Nick Stokes Busted : Part 5

Nick and Zeke’s favorite justification for NOAA data tampering, which turns US cooling into warming – is “changing station composition” – i.e. the set of USHCN stations isn’t identical from year to year. In this post I examine that rationalization.

Rather than attempting to adjust the temperatures, let’s do a much more rigorous experiment – and simply use a set of stations which haven’t changed. There are 747 US stations which were continuously active over the past century. Examining them, they show exactly the same pattern as the set of all stations.

Using the set of 747 unchanging stations, maximum temperatures have declined over the past century – just like they do in the set of all stations.

Here is the equivalent NOAA “adjusted” graph for all stations. NOAA has turned cooling into warming via data tampering.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Looking at the set of 747 unchanging stations, the first hot day of summer is coming later.

The last hot day of summer is coming earlier.

The frequency of hot  days is declining.

We can already see that the adjustments are garbage. But lets’s proceed.

Now let’s try using a set of monthly data which is randomly chosen from month to month, so the station composition is changing dramatically every month. This experiment shows the exact same patterns as the set of all stations, indicating that the USHCN raw data is very robust, and changing station composition has little impact on patterns.

Now let’s try using only even numbered USHCN stations. Again, we see the same pattern as the set of all stations.

Now let’s do the same thing for odd numbered stations. Again, the same pattern.

Finally, let’s look at the same set of graphs for all USHCN stations. Again, exactly the same patterns.

In the past, Gavin Schmidt at NASA has stated that we don’t need very many US stations to make a robust temperature record – and he was correct. The USHCN stations were chosen precisely because they were robust.

Obviously there are deterministic ways we could force changing station composition to impact the trend (like intentionally removing southern states after the year 1970) – but the random changes to USHCN station composition over time have very little impact on the trend.  Nick and Zeke are simply using that as a smokescreen for NOAA to hide their data tampering fraud.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Nick Stokes Busted : Part 5

  1. Gerald Machnee says:

    747 – that is a familiar number!!

  2. Steve Case says:

    Twenty-five graphs. Is that the most for any one of Tony’s posts?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      … they gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?

    • Tom says:

      Steve, what is your point?

      Each graph that I reviewed was pertinent and instructive. The use of even and odd numbered stations was a simple, easily understood, and an independent random data set and was quite clever. In a macro sense, it should adjust for hot (and/or cold) outliers in the homogeneous result. Don’t you want to see them? Which graph do you think is extraneous and should be deleted and why?

      If you have objections about the data, methodology, results or interpretation then we (I) are ready, willing and able to weigh what you say.

      • Steve Case says:

        Maybe I should have said, “WOW – Twenty-five graphs!” That represents a lot of work.

        I put up graphs from time to time and my production of those things isn’t anywhere near the what Tony does. I admire what he does. Some day he’s going to be regarded as a National treasure.

        When I can, I check his stuff out – and it’s on the money. When it comes to the theory of Global Warming/Climate Change – he’s a one-man wrecking crew.

  3. jackson says:

    Interesting experiment.
    Nice work.

  4. kyle_fouro says:

    Isn’t their method bogus regardless because of the fact that it requires so much “quality control” to begin with? I personally would like to see how many statisticians approve of how things are currently done

  5. sunsettommy says:

    Nick Stokes, suddenly vanished when I posted HARD evidence that USHCN is not obsolete,in fact is still being fully updated DAILY for Minimum/Maximum temperature,Precipitation and T average.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      They just play climate science bop it until someone happens to bring forth a hard fact (like you did) that pushed them into a corner.

      “Homogenize it, adjust it, obsolete it, compare it, etc”

    • angech says:

      sunsettommy says:
      October 7, 2017 at 5:24 pm
      Nick Stokes, suddenly vanished when I posted HARD evidence that USHCN is not obsolete.
      Only from sight.
      He is still out there in the ether reading your words and ready to go on a different subject.
      Thank you for straightening out the drivel.

    • richard says:

      If you follow the comments section in certain newspapers, in the environment section, you will find a few names that write exactly like our friend Nick- he is a busy man.

  6. Andy DC says:

    Even I know enough to realize that you need a surprisingly small sample size to discern a meaningful trend.

  7. GW Smith says:

    Great job, Tony! I love to see you destroy their most infamous charts.

  8. Adamant de-Nye-er says:

    Well done, and a good demonstration of statistical principles as well.

  9. TedL says:

    This is actually quite serious. What Tony has done is perform a forensic audit of the US data as presented on the “Climate at a glance” site using the underlying daily data which Tony asserts has escaped adjustment. Tony’s results are dramatically different from what you get at Climate-at-a-glance. You are left with two possible conclusions – Tony’s software generates bogus results or Climate-at-a-glance is wrong. Tony has made his code available to all and thus far nobody has pointed out any bugs that would reverse the longterm trend from that shown on Climate-at-a-glance. So all you climate alarmists get to work looking at Tony’s code. I don’t have the expertise to conduct such a review, but the deafening silence from the other side on this matter leads me to conclude that the fault will not be found in Tony’s software. Thus it is more likely that Climate-at-a-glance is wrong, a conclusion that readers of this blog arrived at a long time ago. So the next interesting question is whether the Climate-at-a-glance records are simply erroneous, or are intended to perpetrate a fraud, the latter possibility being something long time readers of this blog have also likely concluded. Fraud is harder to prove, but given the ease with which a third party – Tony – was able to demonstrate that the Climate-at-a-glance records are wrong, it seems inescapable that the keepers of those records are, at a minimum, grossly negligent.

