Real Climate Science

News is out today that the IRS was targeting a Republican Senator for being a Republican. Probably the biggest presidential scandal in history.

CNN responds with lead stories about soccer and gay marriage. Did CNN ever care about soccer before?

It isn’t just the US temperatures which have been corrupted by NASA and NOAA, but they have done the same thing for the entire planet

As of 1975, the Northern Hemisphere’s past was much warmer during the 1940s than it is now. The animation below flashes between the 1975 National Academy of Sciences data in blue, and the current NASA data  in red. The baseline periods are not identical, but what is interesting is that the years from 1900 to 1960 got colder, while the post 1960 years got warmer.

The next animation flashes between the 1999 NASA US temperature graph, and the 2014 version.

They publish no disclaimers or explanations with these graphs, and almost every successive year the past gets even colder than it was previously – and the present gets even warmer than it was previously.

In USHCN V1, the TOBS adjustment was less than 0.4F, and goes flat after 1990.

 ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif (650×502)

In V2, they use the same algorithm

This net effect is about the same as that of the TOB adjustments in the HCN version 1 temperature data (Hansen et al. 2001), which is to be expected since the same TOB-adjustment method is used in both versions.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal2009.pdf

But now, the TOBS adjustment is more than 0.3C, and doesn’t go flat after 1990.

So the  same algorithm now produces very different results, favoring global warming – as with all the other data tampering. Zeke says he doesn’t know what caused the discrepancy.

Good enough for government work.

If government employees are going to alter data to reverse measured cooling trends into warming trends, it is absolutely essential that each and every graph is clearly marked as altered. Otherwise, people might accidentally confuse it as being legitimate.

And if you point out that they have altered the data, they use their government funded salaries to publicly say that your analysis is faulty. These aren’t my graphs. They are NASA graphs. It isn’t my analysis, it is NASA’s analysis.

Obviously we should just blindly accept everything government employees say.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Sooner or later, all liars and tamperers get tangled up in their own web of deceit.

World class scumbags.

Every year the past gets colder, and the present gets warmer. NASA and NOAA post no disclaimers saying that they are doing this. They simply alter the data to produce a steeper warming trend every year.

When called out on it, they say that the problem with their repeated data tampering in the dark of the night, is my “faulty analysis”  Apparently they think I traveled back in time and changed their graphs.

Every single graph needs to be plainly marked that they have reversed the 80 year trend from cooling to warming.

The Gavin/Zeke TOBS excuse for reversing the 1930s is utter nonsense. The 1930s were much hotter.

TOBS can’t account for 100 degree temperature readings, which were much more than twice as common in the 1930s. Menne 2009 shows that the TOBS adjustment for the 1930s was less than -0.1C anyway.

Perhaps all those Okies left the heat in Oklahoma during the 1930s, simply because they didn’t understand TOBS.

Anthony Watts has been a busy boy recently. Today he is quoted along with Zeke, Gavin and Mark Serreze in a hit piece against me and Fox News blaming NASA’s data tampering on my “faulty analysis”

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

“I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.

Fox’s Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Here is the E-mail Anthony is referring to :

Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM

This claim: “More than 40% of USHCN final station data is now generated from stations which have no thermometer data.”

Is utterly bogus.

This kind of unsubstantiated claim is why some skeptics get called conspiracy theorists. If you can’t back it up to show that 40% of the USHCN has stopped reporting, then don’t publish it.

I’d take it down right now if I were you before somebody sees it and calls you out on it.

YOU NEED TO DO BETTER.

Anthony

He was responding to this E-mail from me.

Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Here is something interesting. Almost half of USHCN data is now completely fake.

https://realclimatescience.com/2014/06/01/more-than-40-of-ushcn-station-data-is-fabricated/

The graph is quite accurate. For example in 2013 there were 14,613 final USHCN monthly temperature readings, which were derived from 10,868 raw monthly temperature readings – which means there were 34% more final readings than actual underlying data. This year about 40% of the monthly final data is being reported for stations with no corresponding raw data – i.e. fabricated.

I was astonished by Anthony’s original response and his failure to acknowledge that he was wrong. But now he is taking his BS out on the road with his newfound alarmist buddies. Unbelievable. It isn’t worth selling your soul to get through peer review.

And BTW – the temperature adjustments are complete garbage.

The North Pole has already lost one fifth of its summer with essentially no melting.

Nobel Laureate Al Gore says that it will be ice free in a few weeks, which may be tricky given that the ice is about three metres thick, and the  forecast is for below freezing temperatures the next two weeks.

Or perhaps Big Al can just change the freezing point of water?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut