Fake Temperature Records At Wikipedia

In order to hide past heat, Wikipedia pulls a couple of dirty tricks.  They report the most recent year a record temperature was reached, instead of the first year. This skews the graph to favor recent UHI affected temperatures, and hides past heat.

U.S. state temperature extremes – Wikipedia

But the real dirty trick is using bogus temperatures.  The official temperature at Pierre, South Dakota on July 15, 2006 was 116 degrees – four degrees cooler than the Wikipedia claimed temperature, and four degrees cooler than the actual South Dakota record heat of 120 degrees on July 5, 1936. There weren’t any USHCN stations in South Dakota close to 120 degrees on July 15, 2006, but there were two on July 5, 1936.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Fake Temperature Records At Wikipedia

  1. mkelly says:

    I checked your link and was curious about my wife’s home state of Maine. The spreadsheet showed North Bridgton, Maine as having the highest temperature with an *. The * meaning it was a tie from an earlier date. The date of the highest was 1911. So looking into it I found that the 1911 temp is a tie with an 1896 temperature. Both heat waves were 10-14 days in length. There are 3 highs listed for New England states from 1911.

    2000 people died from the 1911 heat wave.

    My wife just happens to be from Bridgton so I found it interesting.

  2. Jeff Jones says:

    Wikipedia is somewhat useful as a starting point for information gathering. For non-controversial topics (history of an auto maker, stats for a sports star, etc.), it is usually a good source. However it is a totally un-refereed site so ANYONE can edit ANY post there. Thus for controversial topics my experience is read Wiki then assume it is 180deg from the truth and you probably have the facts straight. The radical left-wing propagandists control it.

  3. Cam says:

    I did a little check on the edit history. It was entered in 2004 as “Gann Valley”. It was then edited by a Jesse Whidden on 17 July 2016 and for the longest time, it was reading 120 F at “Usta (near)”. Then on 3 May 13, someone through a router in Carlsbad, Cal changed it to “Usta (near)/Fort Pierre”. Then on 25 Jun 17, someone else changed it back to “Gann Valley”. All of these had the high temperature of 120F on 5 July 1936. Finally, on 13 Oct 17, wiki user Debean changed it to “Fort Pierre”. Here is the telling comment Debean left behind – “Editing Wikipedia is just a waste of time. It has grown too big and certain influences has taken over.” Take EVERYTHING on Wikipedia with a grain of salt and verify from more reliable sources.

    • arn says:

      As soon as something grows big and important enough
      on a national or international scale
      people of “interrest” will sent their minions to make use of it.

      And wikipedia has kind of world wide monopol
      so one can be sure that the base will be eroded over time and replaced by people who have the same world views and opinions.

      (that’s why we have “unified” and monopolised opinions among certain groups of people(eg. hollywood stars) while you have a completely different and much more diverse view and mindset among common people.)

    • Johansen says:

      This is investigative reporting at its BEST! As I keep saying, it’s on forums like this one that the real research and synthesis is taking place…. in many fields…. and it’s being done by educated hobbyists working out of their spare bedroom

    • Nutation_discombobulation says:

      Yes I second that!
      I used to financially support them until I found out they had deleted the entry pertaining to Ralph Juergens.
      Some will remember the William CONnolley affair too, from what I’ve seen selective editing and misrepresentation of facts is still ongoing, even leaning towards a leftist ideology is evident.

      Here’s some info on CONnolley and wiki for those unfamiliar with it.
      https://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/12/20/wikipedia/

  4. Andy DC says:

    There were also 3 stations in North Dakota that read 121, 120 and 119 on 7/5/36, so the very extreme heat on that date was very well documented.

  5. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Not exactly on topic, but thought it interesting and wanted to share since I can post a slide.

    Above a pH of 7.0 a solution is alkaline and becomes more or less alkaline.
    Below a pH of 7.0 a solution is acidic and becomes more or less acidic.

    The ocean’s pH is about 8.1. That’s alkaline. Variations are more or less alkaline, not more or less acidic. The obvious reason for incorrectly using the term “ocean acidification” is a propaganda gambit to scare the gullible and uninformed who associate acid with bad, like alien blood and spit.

    Highly alkaline compounds such as caustic soda can be just as dangerous as acidic compounds, e.g. concentrated bleach, sodium hypochlorite, pH 9 to 13. On the other hand: rain has a pH of 4.5, lemon juice has a pH of 2.0, tomatoes a pH of 4.5, and vinegar a pH of 2.2. If they get on your hands the flesh doesn’t melt and they don’t burn a hole in the kitchen counter.

    A pH of 6 is a weak acid and its chemical reactivity is very low.
    A pH of 7 is neutral and its chemical reactivity is zero.
    A pH of 8 is a weak base and its chemical reactivity is very low.

    A solution goes from pH 0.0, dangerous acidity, to pH 7.0, completely harmless, to pH 14.0, dangerous alkalinity.

