Gavin and Tom didn’t like the cooling in Oklahoma, so they broke out the tampering hockey stick, and made it disappear.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Engineering
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Engineering
- Ivan G Wainwright on Climate Engineering
- Russell Cook on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Bruce of Newcastle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
Circulation in the lower stratosphere shows a cold April in the US.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_nh_f00.gif
They will work with the North Pacific lows.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/national/satellite-wv?play=1
This Oklahoma adjustment chart is particularly interesting given its shape and stochasticity. What could possible occur so often for so many changes of so many differing amplitudes to have been required? Why should the later, arguably more reliable data require so much more “adjustment” then the mid-century “old tech” data? Hmmmm, I wonder…..
” Why should the later, arguably more reliable data require so much more “adjustment” then the mid-century “old tech” data?”
That is exactly what I was going to say. How can they possibly justify this? If modern data is so unreliable it needs to be adjusted by such a large amount, how can there be any confidence at all in older readings? And how can it be that newer readings are adjusted upwards, as if there is not only no UHI effect, but seemingly a negative heat effect?
If I was cynical (which I am), I would say that it appears they looked at the new readings, saw how they would skew the time series graph, and just made them match the pattern they want to report.
I just sent this data to James Inhofe.
Good work, Gator!
In the pursuit of fairness: could you please provide an example of the HCN adjustments in the other (cooler) direction? Somewhere in the record there must be such cases.
It may already exist somewhere but it would be good to see the number of stations adjusted higher, flat and lower.
This is the adjustment for the entire US
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/screenhunter_7832-mar-10-07-38.gif
Steve,I think the answer to all this, or perhaps the way to illustrate definitively the answer that we are honest and sober enough to reach, can be found where the individual states “adjustments” diverge from the total.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/screenhunter_7832-mar-10-07-38.gif
Have you looked at the individual regions and months, to see more closely what they are doing? I found several adjustments that were valid, but they seemed to be based on adjoining regions. It’s like somebody figured out you can’t have a ten degree anomaly in one state, and not in the surrounding ones. So they remove the anomaly.
Local and transient phenomena such as sea breezes, cold and warm fronts, wedging, unusual cloud patterns, etc, can and do occur on a random but regular basis. To have someone combing through old databases and eliminating any places that are substantially cooler than surrounding regions, by arbitrarily deciding ahead of time that there is no way such disparities can occur, is not sound reasoning, IMO.
That the overwhelming majority of adjustments just happen to fit in with the agenda of the people doing the adjusting makes it transparently obvious what they are doing.
Imagine a comparable scenario, in which one political party was in charge of keeping track of historical unemployment and GDP trends, and it was revealed that they were systematically altering all of the data in a way which made it clear that that parties particular economic agenda and theory was the correct one.
Who would accept this at face value? Who would be stupid enough to accept it at all?
I think the answer is…no one would.
How and why is this different?
Thank you. I write a weekly wire to several hundred farmers. Your site has been a very valuable resource. I predicted and now notice that Land Use has joined Fossil Fuel and Cement Production as the quoted sources of man-made CO2. Farmers definately have a target on their backs. Farmers are about 97% sure CAGW is not happening but they risk their own real money on real weather, so what would they know. ( 70% of all statistics quoted in blogs are made up – including this one)
And since i have your attention (i think) an expose on this theme would be nice: If this really is the most serious threat to mankind, why don’t we just pepper the land and sea with 20,000 weather stations and verify the reality. I expect Gruber has the answer but i would like to see a learned discussion by those in the field.
“why don’t we just pepper the land and sea with 20,000 weather stations and verify the reality”
US has a good set of reliable weather stations, established in 2005, USCRN
It is showing the US as COOLING at approximately 0.5ºC/decade since it was established.
The only other attempt to get an even spaced consistent temperature measurement is by satellites., RSS and UAH. Both show very little warming in their whole record since 1979 apart from the 1998 El Nino step.
I’m aware of many adjustments that reduce all the temps, but none ever show an adjustment that cools the present and warms the past, for the US. I did find several that cooled recent temps, but it was an obscure station in New Zealand or Australia.
It would be effort, but I can find it.
For years we have been assured that the UHI effect has been accounted for and corrected, but the work of Steve and Paul and others have shown that, on the contrary, there is no such correction being made. The alterations to the data are all in the opposite direction to what would be done to make an honest correction for UHI.
And this, while eliminating large numbers of rural stations which have almost certainly been less affected by UHI.
Infilling and homogenization complete the picture of blatantly unscientific and unsupportable manipulation of the surface temperature record.
“Infilling and homogenization complete the picture of blatantly unscientific and unsupportable manipulation of the surface temperature record.”
Thanks to people of integrity, like Tony and Paul, the fraud of the infillers and homogenizers has been exposed. Yet it continues. How does it end?
There could be another Decline to hide soon if the loons at the UN have their way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFGksEgSwk8
Yep! Your beliefs can get you into really big trouble, when it disagrees with the state religion.
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2015_07/891551/150215-isis-still-blurred_9b8a9cc8975da8cc97fa8399d2ab6637.jpg