Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has “corrected” the data to “align with their narrative”.
In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of ‘Climategate’ emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. In one email speculating on ‘correcting’ sea surface temperatures to partly explain the 1940s ‘warming blip’, it is noted that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15°C, then this would be significant for the global mean”. It would be good to “remove at least part of the 1940s blip”, it is suggested. Just as they have said they would do, comments NTZ, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years.
The block graph above is compiled and published on Professor Ole Humlum’s climate4you site. It shows the net changes made since February 28th 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature prepared by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. The significant cooling adjustment in the 1930s and 40s is clearly shown in blue, but what really stands out is how much warming has been added in the 21st century.
In the hiatus years of 2000-2014, the third version of HadCRUT recorded just 0.03°C warming per decade. In fact at this time the Met Office published a paper looking into the causes of the ‘pause’, in which it referred to “little further warming” at the time. But the warming, or ‘heating’ as many in the mainstream media now like to call it, was increased to 0.08°C per decade in version 4. The recent HadCRUT5 provides no less than 0.14°C per decade of warming, using what NTZ describes as the “computer model-infilling method”.
As NTZ notes, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. “After all, when the observations don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the observations,” adds NTZ.
Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the University of Naples and he is a recognised authority on temperature datasets and climate models. He has compiled the above graph showing the ever increasing retrospectively-applied temperature anomalies from HadCRUT3 through to HadCRUT5.
As regular readers will recall, the Daily Sceptic recently broke the story that nearly 80% of the Met Office’s 380 U.K. temperature measuring stations had internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ between 2-5°C. Specifically, almost one in three (29.2%) in ‘junk’ Class 5 had ‘uncertainties’ up to 5°C as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Nearly half (48.7%) were sited at ‘near junk’ Class 4 sites with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C. Shockingly, only 52 stations, or just 13.7% of the total, came without any ‘uncertainty’ rating. Class 5 station are prone to pick up all manner of human and natural caused heat corruptions, while class 1 sites simply measure the surrounding air temperature.
These station class classifications, which the Daily Sceptic obtained under a freedom of information (FOI) request, cast substantial doubt on the accuracy of all ‘heat’ records recently claimed. The data might be useful for general local weather forecasting, showing, for instance, that it is warmer in cities than the surrounding countryside. A degree or more either way is not significant, and precision is not an absolute requirement for people deciding what clothing to wear. But the Met Office, a highly politicised state-funded operation devoted to pushing the Net Zero narrative, uses them to make observations down to one hundredth of a degree (0.01°) centigrade. Recently it made great play of its suggestion that last year was just 0.06°C cooler than 2022.
Having finished compiling U.K. temperatures that it can be argued have little overall statistical significance, the dataset is then inserted into the HadCRUT operation where a global temperature is announced. This, of course, is the go-to figure for any alarmist who claims global heating/boiling and the likelihood of climate collapse. It is the bedrock support for climate models claiming all manner of interesting stories such as the Arctic summer sea ice disappearing within a decade and severe air turbulence doubling in short order. Such is the fairy dust it bestows that some activists even claim they can link individual bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate caused by humans. This then percolates down to hysterical halfwits on mainstream media pointing outside the window to the weather and making unchallenged claims that the end is nigh.
Given the pivotal role the Met Office’s local and global figures play in the Net Zero narrative, it is a surprise that it has yet to make a statement, two months after the Daily Sceptic’s U.K. class revelations, explaining and justifying its temperature statistics. Can we deduce from this that its scientists are happy that they are using such poor data to scare populations over minuscule rises in temperature? Would it not be a wise use of public money to expand its class 1 network to provide data that are unadulterated with obvious heat corruptions?
The Met Office does not return the calls of the Daily Sceptic. Mainstream media and politicians ignore the story, hoping that it will go away. The temperature data are at the heart of their Net Zero goals. It appears there is too much to lose by asking a few obvious, and necessary, questions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
[erratum: wrong graph originally posted in figure 1. now corrected ~cr]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Silly me, I thought that fiddling with the data was frowned upon in the Scientific Method.
