Real Climate Science

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

A Norwegian football fan has won more than £500 after placing a £3 bet that Luis Suárez would bite someone at the World Cup.

Thomas Syverson, of Trondheim, placed a bet at 175/1 on online gambling website Betsson along with 166 other punters – one of whom scooped an even bigger win of almost £2,000.

Luis Suarez bite bet leaves punters cashing in on 175-1 odds | Mail Online

Anthony Watts has put a huge amount of work into documenting significant problems with station siting and UHI.

Beyond that are the issues with the data handling and manipulation. USHCN has actually reversed the measured trend since 1920 from cooling to adjusted warming, based on the fact that a few of their co-benefactors in the global warming scam thought it was a good idea.

I come from a different background. I was on the design team of many microprocessors, including the Intel I7, Intel Itanium and IBM Power PC. These designs have billions of transistors, and every one of them has to work perfectly. These companies spend vast resources on flushing every last bug out of these designs.

How did we manage to isolate and remove every bug? The process involved analyzing  the design using many different simulation and modeling techniques. A single approach would be inadequate, and would guarantee failure. They hire dozens of people whose sole purpose is to find and flush out problems with the design, using as much creativity and diversity of thought as possible. The designers benefit from the process, because they want their bugs found before the product goes to market.

NASA and NOAA do the exact opposite. They are pushing an agenda, and have developed a single methodology which achieves the results they are looking for. When someone like me comes along and analyzes the data using different approaches, how do they respond?

Everyone else does it our way

And that is exactly the problem. Everyone else is doing their data analysis the same way, using the same assumptions, so they all come up with the same results. I am digging up all sorts of problems with their data and methodology, and they would be wise to listen – if they actually are interested in producing an accurate temperature record.