About 40% of the reported USHCN station data is now fabricated from no raw data at that station.
Zeke says that USHCN temperature fabrications of 40% of the data are golden, and my method of averaging the actual measured data is incorrect. Let’s put that to the test.
My approach (red below) closely matches satellite data (blue) and the USHCN method (green) doesn’t. Raw data and satellite data show almost no net warming since 1990, while NCDC adjusted data shows about 0.2C warming.
As stations disappear exponentially, the adjustments increase exponentially (graph below.) It is simply not credible that a set of random errors in a data set could produce such a pattern. Random errors produce bell shaped curves, not exponential curves. The only error in the data set which should produce a deterministic trend is UHI, and that would produce the exact opposite slope of adjustments.
Some people are heavily vested in a methodology which fails the most fundamental tests of credibility.
Steven, great job. Very appreciative of your work in this area.
Illegitimi non carborundum
“As stations disappear exponentially, the adjustments increase exponentially”
Too bad they could not keep the stations that were getting all the reports in.
Nearly 50 years ago, when I majored in physics, we had 3-hour laboratories, twice a week, where we had to do basic experiments all the way through, including error analysis. The things you show on your blog are all things that undergraduate climate science majors should be expected to do, and master, before they ever get so much as a bachelor’s degree. I’ve said the same thing about my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, for 3 and 1/2 years now. Yet even the climate “experts” apparently haven’t done these simple tasks–absolutely required if they want to be seen as competent professionals. And as we have seen, they even deny these things when we do them, because they refuse to question their false “settled science”, their unquestioned dogmas. In this day and age (the scientific age), this is criminal incompetence, and they all should be thrown out of science (and I do mean ALL “climate scientists”). This, of course, is not a politic position, but I consider it the only responsible one that a competent physical scientist can take, in the face of such total failure of their science, both theoretical and experimental.
It is results based “science”, where error analysis does not mean jack, only the desired solution.
Oh boy, you’ve finally given us propellor-heads some real humble homework this, week. Please continue to mix in more of such nerd-value posts with your usual blunt but cryptic claims of silver bullet triumph.
Is there meat on this bone?
Who, of all of us, is guilty of what?
I’ll say it again: yours is one of the most important blogs in the world, since it *attractively* revolves around the most divisively important culture WARS of all time, and you’re a fighter, righteously seeking justice with a capital ‘J’.
But you need us bemused sociopaths as court jesters, Prince Goddard, for you are rendered more naturally powerful for it.
“Different strokes for different folks” is a euphemism for the usually Big City ideal that bees who have a hive are better than queen bees among the asteroids of a distant planet.
Now I must iPhone-wise figure out how to post this, as a banned activist.
On Jesters
JESTER, n. An officer formerly attached to a king’s household, whose business it was to amuse the court by ludicrous actions and utterances, the absurdity being attested by his motley costume. The king himself being attired with dignity, it took the world some centuries to discover that his own conduct and decrees were sufficiently ridiculous for the amusement not only of his court but of all mankind. The jester was commonly called a fool, but the poets and romancers have ever delighted to represent him as a singularly wise and witty person. In the circus of to-day the melancholy ghost of the court fool effects the dejection of humbler audiences with the same jests wherewith in life he gloomed the marble hall, panged the patrician sense of humor and tapped the tank of royal tears.
“The artist is still a little like the old court jester. He’s supposed to speak his vicious paradoxes with some sense in them, but he isn’t part of whatever the fabric is that makes a nation.”
-William Faulkner
“How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!”
-William Shakespeare
A king, in times long, long gone by, Said to his lazy jester:
“If I were you and you were I My moments merrily would fly — Nor care nor grief to pester.”
“The reason, Sire, that you would thrive,” The fool said –“if you’ll hear it — Is that of all the fools alive Who own you for their sovereign, I’ve The most forgiving spirit.” –Oogum Bem”
-Ambrose Bierce
“Just because you can laugh doesn’t mean you can’t tell the truth. Truth is often the jester.”
-unattrib
“The advertiser is the overrewarded court jester and court pander at the democratic court.”
-unattrib
My original account is BACK!
The stuff the iPhone fills-in first.
There is a diamond in all of our skies.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds?
Lucy in the sky with carbon dioxide …
If fabricated data really does add up to 40%, this on its own is enough to hang them.
Can they seriously claim that their figures are anywhere right, even if their adjustments are based on the best and fairest statistical methods?
It is purely guesswork.
The 40% is a very simple calculation, and a very tough one for them to talk their way around.
I support SG fully on this one. .A Watts is probably too nice of a guy to be involved in the nitty gritty of this AGW crap. He has been taken for rides previously (re Muller etc) This war needs blunt basic data fraud being recorded and used in future climate war trials LOL (just joking).I don’t care if SG admits or doesn’t admit (very few) errors. The amount of work and gate keeping he has done to expose the fraud, compensates for any mistakes 1000 fold! BTW…The same applies to WUWT