Why do you massively tamper with the temperature data, and turn a cooling trend into a warming trend?
You can’t use the raw surface data. It is a mess, affected by station moves, TOBS, different types of thermometers, missing data, etc. It needs large adjustments to be meaningful
Sounds bad – why not just use modern satellite data instead? It has much better coverage.
Satellite data has problems, and needs to be adjusted. The surface data is our most reliable data source.
The excuse du jour.
Temperature data adjusted to fit UN Agenda 21?
“United Nations Agenda 21” (1972): http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm
Today you suggested that the UN’s IPCC is incompetent:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/smoking-gun-of-incompetence-at-the-ipcc/
Misinformation-by-design to fit UN Agenda 21 better explains the systematic distortions in temperature data.
Why not just spread FEAR… Overwrite the FACTS… and demand more FUNDING…
Yep… The 3 F’s…
It’s adjusted logic.
Oh my god, I didn’t know thermometers MIGRATED!!!! 🙂
Sure – they hitch a ride on the backs of Geese.
Tony, the crazy part is that the people who give these self-contradictory answers do not even see that they are self-contradictory.
I am reminded of the 10:10 people who pat themselves on the back for their high compassion while they make child murder snuff films.
It is tempting to call it a religion – but a bunch of self-congratulatory misanthropes don’t merit that label. They are just the contemporary versions of the the self-centered egomaniacs that have plagued every generation. Don’t expect logic and reason to apply to them.
If there is any doubt, read the comments on the Booker article.
All of the adjustment excuses are bogus. The stations they’re adjusting for moving are ridiculous. Some moved 10 feet and they skew them like crazy. Some haven’t moved at all and they still adjust them.
Something is very wrong with the adjustments – they are massive in many cases over a degree. Totally unwarranted, totally unfounded. It has become a game. Nothing to do with science. Sad. Really sad how far we have fallen.
Adjustment Science
You can’t believe in surface and have to adjust it,
but you have to believe in surface data because satellite data has to be adjusted.
That’s so logical and reminds of a joke in a diactatorship
where Person A got fined on monday for walking his dog
and on tuesday for walking around without a dog.
IPCC-Adjusting Reality(a raping scientific standards) Since 1988
Can we adjust the temperatures at the end of the day so that the forecast for the weather is right every day too?
The CAGW crowd just adjust their forecast. “Oh, we predicted heavier snowfall all along!”
It is amusing to watch how the Wunderground forecast changes. I have even seen the ‘forecast’ change a couple hours before we get slammed by a big storm.
They have been having a lot more trouble with the forecasts in the last few years because the Jets have gone ‘loopy’ Therefore we no longer get the weather to the west of us.
Zeke Hausfeather of BEST states:
Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves.
From what I understand they do some fancy dancy statistics looking for ‘breaks’ in the data and use that as an excuse to adjust the data.
I can see two reason why that is completely bogus.
#1. They are complaining about station moves of less than a few miles generally speaking but they have ZERO problem smearing the temperature of 1(ONE) data station over half the Arctic or half the Antarctic. Does Not Compute…Does Not Compute…
#2. Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918
On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are too conservative.” On page 70
“The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”
He then goes on to say on page 77:
If a good continuous thermograph record for at least twenty years is available, the normal hourly temperatures for the various days of the year can be computed….
“the average temperature for a day is found by averaging the 24 values of hourly temperature observed during that day”
If the normals are based on twenty years of observations, it will be found that there is not an even transition from day to day, but jumps of even two or three degrees occur….
I maybe reading the situation wrong but that says to me that the ‘breaks’ in the data that BEST uses may well be naturally occurring jumps in the data from a chaotic system. If BEST and GISS are doing ‘adjustments’ based only on those jumps or breaks without any underlying testing such as running both sets for a few years to determine the true bias then all they are doing is introducing additional error to the system. Heck I am not sure they are even determining if the station was actually moved or had some other system change like a replacement thermometer.
Gail, I concur. I have often thought of how one could adjust for such change over time and it all boiled down to choices in the end. Educated guesses if you will.
I would think there is a deeper trendline from fundamentals in the algorithms being used than we realize. It does seem that CO2 is a control knob, but not in nature, only modeling.Those too are basically adjusting as we move forward and obviously have changed how we adjust the past to conform to expectation based upon fundamental flaws in our math.
I don’t think anyone really realizes how much climate models actually impact locally. From fisheries to forestry, their planning is based upon models generated off of the fundamental GCM’s and such.
The Domino principle is in full force.
That impact is why only 8% of Farmers are believers in CAGW. If you can’t estimate planting time and the growing season fairly accurately you can lose your entire crop.
If you thing the frost free date is a couple weeks earlier than it actually is you can lose all your just sprouted seedlings. If you guess the growing season length wrong and plant the wrong variety you could be harvesting your crop in driving snow as happened this fall.
September 11, 2014 Alberta snowstorm flattens wheat and barley crops just ahead of harvest
Russia’s harvest also got flattened.
May 2, 2014: Unexpected snowfall destroys 2,000 hectares of crops in Adjara
August 1 2014 Cold hammers apple and peach crops in Indiana
September 2, 2014 Severe frost damages Southern Australia crops – Farmers call emergency meeting – Huge turnout shows the scale of the problem.
It is curious how folk like Nick S and Mosher can talk about all the complex FUBAR of the surface stations (far more the what you touched on) and make it sound like an exact science that they can nail down GAT to less then 1/10th of a degree, and then make the far more scientific adjustments required for the satellite data sets sound like impossible speculation.
Yet one asked to explain just the Iceland adjustments, they run for cover.
Zeke Hausfeather of BEST states:
Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data.
(correction)
Thank you for that quote! i used it in a FB battle and now I can rest and watch the back pedaling!
