” Why would a science outfit need a PR dep’t??!!
“Because NClimDiv is the official network for the US, USCRN is the reference standard.”
NClimDiv only exists because I demonstrated the USHCN was crap and they discontinued USHCN in favor of this new statistical construct. It was a ploy to deflect accountability.
Nobody need to “dump” historical data, just don’t rely on the same set of stations that made it as you move forward.
And if USCRN is the standard, just report that, and don’t use all that other noisy useless junk data that requires multiple layers of adjustments….but they won’t do that.
“Our approaches are documented in the peer-reviewed literature.” Well yeah, but that doesn’t make it bullet proof because the code for those approaches is not publicly available from NOAA/NCEI it is not inspectable nor replicable. Plus, nobody but NOAA has the computer to run replication on.
They and you say say “trust us” – I say, trust but verify. So many people blindly put trust in this crappy data. I don’t.
I don’t mean to disparage the influence that your work had in motivating NOAA to improve the US network, but I’m sure there were a multitude of reasons for moving to NClimDiv, not least of which is the vastly larger number of stations available.
Again, USCRN came online only a few years ago. If someone wants to compare a recent figure to a historical one, they can’t jump between datasets, so it makes sense to report using the full network with all historical data available.
As someone who writes computer code for a living, I think this complaint of not having access to code is a bit of whining. Writing the code is trivial if you understand the methodology. Code is just a computer-readable representation of the documented logic. If I tell you I summed two numbers together, you don’t need my python code to figure out how my method should be implemented in your own project. Just write your own code, see how the results compare. In fact, this mode of independent verification is much more powerful than trivially redoing the work someone has already done. It is what the BEST folks did, but I have a funny feeling you don’t like their work either.
BEST.. use all the WORST data, and manically “adjust” it to obtain whatever result they want !!
Even the most ardent fool can see that ClimDiv is being adjusted/fabricated to match USCRN.
As you say, USCRN is the reference.
Open your eye, and stop being a total idiot !
AlanJ,
Perhaps you can explain how computer code can help here?
You want to study a contour map of historic temperatures over a region. The original temperatures are area-weighted so that remote areas are better compared with city areas with more sites. If those doing the area weighting are disinclined to release their weightings and the history of their changes to them, how can coding skill help? Geoff S
Mr. 01: I think we just got the smoking gun clue on what a genuine fake Mr. J is.
Yep, another way of “faking” data to create warming would be to increase urban area weighting over time….
This could be done in a reference table linked to the code…
…or by removing “cold or cooling” temperature sites (yep, that is happening)
“increase urban area weighting over time….”
Mind you.. this is exactly what the homogenisation routines do anyway.
They smear increased urban warming over larger and larger areas by infilling intermediate point with warmer values.
Geoff, in case it is not obvious:the “original” temperatures are all still available in their raw form, exactly as they were recorded by the station instruments. If you believe the scientists who produced the original contour map were in error, or worse committing scientific fraud, what you do is retrieve the raw data and produce a contour map of historic temperatures of the region, doing everything the right way, and demonstrate the error. I think this should be obvious.
Of course, you can always stand on the sidelines, feebly demanding that the scientists prove to your satisfaction that they haven’t committed fraud, but that is not a productive thing to do and rather makes you seem like a disingenuous contrarian who doesn’t care about the pursuing truth.
But, the raw data is not easy to find. Does NOAA keep raw data for Nigeria or Indonesian islands? All I could ever find in the global datasets of NOAA was adjusted data.
The raw data is dead simple to find, it’s right here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly
The qcu ghcnm version is quality controlled, unadjusted data, meaning it has flags indicating issues with specific data points (so you can either retain or reject them in your analysis), but no adjustments applied whatsoever. It is the raw data as reported by the stations.
I don’t see any stations listed in NASA’s data viewer tool for Nigeria:
My guess is that the country does not share meteorological data with GHCN.
Mr. J: A computer code writer who thinks writing code is trivial??!! Knew you were an utterly fake troll.
If his knowledge of coding is anything like his mathematical understanding.
It is indeed trivial !! 😉
Figuring out the logic that needs to be implemented is quite a difficult task. Luckily for us, the scientists have already written that part down for us. Implementing the logic in code is indeed trivial for even a moderately experienced programmer. If you struggle to turn plain English instructions into code then you are a poor programmer. If you struggle to comprehend the plain English descriptions of the methodology in the published literature then you are out of your depth and should probably leave things to the people who know what they’re talking about.
A rambling zero-content post.
We expect nothing better.
Mr. J: So the “logic” part is pure appeal to authority for you? How lucky for you. I’m not a programmer, but I see your struggles with english, and pick that apart. English happens to be well within my depth, but I like this site because many articles allow me to learn and increase my depth. For instance, your fancy colored maps were, at one time, beyond my depth. They show temps across the globe, as if stations are just as well-mixed as co2. But I learned that your colored map shows temps for vast parts of the globe that have no data. Your references to data underlying your graphic is very thin in spaces but your map hides that. Once I learned about it, I could see that you remain blind to it and just keep posting these false images. So when I attack your posts, I’m able to deconstruct them and still stay in the shallow end, so to speak. That’s how lame your posts are, they are deconstructed by one who you say is out of his depth. That’s gotta hurt.
You probably could have gained this insight by looking at your window and observing that the entire planet isn’t completely blanketed every square inch in surface stations, but I’m glad it did eventually come to you.
And at least you are aware that you’re out of your depth. I’m sure you’re happy to leave the scientific computing to the scientists in that case, rather than baselessly accusing them of committing fraud.
Still worshipping GIGO.. .. at least you have now admitted that fact.
You have accepted that your colored map shows temps for vast parts of the globe that have no data.
You tried to slither around that fact. and FAILED again.. !!
Mr. J: I did look out the window, because I knew that I’d never learn it from you or your graphics. So, are you relieved to finally admit the truth, that your colored map is not based on data?
When I see that I’m out of my depth, I shut up and read some more. You, on the other hand, just go right on posting comments. Relying on maths that are evidently way over your head, not to mention english.
