The Superbowl Of Data Tampering

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Superbowl Of Data Tampering

  1. John Donohue says:

    Tony,

    This is it. This is the killer presentation. You cover all the bases. It is solid and tight. I can not conceive any legitimate (rational) way the alarmist could put even a small crack in it, not to mention take it down.

    I thank heaven we have the actual measured temperature record. It escaped into the wild, and your constant reference to the true data set – and explanation why alterations and false anomaly graphs twisted from it should rejected – is the spearhead needed to deflate the orthodoxy.

    I pray you will not be banned from YouTube and the internet in general.

    Thank you for your persistence, precision, engineering perspective, and courage.

    John Donohue

    NOTE: everyone should download the temperature record. Go do it. I have it on my computer.

    • John Sutcliffe says:

      I always look at reports with an open mind; the fact the alarmists are not tearing Tony apart tells me he is on the money, thank you Tony.

  2. Pål Bergström says:

    Hi,

    Do you have the source for the raw data? Would like to have that so I can use it as a reference myself.

    Found this:
    https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.NCDC/.USHCN/.raw/.Max/
    but not sure how to use it.

    Thanks for what you do.

  3. G W Smith says:

    Another great video, Tony! Thanks! I’ll pass it on.

  4. GCSquared says:

    Hi Tony,
    Thanks for the constant refinement, especially for the comparison, and coincidence of, morning and evening trends in temperature readings. I hope you take it as a compliment, that your dialing back the rhetoric a bit is making your videos much more persuasive and powerful. This one is a gem.

    I had been more or less favorable to the alarmist view, until I decided that I really should be better able to articulate the technical arguments behind the “97%”. To my surprise, I found very little clearly compelling, and at the same time noticed that the alarmists wouldn’t debate the sceptics, except by name calling and defamation. Very fishy.

    But two pieces of information needed explaining before I could break with the alarmist camp. These were Mueller/Berkeley Earth’s conclusion that recent temperature rise correlated with CO2 levels and nothing else, and that his and others’ graphs showing warming in the naughtys conflicted with the plots brought forth by sceptics showing the “pause” of cooling .

    Then I watched your old 40min video where you discussed temperature adjustments, demonstrating how they required fudging past records, and how they were linearly correlated with CO2. Seeing your presentation was my own eureka moment that carried me over my own personal tipping point.

    I am very grateful for all the work you’ve done, and your refinements to making your points more convincing to alarmist acquaitntances. Your clearly explained truths have cause me a great deal of domestic inconvenience. For that, and for inconveniencing yourself so massively, I’m very grateful.

  5. S.K. Dodsland says:

    Environment Canada Climate Change has destroyed 100 years (1850-1949) of temperature data and have decided to totally rely on computational data.

    They say it is not to mislead.

    Climate alarmism and data manipulation is alive and well in Canada too.

  6. Silvio says:

    Dear Tonny
    I am following your efforts already since two years now. Thank you for your resistance. I saw today this footage regarding data tempering. My question is how can I access the data you are using to compare. I am from Brazil and not familiarized with the sources. Is it possible to publish the links for download the series you are using, I mean the raw and tempered data?

    Kind regards

  7. Fairthorpe says:

    This is the video I’ve bookmarked to use to show to my climate alarmist family and friends.

    The only thing I’d ask to be added would be direct links to the raw and adjusted NOAA data.

    For those who know me and are willing to take a look at it, I get immediate rejections, saying “it’s fake – no references to the data, the data’s made up . . . .”

    Thanks for the excellent video.

    • GCSquared says:

      +++++
      I don’t think your the only one with this experience. My reply is usually that Tony is so annoying that some alarmist would have enthusiastically debunked him by now if it were possible, but having direct links would strengthen that point.
      I’ve verified some of what Tony has shown (especially tide gauge info), but foolishly haven’t saved links, so if anyone has organized a collection, I’d be grateful to see it. I’m starting now myself: better late than never. And Donohue’s suggestion to download data is a good idea, too. Censorship is reaching levels inconceivable only a few years ago.

  8. angech says:

    A new “Ship of Fools”?
    We can only hope.

    “not a bad route.
    The temptation is to sneak along the lee polynya north of FJI. However the Kapitan isn’t going to do that as it could easily slam shut, pushing the ship onto the rocks as the wind changes causing the ice to form a lee polynya south or west of FJI.
    I don’t expect the Barents to freeze over: too warm, too shallow, too mixed, too much Atlantic Water. Every year people get fooled into thinking new ice is forming when the satellite mp4 show the wind has merely blown the ice pack through the island gaps”
    This is the resupply mission for the Polarstern Mosaic expedition, Deliberately stuck in ice near the North Pole for 8 months th study the shrinking, drifting ice.
    Only it has been extending. The Kapitan D is a small ice breaker and easily reached it before.
    Now?
    Probably OK.

    For JCH.

  9. angech says:

    Sorry to double post but

    A new “Ship of Fools”?
    We can only hope.

