Kingman, Kansas Has Had An Obvious Cooling Trend Since 1908!

Hi, everyone.
Today, I researched the mean annual temperatures in Kingman, Kansas.

The GHCN V4 Unadjusted data from NASA website show an obvious cooling trend since 1908.

However, the GHCN V4 adj – homogenized data show that the Kingman station doesn’t have any annual temperature data from 1908 to 1952, and the station has had a warming trend.

Why do NASA do such ridiculous things?


As is well known to many people, NASA likes changing their temperature data.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Kingman, Kansas Has Had An Obvious Cooling Trend Since 1908!

  1. N Beatie says:

    Kirye/Tony,
    You post multiple articles talking about the data adjustments at the NOAA. When I speak to my kids or friends about this issue I am always met with the same response which is “there must be a solid scientific rationale for them”. Aside from Time of Day Bias, I don’t know what other factors are behind the changes. I assume they don’t adjust recent data down for those stations now surrounded by concrete! Can you explain how they justify the V4 adj numbers?
    Many thanks
    NB

    • arn says:

      Data Adjustments is what is in politics right now massive voter fraud-
      and it is always benefitting the same globalist groups of interresst and their narrative.

      It is not always as easy as with BLM to fool people
      without data adjustments.
      In this case it is simply enough to block links of fbi statistics(as youtube,facebook etc do)
      that prove that black people in your country are the most violent,criminal and racist by a landmile.
      And all “experts” ignore this facts(just as all climate “experts” would ignore this data as they know that ackowledging anti agenda data would
      brand them as racist and destroy their carreers.

    • @NoOil4Pacifists says:

      Exactly. I have analyzed, and come to understand “time of day” adjustments for older station readings. The algorithm may not be perfect, but it’s not obviously wrong: some reading drop.

      The question long has been what other adjustments to purely land data are made and what is the justification? I know @jacurry covered it, but I forgot where. I would enjoy a clear, simple explanation, Tony.

  2. Gummans Gubbe says:

    “They don’t adjust recent data down for those stations now surrounded by concrete!”

    I cant open the link below right now, but I think it describes how a heat island and a “normal” station are averaged together in order to get a believable increase in temperature.

    A Fairy Tale Of Two GHCN Cities | Real Climate Science
    [Search domain realclimatescience.com/2018/03/a-fairy-tale-of-two-ghcn-cirties/] https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/a-fairy-tale-of-two-ghcn-cirties/
    Hide results
    Buenos Aires and La Estanzuela are located 35 miles apart across the water. Buenos Aires is a massive heat island, and La Estanzuela is a small town of a few thousand people. Buenos Aires warmed tremendously from 1931 to 1995, the period of record for the La Estanzuela station.

  3. Flint_Lock_97 says:

    Obviously increased CO2. Or maybe not. Or…

    Since there are a bunch of experts on the line here, I have a CO2 question. In my Google searches, I ran across a graph purportedly laboratory derived measurements of CO2 concentration from 1800-1960. Most of the little green points from 1870 to 1910 are in the low 300s ppm. However, 1830-1850 is 350-420 ppm and the 1940s measurements were 400-450 ppm. And they were as high as 630 ppm in 1816 (the result of Tambora?). When I take the bog standard Mauna Loa concentration and squeeze it to fit this lab graph, our present 415 ppm doesn’t really look all that impressive. Unfortunately I can’t paste it here, but does anyone know the provenance of this graph? Who made it? I’d to be able to verify if it is real or bogus. I always look at the Y-Axis to see how much exaggeration has been applied. Nat Geo’s infamous global warming article from 20 or so years ago had a very exaggerated vertical scale so the graph would run from the lower left of one page to the upper right of the other. I cancelled my subscription at that point.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      One reason is moving of station to new location.
      However, the amount adjustment cannot be justified. The total is at least 1.5 degrees when you look at the minus and plus.
      The most damning evidence is the correlation between the amount of adjustment and the CO2 level that Tony Heller has shown on his weblog. The Correlation coefficient is around 97 %.

  4. Bruce Ferguson says:

    Here’s the problem as I see it, if they keep changing the data,i.e. the previous data was in error, why should we believe the current data is accurate. After all ten years ago they pronounced the accuracy of the data sets and as a result we should all believe in their prognostications about the imminent end of the world.

    And if they got these data sets wrong how are we to even consider the accuracy of their global mean temperature from 1880 with virtually no data but within one tenth of a degree. Simply not possible.

    If you got the temperature trend wrong 10 years ago you cannot be believed.

  5. John Gerschwitz says:

    I heard a report on ABC radio (Australia) that they have been planting trees etc to try to cool down parts of Black Town (Sydney). The claim was on very hot days the areas with trees where 10C cooler than nearby areas without trees.

  6. Alexander MCCLINTOCK says:

    Tony constantly reminds us that (at least in USA data) around 45% of the recent records are from stations that do not have any records. It is ridiculous to use such stations by ‘estimating’ their current temperatures. By all means use the data from years where it is known. Tony, I presume the same ‘missing (fake) data’ issue applies to the former USSR where many stations dropped out in recent years.

  7. spike55 says:

    Look what someone found

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/national/2000/may/ustz05_t.gif

    How does this compare to USHCN now. ;-)

  8. RW says:

    At WUWT, Mosher posted about the USHCN in an article by Andy May that looks very similar to the ones you two do here. Mother’s comments might be valuable, or not. He purports to provide some historical background about the data set.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/03/recent-ushcn-final-v-raw-temperature-differences/

    Search the page for Steven Mosher.

Leave a Reply

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