That’s not the same things as what you said before, is it? Before you said, “your colored map shows temps for vast parts of the globe that have no data.” And that is true, of course, because they are point level measurements used to represent a continuous surface. But the “space between” the point measurements is indeed based on the real data of the point-level measurements.
“And at least you are aware that you’re out of your depth”
Says AlanJ from his toddlers pool !
No AnalJ you are the one using garbage data and \garbage methodologies.
And we have seen several times just how grossly incompetent you are when it comes to mathematical understanding.
Except the climate scientists are seldom knowledgeable in physics and chemistry and other disciplines necessary to understanding the physical world. I suspect most, and that includes you, have never taken a senior level lab class that required metrology training to properly define measurands, collect exacting measurements, and then analyze the results.
This is a blatant falsehood. Many climate scientists have PhDs in physics and chemistry.
I’ve completed multiple semesters of graduate level coursework in quantitative methods in earth science, and worked as a technician in a mass spectrometry laboratory for several years. This was long ago and I don’t work in that field now, but I doubt my experience was all that unique.
Nothing paid for by taxpayers should be hidden from taxpayers unless it is proven to be worthy of national security classification.
The fact that temperature data is not hidden obviates a national security issue.
The fact that the NOAA STAR satellite temperature algorithms were changed and low and behold they came out close to UAH afterward speaks volumes about the software and modifications to temperature used by NOAA.
AlanJ may trust them, but I sure don’t!
The “pre” doesn’t seem to work anymore so here’s an abbreviated version. (Hope my manual formatting shows up correctly!)
These are just the first 4 of the “adjustments” that have been made by NOAA for record highs for Columbus Ohio between 2007 and 2012.
Record Highs for the day as listed in July, 2012 compared to what was listed 2007
(The 2012 values are listed first the the 2007 values)
“Newer-April ’12 Older-’07 (did not include ties)
6-Jan 68 1946 Jan-06 69 1946 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
9-Jan 62 1946 Jan-09 65 1946 Same year but “new” record 3*F lower
31-Jan 66 2002 Jan-31 62 1917 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list
4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946 “New” tied records 5*F lower”
No siting issues considered that I know of, just values changed.
I have a bunch more.
That was just for my little spot in the US, part the Globe.
What was done to the values for other spots?
Look up or use “current” values and you’ll be using values that were changed from older values.
This seems to be conspiratorial cherry picking. NOAA is applying adjustments via a computer algorithm, they are not hand-tuning each value at each station. This is a distribution of adjustments for USHCN from Judith Curry’s blog:
The adjustments are about as likely to increase the trend as to decrease it. For the Contiguous US, the overall effect of the adjustments is to increase the surface temperature trend, primarily because TOBS is one of the major biases, and in the US biases the trend cold. For the globe, SST adjustments substantially reduce the ocean warming trend, making the effect of the overall adjustments a cooling one, as shown above.
Yet about 10% of the record highs and lows for a day on my little spot on the globe between 2007 (using the WayBackMachine, back to 2002) and 2012 were changed.
PS If it was just Time of Observation Bias (That is the high for the day was recorded at, 6am rather at midnight) for February 4, then why are the record highs for both February 3rd and February 5th both lower than the 66 recorded in 1946? That 66 should have shown up somewhere.
(4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946 “New” tied records 5*F lower”)
Still waiting for an answer. IF it was TOB, why are the record highs for the day before and the day after lower than the record 66 set in 1946?
Why is the record high for February 4 66*F set in 1946, according to the NOAA report in 2007 (and in 2002) but the 2012 report says it was 61*F set in 1962?
PS I just looked at the list I got in 2013 (I didn’t attempt a comparison with its values.)
That NOAA list still says the record high for February 4 was 66*F but that it was set in 1890!
I don’t know which station you’re referring to in Columbus, but the difference is not necessarily due to the TOBs adjustment. What you describe isn’t how TOBs adjustment would be applied in the first place.
The general point is that you’re engaged in confirmation bias. You’ve zeroed in on adjustments that you believe might potentially increase the trend while ignoring the other roughly 50% of adjustments to stations nationwide that decrease it.
For the US, the overall impact of the adjustments is to slightly increase the warming trend, but for the globe, the overall impact is to slightly decrease it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the adjustments are being improperly applied or purposefully biased.
Which station in Columbus?
Ask NOAA. It’s their numbers.
I “zeroed in” on values that were changed for no apparent reason.
These changing values are part of the data sets used.
(Of course siting issues are also effect the data.)
If the foundation is not stable, neither is what is built on it.
“they are not hand-tuning each value at each station”
ROFLMAO
So wholesale adjustment which is scientific nonsense…
Well done for bringing that to light. :-)!
Didn’t note the dates of the adjustments…
You know the wholesale COOLING of the past and warming of the recent.
Just more deliberate mis-information !
GISS “adjustments”…
GISS publishes a webpage containing the full history of the GISTEMP product, you can see comparisons of every single version there:
The biggest changes occur when they increase the number of stations being used in the analysis. More data is a good thing, so it’s unclear why this bothers you so much.
Forgot the link:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
It looks like the number of stations available in the GHCN dataset more than tripled, from 7200 stations in GHCNv2 to 26,000 in GHCNv4. You attribute to adjustments what is actually the result of better data coverage.
So more and more REALLY BAD DATA.
Thanks for pointing that out. !
ROFMLAO.
Yes they all use the same corrupted data !
We already know that !!
And as you can clearly see, they have adjusted the warm 1930s downward and the later data upwards.
And remember, ANYTHING from GISS is a CON, just for the “true believer”
That is who Schmidt et al are !.
Well, if it’s a computer algorithm then it must be correct!
Unless… the algorithm is shit.
Let’s see the algorithm and the science behind it.
Almost certainly has “parameters/fudge-factors” that can be adjusted to get whatever result the person running it wants to get.