  10. angech says:

    Tony persists in using the data sets that USHCN says are real when even the ones they claim are consistently active are not, some, a lot, are infilled as well.
    ZEke put these discrepancies down to death and retirement of operators at many of the more rural/ difficult sites and equipment failure.
    At one stage in winter ? 5 years ago there were less than valid 700 reporting stations so 747 cannot be right. Stations that are offline, that have been retired or lost their operator are made up with data from neighbouring often not USHCN sites to keep the “validity” of the original sites “intact” as otherwise USHCN cannot fulfill its claim to be an ongoing continuous recording site.
    A lot of the data base used at one stage originally was not the full 1218/1219 stations but a subgroup of approx 500 stations. Not sure if this is still the case.

    • RW says:

      Sounds like more dust as Tony might say.

      These graphs show, as Tony has essentially said, that there is more than enough redundancy in this Goliath of a data set to render the ‘issue’ of temporal inconsistency in a subset of stations a total non-issue.

      This is rudimentary statistics. The station locations literally dot the entirety of the u.s. You can ditch half the data set and still get virtually the same result.

      Next step is to trace the adjustments (or model them). We need to know beyond reasonable doubt whether or not the adjustments are nothing but data torture and data snooping.

      Maybe machine learning / multivariate pattern analysis might help.

      What is the data-driven answer to the question “what makes a station’s data more or less likely to be removed or included and if so, adjusted and by how much?” And does the data driven answer match the answer provided by NOAA?

      • rw says:

        Some good ideas here. Reminds me of some sleuthing done on the Soal-Shakelton ESP data years ago, showing how Soal had fixed the results by changing Shakelton’s 1-guesses into 5’s when the target was a 5. (Earlier, it was shown that the pattern of results failed some statistical tests, which didn’t prove the data were corrupt but allowed for that possibility – but I can’t remember the details.) It won’t be as easy to establish anything in this case, but techniques like the ones you suggest might come up with something.

        From a psychological point of view, my guess is that they avoid direct alterations, relying on automatic procedures suitably applied. That way they can among other things kid themselves about what they’re doing.

        In general I like the way that Tony uses data. Earlier, I was quite taken by the use of frequency of days > k degrees (which of course should show the same trends as the aggregated (aka “average”) temperature).

  11. Ben Vorlich says:

    I’m curious, has anyone actually identified from the data when something changed at these stations? For example there must have been more than one operator taking the readings, it is more than likely that equipment was changed. I’d expect that, if there was a serious problem, it would be detectable when compared to neighbouring stations. If such an event has been identified has it been traced back to see what changed.

    That’s what I’d do if I was checking the validity of the data, not assume that the readings were taken by incompetents who aren’t as good at taking measurements as I am.

  12. d says:

    If the raw data shows cooling, but yet 42% of NOAA stations were stationed “hot” and now have been adjusted still hotter, how can the true temperatures be known?

    https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-800

    D

  13. Gary_STC says:

    Great work by Tony as usual. The type of supporting data you would expect someone to present to prove their position. Why haven’t we seen it from the AGW folks?
    The data presented by Tony is fully supported by the raw data from our local station. Here in Minnesota the counter by the AGW folks is “yea but our winters are warmer, shorter and not as cold and that proves climate change”. Since 5 of 12 of the warmest winters occurred here since 2000, on the surface, it’s kind of hard to argue against that position. I have not, nor am I qualified, to develop an irrefutable statistical counter such as Tony has done. I have taken an average of the annual mean temps for the years 1900-16 and 2000-16 and the difference is only .6°F. This would seem to say that any warmer cold season temps are being offset by the cooler warm season temps? Tony? Anyone?

    • menicholas says:

      It is well known among climate realists that what is happening is the winter and nighttime are becoming less cold, summers and daytime less hot. etc.
      This is superimposed on any other trends which have occurred.
      At least part of this is likely land use changes…more buildings and pavement, less trees and forests, etc.

  14. Rob says:

    All I see is that temperatures are getting back to where they were in that early 20th century period. There is no long term warming or cooling as it goes up and down.

    I don’t agree at all with saying there is cooling because if there was cooling then the mean line wouldn’t be higher than it was some decades ago. It’s obvious right now there is some warming but it followed a period of cooling. Just like people shouldn’t say there has been continual century long warming, people shouldn’t say there is still cooling because of what happened in the 60s/70s.

    The whole climate debate stuff is just so silly. I don’t know why it is so hard for everyone to just say things fluctuate and there have and will be periods of warming and periods of cooling as the data clearly shows. Right now we are in a period of warming (though not as drastic as the climate fraudsters try and claim it is) but it’s not like it has been warming for 100+ years and history shows there is no certainty it is going to continue.

