New York Times Explains Why The Global Temperature Record Is Useless

In a previous blog post, I showed how the New York Times is hiding all the hot weather prior to 1960.

The New York Times has responded to this criticism, by stating that there isn’t much data in most of the world before 1950, due to poor station coverage.

This map from the NOAA Global Historical Climatology Network confirms the New York Times assertion.  Outside the US, there is very little high quality data prior to 1950.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png

Here in the US, the story is completely different. There was more data available every year of the past century than there was in 2018.

So there is no excuse for for them cherry-picking a start date of 1960 for US stations, failing to point out that the frequency of hot days has declined sharply in the US as CO2 has increased, and not mentioning that their projections of increasing hot days has no scientific basis.

But what they did get correct, is their assertion that the global temperature data prior to 1950 is inadequate for use in statistics, and shouldn’t be graphed. This is what I have been saying for the past dozen years, and I greatly appreciate them confirming my work.

graph.png (1130×600)

The pre-1960 data which the New York Times is hiding in the US shows that the past was much hotter. Without adequate coverage elsewhere, there is no reason to believe the same trend didn’t occur in other parts of the world. The New York Times is making a very strong argument against the credibility of the global temperature graphs – which serve as the basis of the EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding. This will be very helpful.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to New York Times Explains Why The Global Temperature Record Is Useless

  1. Emslander says:

    In other words, Global Warming? – Never Mind!

    • Paul Huck says:

      Whole thing is based on fake science. Science is mans attempt to understand God’s Nature. It evolves every day. They ( Obama) tell us it is set science. No such thing. Sceience evolves every day.
      They just don’t eantcto seecthextryth. GW fanatics are very gullible.

  2. Bob Hoye says:

    Well, at least you have one person at The NYT squirming a little.
    In the meantime, Snow cover Extent for North America has stayed above the high-side of the standard deviation band.
    For, now, the third consecutive melt season.
    Possibly, again, in October the DMI will have to write another special comment on it.
    In the meantime, the last couple of days have recorded a sharp increase in snow cover for North America. Enough such that it also shows in the chart for the Northern Hemisphere.

    http://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow-tracker/na-sce.png

  3. MrGrimnasty says:

    The complacent arrogant alarmists will never get it, it doen’t matter how carefully you work out the lie, the truth always shoots you in the foot eventually.

    • Wayne Schmitt says:

      Pronouns! did you mean ‘they’? I (the you in your comment is me) don’t even read the NYT.

    • Warren Brooks says:

      As was stated by a high ranking member of the IPCC, this has nothing to do with climate change or global warming, but is about global socialism. Scaring people into giving up their rights and sovereignty for the one world order.

    • F Sion says:

      Someone writes one or two blogs, using terminology that Joe Public understands, and lo and behold, the ones who are, undoubtedly not based on any real and relevant scientific expertise, ‘convinced’ anthropogenic climate change is just a set of fake theories (endorsed by most relevant scientists mind you, if you can’t understand the meta studies that prove so like some oseudo-scuentists, please don’t bother) for whatever reason, come out and applaud the author of the blog, undoubtedly just because it supports their conviction and they can all go on and live their luxury, comfortable lives.

      • tonyheller says:

        Impressive gibberish.

        • Gator says:

          Not really. I would call it middle school gibberish. Clearly F Sion has not bothered to look at the science of climate change, because the leftist talking heads agree with the voices in her head.

          … just because it supports their conviction…

          Pure psychological projection.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Ah! I see that F Sion is a great fan of Finnegan’s Wake.

        On a more serious note, if that comment by F Sion is an accurate and representative example of his mental processes, I am not at all surprised that he believes in CAGW. The vocabulary is not bad, but the structure is so incoherent it would not pass 4th grade composition.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        F Sion,
        Wait…what?

      • McLovin' says:

        Dumb.

      • Alex MacMillan says:

        Nice sentence.

  4. -B- says:

    They always have an excuse. If these excuses were real then it wouldn’t always be such a beneficial cut off for their “theories”. The odds of it happening that way time and time again are staggering. After awhile the only viable assumption is that they pick a cut off and then fabricate a reason for it.

  5. Patrick says:

    That’s awesome! James Hansen and Michael Mann need to come forth along with all of the NASA and NOAA characters who have been bastardizing the temperature records with their computer generated climate model garbage. The best thing about computer models is that they are getting better on their 3-day forecasts and that’s about it.

    CHEERS!

    • srinivas nedunuri says:

      Lots of dittoheads cheering you on here, but just glancing at that last graph you show, how could you possibly claim it was generally hotter in the past (the red area)? With the exception of a brief spurt around the 1940s, that red line stays at or below 0 anomaly, compared with the current which is at +1! The spurt around 1940 is the anomaly. Incidentally what’s happening now is that a lot of these anomalies worlswide are now in sync – that’s what creating the weather extremes.

  6. AlJones1816 says:

    Tony, can you elaborate a bit on whether the data you’re using to determine number of days above 90 have been corrected for time of observation bias? If not, how would this effect counts of days above 90 in the historical record given that the switch in reporting from afternoon to morning would mean a sudden stop to double-counting hot days?

    If you look at your graph of days above 90 at Ithaca, it’s not a gradual decrease in number of days above 90, but an abrupt drop right around 1959. This drop doesn’t seem to have a climatic explanation, so it seems likely to me that this drop represents a change in reporting time or some other artifact.

    In fact if I look at the station data for Ithaca, it appears that there’s a huge TOBs adjustment before that period.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=425003041740&ds=5&dt=1

    • Gator says:

      That step clearly shows up in the US max temp graph…

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/USMaximumTemperatures_shadow-1.jpg

      So no, it’s not a TOBS issue, it is a nationwide trend.

      • ALJones1816 says:

        Time of observation bias is a nationwide trend, is it not?

        It would be useful if Tony could produce the same graph he shows above for Ithaca using the TOBs adjusted series to compare.

        • Gator says:

          No, it is not. TOBS is s fantasy adjustment created by the team that cannot get data straight.

          And Tony has many TOBS busting posts.

          https://realclimatescience.com/?s=TOBS

          Forget the fraudulent TOBS adjustments. How much does the fraud squad adjust for UHI?

          The term “heat island” describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C).

          https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands

          • AlJones1816 says:

            I will have to look through those posts to get a better picture of Heller’s position on TOBs adjustments, but as I understand it having an issue with the way the adjustments are made does not equate to having an issue with the presence of TOBs itself.

            It is undeniable that such a bias can exist – we know for a certainty that read times changed from afternoon to morning in the US, and we know for a certainty that afternoon reads can double-count warm days. This is incredibly important when you’re looking at counts of days above 90, as in Tony’s graph.

            You can argue that TOBs should be handled differently than NOAA or NASA does it, but I don’t see how you can argue that it wouldn’t play a significant role here.

            You can easily see how much the Ithaca data have been adjusted for UHI by clicking back and forth between the “GHCN adj – cleaned” and “GHCN adj – homogenized” tabs on the station’s NASA page:

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=425003041740&ds=5&dt=1

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            They adjust for it plenty, except they “accidently” adjusted for it exactly the wrong way…making the problem worse!
            There are also posts showing that the adjustment for UHI made warming appear to be greater.

          • Gator says:

            It is undeniable that such a bias can exist…

            Many things can exist, but a TOBS artifact is undetectable in the data, as Tony clearly illustrates.

            You can easily see how much the Ithaca data have been adjusted for UHI…

            Really? Where? How much? Is it at least 1.8F?

            Al, you really need to spend a few years doing your own research before you embarrass yourself with further comments.

