On June 1, I sent a graph to Anthony and several other people, showing that USHCN has been exponentially losing station data since 1990, and the data was over 40% fabricated so far in 2014.
Anthony replied 26 minutes later, saying that my claim was “utterly bogus” and that I “need to do better.” He said that one of his co-authors would have known this if it was true.
I responded back that there was nothing wrong with the data, and I sent him my source code so he could reproduce it.
A few days later, he posted on his web site that I was wrong, and that he had told me I needed to do better.
I have been working tirelessly for years to get the story out that NASA/NOAA data is being adjusted, and is vastly altered from previous versions. I even picked a job in DC specifically in order to make the story happen. This week the story went mainstream and was a massive win for the skeptic community.
Anthony then shows up on the scene and undermines the whole story, causing many people to believe that my story is incorrect, and that the data really hasn’t been altered. They have been quoting his “you need to do better” comment.
Well my data is correct, and tonight someone else posted on his web site that they had confirmed my numbers. Anthony responded by saying that he “will look into it”
So after trashing me all over the Internet and undermining a huge win for all skeptics at a critical time, it turns out that Anthony has not looked at the source code or made any effort to confirm or deny my claim.
So how do we resurrect the data alteration story? We can’t.
Anthony could start with an apology to the entire community.
sunshinehours1 says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:52 pmAnthony, there are 1218 stations. That means there should be 14,616 monthly records for 2013.
There are 11568 that have a raw and final data record = 79%. of the 14,616
There are only 9384 of those 11,568 that do not have an E flag. 64.2% of the 1,4616
There are only 7374 that have a en empty error flag. 50%. of the 14,616.
36.8% is close enough to 40% for me.
And yet the NOAA publishes press releases claiming this month or that is warmest ever.
====
REPLY: Thanks for the numbers, I’ll have a look.< Anthony
I think the data analysis issues should be viewed separately from your ego. If you do scientific analysis you’re going to get critiqued. Get over it.
Normally when you critique data, you actually look at it before trashing the author.
. Anthony posted “Thanks for the numbers, I’ll have a look.”
I tried to call him on it…..
My post was deleted and I was accused of being combative and piling on..and I’m on moderation
so yeah, he had not looked at it at all
Watts’ research (co-authored academic literature publications/submissions) take USHCN adjustments as a given. If your results are correct, then they call into question his results, and the results of others, who used USHCN in their research. Each blow you strike against USHCN data integrity, strikes a blow against the integrity of the data he, and others, rely on to generate their results.
I question whether Anthony’s opinions on this issue can be trusted as unbiased. He has devoted a good number of years to his USHCN-data-based research agenda. I doubt it’s personal, it’s simply human nature.
Is English your native language?
Will, that’s just it…..Anthony did do any scientific analysis
He’s claiming Steve is wrong and Anthony didn’t even run his numbers
Anthony has published on this topic in the scientific literature, so he knows a few things about this. So maybe pull your head in.
Anthony was unaware of the extent of the station and station data loss as of June 1, 2014.
Ah yes, the holy grail of being “published”. As the motivational speaker once said, “Well la ti freaking da!!!”
Where is Watts study on the amount of negative adjustments that would be needed to correct the bias in poorly sited stations he has documented?? What about all the negative adjustments needed to overcome urban heat islands that have been increasing in size since the 1930??? You know, back when there were very few roads to speak of compared to today, almost no air conditioning, no mega size parking lots to speak of, lower population by tens of millions, MUCH MUCH lower electricity use due to far fewer machines and electronics. When you think about the magnitude of UHI today versus the 1930s, the actual, hottest decade in the US, it is staggering! Yet temperature adjustments cool the past and increase the recent and present.
Will, Anthony’s paper is about sitting issues….not about reporting
Will, try not to be like a troll.
Are you having a bad day?
Got a link to the comment that anthony said he would look into it? I would like to read the exchange (and I have avoided his 2 part episode).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/26/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-2/#comment-1670340
Thanks lat – it beats wading through all the comments.
Steve,
“So how do we resurrect the data alteration story? We can’t.”
Sure you can.
Contact, respectfully, the journalists/bloggers/columnists who quoted Watts’ response to your data but did not contact you for a rebuttal of Watts’ claims.
Let them know that you would like to provide details on the data tampering story, with data and analysis open for their, or anyone else’s review.
They will respond.
Then make it all about the data issue, NOT about Watts. Juijitsu the issue. He is totally motivated by attention. You’re motivated by a search for the truth. If you make this, “Watts said, I said” then the data issue is lost. But if you make this about the data, and do interviews, then the AGW’s days are numbered.
You hold all the cards.
But you must step from the shadows, and into the limelight.
Now it your time.
Dare we say it? The fate of the world rests on your shoulders.
Do the right thing.
Thanks.
Very well put Kent and good advice. I would like to agree with you on ” then the AGW’s days are numbered” assuming you mean a low number but I think it will take a lot more things coming together.
But I do agree now is the time for Steve to get into the limelight.
Agreed. And if I could offer other advice, while I like the rapid-fire style of this blog, right now a slower more deliberate approach toward education is in order. You’ve made a claim that a few prominent people suggest isn’t true, now show exactly how to get to the result.
Start with the claim, then take the crowd through example numbers, step by step, so they can see the math. Do a station, then do a whole state (a small one first). Maybe release some code that will go get the raw data, store it on the person’s local drive, then make a step1.csv file and explain what that result is, a step2.csv file, and so on through step57.csv until it’s obvious that your exact result is correct. Then make it do whole states, the country, whatever, but end up at the end of the lesson with the data that makes the chart. People need to see every step so they can confirm it and do some of the math with you. Even if it takes a few huge posts with lots of tables that you normally don’t show, people will understand how you did it.
You have their attention now, and you can show that your numbers are right. I would stop all other rapid fire discoveries and seize the moment like Kent says. Show exactly how you made the chart above. Make “Real Science for Dummies” for a few days until even a caveman can do it. Challenge anyone to find a problem with it and show all the interim steps so they are convinced. I think you’ll shut a whole lot of people up, and even the journalists will get it. Then they can start asking Gavin real questions he can’t answer.
That’s an outstanding idea, Michael!
The only possible problem is that sometimes even when all the steps are laid out in full detail, sometimes people are still going to say it’s false. Nevertheless, if some of the big names, or any of the big names really, like Richard Lindzen or William Gray, line up behind it, it’s a win. Anthony’s points will not be the end all if we got other names on board, though I certainly hope Anthony takes a full look at Goddard’s work and at least takes the edge off his criticism. And the more detail that’s available, and the easier that is to comprehend and agree with, the more likely the big players will join in support.
+1
+1
+1
Couldn’t have said better myself, those who come here to follow Steve’s hints on climate and the AGW charade, instead of the interminable, inconsequential debate over there in WUWT, know the difference between looking for the truth and to be “motivated by attention”.
You said it perfectly.
OK, having read your other posts, new question.
You say:
The way that I read this, “stations which have no thermometer data” means stations that have been closed and shuttered. I read it that way because if they were just missing some data, they’d have SOME thermometer data, so they wouldn’t be “stations which have no thermometer data”.
However, it seems highly unlikely that USHCN is reporting data from stations that are closed and shuttered … but hey, it’s climate, anything is possible.
So is my interpretation correct? Is it your claim that 40% of the USHCN stations are closed and shuttered, but the USHCN is still reporting data for them?
Much appreciated,
w.
The distinction is nearly meaningless, and I in fact clarified it on my blog within half an hour of the original post on June 1.
But they do in fact post data for many stations which have been shuttered for years. The final monthly data count is constant for over 50 years.
Sha-pow!
What about McIntyre? Are you on good terms with him? He’s a numbers nut.
Anthony and Steve are old friends.
You’re back in the news… in bold…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671146/Obama-mocks-GOP-global-warming-skeptics-says-pretend-read-ignores-new-claims-US-COOLING-1930s.html
stevengoddard says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:01 am
I see a clear difference between e.g. a station which is missing some data and a station which is closed and shuttered, although certainly YMMV.
I haven’t checked the data, I’ve never put together the software to do that and it would take a while. But given that that’s the case, and I see no reason to doubt you, I’d say you definitely are on the right track and should persevere with your investigations and revelations.
As a suggestion, it would be helpful and would make your presentation both more powerful and more understandable if you would display some examples, e.g. “Here is station X. Here is the documentation that it was closed and shuttered in 2006 … and here are the alleged records from the station from 2007 to 2014.”
My best to you and thanks for your clear answers, keep up the good work,
w.
Yey! another humorless know-it-all jumps ship.. I’m ecstatic! (I’m referring to Willis).
Bellum omnium contra omnes, Sparkus?
