This post is not a joke, but is stunning.
The graph below shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering. There is almost perfect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much cheating our friends at NCDC are doing with the US temperature record.
Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz
Unbelievable. What on Earth are these guys up to? Perhaps I have it backwards. Maybe data tampering drives CO2?
“Our algorithm is working as designed”
– Recent NCDC press release
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”
– Albert Einstein.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
Sorry Steven, I’m not surprised by USHCN data tampering, I am appalled that they have the gall to keep doing it when it is so obvious.
Can this sort of result be accidental? Is it just a correlation? This couldn’t possibly lead people to think that this correlation was man-made? After all there are very good reasons for each adjustment, well isn’t there?
Remember correlation doesn’t equal causation, …
…yes, right! 🙁
Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf
Politicized climate science is just the means to promote an undemocratic global government.
They don’t care if CAGW/UNFCCC is true or not. They only care about dressing CO2 up as being “the belief in the ‘end of history’” etc. it’s a propaganda war against nations and the individual.
What they do is UNFCCC conform. And that means that the data is turning into policy based claims.
What’s a good reason for changing the temperatures? Urbanization?…. That would lower temps after adjustment…
Yes Phil and that is what the adjustments of GISSdata find, although the effect is small, less than 0.1 C.
Still, a very clumsy and counterproductive effort if the object is to fudge the data to suit warmist arguments.
On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, the adjustments are conducted legitimately based on sound scintific principles.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Come on Toto, when fabricating data, the NOAA fraudsters need to have a target number. Otherwise they risk not adjusting enough to alarm the politicians.
Matching the slope of CO2 is a simple adjustment to calculate. That way they don’t adjust to much, and it gives them a target for adjusting the past down as well.
Self-reinforcing adjustments / grant preservation efforts.
Yeah, except matching the slope to CO2 is not expected by anybody but the severely ignorant. If they had matched the slope to the *natural log* of CO2, they might have fooled the moderately ignorant.
And that’s where they screwed-the-pooch (sorry Toto).
They just aren’t adjusting enough to show that exponential, run-away, Venus-like global warming they were pontificating so breathlessly about when the warming scam was launched.
Like I said. Matching the slope is easy. From all the prognostications of doom I’ve heard from the climatologists cashing in on the government gravy train, I doubt any of those charlatans / scamsters is actually very sharp. Thus they keep getting caught fudging the numbers. (Maybe Reggie is “helping”)
They might get to an exponential adjustment, they just can’t do it all at once. Someone might notice.
Here’s the real problem with matching the slope of CO2. AGW “theory” suggests that a little bit of warming caused by CO2 will then increase water vapor, causing additional warming, exponentially. By matching the slope of CO2 rise, they are proving their own theory incorrect, even with their adjusted temperatures.
If the US meteorologists tell us the weather hasn’t changed, how much does the weather have to not change before the climate doesn’t change?
Initially they said 15 years. That was 18 years ago.
“Our algorithm is working as designed”
Thanks for reminding me. I added it to the post.
Typo: Algorithm should be Algoreism
Steven,
That is just stunning! Freaking amazing what these clowns are up to.
Coincidence? Too uncanny for that, so I think not!
This is actually the only relationship I have discovered which correlates to any real world number. And the correlation is almost perfect. It can’t be a coincidence.
Do you have any idea if this applies to the GHCN.
A stunning coincidence for certain, what it means is anyone’s guess. I can’t imagine any sort of methodology that would define this. The R2 value of .98 is an exceptionally good fit.
You should test it with some other surface and satellite datasets.HadCRUT and RSS for example to see if it is a fluke or not.
I don’t know if there is any parallel to this with those data sets, because I am comparing adjustments vs. CO2. The USHCN data is the only data set which readily lends itself to this sort of analysis.
We do know that there is no correlation with RSS temperature vs. CO2 since 1996, because there has been no warming. Same for HadCRUT since 2001.
What interests me about this is the exponential increase in USHCN adjustments since 1990. According to USHCN1 docs, the adjustments went flat after 1990. Supposedly they use the same TOBS algorithm. Something seriously wrong is happening.
The correlation may simply be a fluke, much like this one:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temp-co2/us_post_causes_global_warming.gif
r^2 is 0.988 That is extremely high for a fluke
Tony, it is called a spurious relationship or a spurious correlation, depending upon the factors that create it. The Pearson’s r-squared might be really good, but there is no underlying relationship; but in the case of the NOAA adjustments, I do wonder. Are the GCM’s anything but ln(CO2now/CO2past) plus fudge factors?