          • Gator says:

            You can easily see how much the Ithaca data have been adjusted for UHI…

            Yeah, older less effected data is severely adjusted downward (go figure), while contemporary and heavily UHI corrupted data is barely moved. Maybe a tenth of a degree adjustment for modern UHI?! LOL

            I notice that you ignore the actual data, and only refer to artifacts of analysis. No wonder you are so very confused.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            Cold days would also be double counted if the people reading the thermometers did not notice that the high-low thermometer can give an errant result on certain days.
            They were intelligent human beings, not robots paying no attention to the weather and what was recorded.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            A1 Jones,
            Notice that the correction which they call homogenization cools the past. This is exactly the opposite of what you would do to adjust for UHI.
            You would cool the more recent years the most, and further back in time, the least.
            Or you just ignore places with large changes in land use where the temperature is being recorded.
            Becasue no one can account for it and correct for it with any confidence.
            We know what the purpose and result of the adjustments is: It is to make the temperatures match up with increasing CO2 content of the air, to support global warming theory.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Notice that the correction which they call homogenization cools the past. This is exactly the opposite of what you would do to adjust for UHI.
            You would cool the more recent years the most, and further back in time, the least.
            Or you just ignore places with large changes in land use where the temperature is being recorded.
            Becasue no one can account for it and correct for it with any confidence.
            We know what the purpose and result of the adjustments is: It is to make the temperatures match up with increasing CO2 content of the air, to support global warming theory.

            [not so] Funny how it works that way.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            Gator, you said, “Many things can exist, but a TOBS artifact is undetectable in the data, as Tony clearly illustrates.”

            I believe we have just detected TOBs in the data, that’s my entire point here. I’m not trying to argue for or against points about TOBs in the nationwide data series, I’m arguing that the Ithaca counts of days over 90 seem to be affected by it. I think Tony could provide some additional graphs that would clear the question up.

            As for the UHI adjustment at the Ithaca weather station, it would take a powerful argument to convince me that this weather station is in need of substantial UHI adjustment:

            https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4491563,-76.4492983,3a,88.5y,81.87h,73.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1o6K9fWgbYZh8ZQ1chfS0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

          • spike55 says:

            “I’m arguing that the Ithaca counts of days over 90 seem to be affected by it.”

            Rubbish.

            There is absolutely zero reason why time of day reading of max/min would affect the number of days over 90F

            Either you don’t comprehend time of day reading or you are living in a fantasy world.

          • Gator says:

            I believe we have just detected TOBs in the data,

            Some people believe Bigfoot is real, but I demand proof. Believe all you want, even wish for it to be true, but until it is fact I will not be a believer with you. Why do you deny facts Al?

            Did you not notice how close that station is to the asphalt road? And are you unaware that this site is right on the edge of the city? UHI does not respect property lines, it acts like concentric domes of increasing temperature as you approach the center of town, and foes effect outlying areas.

            So how much UHI adjustment does the fraud squad make for contemporary UHI, and why would the adjustment be larger for last temperatures?

            TOBS is just BS.

          • Jürgen says:

            @AIJones1816
            Look here:
            https://iowaclimate.org/2018/01/26/tobs-at-ithaca/
            “Can the massive temperature adjustments made in New York State be explained by TOBS, applied when observation times change?
            We have one very easy check. Temperature data at Cornell University, Ithaca has been read in the morning since at least 1949, just as it still is.”

          • AlJones1816 says:

            @Jürgen

            Thanks for the link. It prompted me to go look up the station history for Ithaca and it does indeed appear that morning reads were being made at the station as early as 1948.

            I also downloaded the daily station data for Elmira, NY, 30 miles south of Ithaca, and Auburn, NY, 30ish miles North, and plotted the number of days above 90 for each:

            https://imgur.com/a/iWYXnq1

            (hopefully the imgur link won’t get my comment automodded out).

