Bug In UNHIDING THE DECLINE : Please Update

When I released UNHIDING THE DECLINE three days ago, I mentioned that there were probably bugs in it. I found one which is causing it to report recent temperatures too cool.

NOAA has lost a lot of station data since 1990, and a number of these missing data entries have been showing up in the .dly files as “7-9999.” I was looking for “-9999” but did not recognize “7-9999” as being two separate fields.  Because of recent NOAA station data loss, this was causing me to calculate post-1990 temperatures too cool.

Please update your code!  ghcn.py  for Linux/Mac   ghcn.exe  for Windows

These are the correct graphs for summer temperature.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Bug In UNHIDING THE DECLINE : Please Update

  1. GW Smith says:

    Thanks for the great work, Tony! Who else would do this if not you?

  2. Adam Gallon says:

    Interesting. Makes sense that any effects of increasing CO2 would be keeping temperatures up at night. Now, any disbenefits to this?

    • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

      Why would increasing CO2 keep temperatures up at night?

      • Rud Istvan says:

        Simple. Impedes nightime radiative cooling. Same logic that causes nightime deserts to cool rapidly because lack the GHG water vapor. Just inverted causality. GHG by definition impede radiative cooling. Less GHG, more radiative cooling. More GHG, less radiative cooling.

        • Fred Harwood says:

          Might the big decrease in rural reports to some extent favor urban influences as heat sinks radiating into the night?

        • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

          Understood. But is it CO2 or is it water vapor responsible for the majority of the increase in minimum temperatures.

        • neal s says:

          So wouldn’t the same CO2 that helps keep heat in at night, help keep heat out during the day? (Assuming of course that CO2 actually does that)

          • Squidly says:

            BINGO!

            And therein lies the problem with the good old “it’s CO2 what dun it”

            CO2 is a terrible insulator because it is such a great emitter (high emissivity). That is why it is used as an industrial coolant, in fact, the most widely used industrial coolant in the world.

            The most widely used general coolant … wait for it … yep! … WATER! … again, because it is a great emitter and makes for a terrible insulator.

          • Anon says:

            neal s: Supposedly, as I understand it, the theory goes like this: energy comes to the Earth’s surface as visible light and UV from the Sun. These frequencies pass through the CO2 layer unimpeded. They are then absorbed by the soil, plants, etc. After the absorption, they re-emit the light as infrared, this light begins to travel away from the Earth and is absorbed by the CO2 (as CO2 is an IR absorbed). The CO2 then releases the IR in all directions, including back toward the surface of the Earth, causing the extra heating.

            *The Sun produces IR also which is absorbed by the ground and the CO2 above, which complicates things, but the mechanism is really driven by the process I described, supposedly.

            **If anyone has a better description, please correct me.

          • neal s says:

            Anon: Can anyone show that more energy leaves the earth surface in the frequencies where CO2 is effective, than comes toward the earth in those same frequencies? The only way the mechanism you described that supposedly allows CO2 to have such a terrific effect toward warming, would work, is if more energy was leaving earth surface at those frequencies than what is coming from the sun toward the earth surface.

        • JonA says:

          Isn’t it slightly more complicated as an air mass with
          higher WV will hold more energy than a dry air mass
          anyway. Leaving aside the obvious that temperature
          is an intensive property anyway… (enthalpy would be
          a more useful measurement)

          • Anon says:

            Hi neal s. I am not defending AGW, but just pointing out the theory as described by proponents. The greenhouse effect is “real” as it applies to botanical greenhouses, without bringing up CO2 or AGW.

            If you take an object, approximating the the characteristics of a Black Body, and impinge its surface with a high frequency monochromatic laser, for a period of time, then remove the laser and record the emissions from the object, you will see that it produces a black body curve with a maximum intensity emission frequency that is at a lower frequency than that of the impinging laser frequency. In fact the whole curve will have a lower frequency “range” than the laser due to vibrational relaxation. The best way to visualize this is with a Jablonski Diagram.

            Now, if you put a absorption filter in front of the laser, that only allows the frequency of the laser to pass through it, you will discover that the black body appears to have no re-emission. This is not the case, as the filter is absorbing the other frequencies. Notice that the filter allows the laser light to enter unimpeded, but blocks the lower energy Jablonski frequencies that were created by vibrational relaxation after the initial laser excitation.

            That is the essence of the “greenhouse effect” as occurs in botanic greenhouses, with the Sun serving as the laser and the glass enclosure as the filter.

  3. Tom Anderson says:

    Has anyone pursued requesting a U.S. Attorney General investigation into the manipulation of climate data? Here are a few paragraphs I wrote to Congressman Lamar Smith on the subject:
    As I understand it, Title 44 U.S. Code §3106 permits an agency head or archivist to request the Attorney General to investigate “unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency.” Unfortunately, the statute was not drafted to protect data from its own custodians. But it may not be the only statute to address this issue.
    Title 18 U.S. Code §2071 states that whoever, having the custody under 18 USC 2071(b) of “any record … or other thing, filed or deposited” under 18 USC 2071(a) “in any public office … of the United States,” and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall” – also under 2071(a) – “be fined … or imprisoned not more than three years, or both …”
    The object of the predecessor statute, 18 USC 5403, was to preserve public records and papers intact from all kinds of spoliation, mutilation, or destruction (US v. De Groat (1887 DC Mich.) 30 F 764). While a federal court has held under 18 USC 2071 that temporary removal of government records for photocopying is no violation, it proscribes any conduct that deprives government of the use of its documents. (US v. Rosner (1972 SD NY) 352 F Supp 915.)
    Honest scientists do not manipulate data. The whole carbon-dioxide scheme depends on weather data, and they are being faked. This “carbon” program has bilked taxpayers of far too much already and it threatens to get worse. I don’t live in your district, so can’t email, but I want to implore you to request an Attorney General investiga¬tion into this crime.

  4. Andy DC says:

    Lower max temperatures and higher min temperatures would appear to indicate more water vapor in the atmosphere. That would normally translate to more rain and less drought. Ideal summer growing conditions for crops.

    Last summer was the larges corn crop in US history. This summer, there are pockets of dryness in parts of Iowa, but the corn crop is stiill projected to be the third highest on record.

    If man made effects cause larger crops, that is a huge net gain for humanity! One reasonw why we have had so little inflation lately is due to the abundant food supply.

    Also min temperatures are far more sensitive to urban heat island effect and also to slight differences in siting.

    • RAH says:

      I agree. Water vapor is why minimum temps are higher. Deserts get cold at night even during the summer because of the lack of it. Water vapor is by far the most potent of the “green house gases” because it is generally in higher concentrations in the atmosphere than any other and is by are the strongest absorber of radiant heat.

      • Anon says:

        Hi Rah, FYI: Here is what the AGW proponents say about water vapor:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#7e60a80d3238

        I used to teach AGW and that is the standard explanation regarding H2O vs CO2. I have not thought critically about if what they posit is correct. At that time I was just regurgitating what I was told by the AGW “experts”. If anyone sees a flaw in it, please post.

        • Gator69 says:

          We only see these positive feedback loops in models. Never in 4,500,000 years has this been observed in nature.

          • Gator69 says:

            Woops! Let’s make that never in 4,500,000,000 years.

          • Anon says:

            Gator69, thanks. As I said, I have not critically looked at this, partly because I thought I would need time to get into the Raman and IR properties of both molecules. (Blech!) I had not thought of the empirical side you present. Thanks.

        • The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science and means only that it has an absorb/emit band within the wavelength range of significant earth surface thermal radiation.

          Delve deeper into the science with an understanding of thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

          Water vapor is a ‘greenhouse gas’. Its presence in the atmosphere has made the planet warm enough for life as we know it. But it is now increasing at about 1.5% per decade. It has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation, especially spray irrigation on fields and lawns. WV is rising more than twice as fast as expected from the temperature increase of the water (feedback).

          The warming from the increasing water vapor (perhaps explaining the slight rise as shown in the UAH temperature trend) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean surface temperature cycles and a declining proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies). It will certainly mitigate and perhaps prevent decline into another little ice age . . . or worse.

          On the down side, the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of increasing water vapor? This threat can be partially addressed by attending to adequacy of water retaining infrastructures such as dikes, dams, etc.

          • Gator69 says:

            It never rained before the 1980’s?

          • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

            Dan, thank you for insights. The extreme precipitation issue is more an artifact of the deceptive calculations the climate scientists employ. Yes we have more rainfall, which is really good, but it is not at levels that is harmful. The climate scientists cherry pick base periods and then use percent increase numbers that are huge but only represent a small number of events. The extreme precipitation scam is a bigger scam than the misrepresentation of the temperature record.