There’s a classic set here: http://www.tylervigen.com/.
Of course some will say this proves the relationship between CO2 and temperature perfectly, but the Y component isn’t actual temperature, its the diff between raw and final.
Do you believe CO2 data is reliable?
If they exaggerate CO2, it only works against them.
They don’t have other models but CO2 (CH4, etc.) based ones. If CO2 is not increasing and they admit that, they’ll have nothing to say about climate. Warming or not, it’d not be caused by humans.
I think that the current (since the 1950s) CO2 data is accurate…it’s just the past CO2 that I have doubts about (one of the big ones…it seems too damn ‘flat’ to be real).
As Gail Combs put up earlier
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
The Mauna Loa data,
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
looks like a “parabola” to me and quite suspicious in this regard, but I’ve not been following this very closely.
Do you know what percentage is attributed to human activity?
That isn’t the point. The point is that the adjustments to the temperature record are in sync with the reported CO2 levels.
Exactly, and since they could not use the *natural log* of the diff between raw and final, they just use the data, which is how they, as Shazaam said, screwed the pooch.
Sometimes it’s not the lie that proves the liar, it’s way they lie.
That’s a little too much coinkydink for me. The amount of adjustment just so happens to match the measured increase in ppm of CO2?
Anthony, yes, exactly. The reason why CAGW supporters can claim that temperatures match CO2 is because they have changed the numbers to make them match. In the last 15 years or so, the actual cooling trend of the raw data has made that match more and more difficult, so much so, that even with data alterations proportional to rising CO2, the best they can manage is a “pause” in global temperatures.
It’s all one and the same “adjustment”, CO2 data is not reliable either.
/1/ They need the warming, otherwise they’d have to admit the cyclic nature of climate.
/2/ They need the CO2 to increase, because their models are based on the correlation between CO2 and warming, if they had to create another model they’d be at lost because their predictions disagree with *anything* that’s actually measured.
This is part easily handled, as no one has a CO2-o-“meter” (to measure CO2 levels), then what they say is usually taken as the truth.
3/ If the USHCN data don’t agree with /1/ and /2/ they’ll naturally change it, to make everything coherent and working according to the plan, and the “reasons” why they “should do it” have been exposed here and other sites many times.
In summary: they invented all of it!!
97% of consensual, politically peer-reviewed, speculation. 🙂
Now wait a minute are not official atmospheric CO2 measurements coming from NASA?
Now, the official CO2 data
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
looks pretty much like a computer model, rather than direct measurement, then…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Explains how they do it.
“In 1957 Dave Keeling, who was the first to make accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, chose the site high up on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano because he wanted to measure CO2 in air masses that would be representative of much of the Northern Hemisphere, and, hopefully, the globe.”
So, of course he chose the top of an active volcano . Because certainly there are no gasses seeping forth from that, that might complicate the measurements. Ahem.
Kilauea was not very active in 1957 and it’s downwind from the top of Mauna Loa. Sometimes the smoke does blow towards the top in which case they wait. When the smoke from Kilauea does reach the top, the CO2 shoots up to an obviously impossible level like 10,000 ppm or something so they don’t use the reading, and that’s rare anyway. It’s so easy to compare the readings to those on Mauna Kea where the astronomers are anyway, including infrared astronomers, they all know what’s what. The CO2 record at Mauna Loa is perfectly accurate.
“Kilauea was not very active in 1957 and it’s downwind from the top of Mauna Loa.”
And that’s great.
And I am sure that the measurements are very accurate.
Nevertheless, Mauna Loa itself is an active smoking volcano, atop which the observatory sits.
Hmmm. I think Mauna Loa has several vents, Kilauea is by far the most active and Mokuaweoweo is the one on top that steams sulfur, but they are all downwind from the observatory which is around 11,000 feet and a couple of miles upwind from the summit (the summit is over 13,000). The wind there is constantly from the NE and rarely shifts.
They should have just used Mauna Kea.
At the NOAA’s site they say:
/1/ The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
/2/ All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
/3/ Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.
I believe /2/ and /3/ truly reflect their efforts to have reliable data, but /1/ is clearly telling us that their final “product” is a data set generated by a model.
In their final data,
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
the yearly variations (mainly due to seasons, I presume) are reduced to sinusoidal variations around a “mean” that is something like a parabola (locally). How simplistic is that for the variations of temperature worldwide, especially in a time when the temperatures have changed wildly from year to year and we passed from a general trend of warming (up to the ~ 1997-2001 period) into cooling trend (since then).
I’m still very suspicious that this data is not reliable.