            I don’t know what’s going on in Elmira, but the sudden drop in over 90 days does seem to be consistent between Elmira and Ithaca. All else being equal, I do think that means the 1959 drop represents some kind of real climate signal rather than being an artifact of TOBs. If that’s the case it really does look like the finger-lakes region did experience more over-90 days prior to 1950 than today.

            I’ve exhausted my enthusiasm for investigating this issue more, but it has been an interesting learning experience so far.

            Cheers.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            The drop in hot days is easily seen in unadjusted graphs pretty much coast to coast and north to south.
            Soend time here every day for a few years…go back and read archives…you can search any topic.
            Look at the older site at stevengoddard.wordpress.com
            It has another huge trove of posts detailing the climate liar’s shenanigans.
            I am curious that you seem to have changed your mind, after initially assuming for no discernable reason that Ithaca needed to have a TOB correction, or that somehow looking at homogenized temps was anything but a window into the vast fraud being perpetrated?
            Or why you know insist that no UHI adjustments are appropriate at a place which has had a massive increase in population and urbanization over the range of time covered by the temperature time series?
            The only places likely to be unaffected are pristine rural locales. Even places that have been long since urbanized, now hove far greater energy usage, more and larger buildings, and far more things like air conditioners that dump heat outside.
            The only way to even have an inkling is to compare any given site with others nearby that have had no land use changes.
            TOBs is a fraud, dreamed up and imposed with no proof that it is valid, or what the appropriate amount of alteration should be. As such, once original data is altered, it is not data anymore, it is someone’s possibly errant idea about what should have been. The people making all such adjustments are highly biased and have a strong desire force reality to conform with their notions of CO2 induced global warming.
            And the proof of this is to look at the analysis that Tony has done of the sum total of all adjustments, as well as the fact that all adjustments reinforce one specific trend…cooler in the past, warmer now and the more recent years.
            And the most galling thing: The now adjust the near term past the most of all! The past few years. The second largest alterations are for years in the distant past…well over a century ago, which erase epic hot periods that are documented historical facts of tremendous impact.
            You say:
            “I’ve exhausted my enthusiasm for investigating this issue more…”
            But only after finding out you had made incorrect assumptions, and found out the truth.
            For most of us here, the more we found out how deep the lies run, the more we want to know about the extent of it, and about what the facts are, what the truth is.
            The public is being misled, and not slightly.
            You seemed to have been unaware that the past could possibly have been hotter than recent years, which is because you have been exposed to liars spewing bullshit for many years.
            Those of us who have long been interested in this subject, and earth sciences in general, know full well that the past has had many periods far hotter than the present, both on the decadal scale, over centuries, millennia, and far longer than that.
            We also know our planet is half frozen, and no place is too hot for people to live, but large area are frozen wastelands. Our planet is too cold, and cold kills.
            Warmth is life.
            Look at the equatorial zones and then the poles, and think about where life prospers, and where everything dies?
            And about why people are lying to the whole world…and people are swallowing the lies with no questions?

          • AlJones1816 says:

            @Nicholas McGinley

            I changed my mind because the evidence didn’t support my hypothesis. I said that I’d exhausted my enthusiasm for looking into the issue because I think there’s a lot more to the story to be told, but the investigation was already taking up more of my free time than I can give.

            For instance I can see in the station history data that the Ithaca station was moved at least twice, one move seems to have changed its elevation, and I can see that in some of the years with big jumps in over-90 degrees days there is a lot of missing data – in fact NOAA doesn’t even use some years in the station’s records to generate annual averages because the daily records are too data sparse.

            If I had more time I’d go do a bunch of research into what adjustments are being applied to the station record and see if I can replicate the results myself and see if I feel that the adjustments are justified, maybe I can do that a bit this weekend.

        • Emslander says:

          Why are all the data on your adjusted graph changed to support the hoax?

        • spike55 says:

          “Time of observation bias is a nationwide trend”

          NO, its not. !

          It is a falsified assumption based on thinking people of the past were stupid.