And if it is based on GHCN data.. that is also heavily corrupted by agenda driven mal-adjustments.
bnice,
Reminds me of the trust in Toshiba computer algorithms revealed in the growing UK saga of Mr Alan Bates and the Post Office. Last estimate I saw of compensation to those wronged was 60 million pounds, but this cost cannot include the several alleged suicides.
There is a 4 part video series about the post office scandal which has meaningful comparisons with what the several official temperature adjustment and curating bodies are doing. Geoff S
Here is the source code for the GISTEMP analysis:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v4/
I eagerly await your pointing out of the fudge factors.
It is in all the manic adjustments to RAW data…
Which you have PROVEN and ADMITTED are actual.
Who cares what other silly programming games they play if they are working with KNOWINGLY CORRUPTED DATA. !!
Mr. Green: Mr. J thinks it’s just fine in hiding.
It’s not hidden, it’s right here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/
I repeat… KNOWINGLY USING CORRUPTED DATA.!!
The fact that the changes shown are at the one-hundredths digits tells me they were done by software written by number crunchers and not people knowledgeable of making physical measurements.
Why not just eliminate the stations that need adjustment? Adjustments are not corrections at obvious points in time that are incorrect. They are permanent changes over large periods of time.
You can not give a scientific reason for adjustments over a long period time that justify doing so. Real science would declare them unfit.
The obvious answer is that there are places in the world that have no station records that aren’t in need of an adjustment. So if you eliminate those records, you have regional gaps. At the global level, this isn’t a big deal, but it matters if you’re looking at a regional scale.
It’s important to recognize that the adjustments in general are not “correcting bad data,” which is the refrain often heard round these parts, they’re removing systematic bias that would impart spurious signals to the network. If a station was moved, the temperature values it recorded at both locations weren’t wrong, they are just correctly measured temperatures at two different locations. If you don’t account for the station move, you will introduce a trend that isn’t the result of any change in the regional climate, it’s an artifact of the station move.
Similarly, a change in the time of observing time from afternoon tio morning does not make any of the data points wrong, it will just introduce a trend bias into the network. So you need to account for it, you don’t need to throw out all the perfectly good data.
Even if (gasp) a station has a parking lot installed around it, the temperature measurements its recording are not incorrect, it’s just now recording temperatures above asphalt, where before it was recording them above, say, grass or dirt. So you need to account for that discontinuity – again not because there’s an error in the measured values, but because not doing so would introduce a spurious trend.
“the corrected data are in good agreement with the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)”
Your statement is not quite correct… it should say…
The data is corrected to be in good agreement with the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
I’d more correctly (pun intended) say “is adjusted to be in good agreement with…”.
DATA is the ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENTS. Anything beyond that is glorified guesswork. Which is what most alleged “data” presented by those practicing what is laughingly called “climate science” is.
“And it would not alleviate all issues, such as those arising from changes in time of observation, which is one of the larger sources of bias in the US network.”
Tony Heller shows TOBS is “much ado about nothing”.
AlanJ,
So an official decides that a station shift caused a step change in the record. How do you know that the step affected this station alone and not those around it, so that pairwise comparison isolated only the step? How to they know if the site change affects all levels of past temperature equally? Should they adjust only ordinary temperatures or only the highest 10% or what?
AlanJ, I have been analysing these matters in great detail over hundreds of stations since 1992. Now and then WUWT publishes some of my findings. They are consistent with Anthony’s articles. We do not collude.
I have a couple of articles almost ready. The usual response to them is silence. I lack an expensive propaganda machine to fill the minds of youngsters with drivel like the cancel culture.
Geoff S
Geoff, the entire point of pairwise homogenization is to compare stations to their neighbors. If a step change is common to all neighboring stations, it will appear in neighboring station records. I recommend that you read the literature on this topic to become better informed.
It is a user-directed data fudging technique.. One of many used.
I recommend you read the literature and wake up to reality.
I guess you don’t really know who you are lecturing, do you.
Hint: You are not telling Geoff something he doesn’t already know. He has read the literature and is much better informed about it than you.
Mr. Abbot: Indeed. His elitist slip shows, and the funny part is, this is no elite anything, not even a good gaslighter. He’s the iconic example of Twain’s axiom, can’t convince Mr. J that he’s been fooled.
Thank you Tom,
AlanJ appears not even to have read the many articles that WUWT has published for me. The cover most of the points that AlanJ thinks are novel and just now discovered for world enlightenment.
Today I submitted another article to WUWT.
It will be interesting to see (if it is accepted) what AlanJ thinks of it. It is problematic, because it reveals a number of inconvenient questions about “pristine” station raw data.
Geoff S
For the record, I don’t think a single point I’m making is novel – this is all basic information. If you are aware of it already, you are doing a poor job of demonstrating that, Geoff, because you’ve said several things in this thread that are in error.
I’ll be keen to see your new article when it is published.
…and when you have 90-96% of stations corrupted in their placement by microsite UHI type effects, as I have documented, all homogenization and pairwise comparison is doing is creating a mathematical hot mess of data. The actual representative data from well-sited stations is swamped.
It is AlanJ who is misinformed. He actually thinks homogenization is useful/effective in this situation.
“He actually thinks homogenization is useful/effective in this situation.”
When it almost certainly ADDS significantly to global temperatures.
Especially when “guided” to do so.
You’ve “documented” microsite “corruption” but have done nothing to assess whether the adjustments already applied account for it. Given that the adjusted data are perfectly consistent with the reference series, as I’ve said ad nauseum in this thread and which you’ve repeatedly ignored, it’s safe to say the adjustments/homogenization are working as intended.
Using GARBAGE data to adjust less affected data
That is not science of any sort.
That is deliberate fraud.
which you, of course, condone.
Yes, the homogenisation farce is working as intended..
It spreads urban and other spurious warming far and wide, exactly as they need it to.
When are you going to understand that UHI is a systematic bias that is non-correctable? It interacts with other variables at a given time; its influence is NEVER the same. Its influence contributes to what the measurement is at a given time.
”
karlomonte
Dec. 24, 2023 at 8:36pm
What the trendologists have been told (repeatedly) is that for time series measurements, like air temperature, you get exactly one chance to record the number, then that data point is gone forever.