It is. There is nothing scientific when it comes to the global warming scam.
The text below the first graphic reads like it belongs to another graphic while the first and third graphic are identical. Is the first graphic incorrect?
Here is what should have been the first graphic
The block graph above is compiled and published on Professor Ole Humlum’s climate4you site. It shows the net changes made since February 28th 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature prepared by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. The significant cooling adjustment in the 1930s and 40s is clearly shown in blue, but what really stands out is how much warming has been added in the 21st century
“but what really stands out is how much warming has been added in the 21st century”
Yes indeed …. all of (an ave of ) ~ 0.1C.
Clearly they aren’t trying hard enough (sarc)
Adding 0.1°C per decade equates to adding 1°C over a century…pretty much All the supposed Global Warming that Mann has caused, made by adjustments to data
No.
The “additions” would not be cumulative.
The data has a “baseline” that is the original analysis.
The “new” analysis just moves the baseline upwards – so if 0.1C were added to each successive year the slope of the trend would be the same.
You are saying that at the end of the trend adding 0.1C/ct would have the trend 1C higher.
No it would still be 0.1C higher.
For that to be the case they would have to ramp up the additions, say, if 0.1 were added again each decade. EG: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
And why did they reduce temps circa 1970?
Was it a slip of the thumb?
.1C/decade x 10 decades (100 yr) = 1C. You totally misunderstood what Bryan said.
Attributed to Joseph Stalin, the people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do. Seems these people have learned the same principle.
CIA involvement would not be surprising.
Are you suggesting the Brits couldn’t do the nasty deed on their own account? How patronising.
Think bigger Ed.
CIA helps fudge the UK data, the Alarmists on that side of the pond get just what they want with plausible deniability.
MI6 helps fudge the US data, and our Alarmists get the same deal.
/tinfoil hat mode off
(But should it be off? That same community in the US came together to lie about a laptop full of crimes.)
It might be useful to recall who set up the CIA, which morphed from the OSS and has UK fingerprints all over it.
Seen it before.
A short story. I attended a great lecture by the chemist Prof Philip Eaton.
He was credited with the first synthesis of the molecule Octanitrocubane, a very pleasing molecule for chemists, mathematicians, crystallographers, and military generals. The last of them provided much of the funding.
The relatively simple thermodynamics say this could be a fantastic chemical explosive. But the key to chemical explosives is not just the thermodynamics but their crystal density, the rate at which a shock wave can pass through the material.
As progress towards the synthesis advanced, the computational modelers figured out that the crystal-packing results were not looking good. However, their incremental results always pointed in the “right” desired direction.
You’ve already guessed the end of the story. The end experimental, real world, result was that it wasn’t good enough. Their first results were closer to reality.
Funny that. I wonder why?
I took graduate-level organic synthesis from Phil Eaton when he was a visiting scholar at Stanford. A good guy.
He was trying to synthesize dodecahedrane at the time. but Leo Paquette just beat him to it.
The decomposition of octanitrocubane (C8 N8 O16) must have the most negative delta H and delta G and positive delta S of any reaction in the World as it gives 8 carbon dioxides and 4 nitrogens plus the strain energy of the cubane nucleus.
It is very important in the study of high-energy materials to distinguish between the amount of energy released (enthalpy), and “brisance”, or the speed of the shock wave of explosion. Thus, ammonium nitrate is a low explosive (fairly low velocity) explosive of enormous power (lot of very hot gas produced); whereas lead azide produces a rapid shockwave but little power.
In any observational study, there are proper standards your measurement protocol just has to follow. In any professional laboratory setting, contaminated samples would just be thrown out.
That the Met Office and climate science, in general, have not declared this data unfit for the purpose tells me more than enough about their integrity.
Not just the “data”.
