Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Please help with a gift by clicking the button below.
- Jeff L. on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- czechlist on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- conrad ziefle on Skynet Becomes Self-Aware
- Robert Austin on Red Hot Germany
- Disillusioned on The Worst Crisis Ever
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
New Video : How Homogenization Destroys Climate Science
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Beautifully done, very interesting. If only someone had the time to do the same to all the temp stations.
Of course in Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass, it is mostly all estimated.
Yep. Virtually no stations in the interior. All the red on the NASA map is pulled from a dark smelly place.
Homogenization causes corruption – clearly! Thanks, Tony!
One of the mechanisms that enabled the embezzlement of trillions of dollars, nicely exposed Tony.
Tony, this was excellent! Thank you!
I wonder how many of the alarmists take the time to watch these videos.
I can’t get any alarmist (so far) to bother with anything that might challenge their POV. Mind made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.
Yes, I see the same thing. Even when they say, “if you think you can prove it, then send me some links!” Of course I send them, but then they never read them.
Interpolation to infill places without data
Selective decertification of stations
Very poor siting of numerous weather stations
Any other ways they distort the temperature data and records? Movement of reporting stations to the south in US perhaps?
They have proven they will do whatever they can. It’s a travesty that it is in our faces. Even more so that so many do not recognize it.
rah, I recall that computer algorithms make monthly changes to the historical record, often lowering the past by one or two hundredths of a degree in many areas, with ZERO physical reason for these changes.
Indeed. I was once told that “they explain ever change they make!” I said, “OK, then show me the justification for just one single year, say, oh, 1895. What new information have they recently obtained that justifies changing the data collected in 1895?” No surprise, but I never got an answer.
As Tony has shown, they incrementally change a bit here, another bit there, slowly, patiently, then change the same data a little bit more and a little bit more…
I wish. That. I knew what I know now. When I was younger.
Ooh la la.
For consistency sake, when they adjust the data to cool the PAST, they ought to call it PASTeurization. That would make it safe to consume. (lol)
1) How do we know even the rural station measurements are any good? Are there micro-site biases at those stations?
2) They ‘homogenize’ towards warming the rural stations by blending in the urban. This clearly causes the rural stations to appear warming. But, isnt the flip side there as well, do they homogenize the urban stations to show less warming than the raw data would otherwise show?
Any station, no matter where it is, that has it’s reading directly effected by UHI or mechanical means such as jet or vehicle exhaust, A/C exhaust, human caused radiant heat, focused solar energy, etc, is not giving an accurate reading of the ambient temperature and thus is worthless for the purpose of making an accurate evaluation of weather and thus also worthless for evaluating climate.
1) Anything is better than UHI corrupted sites.
Excellent post , as usual .
Here in Australia Joanne Nova has been doing an excellent job highlighting the shocking number of non compliant thermometer locations used by our Bureau of Meteorology. The below is one example;
The BOM knows all about these stations but does not bother to shut them down or replace them as they support their own “data homogenisation” program.
Funny, in the food business where I work , if you don’t comply you get shut down. I am a compliance auditor so I know what I am talking about. In climate, there are no consequences for bad practices, bad data or just plain bad science.
The graphs you’re showing of the homogenized vs. raw data don’t just contain homogenization adjustments, from the data pages they contain quality control procedures, NCEI adjustments for station moves and non-climatic effects, and finally homogenization to account for urban effects. If you compare the cleaned to the cleaned+homogenized series for the rural stations, you can see that the homogenization has no effect on the trend at all. All the the change in trend is a result of other adjustments. Click back and forth between the “GHCN v4 adj – cleaned” and “GHCN v4 adj – homogenized ” buttons to see what I mean.
When you do the same for the urban station, you can see that the homogenization adjustment lowers the warming trend and makes the series look more like the ones from the rural stations.
Isn’t that precisely what NASA claims the homogenization is doing? Specifically when they say, “GHCN-adj-homogenized: adjusted, cleaned data, homogenized by GISS to account for urban effects.” It seems that homogenization leaves rural stations alone and remove urban bias from urban stations.
Your claim is complete nonsense. The NASA web page shows very clearly that most of the claimed warming at Rocha is due to homogenization.
This is a fair observation, and my descriptionf owhat homogenization is doing was inaccurate. Homogenization isn’t merely making urban stations look like rural ones, it’s making individual stations look more like the other stations in the region. In general this will remove effects of urbanization where they are present in urban stations, but may still effect rural stations, like Rocha.
And I think in this case it’s clear what homogenization is doing. Rocha is missing data from ~1930-1940, and, after initial cleaning but before homogenization, there is a large trend-change that is not present in any other nearby stations with records during that period. It’s very unlikely then that this trend change represents any real climate signal, so removing it during homogenization seems appropriate.
Again, it seems to me that the homogenization process is doing exactly what NASA claims it’s doing. No reason to suspect anything nefarious.
Really? A cooling trend becomes a warming trend after “homogenization”, and there is no reason to suspect anything?
I have some properties I would love to sell you.
Long-term climate trends are regional. This is intuitive. It would be very odd to have a climatic cooling trend centered over a small geographic area when none of the nearby locations experienced that same trend. Such an occurrence would almost certainly mean the cooling trend is an artifact of some non-climatic effect (station move, land-use change, etc).
This is especially true for Rocha given that the cooling trend is broken by a data gap – something definitely happened in this station’s history around that time that was non-climate related. It would be exceedingly weird to have an abrupt change in climate trend right in a single small geographic area right at the time when the station wasn’t recording measurements.
We can discuss whether or not this kind of homogenization is approrpiate to be doing, and I think that kind of discussion is really interesting and worth having, but it seems undeniable that the homogenization algorithm is just doing exactly what NASA claims that it’s doing – making single stations look more like the regional whole – and not something nefarious. That is, it’s fixing weird stuff like in the Rocha series and removing artifacts of urbanization as in the Buenos Aires series.
Long-term climate trends are regional.
WTF? They can be, but they are not necessarily regional. Where do you get this nutty idea?
Such an occurrence would almost certainly mean the cooling trend is an artifact of some non-climatic effect (station move, land-use change, etc).
No Al, what it suggests loudly is that UHI has corrupted the majority of data, and that it needs to be removed. The nationwide trend is very clear, until “homogeniszation”. Even a child can understand this.
How much of a UHI adjustment are they making? That’s the first question you should be asking.
And how do you think GHCN “adjust”, Mr Jones?
They do it by homogenisation with other stations, like Buenos Aires!
The final homogenisation step is simply one that GISS add on the the GHCN adjustments.
Why bother with these weather stations at all if the real data that they present is used in this corrupt fashion?
Why not have just one virtual station driven by the ‘Climate Models™’ and extrapolate all others temperature data from that? Then scientist can remake the the temperatures anything they wish, while the sheeple shiver at home, pretending the propaganda is correct, that the climate has got much warmer, wetter, dryer, stormier, etc.
With the record of our certain future comrades, we toil on to ensure our glorious history will be written yet.
All you have to do is prove with a simple experiment that their physics is wrong. You can do so with multiple electric bar radiators and a thermometer. You can also do a study showing wet regions are cooler than dry regions as I did in the Appendix of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
It is far easier to prove their physics wrong than to argue about temperature data.
Watch for eight minutes my talk to scientists and others outside Parliament House, Canberra – excuse the wind noise on the mike. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE or, for more detail, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
All you have to do is prove with a simple experiment that their physics is wrong. You can do so with multiple electric bar radiators and a thermometer. You can also do a study showing wet regions are cooler than dry regions as I did in the Appendix of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”