N is always exactly equal to one!
This not-very-subtle point has never penetrated their information spaces, and probably never will.
“
So then do what Anthony refuses to do: explain why the adjusted full network is in perfect accord with the pristine reference series. If you can’t account for urbanization bias in the full network, then there must be a significant difference between the rural reference network and NClimDiv. Why is there no difference?
Or there is secret adjusting going on behind the scenes. That is the more logical assumption here; temperature is an intensive property, and the variables, including systematic bias like UHI, that contribute to it are quantitatively inseparable.
Now you’ve just whole-cloth invented a vast conspiracy of which you have zero evidence of, all so that you don’t have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Ask yourself if you can truly say you’re being objective, here.
Am I truly expressing thoughts that exceed the bounds of reason, AlanJ?
Any wild conspiracy theory is hypothetically possible and thus does not “exceed the bounds of reason.” The world could hypothetically be run by mole people. Rational outside observers generally acknowledge that, while they are hypothetically possible, believing in such wild conspiracies is a form of delusion.
“if you can truly say you’re being objective”
You most certainly are NOT.
You are regurgitating all the most ridiculous AGW fallacies.
You are relying on faked once-was-data, that you KNOW has been massively corrupted by urban warming and FAKE adjustments.
Not a hint of rational thought or unbiased objectivity..
Exactly the opposite.. a desperate clinging to what you KNOW is not science..
.. just to support some hedonistic anti-human totalitarian agenda.
You are doing your lies and deception attempts either on purpose…. paid ???
Or are a completely ignorant and brain-washed idiot.
Again, you are admitting to massive urban bias
Also saying that once properly adjusted for, there is basically ZERO warming.
That is exactly what we have been trying to tell you !!
But adjusting really bad urban data to specifically match mostly unaffected data is just nonsense..
… it is admitting that that urban data wasn’t worth a dime in the first place.
You are basically agreeing with everyone else, and saying that if we use pristine un-urban-affected sites, we get very little warming.
THANK YOU for finally getting there… Now STFU !!
I think the urbanization bias is small at the global scale, as countless studies have shown. Land surfaces make up less than a third of the global surface area, after all, and only a fraction of that is urban. But I have never suggested that urbanization bias is not real, only that it is being adequately accounted for by adjustments, as shown by the consistency between NClimDiv and USCRN.
Not in the slightest. USCRN shows a strong positive trend, as does UAH, as do rising sea levels, receding glaciers and ice caps, rising ocean heat content, etc etc etc. There is zero question that the planet is warming significantly, although you seem to vacilate between acknowledging it and denying it depending on which suits you best in the moment.
“explain why the adjusted full network is in perfect accord with the pristine reference series.”
BECAUSE THEY SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTED IT TO MATCH.
Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend. !
They adjusted it to remove the bias, and in so doing we expect the agreement with the reference series to improve, which it does.
Fake Data.
And you promote it; makes you a fraudster, not a single word you post should be trusted.
“to their neighbors.”
Sometimes thousands of miles away in a totally different climate zone.
NOT SCIENCE
Homogenisation is a tool used for deliberate mal-adjustments and for spreading garbage urban data to less affected sites..
Dumping corrupted data NEVER has drawbacks when dealing with science! Mathematicians and statisticians may deplore throwing away numbers that can be played with but that is immaterial to scientific accuracy.
Become a physical scientist, not just a numbers manipulator.
It’s not just the NWS directives – the WMO, the UK Met Office and all other countries use either the WMO directives or their own, very similar, ones. As far as I’m aware about 95-98% of UK temperature stations fail to comply with the directives and I would expect a similar failure rate in other parts of the world, although I haven’t checked many.
If these climate scientists were in any way serious about recording pristine air temperatures they’d move the stations or at least make sure they complied with the directives. That they haven’t, and refuse to acknowledge any problems with their current siting and methods, leaves a reader with the unpleasant conclusion that they are unscientific frauds who want an artificial warming bias in the measurement data.
The belief that USCRN is perfectly sited and the resulting statistics are very accurate is wishful thinking. Not a proven fact.
Certainly far less corrupted than most other sites, though.
It is pristine by design. You can see photos of every single USCRN station site here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/photos.html
AlanJ,
There is no definition to allow a site to be classed as pristine.
All current terminology is based on assumption, like the site should not be affected by the Hand of Man.
I have searched for and failed to find any measurable, repeatable characteristic that could define pristine. Candidate have properties that are all over the place and seriously different as to both sign and magnitude. Pristine candidates seem to have no uniformity that sets them apart from any other site.
Geoff S
Here is what NOAA itself admits regarding USCRN temperature measurement data under “IMPORTANT NOTES”: (ref: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/readme.txt ):
“I. On 2013-01-07 at 1500 UTC, USCRN began reporting corrected surface temperature measurements for some stations. These changes impact previous users of the data because the corrected values differ from uncorrected values. To distinguish between uncorrected (raw) and corrected surface temperature measurements, a surface temperature type field was added to the monthly01 product. The possible values of the this field are “R” to denote raw surface temperature measurements, “C” to denote corrected surface temperature measurements, and “U” for unknown/missing.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Ooops . . . design failure, I guess . . . pay no attention to the nice photos, which are meaningless in context.
“Surely you don’t condone this kind of misinformation being spread’
THEN STOP DOING IT !!
Hint.. so you don’t fall for it again…
If it is from Zeke.. it is misinformation…
He is a consummate CON-MAN … be more aware !
I think WUWT would even allow post from Michael Mann defending his “Hockey Stick”.
(But the commenters might have to hide their names to prevent being sued for disagreeing with the guru of tree ring reading.)
PS Just who is it that gets to define what is “misinformation”?
I’d say they are the ones to keep an eye on!
“… been superceded by the NClimDiv network …”
Superseded is spelled with two s’s. And some of us have paid subscriptions to Epoch Times. Good article, Anthony.
It can be spelt ‘supercede’ as this is an earlier spelling of the word and, especially in English, can be spelled either way. In American English, ‘supercede’ has been superseded by ‘supersede.’