Most of the recording instrumentation all around the world is not fit for purpose.
(But apparently – “good enough for government work”, or in this particular situation – “good enough for climate work”)
Climategate has been forgotten entirely by the MSM. It’ll NEVER be mentioned there, or by any academic or bureaucrat who loves their job. Not sure why the media has forgotten it. Those opposed to the climate lunacy should speak about every day, as loud as possible. I wonder how much Trump understands it? He should mention it in the debates.
” I wonder how much Trump understands it?”
It is nearly impossible to “feed” information to a person in such a position, even lesser folks such as senators and representators. Two attempts:
During the 1984 presidential election (Ronald Reagan’s 2nd run), I sent a packet with information about the mess of the lawsuit involving the “saddlebag” gas tanks of Chevy pickup trucks. I addressed it to the White House, not knowing where it would go nor what would be done with it. I offered to give my 1960 Silverado to his campaign. About three weeks later I got a form letter from the Republican Party asking for a donation.
Second story: I tried to send an email to a Representative to Congress in a state not my own. The email was rejected because my address was not found in that district.
UK MPs don’t normally deal with communications from people outwith their constituency.
The statements on climate change by Trump that I’ve seen are pretty accurate. He did not deny climate change. His comments were similar to mainstream sceptical opinion.
But I have wondered how much he – and others opposed to Nut Zero such as Nigel Farage – actually know about the science and the data. Do they know, for example, that a major NASA study showed that the planet is getting dramatically greener, primarily due to increased CO2 and also – oh, the irony! – global warming. Does Trump know that US wildfires were far worse in the 1930’s and today the recent trend is downwards?
Imagine this: in a debate Biden goes blabbering on about wildfires. In response Trump calmly holds up a graph of the official data showing that US wildfires are today historically low over the last hundred years. Or, when discussing extreme weather, Trump holds up a graph of the EMDAT data showing that global deaths from extreme weather have dramatically fallen over the last 100 years.
I hope Trump could be made aware of the data. If climate change became a big election issue then the scientific data would give him a powerful weapon against Biden’s fantastical doom mongering….
Chris
The left like to say that Trump is stupid. He’s not- but he’s too lazy to deeply study any policies. Lucky for him, regarding any discussion of the climate, Biden won’t know any more. But, I bet the subject won’t even come up in the debates, or only superficially.
Of course it wont come up. The climate change concern issue is dead last in all polls of likely voters. Politicians seek votes from issues of concern among likely voters and they break them down further by voter classification to target their speeches. That’s why abortion and infidelity are still election issues, half the voters are women.
Small correction might be needed. The text refers to the first block graph as “net changes made since February 28th 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature… ” whereas the graph is percent of stations by WMO quality class, which is referred to in text a few paragraphs below with the same WMO figure.
WTF, why the downvotes? I was going to point out the same needed correction.
Thanks for pointing it out MJB.
Maybe they only read the first sentence and thought I was referring to temperature records needing correction? Thanks for the assist.
WUWT editor(s):
Was going to comment about first graph being duplicate of third graph, but see that same issue has already been noted by MJB.
O/T The BBC has another angle to add
Nothing learned from the Chinese pilot study that was abandoned.
Science
The great ‘only child’ myth: Why having no siblings will soon be a huge advantage
https://apple.news/A8mYMHm_aRvCnBqNuxvcYTQ
They have to go against the natural grain
If global-warming-climate-change is the existential threat they claim it is, why do these “scientists” need to adjust the temperature record?
(I already know the answer, of course.)
The data were obtained using public money and therefore are public property.
Fiddling with or altering such data is destroying the original data and therefore destroying public property. That is punishable with jail time. About time someone is held to account by the law.
Good luck with that. Perhaps you can convince Merrick Garland to have the DOJ raid scientists houses in the early morning to look for the original documents.
Although it raises questions about the scientific integrity and politicisation of the MO, sadly, arguing about a few 10ths C doesn’t alter the fact that the present day in the UK is undoubtedly the warmest period for hundreds of year.