          It is an INSULT to all those METICULOUS recorders of the past.. people who were FAR more diligent and precise than the modern bunch of climate retards.

    • Emslander says:

      What difference does it make if no data before 1950 is reliable?

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        US data prior to 1950 was fine, so it is incorrect to say that “no data before 1950 is reliable”.
        There are a few other places with good data from those years between 1880 or so and late 1950s.
        But…no ocean data to speak of.
        Little data in the southern hemisphere.
        No one has ever explained how an entire continental area like the US can, for the better part of a century, have a different trend than the rest of the northern hemisphere or the globe.
        When you look at individual cities for the entire temp record, they all have the same general trends and changes in trend…if you look at unadjusted graphs.
        South Africa looks like Iceland, looks like most all of the US, looks like most places in the world where there is a long time series of temperature. The exact years of warmest, the exact years of the inflection points in the graphs…thee vary, but only slightly, by a few years, as would be expected.
        But the shape of the graphs mostly all look the same.
        Warming from 1880 to early 1900s, then some steady to cooling for a decade or two, then steady warming through 1940 to about 1945 or so, then cooling but variable through the 1950s, then steady cooling through the mid 1970s, then resumed warming until turn of century, then mostly flat with a few el nino spikes.

        The jet stream carries air masses around the globe over a period of a about two weeks, faster in Winter months, faster in high latitudes, little change in the tropics.
        My hypothesis is that it is impossible for a whole continent to have a different trend in temp than the hemisphere it is in, that persists for more than a year to a few years. Over decades and multidecadal periods, the temperature of the Earth will tend to smooth out geographical differences.
        Now, if you look at the graphs and what every researcher agreed was the case prior to the advent of global warming alarmism, this holds true.
        Since the climate adjustment bureau has been in charge of the data, all the graphs have changed incrementally until by now they bear no resemblance to the same data when it was collected.
        And historical accounts of weather, as printed in newspapers, scientific reporting, photographic and proxy evidence…these all match up with pre-adjustment graphs.
        None of what we know about what sea ice was doing, when global heatwaves occurred, and ice advances that were documented, make any sense at all when compared to the adjusted graphs.
        They show that in the early 20th century when Arctic researchers and mariners all reported rapidly melting ice and changing conditions from the Arctic to alpine glaciers the world over, occurred during what adjusted the graphs purport was about the coldest time in the past 140 years!
        Add it all up, and the adjustments turn facts on their head.
        They were made and continue to be made year after year by the same people who have a failing hypothesis that they desperately want to keep alive. The climate gate emails confirm that they planned all of this in advance, among a small coterie of fanatical jackasses…the same people who stridently advance a hypothesis for which no support existed until they altered records and started just making stuff up, like the fiction that storms and severe weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency.
        They have 30 years of alarmist predictions that have in every instance failed to materialize.
        They refuse to discuss facts.
        They refuse to abide by the accepted procedures of the scientific method.
        They deny reality and substitute in their fever dreams and worst fears…but advocate for policies which change nothing, except waste money and take away our freedoms and our ability to prosper.
        Which they are also on record as saying is and has always been their goal.

        On top of everything else we have hundreds of millions of years of geologic paleo evidence, and hundreds of thousands of years of ice core and other proxy evidence, and we have the historical period records, and all of them are clear on one point: CO2 does not control the temperature of the atmosphere, and never has.

        On the other side are a sketchy and poorly enunciated hypothesis which goes by the name of “the science” but is undefined otherwise, the unverified and falsified models, and a full 30 years of categorically wrong predictions.
        The same predictions by the same ilk and many of the same people who have been wrong for three decades, have now reissued these predictions and are screaming them louder than ever. They call weather “climate change”, and miseducate and scare children.
        And they claim our politicians are in control of our climate, and if we let them tax us into poverty and deprivation, and take away the energy that has allowed us to prosper and live long and comfortable lives, and hand over control to socialists…well then we will be saved because the climate will be “solved”.