Superseed is likely a GMO product.
When spelt on the ground it may produce a crop that could super.. uh … something, the original.
Wow, even the unadjusted data is wrong, that is not what happened to this globe during the 80,’s and 90,’s.
The USRCN shows no temperature trend due to CO2 so what are you crying about?
Other temperature series are not the same as USRCN, and have problems with their station’s placement, as pointed out many times before.
Anyways, why are you worried about ~2°C over a century? About huge increases in greenry and food production/yield over the past half century? The real data says relax and enjoy the climate.
The USCRN shows a larger warming trend than the trend for the whole globe:
It is just a short series, and fairly noisy because it only covers a small region.
I think that you know very well the reasons why scientists are concerned about global warming.
Have no idea where you got that graph.
The alarmist, so-called climate scientists are concerned about their careers and possibly imagined climate doom senarios that have nothing to do with reality.
Why don’t you look up NASA scientist Kalmus and see what he is worried about.
I made the graph in Excel, after downloading the data from the NCEI website. Please feel free to verify it for yourself.
LOL AlanJ You really don’t understand the sensitivity to end points of short time-series with only a few data points do you?
The claim was made that the USCRN shows no trend. I demonstrate that it does. You claim there might not be enough data to confidently say whether the trend reflects the underlying signal, which may well be true (although it’s not that sensitive to the endpoint, here is the trend without 2023 altogether), but the calculated trend is what it is, and it is positive, so to say there is no trend is incorrect.
Let’s all be on the side of saying things that are correct.
And like everything else, you do…
… you did it using IDIOT mathematics.. the only type you know.
“Let’s all be on the side of saying things that are correct.”
From you.. that is hilarious..!!
You have been manifestly WRONG on basically every statement you make !
The first 10 years were basically zero trend.
There is then a bulge through the 2015/16 El Nino …
Then cooling until the current 2023 El Nino, which gives a slight peak at the end.
Yes, a linear calculation gives a slight warming trend, mainly because of that 2015/16 bulge.
But it is meaningless and trivial and DOES NOT indicate any underlying trend.
Love that El Nino dump in 2015,.. Until then it was zero trend
You are only fooling yourself.
Now prove human causation for the 2015 El Nino.
Graphical mis-information, yet again.. really AlanJ !!
Why don’t you show the COOLING since the 2016 El Nino, even with the effect of the current El Nino.
What is the human causation of that cooling ?
Those who are worried about global warming are relying on unverified climate models which on average are much warmer than observations and 1.5C is pulled out of the air.
The Hausfather comparison graph dates from 2015 when the ‘uncorrected’ [sic] 35 year trend 1910 – 1945 was comparable to the 35 year trend 1980 – 2015.
But the former trend could not be attributed to human emissions.
No problem, simply lop a bit off the top so that the embarrassing incongruity of one trend being human emission-free and the other being 100% human-caused is minimised.
Apropos AGW practitioners’ cavalier approach to data this is a reminder of an exchange between Wigley and Jones from the Climategate emails:
“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip”.
There you have it: “reduce the warming of the past”. That’s what the Temperature Data Mannipulators did. They cooled the ocean and land warming to make the past look cooler and make the present look like the “hottest year evah!”
These are the lying scumbags we have to thank for all this CO2-is-dangerous/ Net Zero insanity. Without this bastardized temperature record, the Climate Alarmists would have nothing to scare people with. And it’s all a BIG LIE.
It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. All the unmodified, regional, historic temperature charts from around the world show this. This is the “land warming” the Climate Alarmists are referring to.
If it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and it was, then that means that CO2 has had no discernable effect on the Earth’s temperatures since it was just as warm in the past when CO2 was at a much lower level in the atmosphere, as it is today with CO2 making up a larger percentage of the atmosphere. Therefore, since it is just as warm in the recent past as it is today, CO2 has had no discernable effect on the temperatures.
This is why the Climate Alarmists bastardized the global temperature record. They couldn’t make a case for CO2 being dangerous if they couldn’t show a huge temperature increase over the time CO2 was increasing.
The Global Temperature Record is a huge fraud on humanity and is costing us our economies and societies. All from this one BIG LIE by some very dishonest, destructive people.
(I’m copying that quote, Chris. I had it at one time but lost it. 🙂
I have some email correspondence from Phil Jones about land/sea T comparisons of Australia and New Zealand.
It is available on request. Geoff S
That would make an interesting article for WUWT.
NOAA has failed to act on poor weather station siting, not even trying to create an illusion that they care
Therefore, NOAA can not be trusted
NOAA claims their poorly sited NClimDiv network produces almost the same average temperatures as their USCRN, allegedly a properly sited rural network.
That either means siting makes no difference, or NOAA has fixed one or BOTH statistics to match.
Since I have good reason to not trust NOAA, I do not trust NClimDiv or USCRN
Good data start with good, honest people collecting those data. In my opinion, NOAA personnel do not qualify.
There is actually a third option: the adjustments applied to the NClimDiv network adequately address siting biases. This position where skeptics say, “I can dismiss anything I want without evidence or reason simply by saying I don’t like the person saying it” is intellectually vacuous.
Anthony points out that there are siting issues in the US network, but he never evaluates the efficacy of the adjustments that are already being applied to contend with those issues. He just… suggests that the US network is unreliable because of them. You’ll note in our exchange above he is dodging the point of the full network agreeing with the USCRN, I think because he has no response to it.
“Anthony points out that there are siting issues in the US network, but he never evaluates the efficacy of the adjustments that are already being applied to contend with those issues.”
Because as I pointed out earlier, neither I nor anyone else has access to the code doing those adjustments. Nor do we have access to the kinds of computers that they run the code on.
If you know where this can be found, point it out. Peer-reviewed papers don’t count – they are not operational processes.
Again, the code is a trivial implementation of the methods described in the literature. Any reasonably competent programmer who understands the literature can implement the logic in code. The folks at BEST did it.
And yet again you deftly avoid addressing the fact that the full station network is perfectly in line with the reference network, suggesting that the adjustments are doing their job just fine.