To chip away at the crazy climate/energy agenda needs a different line of attack.
“ a line of attack ”
A Prophet is needed. A modern day Zoroaster or Isaiah needs to appear and dispel the belief in the evil CO2 molecule.
Facts are not working. How does one destroy an axiom?
Maybe “AI” could write a script and make a movie! 🙂
Well how about this . . . if you go further back in time and consider the period of, oh, about 13,000 to 120,000 years ago (i.e., Earth’s last glacial period) you’ll find that the UK is undoubtedly warmer now than it was then.
And the difference between then and now expressed as “average global temperature” is given in whole degrees . . . approximately 46°F (8°C) then, which is 11°F (6°C) cooler than the current average.
So, its not a “different line of attack” that is needed so much as it is an understanding of climate change on Earth beyond the last 200 years.
Thanks for your statement of the obvious, that the climate does and has changed naturally.
Does nothing to prove or disprove the cause of the current warm spell though does it.
My point is that the most reliable temperature record supports the warming narrative and proof or otherwise of fiddled fractions does not alter that, the margin is too large.
Here’s the “problem” as I see it –
our human life form happened to evolve on a planet that had already established it’s “playbook” about how it operates in cycles in all aspects of its existence.
Some of the aspects of earth’s “playbook” cycles operate in chaos mode.
So for us to expect to assign “cause” of the “playbook” cycles is a fool’s errand.
Earth will operate according to to the “charter” it developed for itself long, long before we came about.
There is no temperature record beyond about 1850 at most. The “temperatures” you are referring to are ΔT’s, that is, a change in temperature. Without knowing the absolute temperature that the ΔT occurred at, there is no way to analyze what was colder and what was warmer in absolute terms. The only thing you know is that the temperature changed.
Warmer in an interglacial period with 90 percent of the freshwater locked up in ice caps and glaciers within a 2+ million-year ice age is good, not bad.
Cooling would be a disaster.
You keep banging thar drum. It needs to be drilled into the head of every Eco-Fascist idiot.
And if you need help, I’ve got a drill and some bits. 😉
“arguing about a few 10ths C doesn’t alter the fact that the present day in the UK is undoubtedly the warmest period for hundreds of year.”
We can’t say that about the United States. It was as warm in the 1930’s as it is today.
“arguing about a few 10ths C doesn’t alter the fact that the present day in the UK is undoubtedly the warmest”
With the data available, and where it comes from… and what is done to it…
… there is no way you can be remotely certain about that.
“the present day in the UK is undoubtedly the warmest period for hundreds of year.”
1) The Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. Choosing the last few hundred years as a datapoint is akin to choosing the last 4 seconds as reflective of your lifetime.
2) The Earth is currently in an Ice Age (interglacial period) and is well below the average temperature of the Earth. Just because it’s warmer than in your lifetime is irrelevant. You might as well use the lifespan of a fruit fly to make your point.
“the present day in the UK is undoubtedly the warmest period for hundreds of year.”
Even if so, first things first. Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or a thing that doesn’t matter?
Take a good look at those that say it is a bad thing. Now, think about what other advice (not free phones, internet, subsidies, or other physical stuff … simply advice) you would accept from those same people.
What life advice would you accept from AOC, Oreskes, Mann? What life/family advice would you accept from Biden? Mckibben? Boris Johnson? Greta?
What type of advice would you be willing to accept & embrace if it came Paul Ehrlich?
But there’s every reason to doubt the statistical certainty of that.
These chaotic, hugely variable (daily and seasonally) datasets, measured under very individual conditions on different types of instruments hugley varying in accuracy and variably recorded by different operators under different conditions over decades do not exactly lend themselves to certainty.
They may be useful to study, but they should NOT ever be adjusted, and the certainty proclaimed in the outcomes should be ignored.
