Understanding Climate Correlation

According to the best data set in the world, the frequency of hot days has been plummeting in the US.

Climate experts have quite predictably been brushing off my frequency of hot days plots, saying that it isn’t a good indicator of temperature trends. The data says the exact opposite. The correlation is excellent.

Experts prefer to correlate temperature trends vs. CO2, which has no correlation whatsoever.

After showing them these plots, their next line of defense is the US is only 5% of the Earth.” 

The problem with that argument is that almost all of the below 330 PPM daily temperature data is from the US. So the US is actually 90+% of the Earth’s historical temperature data.

station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png (825×638)

After that attack fails, then they invariably go to the “people didn’t know how to read thermometers back then” defense. So why are they publishing all of their fake temperature graphs if they don’t believe them? And if they don’t believe that CO2 correlates with high temperatures, why do they keep saying  CO2 correlates with high temperatures?

There is no science in climate science. These people are simply making stuff up to keep their government grant money coming in. They are criminals, not scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Understanding Climate Correlation

  1. FTOP_T says:

    For a scientist, the correlative graph of CO2 to temperature should be sufficient to validate the null hypothesis for AGW.

    Any continuation of support after viewing that chart is a religious and not a scientific endeavor.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      And for a judge, the correlative graph of CO2 to temperature adjustments should be sufficient to issue search warrants on the adjusters …

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        … especially when shown this:

        • DD More says:

          Nick Stokes -”If the errors were random” But they aren’t. They are due to causes.”

          I asked “Then explain why you have to keep Adjusting the Adjustments, year after year. Can’t you guys get it right the 1st time?”

          Page 8 of 48 – http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_May_2017.pdf – With Chart of the constant changes.
          Diagram showing the adjustment made since May 2008 by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), USA,in anomaly values for the months January 1910 and January 2000.
          Note: The administrative upsurge of the temperature increase from January 1915 to January 2000 has grown from 0.45 (reported May 2008) to 0.69oC (reported June 2017). This represents an about 53% administrative temperature increase over this period, meaning that more than half of the reported (by GISS) global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative changes of the original data since May 2008.

          Several graphs & data pointing out Faux Change.

  2. Jimmy Haigh says:

    So. They say that accurately measured and studiously recorded temperatures is not a good indicator of temperature trends. Sounds about right for this lot of scumbags.

    • Frank K. says:

      “After that attack fails, then they invariably go to the “people didn’t know how to read thermometers back then” defense.”

      This excuse by the climate alarmists really flabbergasts me. It should be remembered that in the early part of the 20th century, a large number (perhaps majority) of the sites recording daily temperatures and precipitation were farming communities. They had (and still have today) a vested interest in studying and keeping records of the climate in their region, as it directly affected their crops and livestock. It doesn’t make any sense that they didn’t know how to “read thermometers” – their lives and livelihoods literally depended on it!

      I think a lot of the temperature data controversies could be addressed by examining agricultural journals, local farming newspapers, and similar sources, where daily temperature and precipitation data were published. I think we’d find that the charts Tony presents here indeed reflect the actual climate of those times.

      • Andy DC says:

        Just as an avocation and living near the NOAA Library, and also in conjunction with jobs I had, I spent a lot of time at that library, going back to the 1960’s. I reviewed the actual records when they were all paper products, going back to the 1800’s.

        I am thus very much aware of most of the heat waves that Tony has very well documented. There were a huge number of reporting stations in each state that were generally in excellent agreement with one another.

        These cooperative observers were not paid and kept these records for many decades. They did so simply for the love of it and out of a sense of civil duty. They considered their record keeping to be a sacred trust.

        I would trust their records FAR more so than the adjusted and extremely warm biased garbage created out of thin air by the agenda and money driven “climate scientists” of today.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          DC… your 3rd & 4th paragraphs capture my sentiments exactly. The minute you pump gobs of government money into something like this, it loses all objectivity

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Frank K…. second paragraph right on right on… I grew up in an agricultural area and you’re analysis is dead on

    • GeologyJim says:

      Climate “scientists” also say [with a straight face] that the width of annual growth-rings in trees correlates reliably with air temperature … …

      … … although there are a few adjustments needed to get the “right” data

      and some tree-ring data series have to be excluded because they just aren’t

      Some other climate “scientists” also say that air bubbles trapped in glacial ice are reliable samples of air composition at the time the snow fell, even though it takes decades for the air to become trapped in the bubbles. And no one really knows how much bubble air diffuses during compaction and recrystallization of the surrounding ice

      You really can’t make this stuff up

  3. Kris Johanson says:

    Read this lame Q&A from GISS regarding thermometer-reading, and then tell me this whole thing isn’t for suckers and dupes. C:\Users\Me\Desktop\Data_GISS GISTEMP — The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.htm There are so many ways for them to manipulate the data after the fact it’s unbelievable. Can you imagine the QC department of an automotive company or electronics company putting out a Q&A like this… their stock would immediately tank

      • Squidly says:

        I just love this particular Q&A:

        Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created?
        A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

        OMG! … talk about “making it up” … sheeesh…

        • richard verney says:

          How do they know when the model run is just long enough, but not too long.