BEST methodology is so open to corruption it is ridiculous.
All the WORST data.. get any result they want to get.
And Zeke was there.. so you KNOW it is corrupted.
You have yet to WAKE UP to the fact that the urban network fabrication…
… is being SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTED to match USCRN…
That is NOT SCIENCE.. that is fraud.
“…the code is a trivial implementation of the methods described in the literature. Any reasonably competent programmer who understands the literature can implement the logic in code. The folks at BEST did it.”
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Must be that funky Maine weather affecting your skills.
Right, BEST developed independent methodology based on the literature, they didn’t need anybody else’s computer code. This is the whole point. You could do the same. You claim the adjustments are inadequate, or not applied correctly, or whatever else, so do it yourself. Create the official WUWT surface temperature analysis. Take the description of the pairwise homogenization algorithm in Menne & Williams 2009 and implement it yourself (or not – argue that it shouldn’t be used and why, and implement a different approach!). Describe your methodology and publish your results, here on this blog and in the peer reviewed literature.
Of course, you and I know you will never do such a thing, because the end result will be you finding the exact same thing that everybody else finds, which would demolish your ability to suggest that these agencies are engaged in fraud, and that is your bread and butter.
AlanJ thinks these ACTICVIST AGW scammers are not agenda-biased and will not do anything they can think of the twist data in their favour..
NAIVE, doesn’t even begin to describe his little mind..
We have seen how immature his mathematical understanding is…
… but maybe if he spent a bit more “learning” time, he may eventually figure out that…
… homogenising using MOSTLY CRAP DATA.. just leaves you will EVEN MORE CRAP DATA.
BEST use all the WORST data.. they can use their methodology to fabricate basically anything they want to fabricate.
Doesn’t mean its real… and it certainly isn’t science.
This is a pretty insightful comment I have to say. I mean, that was what Best was all about. Proving once and for all whether the data sets were presenting an accurate picture. But when the results weren’t in line with what skeptics wanted to see, they trashed the work and back to square one we went.
Mr. J: Is this the stuff you said you weren’t hiding?
Obviously, whatever they are doing is DESIGNED to make the urban data match USCRN…
You have already admitted that is what they are doing
And they have been getting gradually closer over time, as they hone their “adjustment” algorithm.
So really.. Why not just use USCRN , instead of fabricating ClimDiv to match.
Right… the adjustments are removing urbanization bias. Can you please explain for me why you think that’s a problem? Isn’t that exactly what they should be doing?
ROFLMAO.
You still can’t see it, can you, you gormless twit.
Making spurious adjustments so as to specifically match other data.
… IS NOT SCIENCE… it is FARCE !!
Of course the adjustments are not spurious, they are the result of careful analysis of known biases in the network. That they result in the full network matching the reference network means nothing more than that they’re doing their job
And yes, they are spurious and “manufactured.”
You have just told us that the only aim is to match USCRN data.
That is the only “science” behind those adjustments.
And you have also just admitted that when you “adjust” for urban warming….
…. there is basically no warming…
…. cooling since the 2016 El Nino, actually.
But don’t let the facts kick you on your way out !!
The aim is to remove systematic bias from the full network, the check to see whether the systematic bias has been removed is to compare the result to the reference series, which by design is free of systematic bias. The science behind the adjustments is quite clearly laid out in the literature. You can disagree with the adjustments, but, again, the response is then that you should show us how to do it better, instead of whining from the sidelines.
At least now you have admitted that urban data has a significant urban bias, that when properly adjusted for, means there is no warming.
Small steps for a small-mind.
Pity there isn’t a whole-world equivalent to USCRN.
Global warming would cease completely !
You have just agreed totally with Anthony’s report.
Well done.
Because using Fake Data is fraud.
“or NOAA has fixed one or BOTH statistics to match.”
Yes.!
The “Raw” data isn’t raw. It has been bastardized. That’s why the Early Twentieth Century shows to be cooler than today.
You have to be careful in dealing with Climate Alarmists. They present bastardized data as pristine data when it is anything but.
If you see “raw” data that shows the Early Twentieth Century as being cooler than today, then you are looking at bastardized data, not unmodified data.
AlanJ is comparing two sets of bastardized data.
“Any data that shows anything that defies my preconceptions must be fraudulent.”
Please reflect on how objective you’re being, here.
Rampant DENIAL of the manic corruption of surface data, shows just how low on the scientific credibility scale you are.
My “preconceptions” consist of the written, historic temperature record. They show just what I said they show, that it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past.
Your computer-generated charts don’t show that.
The written record shows one thing and the computer-generated record shows something completely different.
The historic, written temperature record was recorded when there was not climate change agenda.
The computer-generated temperature record was created in the fevered imaginations of climate change alarmists to promote their CO2 ideology.
So your preconceptions rely on broad interpretations of spotty and incomplete historical anecdotes rather than actual data? That tracks.
Mr. J: In your view, “written historic temperature record” is anecdotal? This is a prime example of a bad-faith response from you. To recognize bad faith in your words, I’m in my depth. The only reasonable response is to give you the Greene treatment. You are clearly just here to gaslight.
Which version of GISS is the “raw ” data version 😉
And of course the FACT that there is basically NO DATA for most of the Southern Hemisphere much before 2005, makes the chart even more idiotic !
Your graph is all anomalies. That is NOT unadjusted, it is a calculated sum that obscures the actual data.
An anomaly is just a difference, it is not an “adjustment” in the context that anyone else here is using that term in.
Anthony.. in the Epoch times report it says..
“According to satellite data, since 1979, the Earth’s temperature has been increasing at a steady rate of 0.14 degrees Celsius every 10 years.”
This is a false statement.
The satellite data shows step changes at El Nino events, with no warming between those El Ninos.
It does NOT show warming “at a steady rate”.
That’s true – it should have been stated that it was an overall trend of 0.14°C or explained the step changes – they are very different ways of explaining the same thing but should not be mixed together. But, again, I think it is another nitpick in an otherwise good article.