            Tony has done some of this analysis in the past.

        • RAH says:

          Anon water covers 71% of the earth and varies in concentration in the atmosphere between 0 and 4% with an average distribution of about 1%. And of all the “green house” gases is the strongest absorber of radiant heat. The Oceans are the great moderators of our temperatures and the water vapor is the most potent part of the insulating blanket that keeps us from freezing to death. CO2, the second most abundant “green house gas” makes up only about 0.040% of the atmosphere. Though in much lower concentration water vapor it’s distribution in the atmosphere is much less variable than that of the H2O.

          Unlike H2O water vapor effects our weather and climate via positive and negative feed backs in the clouds if forms.

          The fact is that we do not know where all of the carbon goes. There is/are missing sink(s) that must account for about 2.9 Gt of carbon each year and we don’t know what it or they are nor how they function. It may very well be this as yet unidentified sink which has prevented the earths atmosphere from ever having the fatal escalating feed back loops that the alarmist claims are going to happen.

          Fact is they don’t even know how to quantify the positive and negative feedbacks of clouds in the their climate models either so they use constants and we know for a fact that is not the true state of our atmosphere.

    • arn says:

      Fantasic to see how armageddonic and apocalyptic
      the Global Warming has become in reality.

      Sadly more food would not help us as they will use it to make fuel out of it.
      And AGW cultist will ignore these evil side effects of the supposed global warming and will fail to explain how it is possible harvest record numbers of crop while the earth turns into a superdry fireball.

      The reason in this case may be co2(this time for real).
      While Mann-made co2 will increase temperatures just a little bit as it adds just a tiny fraction of(very weak) climate gas into our atmosphere
      this increase is for plants very significant as co2 has risen by 33% when it reaches 400 ppm.
      and therefore plants have much more food.

  5. Aphan says:

    Wow. Thank you for providing this example of human integrity. You made no false declarations about your efforts being perfect and went as far as to admit that it probably had flaws, then when you found one, you publicly announced it, stated how that flaw affected prior results, corrected your charts, and alerted everyone to the difference.

    It’s been so long since I’ve witnessed this type of behavior anywhere, I was wondering if it actually happened anymore.

    :)

    Thanks for all you do!

    • Anon says:

      Alphan That is really what you would expect from “true science”. Open to debate and subject to correction. The field of AGW ought to be that way too, especially as its predictions have massive economic consequences. It took decades to prove Einstein’s theory of Relativity and have it become accepted, which is why he won the Nobel for the Photoelectric Effect and not Relativity. Yet, AGW has been deemed incontrovertible in a very short time period, and anyone who questions it faces career ending repercussions – this ought to raise suspicions.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    How much of the “minimum temperature” warming is from urban heating effects.

    Certainly not a CO2 effect !!

  7. pmc47025 says:

    Hey Tony,
    FWIW, your updated UNHIDING THE DECLINE closely agrees with a 548 long running station average I generated (and graphed using Pulling Back The Curtain).

    The averaging program source (dlyRead) and support files (readme.txt) can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tkq0zderxi312kv/dlyRead_v0.05.zip?dl=0

  8. Adamant de-Nye-er says:

    Wow. Good catch.

  9. gregole says:

    Tony,
    Thanks for all you do! Super busy right now and going to Oregon to witness the eclipse and visit family. When I get back I’ll delve in.

  10. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    An alarmist programmer would keep quiet and get a medal if his program made recent temperatures too warm…

  11. MrZ says:

    Hi Tony!
    I am new here but I have been following a few weeks. What you do is amazing.
    I have a suggestion, rubber stamp the version in the graph generated by UHTD. That way you avoid confusions while you make the app rock solid.
    Here I have been working with the Swedish records, I am confident the increase in temperature is due to shorter winters i.e. mostly higher min temps. Maybe one tactic could be to admit temps are indeed increasing but argue that shorter winters equals longer crop season and is only beneficial. Also, its water wapor that blocks night/winter temps from extremes not CO2

  12. ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

    Tony, great work.

    I am not a climate scientist but at this rate the minimum temperatures will be higher than the maximum temperatures.

    :-)

  13. mat says:

    Speak of the devil…

  14. Howard Crawford says:

    I ran ghcn.exe us.txt date=0200 and the graph shows an Increase in temps. Is this a bug or error in the data? No other month showed an increase.

Leave a Reply to RAH Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.