        150 years ago the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, the coldest period in the past 10,000 years, and a disastrous time of misery and war and death and diseases.
        We have people that claim that warming up 1.5 degrees from that that cold period will cause the end of the world, and it is unsurvivable. Even though that amount of temperature change is barely perceptible to a human being, and we experience 10 times more change every day, and 50 times more change every year, and even more than that, over 120° F of variance, year over year from one place where people thrive to another place people thrive. And that is just in the US mainland!
        Nothing is happening that is unusual by historical standards.
        Food production continues to increase to new record high levels every year. More food per person even with over 7 billion people, than humanity has ever had before.
        And this fortunate situation continues to improve, with more people living longer and longer lives all over the world, hunger and poverty at record low levels, obesity the main food related problem EVEN IN POOR COUNTRIES, and people all over the world living longer and staying healthier than ever before in history.
        And yet a huge number of people see only problems, see a crisis where none exists, freak out over a hot day in Summer, even though people of even modest means have the ability to control the climate of their homes to any degree desired.
        I go outside and see green grass, rapidly growing trees, white clouds, wet rain, blue sky, warm Sun, birds and insects everywhere, wildlife that walks right up to our doors in such a profusion and multitude that is startling.
        I see everything is just as it has always been…mostly great weather and sometimes in a few places something bad happens…just like always. It happens the most to people who live next to the restless and storm tossed ocean, rivers that have always been known to fluctuate tremendously when heavy rains occur, people that move to deserts by the tens of millions and live as if they never have to worry about water…
        The problem is not weather, which if anything is milder than ever.
        The problem is snowflakes who freak out when life is not a 24/7/365 beach party, and who have no sense of history, and no personal knowledge of anything like an actual science.
        And of course, the problem of people who want to control everyone and everything, who cannot stand it, literally, that someone somewhere disagrees with them, and are the most ill mannered and hateful people on Earth, who want to have everything, and allow others whom they look down on to have little or nothing.
        Go outside…life is short.
        If you think it is too hot, move north. It is very cold up there.
        If it is too stormy, move to the desert…it hardly ever rains.
        If you fear the sea level, move inland…there is plenty of room and entire states and even mountain ranges with nary a soul as far as you can see.
        If it bothers you that others do not share a vision of doomsday catastrophe, seek the care of a mental health professional.

        • EternalOptimist says:

          I agree with you. I have a philosophical question. what happens to the scientific process when one of the under-pinning processes fail ?
          what happens when the measurements are contested ?

        • spike55 says:

          Nicolas,

          That was a MOST EXCELLENT round-up of global temperatures, and the farcical nonsense that is GISS et al.

          Copied for posterity. :-)

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Nicholas,

          One could do worse for Tony’s house trolls than pouring your philippic down their little heads.

          Instead, they get NASA science:

          ”Is carbon in the air good, bad, or just ugly??”

          https://climatekids.nasa.gov/carbon/

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            I do not think it was exactly a philippic, but I take your point.
            I think many of these drive by trolls and strident warmista apologists are likely children, in some cases barely out of their mid teenage bedwetting years.
            I thought it was very mildly stated, nothing bitter, no particular denunciations, unless one counts what could easily be regarded as good advice about moving to someplace one finds less worrisome.
            Otherwise, I think NASA should be prohibited by law to spend our tax dollars to spew unscientific garbage and warmista propaganda aimed at our children.

        • Robertv says:

          Exactly ! Life is short and used to be MUCH shorter and miserable not even that long ago even for kings and queens.
          It is all a power game by those who hate to work for a living but know what is best for us. All little Maos, Stalins, Hitlers playing politician or central bankers but haven’t got a clue about economics or normal life. That’s why they hate the rest of humanity.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Nicholas, great comment! Very well said!

    • emma says:

      Also, assuming that the data is correct, why should we be able to extrapolate anything from it?

