Global Temperature Record Is A Farce

When I point out the magnitude of US data tampering by NOAA, alarmists say the US is only 5% of the Earth.

In reality, the US is the only place that really matters because almost 90% of the long term NOAA daily temperature data is from US stations.

When NOAA/NASA tamper with US data, they wreck the global temperature record too.

But that doesn’t stop them from also tampering with the global temperature record directly.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Global Temperature Record Is A Farce

  1. arn says:

    Tampered data is tampered data,no matter wether it is 5 or 100%.

    People should be more worried about data tampering and why it exists
    than wether it 5,10 or 100%.
    Especially when the cooling country is the birthplace of global warming and was the birth place of the coming ice age.
    Considering this one should not be surprised that withou data tampering the needed results won’t exist.

    Of course one can get the desired global warming data in countries with little-no data,with a little bit strategical thinking.
    The less data we have the more likely it is to get a new “record”-
    especially when you increase the number of weather stations within a few years by 1000% and then place the majority of those new weather stations at(be) low (average)altitudes and urban areas where heat is trapped.
    Et voila-you get warming even when it gets colder.

    • gator69 says:

      Tampered data is not data, it is an artifact of analysis at best. Data is what you collect, and not what you manufacture.

      • JonA says:

        In principle I don’t have a problem with this. It is what it is. Data
        processing is common across many fields of industry; we
        are pretty good at it.

        The fundamental issue for me is that this situation is rarely
        factored into the precision with which analyses are reported. In
        reality any CO2 signal cannot be distinguished from uncertainty
        with the data we have. What’s more revealing is the
        apparent excellent correlation that was highlighted on this
        site between data adjustments and CO2. If this correlation is
        robust then it’s suggestive that the temperature record is being
        ‘corrected’ by the output of climate models.

        • gator69 says:

          Data processing is what businesses do with collected data. Data analysis is what scientists use…

          For science or engineering, the terms data processing and information systems are considered too broad, and the more specialized term data analysis is typically used. Data analysis uses specialized and precise algorithms and statistical calculations that are less often observed in a typical general business environment. For data analysis, software like SPSS or SAS, or their free counterparts such as DAP, gretl or PSPP are often used.

          Again, data is data only once. After it has been altered, it is no longer data.

        • Bob Cherba says:

          “In principle I don’t have a problem with this. It is what it is. Data processing is common across many fields of industry; we are pretty good at it.”

          Must be times have changed. I’m only a lowly retired engineer who spent 30 yrs in nuclear power industry. Power plants take lots of hourly data and for some processes continuously graph results. I don’t recall ever “adjusting” the data. We noted instrument problems, etc. that affected the accuracy of the data, but to paraphrase another commenter, “data are data.” Adjusted data are no longer data.

          To act like a modern college student, I am offended that climate scientists present adjusted/homogenized numbers as real “data,” especially when they have real, accurate data for many locations that differs significantly from the adjusted/homogenized numbers.

          • JonA says:

            I agree with all of this. We don’t have time
            machines hence the data we have from the past
            is all we’ll ever have. I think it’s scientifically
            sound to analyse these data with the correct
            controls in order to clean it up a little.

            The problem is what you say though – homogenized and estimated data is treated as
            better than real data in most cases. This is
            very wrong IMHO. Climate science has moved
            too far from research to advocacy where
            uncertainty is never mentioned.

  2. kyle_fouro says:

    When I read or see references to “thousands of stations” (I think I’ve seen Mosher mention 20,000) are these mostly stations with fragmented and short-term data?

  3. Steve Case says:

    In reality, the US is the only place that really matters because almost 90% of the long term NOAA daily temperature data is from US stations.

    Bingo

    I saved this “Watts Up With That?” comment a while back:

    richard verney July 8, 2017 at 6:24 am
    Given:

    1. CO2 is said to be a well mixed gas and therefore operates in like manner on a global scale (subject to differences in humidity/water vapour feedback); and
    2 The US is a large tract of Northern Hemisphere land; and
    3. The US is a good representative sample of geography and topography, and is therefore a valid sub set of the behavoir of land masses in the Northern Hemisphere;
    4. The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.

    If the US is not showing warming (the US was warmest in the 1930s/1940s), one would needs a strong explanation as to why the US is an outlier and not behaving in the same manner as the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

    The fact is that when you have good quality data, there is no warming, just multi-decadal variations, seriously begs the question as to the quality and validity of the data for other areas, and whether the so called AGW thing is just a data issue brought about the manner in which poor quality data with insufficient spatial coverage is presented.

  4. gator69 says:

    My client who teaches climatology related a class assignment to me yesterday. Each student was given a large American city and two rural sites near their city of study, and they were asked to find trends at these sites. Every large city showed a warming trend over the last three decades, while the rural sites all showed cooling. He, like me, is convinced that all the warning we are “seeing” is based upon local land use changes. UHI is man made warming.

Leave a 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.