          Climate Alchemy at work, or is it Voodoo Science?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            That’s easy to answer. You run the model until it shows a result consistent with your hypothesis and stop right there. Other methods have been shown to provide results that are less robust or outright contradictory.

    • -B- says:

      All government data is handled that way. It is beaten until it shows the politically desired result. Because their livelihoods depend on producing the politically desired results. For at least six thousand years government employed intellectuals produce whatever is required to support what the ruling class wants to do.

      However if this is done in the productive sector, the market sector, wrong decisions get made and the company goes out of business. Well unless they seek and get government protection.

  4. GW says:

    Well, when is the funding going to drop or stop ? When are they going to get called out on this fraud by the new administration ?

    • Kris Johanson says:

      It’s been 8 mos. Budgeting is basically an annual thing. I think one can gauge by the recent, frantic letters to the Administration that there’s going to be a shift in priorities

  5. Patrick says:

    Knowing that about the temperature records should be devastating to the “Climate Clowns”, but they have used their so-called ‘expertise’ to massage a Global temperature record into place

    Where are they now as it pertains to “climate sensitivity to raised CO2 levels”? I heard they were lowering it. Is it below 1C per doubling yet? Temperature records of the past will never be able to give us a clue, if they were so sparse. It seems that the Arctic Region in the Northern Alaska/Canada area is still the only REAL “hot spot”.

    Climate sensitivity to raised CO2 levels use to be between 2.5C to 4.5C per doubling. I’d think with all of their different measurements, they’d be able to have it narrowly calculated by now. I’ve seen calculations from nuclear physicists as low as 0.1c to 0.3C per doubling using well known parameters.

    Bryce Johnson – The Limits of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Effects and Control.

  6. richard verney says:

    After showing them these plots, their next line of defense is the US is only 5% of the Earth.”

    I would not go as far as saying that the US is a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere, but I would pose the reverse question. WHY SHOULD THE US BE AN OUTLIER ?

    After all, the theory is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, and subject differences in humidity (water vapour feedback), the effect of CO2 should be similar wherever it is measured.

    There is nothing unique about the geography and/or the topography of the US when compared to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole, and it covers a number of different climatic zones. It has coastal areas, mountain areas, plains, deserts etc, and is not dominated by one particular climatic zone, or by one particular weather pattern, or one particular oceanic current.

    When one stops to consider the geography and topography of the US, it is difficult to point to any unique or unusual feature that would render it an outlier.

    In my opinion it is no coincidence that the land that is best sampled has the best historic record shows no warming, and this raises the obvious question as to whether if the Northern Hemisphere, as a whole, was better sampled and had better data, would this also show the same pattern as the US, ie., no warming?

    And of course, the US is not alone in that both Iceland and Greenland show that today is no warmer than these places were in the 1940s. Obviously, Iceland and Greenland are not typical of the Northern Hemisphere, but it is reassuring that these places where there is less urbanisation show a not inconsistent pattern with the US.

    I envisage that it is quite likely that temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are no warmer than they were in the 1930s/1940, and given that some 95% of all manmade emissions have taken place since 1940, this suggests that Climate Sensitivity, if any at all, to CO2 is low.

    I would like to see the best sited stations in the Northern Hemisphere retrofitted with the same LIG thermometers used in 1930/1940 and for today’s temperatures be taken using the same observational practices at those stations as was used in 1930/1940. Then RAW data could be compared with historic RAW data with no adjustment.

    150 to 200 best sited stations reasonably spatially distributed across the Northern Hemisphere would be sufficient. No need to construct a hemisphere wide data set, just compare each station with itself, and note the number of stations showing warming and the amount, if any, of the warming. This would quickly tell us whether there has been a significant change in temperature these past 70 or so years.

    • -B- says:

      “After all, the theory is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, and subject differences in humidity (water vapour feedback), the effect of CO2 should be similar wherever it is measured.”

      But it matters where CO2 comes from. CO2 from China and India and some other places apparently doesn’t cause warming. If it did alarmists should be screaming about the treaties and deals of the last two decades.

    • DD More says:

      Richard – What they say.

      Climate Etc. – Understanding adjustments to temperature data

      by Zeke Hausfather 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.

      What He measured

      Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement.

      One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ
      ” For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.


  7. -B- says:

    “After that attack fails, then they invariably go to the “people didn’t know how to read thermometers back then” defense. ”

    That is funniest thing because back in the 1990s before anyone knew what was being done to the data people who suspected something was wrong questioned the accuracy of the early data. The warmists at that time insisted that the thermometers of that era were accurate and read correctly. Now that we know what they are doing and why the results are obviously not describing reality the warmists are claiming the old data is full of errors they need to correct. This is how liars behave.

  8. Yves says:

    Average temperature decreasing since 2000 in the UK !!

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.