      > Without adequate coverage elsewhere, there is no reason to believe the same trend didn’t occur in other parts of the world.

      Isn’t there? The US is 6% of world landmass, why should we take for granted that that’s representative of the whole?

  7. arn says:

    I wonder how they find out about global warming when there is so little data?
    And the pre warminh data they have is from the ice age scare.
    How can you make up such a huge thing as AGW with just a few decades of dara.

  8. John F. Hultquist says:

    In the early 1900s folks knew how to build trains, and autos (including electric ones); and much more.
    How did civilization proceed without the ability to measure outdoor temperature prior to 1960?

    • Joel says:

      That was my thought…

      In 1960 we were less than 10 years from landing humans on the moon…and we didn’t have reliable temperature data?!?

      The NYT must believe their readership is THAT easily manipulated. Wow…

    • Emslander says:

      No adjustment was ever necessary. The thermometers used by the government at their weather stations were as precise, or more so, than currently constructed models. Each station measured high and low temperatures for the cycle with inerrant precision, regardless of the time of day that they were observed and reported. Adjustments by NOAA since 1960 are all fraudulent. If they were honest adjustments related to some technical flaw, they would provide random results, not universally lowered.

      Was there something wrong with the measuring devices that caused them to provide temperature records higher than the actual. No!

  9. EternalOptimist says:

    The NYT question would have been more accurate if it read
    ‘How much warmer is your hometown since you were born ? assuming you are less than 60 years old, assuming you were born in the USA, assuming Berkley have got it right, assuming you believe the data after all of the homogenisation and assuming that its legitimate to adjust the temperatures that your fathers measured because ‘they were incompetent’

    • EternalOptimist says:

      My dad joined the navy in 1938. I have his records. His height was measured at 5 8.
      If some buffoon from the NYT, Berkeley or the IPCC tried to tell me that his height was measured wrong and they wanted to adjust it down, I would laugh.

      maybe some measurements are accepted because they don’t hit the bottom line

  10. Nicholas McGinley says:

    What I would do next is make a graph of the most reliable US data for the time period that is also covered by the satellite data, and closely compare the two, with the idea of showing that it is unlikely an entire continent like the US can trend in a different direction than the rest of the world…unless of course the global TLT from satellites is influenced a great deal by certain places, such as the Arctic.
    Maybe compare US ground station graph to UAH data for individual areas and zones.
    If US ground station data does not differ substantially from UAH TLT data over 40 years, that is strong evidence that the US long term record can be used as a proxy for a wider part of the globe, either land areas, northern hemisphere, mid latitudes, or whatever the case may be.

    • RW says:

      Good idea. Could also check the u.s. UAH regional temps vs u.s. land surface station data.

    • spike55 says:

      “US long term record can be used as a proxy for a wider part of the globe”

      ONLY so long as you use the unadjusted real data.

      Over the years since USCRN was established, it has pretty much the same trend as UAH USA48.

      Issue is that the surface data responds more to warmer or cooler temperatures, and the last 3 years has been affected by the large El Nino, meaning that the linear trend in USCRN is slightly more than in UAH USA48

      https://i.postimg.cc/RhCRXWHf/USCRN-v-UAH-USA48.png

    • spike55 says:

      ps.. And I wouldn’t trust adjusted USHCN as far as I could throw a 200lb gorilla !

  11. grilledtomatoes says:

    BOOM! Those morons at the NY Times fell right into their own large pile of horse crap. Well played, Mr. Heller. Well played!!

  12. Gator says:

    Arctic seals finding the water too hot
    -Joe Herr

    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

    I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/arctic-seals-finding-the-water-too-hot/

  13. KevinPaul says:

    The fact they have a FAQ to answer why the records are truncated says heaps. In other words they are consciously hiding the data despite numerous queries.