I doubt that they’re using real measured temperatures as input for their computer code and, even if they are, *what temperature data sets* are they using?
If they used real raw temps, as the satellite measured ones, the “parabola” would most probably become much more oscillating, and possibly in a random way.
What the heck are you talking about? They measure CO2 on Mauna Loa, they don’t measure temps. Have you taken your meds tonight?
@Morgan Wright, the seasonal variations of CO2 are due to variation of insulation and temperatures worldwide during the year.
They’re reflected on the Mauna Loa data in the sinusoidal oscillations, around the nearly “parabolic” (my guess) mean ascending curve.
Is this incorrect in any way?
err… variation of insolation and temperatures worldwide .. 🙂
It’s incorrect in every way. I can’t imagine a single way it can be correct.
Replace the word insolation with vegetation and you are correct. CO2 is highest in April and May before the leaves start to bloom and use up CO2. CO2 is lowest in October when they fall. The leaves decompose during the winter and are mostly decomposed and back in the air in May.
I’m curious how insolation…never mind. I don’t want to know.
Also, replace the word “worldwide” with norther hemisphere
This explains how the folks at Mauna Loa take CO2 samples and detect those contaminated from the local volcanos and other sources http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
Their CO2 concentration is the cleanest signal in this entire field, I think they understand what they’re doing.
@Morgan Wright Your words just proved me right as the plants seasonal cycles are related to insolation, obviously.
Ocean outgassing is also related to insolation s it’s a chemical process that varies from region to region due to absorption/release of CO2 by algae, totally analogous to plant cycles in this respect.
Maybe a better description than insolation would be seasonal variation of solar radiations, but it really makes no big difference, as in times of low/high solar radiations you may have plants behaving “out of season” due to variable levels of … insolation.
This is common knowledge, but I don’t mind if you can understand it or not.
@Ric Werme, thanks for the link to WUWT, I need to check this a little more in detail. The fact that something “looks suspicious” doesn’t mean that it’s “wrong”.
To be more precise, I don’t think the folks at Mauna Loa are trying to deceive us, I think they’re are using a biased (with AGW hypothesis) computer code, but I have no direct proof of that.
If everything is correct with the CO2 levels then my own concept of (seasonal variation of) gas “distribution” on the atmosphere is biased and I want to know why.
@Morgan,
What makes you think that 10,000 ppm carbon dioxide concentrations are ‘impossible’? The sampling site is located on a volcano in an area with active vents. 10,000 ppm is very much possible. Heck, your exhaled breath is about 4,000 ppm carbon dioxide and about 10,000 ppm dihydrogen oxide. There are quite a few sources and sinks for carbon dioxide on this rock. We know that photosynthesizing vegetation can nearly strip out all of the carbon dioxide from the local air. When photosynthesis stops, the same vegetation relies on respiration for metabolic energy, releasing carbon dioxide into the local air.
http://www.sonnblick.net/portal/content/view/214/328/lang,de/
Austria Alps 3057 m
on the webcam you can still see a lot of snow.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog.
Linked to JoNova as well.
Now we know why USHCN and their surrogates go to great lengths in their attempts to silence/ridicule/marginalize their critics. Tony has said all along that the warming is manufactured with fake data, but this result puts it in irrefutable terms.
Good thing we still have some “flat earthers” looking out for us.
Incredible. The odds of this being an accidental relationship must be vanishingly small. This would imply that the errors they claim to be correcting in the temperature data are not only systematic to the present day (meaning that nobody has figured out how to correctly read a thermometer in hundreds of years) but correlate to CO2. Both together are simply unbelievable as a coincidence.
My best guess is that they drive the alterations from an equation that uses CO2 as an input value. It’s related to their computer models somehow. Data is being altered to match theory.
Their computer model is probably an excel spreadsheet….
Not what you envision… Some Cray Supercomputer cooled by liquid nitrogen with white lab coat clad scientists surrounding it…
No I bet Mikey Mann rarely leaves his office… Probably never taken a temperature reading..,
The problem is that unlikely, and even nearly impossible things happen all the time. A lot goes on on this planet is a single day. A friend and I played Risk one afternoon and when he quit I had just thrown nine sixes in a row with a single honest die. That was at the end of a very long run in which I only lost three throws. The point here is that the odds of that series is 1/6^9. “Nearly impossible” some would say, while others would look hard for a cheat of some sort. In fact, it was just the way the dice fell. In the case of this adjustment, there are circumstances that lean in support of Steve, most importantly the fact that the adjustment is systematically biased.
The reality is that temperature does what it wants rather than what the models say. If it doesn’t do what you expect, it’s back to the chalkboard. You can easily imagine climate scientologists arguing that there’s something “wrong” with the data. In fact, Trenberth did just that. If something is “wrong” with the data, then it can only be due to a very limited number of things: the instruments, the readers, the recording and transmitting methods. If the instruments are the problem, then by analyzing the instrumental behaviour an “adjustment” can be developed (that should ONLY be applied to data collected by that instrument). If the readers are the problem, 1) it can only be some of them, and 2) they probably are not consistent in being a problem, which makes the problem less tractable. Can this really be adjusted for? Probably not, so ANY adjustment that attempts to account for reader behaviour, is likely to be no better – at best – than the raw data. Recording and transmitting methods are also likely to “unbiased” problems: handwriting legibility, transcription errors and the like. Again the raw data is unlikely to be any more biased than the transcribed data. More importantly, from a climatological point of view, any significant (measureable) change in climate will be reflected in the data mass, regardless of whether adjustments are employed or not. Global climate change, if real, should impose its signature on the data from each station.
The mother of all motherlodes?
“They” have to prove that CO2 drives temperature and that temperatures are rising because of CO2. The powers that be must convince everyone that CO2 is a pollutant. If carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant then the EPA under the ‘clean air’ part of their reason to exist can just about control everyone who breathes ( CO2). The entire scheme hinges on convincing most people that CO2 is polluting the whole planet from America.
There is no need for algorithms in MS Paint ? Sweet Jesus dipped in sugar n rolled in honey…
So the models are adjusting the temp.
Go figure, if a fundamental part of you model reacts to CO2 at the base layer in a certain way, it models it as such. You can bet they are adjusting to fit that parameter. Our observations of such adjustments clearly show that.
The problem is the obs, no? How do you fix that?
It is just like Dr. Spencer stated so clearly.
95% of the observations are wrong.
Think about it,,,,,,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
I’ve just posted at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/adjustments-vs-co2/
about Australian data (minima). The trend (adjustment vs CO2) has an R squared of 0.777 and against log of CO2 is 0.79.
Looks like +1.27 C. net adjustment for 85 ppm change in CO2. Or roughly +0.015 C. per ppm CO2.
So, if CO2 increases from 400 ppm to 600 ppm (100 yrs or less at current rate of increase), the adjustment rate alone guarantees a +3 C. increase (200 x 0.015.) Even if actual USA temps drop by -1.7 C. in the next century, the +3 C. in adjustment alone will allow them to claim they were right and at the mid range of their models (IPCC lately suggests about +1.3 C. global per century.)
This is outrageous; some fine real detective work going on here ! Someone needs to go down for this.
The graph y-axis was mislabeled as C. instead of the correct F. My comment was posted before this correction was made. So multiply numbers above by 5/9 to convert to F.
This seems to imply that they know AGW is a scam and they’re adjusting temperatures to maintain at minimum, a linear relationship with CO2 and are just waiting it out for an exponential relationship to present itself at some time in the future (naturally or not). Still, it’s clear they’ve increased the amount of the adjustments over time (increased the slope), even if it still remains linear. They may go to an exponential relationship given enough time.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
.
Steve Goddard reveals another trousers round ankles moment for the CO2 driven global warming lobby. Temperature data ADJUSTMENTS to the USHCN dataset match the rise in airborne carbon dioxide to R^2=0.988 i.e. almost perfectly.
“My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.”
Sorry Tony, I’m behind the times. I’ve been busy working on my own heretical notions of what really drives climate change. For which I’m considered “a denier” by one ‘side’ in the debate – and “a pariah” by another,
Fortunately, the study of science has many facets, not just two. Solar system dynamics hold the key to this puzzle, not what comes out of the tailpipes of politicians and their bulletproof Humvees.
They changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change to thwart what we are talking about here… Now… Under the guise of Climate Change any Weather Event across the Globe will be a big story… Proof of their Theory!!
No longer can they be held accountable for temperature readings….
Himalayas unaffected by Global Warming..,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/global-warming-has-no-impact-on-himalayas-claims-wadia-director/article1-515763.aspx
The aberration around 385-390ppm is interesting. You don’t suppose NCDC were trying to exaggerate the 2010 El Nino do you?
