Real Climate Science

After posting my 40% manufactured data graph the other day, a skeptic sent me this E-mail.

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.

This is a very simple concept. The data below is for Troy, Alabama in 2012. There was no station data for January-April (-9999) – so they manufactured it as marked by “E” in the final data.

More than 40% of the current USHCN V2.5 final data now comes in this category.

The data is available here :

Final : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz
Raw : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

Skeptics do need to do better, and step up their game.

I was listening to C-Span radio yesterday morning driving to work, and heard something remarkable – an intelligent, articulate, honest politician.

Representative Chris Smith R-NJ was discussing China, and the mind-boggling human rights abuses that go on there. It is country of slaves, with slave labor, forced abortion and no free speech. They have a shortage of 25 million women as a result of government policies, which drives the global sex trafficking market.

He was incredibly articulate and knowledgeable, and ripped Obama a new one for his failure to confront China, and his abuses of power. He would be a great candidate for president, unlike the buffoons the Republicans normally nominate.

Chris Smith

A few mathematically illiterate people believe that somehow the use of anomalies would make NCDC data tampering go away. Below are the anomaly and absolute temperature graphs. As you can see, it makes absolutely no difference. All that the use of anomalies does is shift the Y-axis.

The only reason to use anomalies is if you are comparing different time periods during the year.

Obviously it would make no sense to compare absolute temperatures of January-May 2014 with January-December 1934. But comparing January-May 2014 to January-May 1934 is just fine.

Again, I am happy to debate and humiliate anyone who disagrees with this basic mathematics.

My code is posted online (the ultimate documentation)  and only a mathematical idiot would believe that this has anything to do with the use of anomalies or non-anomalies. Subtracting a constant from a linear equation (Ax + B) has no impact on the slope A, which represents the temperature trend. An anomaly is a constant offset. If we change the equation from Ax + B to Ax + B – C, does the slope A change? Of course not.

The only time when the use of anomalies is important is if you are comparing different time periods during the year.  Comparing full years or the same time periods during different years does not require or benefit from the use of (imaginary) anomalies.

Nik – how did you get a PhD without understanding middle school math?

My work upsets people on both sides of the debate who have a vested interest in keeping this scam alive. I’m more than happy to debate anyone who disagrees with my results. Bring it on.

I will give Nik credit for challenging me here, which puts him well above a few other people. Nik, go back and tell your whiny friends to debate me here instead of stabbing me in the back.

Obama is always looking for ways to further weaken the other branches of government, so he seeks out sympathetic causes which he can use as an excuse to break the law. He got very sloppy this time, and didn’t realize that this particular breach of the law isn’t popular with anyone.

Now he is apologizing in hopes of avoiding impeachment.

In order to meet the challenge of  a  cooling climate, USHCN has had to change their data tampering strategy. In USHCN V1, TOBS ranged from -0.1F up to 0.3F, and went flat after 1990.

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif (650×502)

The US has been cooling, so they changed the TOBS tampering (blue below) to go from -0.6F up to 0F, and it didn’t go flat until 2010 twenty years after V1 flattening – using the same algorithm. Apparently the laws of mathematics changed since V1.

This cheating gave them an extra 0.2F, but they seem to have run out of headroom with TOBS, and have switched over to manufacturing completely fake data in their final adjustments. Note how the final adjustments (red below) have shot up since 1998. I believe that this has been achieved by manufacturing fake data for the missing monthly temperature readings – which now comprise more than 40% of the data set.

USHCN has been losing station data at a phenomenal rate. This is due to a combination of station loss and unreported data from currently operational stations. When they don’t have data for a particular month at a particular station, they fabricate data for that month, supposedly based on other stations. The percentage of fabricated monthly data is now over 40%, and will be at 100% by around 2020 if current trends continue.

Last year, Antarctica reached -135ºF, which is 27ºF below the freezing point of CO2 at atmospheric pressure. This is cold enough to freeze CO2 right out of the air.

There has been some long standing confusion about this because we do not find dry ice in Antarctica, except in their ice-cream machine.

There are different concepts which people confuse related to the partial pressure of a gas. Consider water vapor. Temperatures can drop below freezing, without frost accumulating on your windshield. This is because the number of molecules sublimating is equal to the number of molecules freezing. Until the temperature drops below the dew point or frost point, ice will not accumulate. The dew point/frost point is a function of the partial pressure of water, which is also a function of the humidity.  The humidity has almost no effect on the freezing point.

Put in simple terms, ice does not accumulate at temperatures above its dew/frost point, because it is evaporating just as fast as it is freezing. When the temperature drops below the dew/frost point, more molecules are freezing than are sublimating.

The same thing is true with CO2. At 0.0004 mole fraction of the atmosphere, CO2 has a very low partial pressure, so it won’t accumulate at -135ºF. That doesn’t mean that CO2 molecules aren’t freezing – it simply means that they are sublimating at the same rate as they are freezing, so there is no net buildup.

Partial pressure is a statistical measure which has no meaning to the behavior of any individual molecule. It does affect the numbers of molecules which are freezing. It doesn’t affect the freezing point.

I was listening to Gina McCarthy on NPR this evening describing the new CO2 regs. She said that “carbon emissions hurt people of color first”

What she probably meant is that higher electricity prices due to Obama’s regulations will hit poor people first.

Yesterday I did a post showing how more than 40% of USHCN monthly temperature is fabricated from non-existent raw data, and the percentage is rising exponentially.

Taking this a step further, I analyzed the temperature trend since 1990 of only the fabricated data – and compared it to the measured raw data. The actual thermometer data shows no US warming since 1990, but USHCN’s fabricated data shows more than 1.5 degrees warming.

Just how bad is their cheating? They are tampering with the data at a rate of 7.6ºF per century. They have introduced a huge warming bias by introducing fake data which has no thermometer data to back it up.

*Mosher says this is all golden.