    If the summers are getting progressively hotter as they bleat on about every year, we would expect sales of air-conditioning systems to go up as cooler districts become hotter. This would be a good gauge, well in fact sales are going down, I first saw this over at WUWT.
    Reality will eventually catch out these conniving criminals, and they will hopefully end their days as incarcerated play things for burly sex-starved thugs.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/air-conditioner-maker-lennox-cuts-forecast-citing-significantly-cooler-temperatures.html

  14. John says:

    Note to New York Times:
    When you’re in too deep it’s better to stop digging.

  15. John Donohue says:

    Tony, I don’t know how to contact you directly or make an inquiry….so I’m randomly posting here …

    I hope you see this.

    I am playing around with us.txt and finding heavy confirmation of all your findings. There’s no damn warming.

    http://jrdonohue.com/brunswick.jpg
    http://jrdonohue.com/ojai.jpg

    But the file I have ends in July 2017. I tried grabbing a new one with the scripts and links at your page for Unhiding the Climb for Windows, to no avail.

    1) is us.txt clean? (not “finalized” by NOAA)
    2) Can you show me how to get the latest version of us.txt?

    John Donohue

  16. William Jackson says:

    It looks to me like the the rate of warming during the satellite era using the USHCN daily data and Tony’s new software (https://realclimatescience.com/2019/08/totos-latest-software-release/) is only about half of what the satellites show for the lower 48. Anyone know why that is?

    • Gator says:

      Likely it is from calibration.

      • William Jackson says:

        I thought that the satellites were pretty well calibrated with radiosondes? If anything I would have thought that the surface record would run warmer because of UHI effects rather than 50% colder.

        • Nicholas McGinley says:

          This reminds me of a long conversation, perhaps it was on WUWT, in which the method of calibration of the satellites was discussed.
          Also mentioned was the reliability and possibility that alterations have been made in radiosonde data bases.
          I will have to try again to find that one.
          I think Roy Spencer weighed in at a few parts of the convo.

        • spike55 says:

          Surface and atmosphere respond somewhat differently to warming peaks such as the recent El Nino.

          Since USCRN in 2005, it is obvious that USCRN responds more to both warming and cooling spikes., so it depends very much where you calculate the trends from.

          Basically al the trend is because of these spikes coming from the oceans, so it cannot be from CO2 since LW radiation cannot warm the oceans from above.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      What about the general shape of the graph when comparing them?
      Do the peaks and troughs line up?
      Is there a general trend showing divergence or convergence?
      Are they randomly at variance with each other?
      If they track each other closely, up and down, but the TLT is merely exaggerated, that may tell us something about the atmosphere that is separate from the trend line.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Speaking of radiosondes…does anyone have access to or know where these records can be viewed?

  17. Dave says:

    Being very smart does not a) protect you against cognitive biases; or b) make you an expert in climate science. Expertise in climate science is not a matter of reading a lot on climate science – or of cherry picking information from sources that *seem* to confirm some counter explanation. It’s a matter of receiving actual training the relevant subfields and (importantly) working within a community of researchers – all subjecting their viewpoints to critical scrutiny from other experts. The process is not perfect but it’s the best we have.

    • tonyheller says:

      It is completely broken and corrupt

    • Gator says:

      Many of us here were trained in the Earth Scinces, and can go toe to toe with any of the hyperventilating grantologists, even allowing them their broken models and failed hypothesis.

      It is a fallacy that only the “experts” can understand the science.

  18. KevinPaul says:

    “…. a community of researchers – all subjecting their viewpoints to critical scrutiny from other experts.”

    Email 4927:
    subject: Thompson et al paper
    to: Phil Jones

    …Gavin (Schmidt) and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
    Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo
    (i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.
    thanks in advance for any help!
    mike (Mann)

  19. C.J. Bertran says:

    Why don’t they just go back and get the data from the articles that they wrote prior to 1960? With their stellar journalistic integrity they should trust those numbers implicitly

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.