Real Climate Science

I have been emphasizing the difference between commercial and government software.

Commercial software goes through constant review. Mine gets reviewed 2-3 times a day by my boss.

Government software on the other hand has no quality control. Consider the Obamacare web site or the just announced USHCN software disaster.

The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?

A bunch of scientists with no software training cranking out code, with the only review process being that the output confirms their biases. The error USHCN has uncovered is so blatant, that it obviously has never been through any kind of serious verification.

They were just happy to see a lot of warming, and it didn’t matter that global warming research, climate models, and US domestic policy in Washington were based on their graphs. It wasn’t worth spending two hours doing any verification.

Zeke just can’t grasp what he is doing wrong. Around 1990, USHCN started losing a lot of mainly rural stations. Using their clever infilling and gridding, they turned those disappearing stations into urban stations – which created a huge spurious warming trend.

Zeke likes the meaningless green line.

The Blackboard » How not to calculate temperatures, part 3

See the graph below. Essentially all of the warming since 1990 is due to fabricated (no underlying temperature records) data shown below in green – which strongly hints at cooler rural stations being lost, and their missing data being replaced by infilled urban data.

This is so blatantly obvious, that only a temperature expert couldn’t grasp it.

It is like dealing with anomaly/infilling/gridding zombies. Do they actually think that their large spike in temperatures after 1990, coinciding with their large spike in lost (mainly rural) stations – was coincidence?

If you lose a cool rural station and replace the data with that from a warm urban station, it raises your average temperature. Now repeat over and over again several hundred times since 1990.

In the next graph, I normalized Zekes data properly, and highlighted the period of rapid station loss in blue.  The huge spike in temperatures in the green line is due to garbage data handling practices, not warming.

Just say no to data tampering. This nonsense has to come to an end.

The USHCN station at Ada, Minnesota took their temperature readings at 7 am during the 1930s. They show exactly the same pattern of very hot weather during the 1930’s, and much cooler since 1988.

The “blame the hot 1930s on TOBS” scam is just the latest of many from the team.

I have posted this graph dozens of times, and hopefully this time it will be clear to everyone. The graph shows the average final temperature for all USHCN stations minus the average raw temperature for all USHCN stations.  This is a very simple calculation which shows the average adjustment for all USHCN stations.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to NOAA or anybody else that an exponential increase in adjustments is occurring, as I have been showing the same graph (crying wolf) for many years.

Paul’s work show exactly why you have to use untarnished absolute temperatures rather than anomalies, infilling and gridding for this type of analysis.

Up till now, I have been I have been watching the World Cup on a Mexican web site with very animated announcers, who are obviously having a lot of fun and make watching the match more fun.

They aren’t showing the rest of the tournament to non-subscribers, so I had to switch over to ESPN-Live with stuffy, boring English announcers. Could be worse, though. They could have American announcers.

ZZZZzzzzz….

Check out this garbage in Forbes

The Public Relations Debate About Global Warming Heats Up

Anyone who has watched the rather animated debate this week between myself and Anthony Watts will understand that there is no denier conspiracy, and that we have no organization and little or no money. We are scientists with different opinions trying to end the massive misinformation campaign being waged with $29 billion per year of government money, and being directed by the President of The United States.

Donors are afraid to fund skeptics, out of fear that the IRS will be used to target them if they do.

Progressive journalists like Robert Wayne simply make “facts” up without doing any research. They need to held liable for their dishonesty.

Someone was trying to blame the high incidence of 100 degree readings during the 1930s on time of observation bias.

Allegan, Michigan took their readings at midnight during the 1930’s, and showed the same pattern as the rest of the stations. One hundred degree readings during the 1930’s and 1950’s – and none since. The 1930s were the hottest on record in the US, and attempts to hide this are dishonest.

Politifact wrote a hit piece against Steve Doocy and me the other day without doing any actual fact checking or bothering to contact me. I responded to them and they asked me to send over my response. Here it is :

Jon,

Here is my rebuttal to your Fox’s Doocy piece. If you are a legitimate fact checker, you will post it on your site – as you made serious errors.

————————

Politifact accused Steve Doocy of being a liar,  for accurately reporting on a blog post made on my blog (stevengoddard.wordpress.com) which showed how NASA has altered the US temperature record over time.

Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons.

1. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this.

2. You cited the explanation for why they do this, but made no effort to verify that their reasons are correct. Their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. The adjustments could just as easily go the other way, and make the cooling trend even larger. The adjustments they make are based on opinion, not fact.

3. The expert list you cited was flawed.

Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out.

Mark Serreze has no experience or expertise with the temperature record

John Nielsen-Gammon and Zeke Hausfather are two people expressing their own opinion about the adjustments, and those opinions are subject to change as new facts emerge.

Jon Greenberg and Politifact did nothing to demonstrate that Doocy’s reporting was inaccurate, much less a lie. This is a scientific debate, which you simply don’t understand. You need to retract your article.

Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard
– Columbia, Maryland

Nearly every night in every city, the weatherman says “and several degrees cooler in outlying areas”

That is how we know that the NCDC 0.1F UHI adjustment is completely accurate.