  15. richard verney says:

    Tony

    This is really good.

    How about following this up with a further sub-set, namely using just the CRN1 category sited stations from the 747 stations. no doubt, it is relatively easy to identify the CRN1 stations from Anthony’s surface station project.

    This should help remove problems with urbanisation.

    I would then suggest 2 further subsets, based upon TOB. Those that have TOB in the morning, and those that have TOB in the afternoon.

    Ome needs to eliminate all excuses for adjustments so that the RAW data is the most appropriate matrix rather than some form of adjusted corruption of the RAW data.

    I

  16. CheshireRed says:

    I wonder how many times Nick has scrolled through and read this post and btl comments. He must be quietly seething. C’mon Nick, man up. Either engage or if TH is right, acknowledge as such.

    • sunsettommy says:

      He told me he has looked at the links to Tony’s post about Nick being exposed.

      My last post WUWT destroyed Nick, who suddenly left the subject. I had convincingly exposed him as a liar,since he kept saying USHCN was obsolete,when Tony had stated several times that it was actually being updated DAILY. Nick kept saying it was obsolete anyway,which is a lie!!

      I posted the link to a file showing that the USHCN database was being updated daily for Precipitation,max/min temperature and T average.

      That is when he shuts up and run away.

      • richard verney says:

        Nick’s point that USHCN had become obsolete in 2012, or 2014 was always a bad point, since what Tony was showing was that the US was warmer in the past (especially around the 1930s) and has cooled since then. It makes no significant difference to the point that temperatures have been cooling, if the cooling runs through to 2012, or to 2014, or to 2016.

        Also the fact that the data set became obsolete in 2012 (or whenever) would make no difference to the fact that the historic data is constantly being changed.

        In short, there was never anything of substance in the point that Nick was making, even had that point been true 9which it is not).

        But Nick is right that there is a problem with the change in the composition of the stations over time. However, this is something that pervades all the time series temperature reconstructions (NOAA, NASA/GISS, and HadCru) and renders the time series reconstructions meaningless. The way these series are compiled, we can never know whether it is warmer today than it was in the late 1930s/1940s, or for that matter in around 1880, simply because the stations that make up the 2016 temperature anomaly are the same stations as made up the 1940s temperature anomaly, which in turn are not the same stations that made up the 1880 anomaly.

        At no point in time are we comparing like with like. we need to make a comparison with point by point measurements, not some homogenized, infilled, kriged, spatially adjusted global construct.

    • Rah says:

      We no that he won’t acknowledge his errors/deceptions or directly engage.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      They remind us daily that it’s not about science, don’t they?

  17. Rah says:

    Know not no. Damn this phone.

  18. Cheeseburger McFreedomman says:

    WOW this article opened my eyes to the secretive ways of all the reptilians of NASA and their underlings such as Nick!
    Thanks brother! We should watch the next wrestlemania together whilst circlejerking over aliens and their connections to God!
    Did you know that Obama did 9/11? I’m sure you did, brother, it’s so obvious!
    Also last night my dog ate my lube so I’m out for a few weeks, so we’ll have to reschedule this circle jerk to a later date
    I love you babycakes
    8========D

  19. The apple does not fall very far from the tree. Chelsea Clinton is a chip off the old block so it seems likely that she will become a “Leader” in the Democrat party while it spends the next 40 years in the wilderness looking for an idea that will benefit the American people.

    Of course I am assuming that the Republican party will wake up and get behind Donald Trump and his agenda. With Mitch and Paul in charge the GOP may once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by betraying their voters yet again.

  20. David M. says:

    Devastating critique of Nick & Zeke. Very understandable. Comprehensive. Methodologically valid. Many thanks.

    Following is a suggestion for another analysis. The suggested analysis should expose a serious flaw in official temperature adjustments, and enhance the 4 part critique of Nick Stokes, et. al. Form a set of temperature stations whose readings have been influenced over time by urban heat island effects. Form a second set where the surroundings today closely resemble the surroundings 50+ years ago. The latter are NOT influenced by changing urban heat island effects. Tony already has formed these two sets, if memory serves correctly.

    Differences between representative values for one set and comparable values for the other set should approximate an appropriate adjustment for the urban heat island effect. For the sake of clarity, representative values could be the means for each set, the median…My expectation is the difference will be OPPOSITE the “Mann-made” distortions of the official temperature estimates.

    Keep up the great work, please.

  21. DR says:

    sunsettommy,
    where is the link to your expose’ of Nick Stokes at WUWT? I’ve always found him to be very disingenuous at the least. Anthony, the gentleman that he is, avoided saying what we all know what Nick is.

    If anyone has the link to tommy’s post please post it.

    • RAH says:

      Anthony told Griff where to get off in a most direct way.

      Griff October 6, 2017 at 12:54 am
      This has no connection with climate or climate science and I am dismayed to see it on this site.
      [Ed, See here’s the thing, and there’s really no way of getting around this – I don’t care what you think. When you get your own site, you can run it as you see fit. In the meantime, tough noogies. – Anthony Watts]

  22. David A says:

    “disingenuous” is a very apt description of what Nick S does every time logic pins him into a corner.

Leave a Reply

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