Nothing new, NASA’s GISTEMP does the same thing. The oldest GISTEMP LOTI (Land Ocean Temperature Index) In my files is from 1997 which has records back to 1950. A few years ago I did a comparison:
The second figure is not Scafetta’s, it is mine. Here is the figure as published in my second book:
Credit should be paid where credit is due.
The purpose of the UN was supposed to be to prevent and stop wars.
I guess they have given up on that and have their IPCC pushing the CO2 disaster narrative to stay relevant.
Is that a left-handed hockey stick I see in the traffic barriers?
What a sloppy post! As noted, while it described a Fig 1 supposed to be due to Humlum, what it actually shows is a duplicate of the third.
And then the second, introduced as
“Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the University of Naples and he is a recognised authority on temperature datasets and climate models. He has compiled the above graph “
Scafetta isn’t a recognised authority on anything, but he has never written on temperature datasets at all. And not here either, as Javier points out, it’s actually Javier’s graph.
But the whopper is the headline “Concerns mount…”. No evidence is provided that concerns are mounting. In fact, he also says ” Mainstream media and politicians ignore the story, hoping that it will go away. “. It’s just Morrison needing to fill some space and beating up an old story.
But there was a time in 2015 when “concerns” were more successfully hyped. The Telegraph blared “Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures”. They were referring to a panel that the GWPF had assembled to mount an inquiry. WUWT echoed it all here . GWPF called for submissions, which it said it would publish.
So what happened? Nothing!. The top scientists never reported, nor had anything substantial to say. The submissions were never published. But I see concerns are still mounting.
I posted what should have been the first graphic in the first response of the thread
Typical of Nick to absolutely condone all the fake anti-data and temperature maladjustments.
Makes bleating noises to try and distract from the maleficence.
Many people are concerned that the scam of the AGW-meme is destroying western society…
Aren’t you ??
And the fact that it is supported ONLY by manufactured and mal-adjusted data makes it even more concerning.
Wouldn’t you agree !!
Nick, address the real story about the quality of stations and their uncertainty!
If the MET stations are this poor, do you really expect global stations to be any better? Changing data should be verboten as it is in other scientific fields.
Give us an essay on how temperatures recorded mostly in the integer range in the first two thirds of the 20th century can somehow be used to get 0.01 or 0.001 precisions. This too would never be accepted in “real” scientific fields. Then include how temperatures recorded to the nearest 0.1 can also be juggled to provide a precision of 1 to 2 magnitudes better!
Stop nit picking the little things and calling the essay “sloppy”. Perhaps if you posted some essays to WUWT supporting your positions you might also spit out “sloppy” text sometimes.
All Nick’s post are “sloppy”, perhaps we should continue to point that out, too. !
“Scafetta isn’t a recognised authority on anything”
Thats goes for 98% of those who publish on climate.
But wearing your other hat you would say its the quality of the research that matters not what hat they wear.
remember Einstein wasnt a recognised authority on anything other than some patent applications when he started publishing.
Freud was similar, by 1882, he had published five scientific papers on the nervous system of fish and crayfish.
I don’t care what the MET does, I don’t believe them anyway. But they should be made to post the raw data right beside their adjusted data and show all adjustments and the reason for the adjustment. They are liars and cheats.
They should also meet GUM requirements for posting what standard uncertainty (SD or SEM), along with Degrees of Freedom, and expansion factors.
These must be the ‘world class’ standards that our BoM here in Oz are adhering to.
Nobody here can ever say exactly what the issue with the adjustments is, except that they don’t like when the adjustments make the trend go up instead of down (and all of you are dead silent about the fact that overall the adjustments reduce the trend globally). It’s not as though these are some arcane set of incantations performed in secret on the data, they’re all meticulously and transparently documented in the peer reviewed literature. If they’re incorrect, show us why. If you can do temperatures better, do it, publish your “correct” global temperature record, and explain your methods.
Translation: I can’t address the post therefore I complain about other people not agreeing with me.