If it had said “at a calculated linear trend of….”..
…. there would be no issue.
Why don’t you ask AW what you really want to know.
“Is El Nino (Enso) the cause of the global warming of the last 100 (or so) years?”
I for one would love to see his answer on that.
You’d have to figure out what caused the strong El Ninos first before you could answer that question. El Nino is a symptom of something that apparently is affecting the temperature trend. Those temperature steps at every El Nino are there, it’s a fact.
Just because you are totally clueless about El Ninos,…
… doesn’t mean you have to spread your cluelessness.
Look at the satellite data, .. Warming is only at the El Nino events.
No amount of whining and whinging from a simpleton will change that.
El Ninos are certainly the only cause of warming in the atmospheric data in the last 45 years.
And remember, from 1940-1979 it was actually cooling, so probably no strong El Ninos events.
Only the most gormless of twits thinks all El Ninos have the same effect. !
Steo Right Up Folks, we have an El Nino Nutter here folks.
One who believes El Ninos caused all the global warming after 1975. Never mind those pesky La Nina cooling events.
And one who must believe El Ninos causes all the global cooling from 1940 to 1975.
El Ninos can do anything. They are faster than a speeding bullet, stronger than a a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. El Nino Man
The El Nino Nutters are often El Nino Volcano Nutters. They believe almost 100% of scientists who have lived on this planet in the past century are completely wrong about AGW and thinl CO2 does nothing.
It takes a special talent and HUGE ego to be that dumb.
We have an anti-data nutter in dickie-boy, making stupid comments again !!
As I said, only a gormless twit thinks every El Nino acts the same.
And dickie-boy immediately confirms that comment.
Well done Dickie. ! It takes a special talent and baseless arrogance to be that DUMB. Billy would be proud of you.
And then he proves his AGW cultism by going to the anti-science of consensus.
So funny .. so DUMB !!
You can’t argue with 97% consensus 😉
Even when that consensus is totally fake !! 😉
Whoever thinks the so-called “consensus” isn’t totally fake…
… needs to catch up with reality.
The El Nino Nutters are often El Nino Volcano Nutters.
At the moment, ít’s only a thesis waiting for approval or to be dismissed.
At least we are not anti-science “CO2 causes all warming” nutters.
El Nino warming steps are obvious in the 45 years of satellite data.
Ocean seismic activity is a FAR better match for warming than CO2 and also matches very well with EL Ninos.
Also solid science to back each up… something that dickie just doesn’t have.
A lecture hint about El Niño and La Niña,
btw, this guy predicted at least 2 El Niños exactly, a third not so well dated with some days difference 😀 – without volcanos.
Surprising that cosmic rays don’t get more attention.
They do at times, as does variations in different frequencies of the solar energy, and several other aspects related to solar variability.
Noted… dickie is still totally incapable of producing any science whatsoever to back up his AGW brain-washed CO2 warming mantra.
It’s a good article and great to see this issue getting national recognition in at least the USA. I think I’d have preferred the Epoch Times to keep names and titles straight though; Dr Spencer, not Mr Spencer, and 2/3rds through Lt. Col. Shewchuk became Lt. Col. Spencer for a couple of paragraphs. Aside from those little nitpicks, though, a good and accurate read.
Yep , I agree a really good article, with a couple of minor bugs.. 🙂
As per the entire GreenHouseGasDefect, everything is arse over tit in this thing
None of the thermometers have *ever* read or recorded The Wrong Temperature.
Th thermometer recorded what it ‘saw’. End of story.
That is is imagined that they did and require ‘adjustment’ is simply Off The Scale Wrong – somebody is trying to hide something when they assert that adjustment is necassary to any thermometer.
Where it’s going wrong is that each thermometer should be looked at and reasons found for why it recorded what it did and when it did.
But nobody wants to do that do they – it means ‘hard work’
It means ‘thinking’, observing, solving problems to find thermodynamically rigorous solutions & answers..
Love the EpochTimes – one of the few news sources that doesn’t give me a headache from being subjected to blatant propaganda.
Great to see that WUWT’s good work is being noticed and lauded!
Trillions have been wasted on climate change
TRUE
US surface temperature measurements are from poorly sited weather stations likely to result in an inaccurate US average temperature. NOAA does not seem to care. Other nations could be worse.
TRUE
Trillions were wasted due to faulty measurements
FALSE
The predictions of CAGW began in the 1979 Charney Report. 1979 was after a mere five years of global warming that followed a 35 year global cooling period.
The predictions of CAGW were not based on any historical temperatures. CAGW had never happened before (or since 1979) The warming rate from 1975 to 2023 was not known in 1979.
It is true that some amount of global warming after 1975 was needed to make the CAGW predictions seem credible. But even if the temperature measurements were 100% accurate, and maybe UAH satellite data are close, there would still be global warming scaremongering and trillions of dollars waster.
Potential inaccuracies of temperature data after 1975 made no difference.
The same authorities promote a global average temperature in 1850 or 1880 that is likely to be so far from accurate that it could be +1 degree too high or -1 degree C. too low. No one knows.
Climate “science” has a wild guess 1850 / 1880 baseline temperature with a fake +2.0 degree C. tipping point. It’s all one big climate change fairy tale, with a CO2 boogeyman to scare people. And every leftist knows the only cure for any boogeyman is fascism.
The Charney report built on the findings of the earlier JASON report; it started a little before 1979.
“The predictions of CAGW began in the 1979 Charney Report. 1979 was after a mere five years of global warming that followed a 35 year global cooling period.
The predictions of CAGW were not based on any historical temperatures. CAGW had never happened before (or since 1979) The warming rate from 1975 to 2023 was not known in 1979.”
Yes, that’s true, but it goes back a long way further. The sequence goes
There is no way all those indicators of warming can be blamed on allegedly faulty sites in USHCN (obsoete now for 10 years).
1…Arrhenius didn’t even get his dimensions matching in his equations.
Anything after that is plain anti-science CONJECTURE.
2.. Scientists “say” .. roflmao… that’s pathetic, even from you, Nick !!