    A change from 8.2 to 8.1 is a -26% change in the direction of lower alkalinity, not more acidity.
    But a change from 9.0 to 8.0 is a -900% change in the direction of lower alkalinity.
    Applying percentages to a logarithmic scale is very dicey.
    Makes the -26% look pretty trivial – which it is.

    So, 8.1 is moving in the direction of slightly more nothing from 8.2 which is not much to begin with.

    Improperly using the term ocean “acidification” to scare the public over bogus CAGW is a disgrace to science. Spit out the Kool-Aid and grow a backbone.

    • Jeff Jones says:

      They can burn you though. I had a vintage brass chandelier that had badly oxidized so I decided to shin it up. I heard catsup was an excellent treatment for this problem so I soaked the brass parts in catsup for a day two. I then wire brushed the pickled parts and washed them off and they were bright and shiny, good or better then new. But WOW my hands were burned by the condiment!!

      • Johansen says:

        Dilute HCl works best on rust removal. In my chemistry class we compare HCl, H3PO4, acetic acid, nitric, and sulfuric on very-rusty bolts. HCl wins…. Take some of your brass and carefully drop it in concentrated nitric acid (do it outside). Very interesting result. Also, if you want to clean aluminum wheels fast, try acetic acid but make sure it’s dilute and rinse it off right away.

        • Johansen says:

          Sorry, I meant some of your “scrap” brass. Don’t put good brass in nitric:(

        • RAH says:

          “Also, if you want to clean aluminum wheels fast, try acetic acid but make sure it’s dilute and rinse it off right away.”

          Truck washes use it for the aluminum wheels and the bright on the steps and utility deck. It works well the first couple times but in the long run it dulls the polished aluminum. The only way to make and keep the polished aluminum wheels and uncoated trim shining in the long run is polishing it.

    • spike55 says:

      A guy from WUWT took all the surface reading available everywhere, and got a trend of essentially ZERO

      • Johansen says:

        Someone on this forum pointed out that the top 10 feet (3 m) of the oceans contain the same amount of dissolved CO2 as the *entire* 6-mile atmosphere contains…. and the average ocean depth is what, 2 miles…. with the point being it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to impact the ocean’s pH from the atmosphere in a meaningful way

        • R. Shearer says:

          Over the long term, I think you are correct. Only over short time scales can the surface pH be impacted if at all.

        • spike55 says:

          Not to mention that much of the ocean floor and surrounds is carbonates or basic rocks like limestone or basalt

    • Johansen says:

      Okay, but keep in mind pH is just the -log of the H+ (better: H30+) concentration itself, so your critics are going to counter by saying that going from 8.2 to 8.1 is indeed an increase in H+ concentration…. which it is….

    • spike55 says:

      “A change from 8.2 to 8.1 is a -26% change in the direction of lower alkalinity”

      And to become neutral, requires a further change on some -1800%
      (from memory because I couldn’t be bothered doing a simple calculation )

    • R. Shearer says:

      Nicholas, I generally agree but would make the following caveats. Ascribing reactivity to acid/base strength is not strictly true. It depends on what the other reactants might be. For instance, even a very dilute acid at pH just below 7 will dissolve marble or will react with a strong base. Of course, all things being equal the lower/higher the pH the more reactive.

      With regard to pH 8.2 to 8.1, there are still hydrogen ions present below pH = 7, just at very low concentrations. pH = -log[H+]. So, [H+] = 1E-7 (0.0000001) at pH=7 and 1E-8 at pH=8. So, it is true that [H+] is 26% lower going from pH 8.2 to 8.1, but that’s not acidity. At pH = 14, [H+] = 1E-14.

      By the same token, going from pH 8 to 7, there is an order of magnitude increase in [H+], an increase of 1000%.

      Whether something is acidic or not is relative to whether it’ll give up [H+] to whatever bases are present.

  6. frederik wisse says:

    Apparently a certain mr connolly was reconstructing the data placed in Wikipedia by innocuous outsiders . This gentleman , probably financed by leftist ngos , made it his job to change all Wikipedia- inserts about weatherand climate in such a way that the agw – narrative would remain intact .As long as Wikipedia does not publish who is the real last author of all texts and does not exclude known charlatans from their surveys it will remain a very doubtful source of information , which should be viewed as such .
    Tony is a much more reliable source beyond any doubt .

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      You can look up some topics in wikipedia, but ignore anything related to climate, as it is usually altered if it started out as fact.
      Whodunit? only one guess required.

  7. Gamecock says:

    The SC number is queer as a 3 dollar bill. I complained to the governor about it.

    The wiki listing says Camden. It’s not, it Columbia in Richland County.

    The state (DNR) does ratify the reading as the state record.

    http://dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/ClimateData/data/max_temp_table.php

    The reading was taken at the USC campus weather station. Located on the north lawn of Bates House, a jock dorm. Look it up on Google Earth. Enter ‘Bates House’ for location, and it will take you there. It is 18 yards from a railroad bed. It is 25 yards from on street parking. In broader view, it is a very urban area.

    It is a good location for a school station. It is a ludicrous station for a state record.

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.