Show us how the adjustments are incorrect. Show us what happens when you don’t use them. Show us what happens when you use your preferred approach. Demonstrate why your preferred approach is better. All this post amounts to is a statement that some adjustments seem to increase the warming trend (and we are meant to infer that this is suspicious).
We can not necessarily “show” you how the adjustments are incorrect any more than you can “Show” us how the adjustments are correct.
What happens when you don’t adjust the records and use the unadjusted measurements is also an unknown unless the unadjusted historical records still exist and can be accessed by anyone.
But using the unadjusted historical records WILL yield far different results, whether better or not remains to be seen.
The fact that History has been “Adjusted” means history isn’t being used, just the made up data of adjusted records.
Here’s a graph of historic temperature measurements at Alice Springs
Blue = historic measurements
Red = Adjusted measurements
And there are a HUGE number of similar cases all over the world.
Manic mal-adjustments.. nearly all of which radically increase warming.
Of course it is possible to pick through the station records and find any degree or sign of adjustment you want. It took me about half a minute to locate a station where the trend was lowered via the adjustments:
The question is not and never has been whether adjustments have been applied, and whether sometimes the adjustments increase the trend, the question is whether the adjustments are justified and appropriate given the nature of the systematic biases present in the network. But this question is utterly ignored by the contrarian set.
Here’s the GISS Land Ocean temperature index comparison 2002(blue) 2018(red) clearly showing Historic data being adjusted down .15 – .20°C in 1900 data and adjusted up almost 0.08°C for current data increasing the 100 year trend by .23 – .28°C
Here’s the adjustment data
Clearly showing adjustments of -.18 to +.12 or a total of about .30°C
This isn’t merely adjusted vs unadjusted data, the earlier dataset has much more limited coverage (fewer stations) than the later dataset. You can’t simply present the differences as though they’re all due to some difference in the adjustment procedures. That’s fundamentally dishonest. Here is the raw data compared to the adjusted data (for global land+ocean):
Here’s a blink comparison of temperature vs adjusted temperatures
Again, this isn’t raw vs adjusted temperatures, this is a comparison of an earlier (adjusted) more limited dataset with a later (also adjusted) greatly expanded dataset.
That’s correct, it isn’t simply adjustments to raw data but also further adjustments to data that had already been adjusted. Sometimes more than once.
Right, you’re confirming that you are comparing two adjusted datasets, but failing to justify why it’s ok for you to claim that this is a comparison of adjusted/unadjusted data. And it doesn’t justify comparing datasets with very different volumes of records and spatial coverage and claiming the differences are all down to adjustments.
It is very possible to show that the adjustments are incorrect – falsifiability is a fundamental tenet of scientific inquiry. You could, for instance, show that the mathematical basis of the adjustments is incorrect. Or you could show that the theoretical underpinnings are invalid. You could also generate artificial data with known characteristics and apply the adjustments to it, and demonstrate that they produce unexpected behavior. Any of these could yield compelling falsification of the adjustments. But they are never attempted by the contrarian set.
As you aptly demonstrate in another comment, the unadjusted records are easily and freely available, so this sort of analysis should be straightforward.
“Far different” is a qualitative statement. What does it mean? How different? How is different bad?
You are just dancing around the issue. Show us just one other scientific endeavor that utilizes highly modified measured data to prove conclusions.
More pointedly, your strawman arguments about correct math is just an excuse for improper actions in modifying measured data without any justification for each and every change.
For those of us trained in taking, recording, and using measurements, changing that information is anathema. The end can never justify the means, ever!
Show me a scientific endeavor that does not attempt to address systematic bias in measurements during analysis. I’ll wait.
Systematic bias is ALWAYS dealt with at the beginning either through known correction tables and/or calibration. If other “bias” is discovered later, data is marked as not usable.
