Nick Stokes : Busted Part 2

In this post I take down the second part of Nick Stokes idiotic claim :

Steven Goddard produces these plots, and they seem to circulate endlessly, with no attempt at fact-checking, or even sourcing. I try, but it’s wearing.

My source code has been out there for years. Nick has no excuse for his ignorance.

I just added it to UNHIDING THE DECLINE, to make it really easy for even the most clueless climate alarmist. (It is very wearing for me to have to deal with these clowns, who spread the same misinformation year after year.)

Download UNHIDING from here.  Click on the DOWNLOAD ALL button.

It will be downloaded as a very large zip file. The reason it is so large is because I have included the entire US daily temperature database. I did this is because Windows users might have a difficult time extracting the data from NOAA. I also have included everything you need to get the data directly from NOAA.

Unzip the file, and enter the UNHIDING directory. Unzip the US.zip file.

Then move the extracted US.txt file into the UNHIDING directory.

Enter the UNHIDING directory using a windows command prompt window or Linux/Mac terminal. Windows users can do this by navigating to the UNHIDING directory in Windows Explorer and typing cmd in the address bar.

That will bring up a command prompt window.

First time Linux/Mac users will need to run these commands. Windows users will not need to run them.

python3 -m pip install matplotlib
python3 -m pip uninstall numpy
python3 -m pip install numpy==1.12.1

The plot was generated using the command :

python3 ghcn.py US.txt first_year=1917 last_year=2016 USHCN

or for Windows users :

.\ghcn.exe US.txt first_year=1917 last_year=2016 USHCN

It takes a long time to run, and will appear like nothing is happening. Be patient. Your computer is processing several versions of the entire US daily and month temperature data sets.

Eventually a window will pop up like this. Select “CO2 “in the left column, and “USHCN FINAL MINUS RAW TAVG” in the right column. This will show how NOAA is tampering with the temperature data to precisely match their fake global warming theory.

The source code is ghcn.py. Nick can see exactly how the calculations are done. They are a simple numerical average of the USHCN monthly final minus the numerical average of the monthly raw temperatures, per year. Math doesn’t get any simpler than that. A third grader should be able to understand.

Linux/Mac users can get the NOAA daily temperature data by entering the GHCN directory and typing ./get.bash

Them move GHCN/ghcnd_hcn/US.txt into the UNHIDING directory.

Linux/Mac users can get the the NOAA monthly temperature data by entering the USHCN directory and typing ./get.bash

Then move US_final.tmax.txt US_raw.tmax.txt US_final.tavg.txt and US_raw.tavg.txt from the USHCN/ushcn.v2.5.5.[$DATE] directory into the UNHIDING directory.

Nick has no excuses for his ignorance or his ongoing attempts to misinform the public. Next time he or Mosher claim my work is not reproducible, tell them that they would need at least third grade math skills to accomplish that.

NOAA is precisely tampering with temperature data to match CO2 theory. Quite likely the most crooked, dishonest, corrupt science ever done.

In my next post I will take down Nick’s third idiotic claim :

The first GISS plot is not the usual land/ocean data; it’s a little used Met Stations only

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Nick Stokes : Busted Part 2

  1. gator69 says:

    Nick is insane. His current regimen of meds may be masking some of his worst symptoms, but the crazy runs deep and wide in this one.

  2. Rob says:

    Great work once again, Tony!

    “It is very wearing for me to have to deal with these clowns, who spread the same misinformation year after year.”

    Yeah, I don’t know how you can put up with this garbage and those clowns on what seems like a daily basis. I have hidden various sections of the weather site I go to to check forecasts since I couldn’t deal with the almost daily article/link that goes on about global warming/climate change. It’s hard now to even read up on wildlife or bugs without having some mention to climate change. The attempt to indoctrinate is everywhere and knowing it is based on BS makes it worse.

    Your level of patience is damn impressive.

  3. Latitude says:

    Nick could have just asked…..if he didn’t want to ask….he could use the search on your blog and find it…..
    Too many people immediately posted the information Nick said he couldn’t find…

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “Too many people immediately posted …”

      How can he … there are all these voices … thank you for inviting us all … Stokes knew but didn’t tell Nick … there are too many people talking! … he’s wearing him down … they’ve hidden the code on the cereal box … it circulates endlessly …

  4. R. Shearer says:

    No doubt it would be too wearing for him to follow your detailed instructions and he will blame you for it.

  5. richard verney says:

    Forgive me but I will re-post a comment that I made on part 1 of this series, because it is actually rather relevant.