Sparks, I think your assessment is rather harsh, but then, I didn’t read Willis’ text through your eyes either …
Sparks says:
June 27, 2014 at 7:03 am
Thanks, Sparks, but “Jumps ship?”
Jumping ship means taking one position, and then later changing that position (jumping ship). Of course, “jumping ship” also implies that you found your previous position to be wrong, that’s the reason for “jumping”. So your (rather humorless) claim is that I was wrong, and that I realized it and I changed sides.
However, that’s just your fantasy. I had no previous position on this, and I said so.
In part because I get attacked all the time, in order to avoid just your kind of insinuation I was very careful to make it clear at the start that I was not taking one position or the other, I was just collecting the facts, viz:
However, reality seems to mean little to you …
Now that I have the facts, thanks to Steve Goddard’s prompt and clear replies to my questions, I’m willing to take a position. How is that “jumping” anything?
w.
A good example to demonstrate Steve’s point: USH00336196 Officially closed March 2010 no reported data since May 2009, it has a full and complete “infilled” record up to June 2014. That’s what I call “made up data”. (One wonders how they already have a complete June, but if you’re just going to make up stuff, might as well go big or go home.)
*Note: I went through the scanned handwritten records to find the official notice of closure, you can see it on the Feb 2010 B-91
excellent Doug!
Interesting … I’m thinking that, because of bureaucratic inertia, this is a continuation of a practice from year ago, when processes where not so automated, even in the days of ‘mainframes’ running ‘jobs’ queued via ‘JCL’ and using FORTRAN as the computer language.
Got to remember, these ‘bureaus’ have been working with this data for a long time now, migrating from an all-paper process in the early years to the first relatively simple IBM or Data General computers and upgrading every so often to new hardware and ‘tape storage’ initially and finally ‘disk drives’ (DASD for Direct Access Storage Device in IBM parlance) say back 25 or more years ago …
It would be interesting to here the perspective of someone from IBM who sold or ‘quoted’ them a system back in the 50’s 60’s or 70’s, and also to hear from someone who worked at NOAA (or its predecessor) on how operations were handled back then by civil servant government employees.
.
What makes em wonder about the “filnet” algorithm is: there IS no data from surrounding stations for June so…. how can it “fill” this empty station? There’s an error there just waiting to be found….
Doug, by filling the other stations first….
Thanks, Doug, well done.
Willis, now that you have the facts and are willing to take a position, will you now be supporting Steven or will you be supporting the two faced back stabbers for an easy life?
Nice!
My father who was quite famous in the astronomy/NASA community dared to go against the global warmists and warned them that the sun was going to go ‘quiet’ and global cooling will be the major issue…and he was banished from everything, no one published his work, no one talked to him and he died a few years later and they pretended he barely existed and there were few memorials or news stories about his death!
IT IS DANGEROUS to go against the ‘Borg’. Very dangerous.
I can’t believe how gullible they are over at Watts. They actually think the Climate Liars wouldn’t lie, cheat or tamper with the data. We’re at war with people who have no conscience. They will do anything to inflict their disgusting agenda on the rest of us. It’s about time the skeptics realize who they are dealing with and stop behaving like boy scouts. Steve Goddard is the type of General we need in this conflict. Anthony Watts waves the white flag too easily.
emsnews,
I salute your Dad. A brave man ! May he RIP. We need a lot more like him to stop the creeps that are running the global warming/ climate change scam.
Keep up the good work, Steve.
A miracle has happened.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/
That was a long time ago. Anthony has evolved.
Don’t let it go Steve. When you’ve grabbed the bull by the horns, the damn thing is going to fight like hell. Don’t let go.
busted: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
suarez video
I gave up on Anthony when he posted the “pointy tooth” cartoons about the “real deniers” (folks that do not believe that the Earth’s atmosphere acts like a man made greenhouse (with actual walls that restrain convection)).
For somebody that wails about being called a “denier” he is sure quick to sling the MUD around to others.
Of course he did win some “bloggies” awards, but Big Al also won a Nobel, as did the “doctor” that “perfected” the lobotomy operation, and I think I recall Adolf (a young lad in Germany) getting the “TIME” ™ magazine “Man of the Year” award once……
Steven, go get ’em son…
Well my data is correct, and tonight someone else posted on his web site that they had confirmed my numbers. Anthony responded by saying that he “will look into it.”