In the mid-late 1990s I followed sci.environment on usenet. It was there, judging the arguments of the global warming believers, that I decided it was complete crap. How they reacted to questions, challenges, and their arguments convinced me it was all crap. Those who argued against them didn’t have to do anything except ask inconvenient questions and thus cause them to display their behaviors.
When the accuracy and coverage of the surface temperature record was brought into play the believers insisted it was entirely and absolutely accurate and with sufficient coverage. They would even ridicule people who questioned the accuracy by talking about how easy it was to read a thermometer. I find it quite ironic that today they argue it’s so bad to justify their adjustments. Of course the 1990s the USA had some hot summers so they didn’t have to try so hard.
Anyway, I also learned at that time the best thing to do was just to use the warmists’ arguments against them. They quite literally hang themselves with what they do.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Zeke Hausfeather of BEST states:
href=”http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/”>Understandingjustments to Temperature Data.
……Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.
All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper…..
Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves.
From what I understand they do some fancy dancy statistics looking for ‘breaks’ in the data and use that as an excuse to adjust the data.
I can see two reason why that is completely bogus.
#1. They are complaining about station moves of less than a few miles generally speaking but they have ZERO problem smearing the temperature of 1(ONE) data station over half the Arctic or half the Antarctic. Does Not Compute…Does Not Compute…
#2. Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918
On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are too conservative.” On page 70
“The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”
He then goes on to say on page 77:
If a good continuous thermograph record for at least twenty years is available, the normal hourly temperatures for the various days of the year can be computed….
“the average temperature for a day is found by averaging the 24 values of hourly temperature observed during that day”
If the normals are based on twenty years of observations, it will be found that there is not an even transition from day to day, but jumps of even two or three degrees occur….
I maybe reading the situation wrong but that says to me that the ‘breaks’ in the data that BEST uses may well be naturally occurring jumps in the data from a chaotic system. If BEST and GISS are doing ‘adjustments’ based only on those jumps or breaks without any underlying testing such as running both sets for a few years to determine the true bias then all they are doing is introducing additional error to the system. Heck I am not sure they are even determining if the station was actually moved or had some other system change like a replacement thermometer.
Do not forget also the march of the thermometers to lower elevations, to airports, as well as the dropping of over 80 percent of the stations, greatly increasing the ability of adjustments to impact ever increasing areas, as well as the poorly done UHI adjustment, as well as the dropping and infilling of up to 40 percent of the ever fewer stations.
FUBAR is too mild of an acronym, but how else can yet get rapidly increasing global sea ice, as well as record NH snow cover, and then claim the hottest year ever.
On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
This paper estimating error bands:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/E___E_algorithm_error_07-Limburg.pdf
TOBS = Time of Observation.
my comment:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fixing-the-past-at-the-ministry-of-truth/#comment-477742
Steve addresses TOBS in another manner:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=tobs
March of the Thermometers
my comment:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/how-gavin-cheated-to-create-the-required-talking-point/#comment-482838
E.M. Smith’s summary post: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
The EFFECT:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
“Urban Island Heat” effect. NOAA and a rebuttal by Steve McIntyre
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/fake-adjustments-from-fake-scientists/#comment-424001
Roy Spenser on Heat Island Effect
paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/the-global-average-urban-heat-island-effect-in-2000-estimated-from-station-temperatures-and-population-density-data/
Las Vegas: Poster Child for the Urban Heat Island Effect – a good demonstration
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/las-vegas-poster-child-for-the-urban-heat-island-effect-updated-corrected/
NASA satellites found 12C of UHI over Providence, RI. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
How much of a UHI correction is made for that?
Actually a backwards correction is made, cooing the past and warming the present.
And then those results are used to smear over 1200 km away.
The land/ocean datasets are corrupted beyond use for scientific purposes, since replication is meaningless, since the past temperatures change every month.
This one is a real kick in the teeth to the CAGW conjecture.
Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly from John Kehr
(Add h t t p / / : and remove * WordUnimpressed hates this website.)
Add Steve Goddard’s damning bits of evidence.
“The most damning graph of all though is the one below, showing how NOAA (red) is cooling the past relative to their own thermometer data (blue)”
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bgqd5wpcmaajkg3.png
“Before data tampering by NCDC, US temperatures show essentially zero correlation with atmospheric CO2. Climate sensitivity of zero.”
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5685-dec-30-18-55.gif
“.. I tried correlating the magnitude of the tampering with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and found almost perfect correlation – shown below.”
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif
If R= 0.0 there is no correlation if R = 1.0 there is perfect correlation. Since the raw US temperature data shows NO CORRELATION with CO2 the correlation was put into the data using bogus adjustments!
Here is an earlier, still unanswered question, about the start of fraudulent government science:
“Why Did Our Government Deceive Us?” https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
Surely the demonstrable fact that the aggregate effect of all of these adjustments is to amplify the Global Warming narrative is enough to make anyone realise that there is an agenda in the adjustments.
It doesn’t matter how justifiable each adjustment is made the net effect is warmist in direction and magnitude. That is a clue people. A clue that this is all very dishonest. We are like Gulliver being tied down by little threads spun by Lilliputians, each one is weak but collectively they sap our strength and cloud our vision as we argue each point. While we snap a thread here or there, ten more have been spun.
We should use our strength to defeat them. The actual physical data belies their nonsense. The only effect man made CO2 can possibly have is to warm the atmosphere and yet almost all the putative warming has been the result of their manipulation of the records. Without warming there can be no effect on weather events and you will have noticed that the weather is not behaving in any way outside of the normal variation we have measured.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/sets/72157645113383959/
Don’t let this miserable bunch of chancers take our eye off the ball.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.