The “systematic bias” you refer to just doesn’t happen with properly maintained measuring devices. That is one HUGE reason no one believes the corrections being made. The only way to correctly assess a bias is with onsite calibration. Looking at data alone, other than for errors, is wishful thinking when making ad hoc corrections.
Right, there is nothing whatsoever objectionable in addressing known systematic bias in a dataset prior to analysis. In fact, it is the appropriate thing to do. Glad we agree on that single point, at least.
As to whether biases identified and evaluated after the time of measurement can be addressed, you and I will simply disagree. We don’t have time machines, so we absolutely have to use the existing historical data. If we can identify and isolate systematic bias in the station network, then we are well justified in removing it for surface temperature analysis, and simply throwing out the data would be stupid. Your “I can’t know everything ergo I know nothing” mentality is extremely limiting, and thank goodness real scientists don’t adhere to such thinking.
Then you’ll be good enough to explain, in detail, exactly how Menne et al., 2009, are able to consistently identify and remove artificial biases injected into synthetic datasets using their pairwise homogenization algorithm, since by your estimate such a thing is impossible.
No, YOU will disagree. Here is the fundamental truth, each station has its own microclimate. That microclimate may cause differences in temperature measurements compared to other stations but that are ENTIRELY ACCURATE. Unless a calibration is done AT THE STATION, you have no idea what a systematic bias may be.
Tell us what protections are in place to prevent changes being propagated throughout the network. For instance, are changes ALWAYS made to the original data?
Most often, inhomogeneities arise not because of incorrect readings, but because of changes to the observing station that are not related to climate (station moves, change in observing practices, instrumentation change, etc.). Such things do not produce incorrect measurements, they simply impart non-climatic signals into the station record. And if they occur consistently across many stations over time (such as a change in time of observation for US coop stations), this can impart a significant systematic bias to the network. This is what the adjustments correct for. (There is an effort to identify and flag incorrect measurement values, but this is separate from what is most often referred to when talking about adjustments).
The adjustments that you are so against do this. Could you try addressing this? You’ve ignored it in your comment:
“you’ll be good enough to explain, in detail, exactly how Menne et al., 2009, are able to consistently identify and remove artificial biases injected into synthetic datasets using their pairwise homogenization algorithm, since by your estimate such a thing is impossible.”
You are just repeating standard climate science rhetoric. Climate science does not follow standard scientific or industrial protocols. When a change in measurement technology or practice occurs, no one, and I emphasize NO ONE, gets to go back and change past data to make it correspond to the new data. The old record is stopped and an entirely new one started.
That is the only ethical practice. When you change recorded measurements made in the distance past, you are essentially saying they were done incorrectly and we now know what they should have been.
There are only non-scientific reasons for attempting to create long station temperature records.
One, propaganda purposes. It allows climate science to claim there is a cohesive station instrument record from when the station was started to present and that shows it is warming just as we warned what would happen.
Two, you reduce the possibility of spurious trends being found. Something like Simpson’s Paradox.
Three, you can claim that mathematics lets you modify recorded data to what it SHOULD BE. Whether you realize it or not, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It places your mathematic judgement over what may very likely be correct data.
You obviously don’t even realize what homogenizing actually means. From Merriam Webster:
That explains very well what is being done to the temperature record, to make uniform in composition. No one here believes that the temperature record is uniform even with separation based in 10’s of feet. You simply can’t justify that regardless of how much you protest.
Here is a phrase from the study:
Again, the word “inhomogeneities” appears. I could find no reference in the study that explained how a maintenance report about the offending station would be submitted. No reference to notifying NOAA about the problem encountered with a recommendation to create a new record. Instead, the statistician’s solution was taken and, yo ho, just change the prior data!
Not at all, you’re saying only that a non-climatic signal has been identified in the station record. This does not mean the measurements were made incorrectly, it means the station record contains a history of climate changes and non-climate changes, and we only want to analyze the climate changes. It’s a common misconception on this website that the purpose of adjustments is to correct incorrect measurement values.