I certainly do hope that Anthony looks into it, in depth, because if Steven’s work is credible this will help drive a stake through the heart of warmist propaganda. So, the left has been taking Anthony’s criticism and using it to nullify Goddard’s very effective attack. So I really hope that Anthony retracts his criticism, to blunt the left’s criticism. Or at least tries to appear more neutral on the subject so the left doesn’t jump all over what Anthony has said.
Now I’m seeing more and more things that simply doesn’t jive with the notion that we have been going through a century of runaway warming… or even warming at all. Like, as I’ve said: 6 out 7 continents set their record for the coldest day… after … their record for their hottest day. 6 out 7, when with runaway warming it should be that 7 of 7 continents set their hottest day record very recently, and set their coldest day record a long time go. But no. It goes in the opposite direction. It defies reason. And this is global, not just the US. So even if there are some issues with Steven’s work, the basic point, that the temperature record as promulgated by the warmists is
problematicbogus, needs to be pursued with intensity. And there’s so many things that just don’t add up, like the number of hot days now and in the past, Antarctic ice records, whatever. Bring that stuff together, and say all this doesn’t mesh with what’s presented in the “well-adjusted” temperature record. The potential of this is huge. To completely derail the warmists and their anti-human anti-progress agenda.A good comment by Brandon C in the “Part 2” wuwt post, an excerpt: “it leaves the ridiculous situation of adjusting down past temps so that recorded exceptional heat events, in many alternate mediums such as news, correspond with average or cold temps in the ‘new and improved’ temp records.”
Exactly. And I got to pile on again with my observation that 6 of 7 continents set their record low temperature record after their high temperature record. I tell you, however you slice it, or regardless of how much stock you put in Steven’s work, the temperature record is bogus. Look at the history of exceptional heat events as Brandon notes, and look at high and low temperature records. It was hotter in the past.
People split hairs wondering whether the methodology for adjusting temperatures is correct. But it’s kind of like sea level, where all kinds of adjustments are made also. So their “data” says that the sea has risen by X amount over the last several decades, but when you to go to the beach you can see… the sea level is just the same. You might say that all their temperature adjustments make rational sense, but there are all these obvious indicators that it was hotter in the past that belie the well-adjusted temperature record.
“Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”
The integrity recently demonstrated by the VA is not unusual, but SOP for any huge government bureaucracy beholden to political masters, e.g. NOAA & NASA.
“Look into it”?
Is this now some sort of higher-order math?
X stations reported data
Y stations included in analysis
X < Y
(Y – X) / Y = fabricated data
By all means, Anthony: look into it. It should take all of 15 seconds of your time.
Fabricated data… the REAL hockey stick!
Relax guys, my comment about Willis above is only a bit of sarcasm. 😉
I see. You falsely accuse me of “jumping ship”, and when I protest, suddenly your unpleasant accusation is “only a bit of sarcasm” …
Got it. So if I tell your mom that I caught you fornicating with goats, and you protest when she evicts your from her basement, I can wave it off as “only a bit of sarcasm”? …
w.
Lol Willis I spat my coffee out there! I said “it was only a bit of sarcasm” before you began ranting, but obviously it was funnier than I expected, Honestly Willis you have been behaving like an old “fuddy duddy” lately, or maybe you have something personal against me and don’t find my humor to your liking anymore, either-way there is no reason for you to take my comments to heart and play the wounded victim. I know you can give as good as you get.
all over a fraction of a degree you can only get through adjustments…and can’t even see on a thermometer
We should have all been laughing at them from the get go…..
I can’t thank James enough for this:
https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image69.png
Willis, you’re a stand up guy…really…you took the time to ask Steve
…you still keep all your accolades in my book
I’ve been quite relaxed, Sparks, as you could see from my immediate reaction last night but I also thought that unless there was some history hidden to me, your comment about Willis was uncalled for and did not make sense. I made my comment thinking you might clarify what you meant.
On the other hand, should there every be actual ship jumping I will watch an honest and experienced sailor like Willis very closely.
Now, about those goats …
I call seconds!!
You can shut it too Longitude! lol jk 🙂
… should there ever be …
Yes there is some history, Willis has thrown a tantrum at me in the past, but he really got upset with me when I showed him a graph depicting 10be varying with solar activity on an eleven year scale, which the point of his entire post on WUWT was that it doesn’t.
Goats? what goats? lmao… ask Willis, he knows all about goats…
The hoplites and trireme sailors beat Xerxes because they fought each other all the time …
Sparks says:
June 27, 2014 at 7:36 pm
Sorry, Sparks, but without a citation that is just nasty mudslinging, an uncheckable claim of your supposed brilliance.