    Sunsettommy

    I agree with your analysis that you recently posted on WUWT.

    I referred to the IPCC FAR because:
    >>>(i) their data plot generally corroborated the NCAR, and NAS plots, which in any event were corroborated by Jones and Widgley (1980 paper) and by Hansen (1981 paper). Jones and Hansen extended the NH plot out to 1980 and confirmed that as at 1980 the NH was still cooler than 1940.
    >>>>(ii) the IPCC plot extends the position out to 1989, and confirmed that as at 1989, the NH was still cooler than 1940.
    >>>>(iii) I set out details of the Authors to the IPCC paper who endorsed the plot because these were major Team players, eg., Karl, Vinnikov, Bradley, Jones, Trenbeth, Wadhams etc. All these guys were quite satisfied that the data suggested that as at 1989 the NH was cooler than it was in 1940. The recovery of the substantial post 1940 cooling was still not complete.

    Note the importance of the recovery from the 1940 -early 1970s cooling, still not being complete by 1989. This was of course why M@nn in MBH98 had to perform his nature trick. The tree ring data was going through to 1995 (it might have been 1996) and it too showed that as at 1995 (or 1996) the NH was still no warmer than it was in 1940!!!

    But it was in the late 1980s/early 1990s that the data sets underwent their revisionary rewriting which meant that the adjusted thermometer record now showed warming where previously there had not been a complete recovery to 1940s levels. This was the real reason for the cut and slice. M@nn had identified that the tree rings no longer tracked the adjusted thermometer record. The tree rings did track the unadjusted historic record at least in qualitative terms, ie., they showed no net warming between 1940 and mid 1990s which would have been the position had the late 1980s onwards adjustments not been made to the thermometer data sets!!

    This is how it all ties together. The nature trick is only required because of the revisionary adjustments made to thermometer time series set.

    Finally, whilst it is obviously preferable to compare apples with apples, I doubt that it makes too much difference in comparing NH temperature sets with global sets or vice versa, since the global data set is comprised of approximately 85% NH station data, and only around 15% SH data, so there is quite some overlap.

    It would be wrong to compare SH data sets and global data sets because of the sparse SH sampling.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Tony, already knows about the sparse Southern Hemisphere data,as he posted about it not long ago.

      He wants to show the data manipulations that is being done behind the scenes is the main concern. That way we can see why their charts changes over time,ALWAYS warmer in the present and cooler in the past.

    • RW says:

      I had the same hunch, Richard. Mann’s copy and paste was ‘required’ so that the proxy time series he manufactured would be considered an example of convergent validity vis a vis the fake (adjusted) global record – he may not have even realized it was adjusted, let alone how. This was his grad work. As a young and ambitious zealot, he probably just panicked when he saw that his proxy data set didn’t fit the dogma so he pasted what it was supposed to match over the most recent decades.

  6. JonA says:

    It is interesting that adjustments, which are purported to be due to TOBS and
    equipment changes, match delta CO2 so well. It’s suggestive to me, though I
    have no evidence, that adjustments are being made according to the predicted
    temperature output of a model.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The New York Police Department is searching for a woman suspected of attempting to rob four banks within 40 minutes on Tuesday.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/nypd-bank-robber-2017-9

      Several NYPD sources speaking on condition of anonymity speculated that she intended to steal money but they admitted the department had only circumstantial evidence.

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      The process is

      Raw temperatures —-> Model——> Adjusted temperatures

      The Model is erroneous with high confidence. Their is insufficient data about the thermometers and their surroundings to construct a reliable model. J. Murray Mitchell in 1953 showed that there are about 20 to 30 factors that could be used in a Model to convert raw temperatures to adjusted temperatures. He didn’t catch all the factors either.

      Take, for example, the UHI. The Model used nowadays says a 0.05 C correction per century on the final global temperature set is all that is needed. This is nonsense. Lamb, back in 1982, in his book Climate, History, and the Modern World, pointed out UHI can be 1-2 C, but varies widely from town to town. The only way to remove the UHI effect is to have modern measurements near the present sites simultaneous with modern measurements in nearby rural locations and this has to be done at every site. Modern climatologists have no interest in doing this, so their Model is inadequate to the task.

      Another problem is that perhaps 30 adjustments are possible, but only 5 or 6 are actually attempted and these attempts are poorly done. In theory it is possible to construct thousands of different Models to adjust the temperatures, and it is not possible to know which one of these Models is the correct one, if indeed it is even possible to make such a Model.