You cannot go back in time and un-move a station that has been moved from one location to another, and even if you could, the NOAA does not manage all of the surface stations on the planet, they just archive the records provided to them by various meteorological agencies around the globe. Creating a “new record” is just an arbitrary convention you want to follow for no particular reason that you can articulate. You would obtain an identical result by doing so, with significantly more effort spent manually deciding how to split up station records.
I can show you a scientific endeavor that does attempt to add
resssystematic bias in measurements before, during, and after analysis.It’s in the title.
“Met Office Fiddles With Historic Temperature Record in Exact Way Planned in Leaked ‘Climategate’ Emails”
Their job is to confirm the premise. It is not to follow through on a ‘scientific endeavor’.
Translation: I can’t address the post therefore I complain about other people not agreeing with me.
Except over time , the adjustments and infills and data fabrication massively CREATE the trend.
Don’t tell me you are still falling for that HorseFarter scam conparison, where he compares two different fabrications against each other…..
No, I’m referring to the work I did independently to verify the impact of the adjustments myself (which agrees perfectly with Hausfather’s). Where is your work showing the opposite?
No-one is interested in work from a mathematical illiterate, using mal-adjusted data.
Where did you get your global data for the 1850-1920 period from. 😉
Does you Alice Springs data look like the blue line above.
Does your Reykjavik data look like this?
oops link didn’t take
I take, from the red thumb, that your data doesn’t look like the raw data for Alice and Reykjavik.
How embarrassing for you . !
The answer to all of your questions is that the data looks exactly like the data in GHCN unadjusted, since that is the data I used. You might not be interested in my work, but I am intently interested in your global temperature analysis. Would you care to share it?
Here are two versions of GISS urban mal-manipulated data.
And you try to tell everyone the mal-adjustments from 2001-2016 don’t make the trend steeper.
Stop making a FOOL of yourself.
And here is the “mal-adjustments” from 2011-2016
I’d be big mad too if my side was exposed for coordinated manipulation of the data.
How embarrassing.
The temperatures are junk.
Then show us a transparent document that shows how they increase precision by 2 orders of magnitude or more when using integer records of temperature.
Show us a transparent paper that describes how they start with integer measurements and end up with 0.01 to 0.001 anomalies.
Show us a transparent document how they calculated and propagated measurement uncertainty. I want to see an uncertainty budget showing what items were included.
Show us a paper about how uncertainty is handled when subtracting a mean of a monthly average and a mean of a baseline. There are rules for handling variances when doing this. Find a paper describing how this was done.
An aside:
It was a reprinted “Daily Sceptic” article some months ago that caused me to take a look at their web site. Now I routinely check it daily.
As I like to summarize, “If the data is crap, so is any so-called “science” based on that data.
And the “data” is not ONLY crap, it IS NOT EVEN DATA any more.
The fundamental reality from a Neils Bohr Laboratory Prof from the Greenland ice cores.
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/607494244
THis rather pivotal data was not available when the data from dodgy tree rings was being manipulated by liars like Mann and Jones to support the lies of UN politicians y claiming they had science which proved there was no change for 2,000 years before 1850 that the models rely on to attribute all change to human activity.
We also know from isotopic carbon-14 measurements of the atmospheric CO2 that only half the additional CO2 is from combustion, because that has no C-14, its decayed long ago, so that’s only half the change in CO2 due to us as well as no allowance for natural change… these are measured facts, not made up in models.
The ice core proxies, and other d18O sediment proxies around the World, vary. And the NH is more variable than SH because it has twice as uch surface heat capacity so is roughly twice as sensitive to a perturbation to the whole earth enrgy balance.
But most tell the same cyclic story of change, and where we are now at a maximum in the natural cycle of what are demonstaly natural & small changes within the natural range of the ice age cycle, at a typical natural rate, as many other data sets since have confirmed. Although this video is years old now, it is still fact based, exquisitely put, and absolutely relevant to what we know even better now.