In any case, you rate your imagined importance to others far too highly, as I have absolutely no memory of such an encounter. Not saying it didn’t happen, it may well have. But I deal with hundreds of random internet alias-wearers every day, you’re just another brick in the wall to me.
You see, I make no attempt to remember anonymous posters. If they’re not willing to sign their words with their own name, why should I waste time associating their words with their alias?
So your claim that I’m motivated by animosity founders on the simple fact that not only did I come into this discussion with absolutely no bad feelings about you at all … the rude truth is, I both didn’t and don’t remember you in the slightest.
My response was merely to your unpleasant accusation that I was “jumping ship”, when I’d done nothing of the sort. You’d think that folks like you would appreciate someone actually asking Steve for the facts, and following up on that by agreeing with Steve. You’d think a guy like that would be welcomed … but no, you’re into gratuitous insults and unpleasant sarcasm instead. Nice.
Regards,
w.
@Colorado Wellington
It must have made them stronger. 🙂
Sparks says:
June 27, 2014 at 7:49 pm
No matter what I try to do for “an easy life”, it doesn’t seem to be working—I still have my same old life and I can guarantee it’s not that easy. Are you under the misimpression that I’m paid for my efforts?
I am curious, however, about the other choice you offered me, supporting the people stabbing the “two faced back”. First, how does that lead to “an easy life”? I mean, stabbing a two faced back sounds like a lot of work. And who are these people who are stabbing the two faced back when they’re at home? I mean, before I can decide whether I prefer supporting them to supporting Steven, don’t I get to meet them first and watch them in action?
Finally, if I decide to take up stabbing the two faced back on a regular basis, is there a salary or a commission? Or is it piecework, on some kind of per-back basis, and if so does stabbing a single faced back pay the same as if I stab two faces?
In any case, that’s the kind of information I need in order to decide between Steven and the Two Faced Back Stabbers … which I gotta say sounds like a kid’s book …
In any case, I was wondering—is your unpleasantness a natural talent, or do you have to work at it?
Oh, yeah, in answer to your question, I guess you didn’t notice that I already answered your question when I said to Steve:
Sounds like support and encouragement to me …
w.
I’ve watched how you’ve thrown skeptics of “man made global warming” under the bus for years now, for your own gratification. Willis, who’s next Dr Evans and Jo Nova?
You’re ability to shoot that big mouth off and insult has no limits, I have no limits, I will show up from now on, and if you dare to ever try and bully another skeptic again I’ll be there.
Yours Sincerely ~Sparks
I tremble and me knees grow weak at the thought that I have drawn your ire, oh great Sparks. I beg of you not to direct your immense power at this poor mortal, my puny frame is far too weak to sustain the full refulgence of your intellect. I beseech you, please intermit this threatened plague. You say you “have no limits”, and you’re the only man I know of who has no limits, so I implore you, do not impose your limitlessness on my poor limited person …
In Jesus name we ask this humbly of your irresistible potency, please avert your wrath from this poor soul.
Yours Sincerely,
w.
Okay, you’re lucky I’m in a good mood.
The story is out. Time – starved journos may need a summary. Tell me if this is any good.
The temperature record in the most technologically advanced nation on earth is a rubbish mess. People have been trying to get something good out of the mess and of the rubbish for years with uncertain success. However the rubbish and the mess are now accumulating.
The values that are banded about are the best possible but this doesn’t mean they’re good enough to be of any use.
At most we can say they’ve been slightly warming but the errors are large enough, they could’ve been slightly cooling and we wouldn’t be seeing any different.
People worried about climate change should push for a measurement network that’s good enough to show changes at absolute and anomaly level without too much maths.
Is this ok?
” People worried about climate change should push for a measurement network that’s good enough … ”
We have it. See “USCRN”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Excerpt:
USCRN Overview
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations in the conterminous U.S.; an eventual total of 29 stations in Alaska (with 16 as of the end of the summer of 2014); and 2 in Hawaii, that are developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change.
_Jim says: June 28, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Sorry Jim that won’t even get close, because they can mangle the data from those stations just as easily as the older bad and good ones.
The PEOPLE and their “Quality Adjustments” are the real problem, not the network.
Everyone knows the network is not perfect and can make allowances with error bars and uncertainty values for any work they do. You can’t do that for something you don’t know is going on.
But now we all do.
It appears you are addressing another issue, one I did not address, hence, strawman.