    “not a bad route.
    The temptation is to sneak along the lee polynya north of FJI. However the Kapitan isn’t going to do that as it could easily slam shut, pushing the ship onto the rocks as the wind changes causing the ice to form a lee polynya south or west of FJI.
    I don’t expect the Barents to freeze over: too warm, too shallow, too mixed, too much Atlantic Water. Every year people get fooled into thinking new ice is forming when the satellite mp4 show the wind has merely blown the ice pack through the island gaps”
    This is the resupply mission for the Polarstern Mosaic expedition, Deliberately stuck in ice near the North Pole for 8 months th study the shrinking, drifting ice.
    Only it has been extending. The Kapitan D is a small ice breaker and easily reached it before.
    Now?
    Probably OK.

    There are concerns re the ability of this ship to reach the Polarstern though surely they are not stupid enough to sail into danger?
    Unless well paid

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Fancy meeting you here angech!

      At the risk of repeating myself (from Judy’s place):

      Perhaps if you revealed the source for your cut’n’paste exercise other people might stand a chance of understanding the point you are trying to make?

      The MOSAiC expedition thread on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum:

      https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2906.msg248279.html#msg248279

      There have been numerous “Ship of Fools” hopes expressed over the years. I’ve already covered Northabout above. Perhaps we could take a look at a more recent example? The MS Malmö “story”:

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/ship-of-fools-iii-escapes-arctic-sea-ice/

      What Ken, Paul Joseph, Donald [Trump], James [Delingpole], Paul [Homewood], Anthony [Watts], Matt [Ridley] et al. evidently fail to comprehend is that the sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean doesn’t merely expand and contract with the seasons. It also moves.

      Should I add angech and Tony H to my rogues gallery?

  10. Ross Giddings says:

    Of course if the y axis of these graphs all started at zero
    the variations shown would be insignificant.

    Our Australian national broadcaster (ABC) recently showed
    a graph of the increase in the average daily temperature for
    the month. The y axis started at 40 degrees and finished at 44 degrees.
    What a swindle.

  11. Al Blue says:

    To my mind, the crucial missing piece of the ground station work is still calibration. The current ‘best ruler’ is the satellite coverage – purely on the spatial dispersion front.

    Not “correlation,” not “error determination,” but “figure out exactly how to get my available rulers to read the property of interest both as accurately and as precisely as they can physically can.”

    The current approaches end up comparing aggregate quantities during the satellite overlap period. But the crucial part involves extrapolating those methods to periods in which comparisons become sparser and less reliable. But the extrapolation period is exactly where we’re most interested in the ground station measurements! And the adjustments are currently applied in a fashion to minimize the differences during the overlap period.

    The part that’s tricky to recognize is that a perfectly situated ‘surface station’ is at best a proxy measurement for the actual variable of interest when you move into using it for climactic research. Using temperature anomalies adds to the list of assumptions, while providing modest release from some systemic error.

    If you have a thermometer that consistently reads 1.74C cooler than the satellite’s best estimate of the gridcell’s temperature across the entire record – excellent. That thermometer appears consistent, should have a useable temperature anomaly, isn’t experiencing significant UHI (or is already maxxed out), etc. This would be a straight-forward ‘offset only’ calibration – and would yield a direct measurement of the error associated with extrapolating this particular instrument to the measurement of the gridcell.

    That is: Many of the assumptions inherent in the various ground station adjustments should be able to be fairly rigorously evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Picture a microsite issue:
    There’s a barbecue ridiculously close. Otherwise the site has no urban heat island effect and would be a good proxy. If there were sufficient raw data, it could be possible to pick out the days on which the barbecue was fired up. That’s quite unlikely. What should be pretty easily detectable though is both the warm bias -and- a solid estimate of the increased error.

    Picture an urban heat island effect:
    A small town has been growing over the past thirty years. The town is small relative to the size of the gridcell, so a measurement anywhere inside the town (including a large park) provides a disproportionate warming trend compared to what’s going on for most of the gridcell. In this case, direct comparison of the satellite’s estimate for the gridcell’s temperature and the ground station should show a clear trend. Once the trend is estimated and subtracted, the station would be a far more useful predictor for the gridcell temperature.

    This is a fundamentally different approach to evaluating the surface stations. It isn’t minimizing issues and hoping for the best – but rather directly evaluating the accuracy and precision of the individual stations. IOW: The best way to avoid ‘garbage out’ is to minimize the amount of ‘garbage in’ in the first place. Attempting to do so on a purely statistical basis after-the-fact would seem to require more conformity to the initial assumptions that appears to be present.

    Doing anything along these lines requires access to the data prior to it all being turned into monthly or yearly reports though. At least, I don’t know of any way to request satellite temperature contour plots for arbitrary historical dates and locations.

  12. Penelope says:

    S.K. Dodsland. Would appreciate a source on this, so I can repeat it. Thx

  13. David of Aussie says:

    Do as i say not do as i do!
    https://i.ibb.co/XJDMMpk/20200207-145739.jpg

    Tesla service vehicle a good old fashioned reliable Mitsubishi diesel

Leave a Reply to Penelope Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.