I had to use GIStemp (spit) in this plot, because woodfortrees don’t have USHCN, but you get the idea. Maybe Tony could compare raw with adjusted USHCN for this period to see if it pushed the 2010 event higher than 2006, or even 1998 in the US.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2005/plot/gistemp/from:2005/offset:9/scale:40
I would leave this as a sticky post for at least 1 week. Its too important to let die
For me, the “all continuously active USHCN stations” raw plots that Tony regularly displays, demonstrating the DECREASE in record highs vs the md 1930 to early 1940s, is very strong evidence that the adjustments are wrong. TOBS cannot make a record high, higher. In theory it can bleed that high into the next day, but it cannot make T higher.
i agree with eliza ,this post should and the subsequent linked post should stay at the top of the page for at least a week.
has anyone had a proper dig around in the algorithms used in v1 and v2 ,this would be a hell of a coincidence if one or more of the values have not been arrived at to create this scenario.
Isn’t the CO2 level really just a proxy for the date? How good a correlation is there between date and temperature adjustment compared to this astonishing r^2 of 0.988?
That is how they have hidden their nefarious purpose with the algorithm. Do the adjustment with aCO2 but plot it as a time series to give it some degree of randomness which still leads to the desired outcome. Sort of clever in an undergrad kind of way.
The relationship is exponential, not linear.
Thanks Steve, I see that now. Good job.
Ah yes, but have you factored in the mainstream radiative transfer theory which says the relationship between pCO2 and equilibrium temperature is logarithmic? So no matter how quickly the CO2 is accelerating over time, on that graph the temperature effect should be gradually flattening out with increased CO2.
Wouldn’t the observed linear relationship mean they are boosting temperature even more than they “need” to?
“Wouldn’t the observed linear relationship mean they are boosting temperature even more than they “need” to?”
Scientific accuracy would instill questions, even doubts here. The process is about public relations, branding, salesmanship. It is easier to make a visual argument if the lines “match” or “fit.” See Gore’s AIT, or especially the Brit tv show Climate Wars.
Is the R^2 closer to 1.0 when correlating TIME and adjustment compared with your 0.988? (Obviously you need some sort of exponential line fitting function)
If this R^2 is equal to 1.000 then it would indicate to me that there was a systematic (deliberate?) bias in the adjustments.
CO2 measurements are more than a proxy for temperature. To avant garde warmistas, they are an instrumental reading of temperature, along with thermometers. The literature hinted at going in that direction years ago, using broad “instrumental” records definitions–which most people would think limited to thermometers. I long suspected the hockey stick type graph were smearing into their creations the Law Dome CO2 concentration records. IOW, the hockey stick is not primarily a product of inventing a sharp spike for its visual scare factors, but its genesis is a quest to imitate the Law Dome CO2 (not isotope) concentration record, as graphically portrayed. (Mauna Loa measurements on the more recent time line.)
Since the believers believe CO2 controls heat over the past century or ’bouts, using CO2 records to correct the record of human errors in reading thermometers is “good science.” Naturally, its practice seems to be an ex post facto rearrangement of the records to fit their CO2 theory, but hey, this is “Climate Science!”
You maybe on to something significant.
It does not seem reasonable to conclude this is evidence of deliberate deception, at least with the information so far. But there is a clear likelihood something is way off.
If this relationship exists in the global temperature data, that would be very interesting.
The day is approaching when the World will realize that the official CO2 record since 1960 and especially since year 2000 has been heavily doctored. The CO2 data manipulation has been done at NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in CA. This has been a multi-decadal effort involving deliberate instrumentation biases and data tempering ….
Dr. Tim Ball has a nice synopsis HERE.
(I will spare everyone my pages and pages of arguments against Englebeen.)
If there is a general migration of weather stations from the hotter town centres to exposed rural locations then the ‘Homogenists’ (those that trust in the use of homogenisation) would expect to see a downwards adjustment of earlier observations. I can understand seeing a few specific step-changes per weather station, but I am alarmed by what we see currently; it looks like ‘trend-line bending’ rather than step-change removal.
Has anyone asked to go through the homogenisation code looking for silly assumptions or goofs? For example step-change detection might only look for drops in temperature (i.e where weather stations moved from the hotter town centres to exposed rural locations) If corresponding upward step-changes are ignored, this could introduce a bias.
The political background:
Remember from 1981 to 2013, Hansen was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That is plenty of time for a Political Activist with an arrest record to pack his department with like minded activists who would have no trouble ERRRrr ‘Correcting’ the records for The Cause™
First there is the definition of “Climate Change” by The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change The USA ratified the treaty in 21/03/94 so was ‘obliged’ to support the treaty.
The official definition:
The new definition of “Climate Change” specifically excludes all natural changes in the climate and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, and considers only atmospheric changes.
The IPCC mandate is similar:
The IPCC’s ROLE
I would like this!!!…