      The “adjusted temperatures” should be called the “modeled temperatures”.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    GISS et al are all temperature model ‘products’, due to the inadequate sampling of data, and the character of the gridding that is used. Messing with the raw data decouples these products from reality, fictionalizing them.

  8. Adamant de-Nye-er says:

    Good post. I agree that the real review of software is essential to validation and verification of results — this is what makes a software-driven science experimentally repeatable. On its own, peer review of results is inadequate to verify scientific conclusions. The feature that makes open sourced software like yours most believable is the contrast between this and the “trust us, our algorithm is working” kind of verification that is omnipresent in the alarmists’ reports. Deliberate obfuscation, scientific jealousy, and a falsely applied proprietorship are all reasons that meteorological models and analysis software may not be released for review with the study results — which often seem to be determined before the study takes place.
    The other major method of obfuscation will be alteration of the data itself. This seems to be happening in Australia, but people like Jennifer Marohasy are exposing the limitations and changes that she has detected. For land based U.S. data, I can’t seem to verify even Hansen’s temperature data.
    You provide source code, describe what the software does, and why, and disclose the content and limitations of the data. Let GISS or Stokes do those things for their models and analysis software before they question anyone else’s integrity.

  9. Andy DC says:

    To “prove” your pre-determined conclusion, it is far easier using fake “adjusted” temperatures than it is to use actual temperatures. Actual temperature records have too much volatility and would seldom conform to the neat and clean step increases that you want to show. That would be so, even if the warming theory were valid, which it isn’t!

  10. Tony, do you happen to know how these adjustments have infected the global average temperature products like BEST, HADCRUT, and GISTEMP?

  11. sunsettommy says:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/26/gavins-twitter-trick/#comment-2621921

    I posted a very long comment to Nick Stokes,who must have seen it since he went quiet,no more postings at all in the thread.

    Here is the beginning 1/3 of my comment,I was angry with his repeated use of Red Herrings against me in his comments.

    ” Sunsettommy
    September 27, 2017 at 9:53 am Edit

    Nick, this is my complaint about you, is that you try to make it appear that I argue that the 1974 data is comparable to modern data. That it is superior or complete. You basically talk too much about stuff I didn’t bring up. You must be hungry for fish,since YOU posted a number of Red Herrings against me.

    Here is my FIRST comment about the chart,

    “Nick, the 1974 NCAR line is real,as it was in an old Newsweek magazine back in 1974:”

    (Posted the chart)

    You later say,

    “Indeed so. How does it help to say that we’re comparing modern GISS land/ocean to 1974 land only, and that somehow proves the data has been tortured (original claim) or GISS has fudged it or whatever?”

    My position all along has been that the 1974 chart is real and data for it is real,which YOU have never disproved once with evidence. You talked all around it a lot,but no evidence provided that it isn’t real. I NEVER said they were comparable to modern data at all,you try to put words into my mouth…., again! STOP IT!

    Here I give you evidence that it was Murray Mitchell who provided the data for that chart,that you whine so much about.

    Then Nick writes,

    “But the second shows what is claimed to be a NCAR plot, or at least based on NCAR data. That plot isn’t from any NCAR publication, and the data is not available anywhere. Instead it is from the famous Newsweek 1975 article on “global cooling”.

    It has been answered at Tony’s site that you avoid commenting in.

    Douglas Hoyt,at Tony’s blog writes, https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted/#comment-66381

    “The NCAR plot is based largely on the work of J. Murray Mitchell, which was confirmed by Vinnikov and by Spirina. Spirina’s 5 year running mean looks a lot like the NCAR plot.

    See Spirina, L. P. 1971. Meteorol. Gidrol. Vol. 10, pp. 38-45. His work was reproduced by Budyko in his book Climatic Changes on page 73, published in 1977”

    Richard Verney, showed the NAS chart,showing a striking similarity with NCAR chart, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/26/gavins-twitter-trick/#comment-2621480

    Gee, it might be based on the same 1974 Northern Hemisphere data………..

    Nick goes on with his manufactured whining,

    “They are just different things. And it’s no use saying that they are using Land only because they couldn’t get marine data. This sort of fudging is just not honest.”

    NEVER said they were the same thing,why do you try so hard to make a Red Herring on this? Besides that it was over the first chart (NOT NCAR) when you whined about Land only or land/ocean database babble.

    You write,

    “The first GISS plot is not the usual land/ocean data; it’s a little used Met Stations only, essentially an update of a 1987 paper. I don’t know if it’s right.”

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.