3.. Before mal-adjustments, warming was faster before 1940, and it COOLED from 1950-1970.. Atmospheric warming in the satellite era is only at El Nino events.
There is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the whole satellite data.
4.. As it warmed CO2 built up. CO2 is GREENING the PLANET, and doing basically nothing else.
Sites in the USA and Worldwide are STILL totally unfit for purpose, being highly affected by urban expansion and infill..
You have absolutely NOTHING !!
“There is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the whole satellite data.”
Meant to type…
“There is no evidence of atmospheric warming BY CO2 in the whole satellite data.”
CONTINUED WARNING?! Arrhenius said that IF humans COULD manage to warm the climate via its CO2 emissions (because he recognized that CO2’s ability to effect temperature was PURELY HYPOTHETICAL), that (we) humans would IMPROVE the climate (because unlike the deluded pseudo-scientists of today, he also recognized that a WARMER climate is BETTER).
Arrhenius lived in Sweden, and indeed thought warming would be a good thing. It was 1896, so they didn’t think so much about those dark people down South. But he was in no doubt that raising CO2 would cause warming. Here he lays it out (Worlds in the Making p 53,1908):
“If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.”
So what?
Anthony
Where l think the real “f**k up” has happened is in the switch over from recording temps from glass to electonic thermometers. Which l believe has made the post 1980 temperature trends utterly misleading and useless.
They have utterly underrestimated the impact the change would cause to the recording of the daytime temps. My own study so far has shown that on average this switch over has added around 0.7C of warming to the daytime temps been recorded and a 1.2C to the daily max temps.
But best of all you can use their own data against them, by way of the utterly fake looking post 1980 warming trend line. As there is no way that is a natural trend line you would get in the real world.
They are also much more susceptible to non-climate issues in the urban areas…
… so compound on top of an already totally unscientific station siting issue.
Yes its been a total mess up the way its been handled.
The US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) monthly temp chart appears in the right hand margin of this page – you will probably need to scroll up for it. In theory, the USCRN, now with 19 years of data, is supposed to be the most accurate and most pristine land temp system in the world.
At first glance, the USCRN on WUWT does not appear to show any trend.
However, the hotter temps have an extra temp bar (+8.00F) at the top of the 19 year chart. It only goes to -6.00F for cooler than average temps at the bottom of the chart.
Does that chart distort the image? Does the posted USCRN chart conceal a clear USA warming trend over the last 19 years?
No.. the first 10 years were basically zero trend.
There is then a bulge through the 2015/16 El Nino …
Then cooling until the current 2023 El Nino, which gives a slight peak at the end.
Yes, a linear calculation gives a slight warming trend, mainly because of that 2015/16 bulge.
I’m 97% sure the ClimateCult™ and the Biden administration don’t care about the issue of this post, nor about any sort of temperature.
The CO2 /AGW postulate has become an axiom, namely modern society is bad and must be eliminated at any cost.
The “climate” issue is not a science derived momement and won’t be settled by science.
Roy Spencer is a PhD and should be addressed as Doctor.
Gheesh
Interesting that pre 1940, the adjusted and raw data track well. The IPCC has always said that anthropogenic CO2 was insufficient to cause much warming prior to 1950. The plot drastically cools the adjusted data after 1940 which gives the appearance of faster warming since 1940. The warming trends from1900 to 1940 and then from the late 1970s to the present in the raw data have remarkably similar slopes suggesting they are subject to a similar forcing, other than CO2. With the adjusted data one can suggest an additional forcing. IOW, the adjustments fit perfectly with a requirement that warming has increased with CO2. There has always been a problem with the reversal in temperature trend between 1940 and the late 1970s – no-one can tease a natural trend, but whatever the trend is, the natural trend aint zero.
Zeke’s graph DOES NOT use raw data in either part.
It is just one fabrication graphed against another fabrication, to fool the unaware.
“The warming trends from1900 to 1940 and then from the late 1970s to the present in the raw data have remarkably similar slopes suggesting they are subject to a similar forcing, other than CO2.”
Absolutely right. One warming period took place before CO2 was even considered an issue. The second warming did not exceed the previous warming in temperatures yet there was much more CO2 in the air at the time of the second warming. Conclusion: CO2 has had no discernable effect on the Earth’s temperatures since it is no warmer today with more CO2 in the air, than it was in the past with less CO2 in the air. CO2 seems to have made no difference.
What a complete waste of time trying to get through the paid subscription BS.
The overall conclusion is that these historical temperature measurements were designed for other purposes and are unfit for the purpose of informing policies and regulations with enormous impact on society.
Geoff S
Even the GISTEMP values used by the IPCC show too much warming, by artificially lowering the temperature anomaly values of the past.
I would like to remind you of this article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/systemic-error-in-global-temperature/
Oh it’s not just the upfront costs of changing the climate but the hidden costs too-
Why is There an Epidemic of Bad Refrigerators? – YouTube
We know all about useless damn eco appliances being foisted on us in the name of saving the planet.
‘The Met Office in the UK and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have abandoned their high-tech network and are retooling to get more accurate readings‘
This causes me to doubt things. If those two bodies do as they’re claiming, it will ruin the climate crisis story. Surely, they won’t want to that.
The way I heard it they aren’t ‘retooling’ as much as abandoning recording actual temperatures in favour of climate models which will give them ‘accurate’ measurements that they won’t have to adjust.
I believe that the Met Office, use grade 4 weather stations, which have a +-2C error range. So, they appear to be abandoning one error-prone system, for a more ‘[in]accurate’ error-prone system
I read it yesterday and it was a great article and congratulations to everyone that contributed to this important work.
Only issue is that it did not quote any real “Climate Scientists” /sarc
Great job Anthony. At least I made sure my COOP equipment was properly sited — part of the 4%.
I’m glad this article got out and thanks to the author. However, I tried the Epoch Times very briefly. I got so much spam I had to delete the account. This costs. Like the post office that delivers hundreds of tons of unwanted junk mail every day, the thousands of spam emails from these websites is all stored forever.