JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America

It’s not fossil fuels causing global warming, it’s man-made adjustments. Stop the adjustments!

In South America, there are hardly any rural land thermometers. GISS tells us the area is warming (see the map below). Paul Homewood looked at the raw data. There are only three rural stations currently operating in the area, Puerto Casado, Mariscal, and San Juan, and they all show a raw trend that falls. As in so many other situations, after adjustments, all three show a rising trend. The changes are breathtaking. In Mariscal raw temperatures of 25.5C turned out to be “really” 22.5C. (Those 1950 thermometers were hopeless ;-) ). In San Juan Bautista, and Puerto Casasdo the  old thermometers get adjusted down by around two degrees. Perhaps there are reasons for the adjustments, but if old thermometers so so bad, and station changes have made such a difference, why does any scientist pretend we can calculate global temperatures accurately?

The GISS map of South America. Left: The warming. Right: The NOAA map showing “grey” areas with no coverage. See Notalotofpeopleknowthat for source links.

Paul Homewood describes what he found when he compared the raw data with the official set: Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America. This is just one of his three graphs. They are all show similar transformations.

Christopher Booker discusses the implications in: Climategate, the sequel: ‘How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming’.

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America

After telling us about Homewoods work, Booker describes how dubious so many of the surface temperature sets are:

One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.

But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.

To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.

But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.

The GISS  group told the world 2014 was the hottest ever. Goddard Institute for Space Studies doesn’t use the satellites in space — they use thermometers on the ground, near airports and tarmacs, which need a LOT of man-made adjustments.

These datasets need independent replication. Analysts who want to find the flaws need to get the resources to replicate them properly. Anything less is not real science. Skeptics need funding.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (143 votes cast)
Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America , 9.4 out of 10 based on 143 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pwnlq6y

276 comments to Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America

  • #
    GB-Dorset

    It would be worth adding Paul Homewood’s excellent site to your list of links.

    –Shall be done! Good point. – Jo

    290

  • #
    the Griss

    Steven Goddard shows the same thing happening in Reykjavik, Iceland, and who knows how many other places.

    We know it happens here too, plenty of evidence for unwarranted BOM adjustments…. always CREATING a warming trend.

    I am actually beginning to wonder if there has been ANY REAL WARMING AT ALL since 1900 or earlier.

    The amount of adjustment and fabrication, ALWAYS CREATING A WARMING TREND, is just staggering !!

    910

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Goddard and Homewood are a tag team showing these shenanigans. Both are well worth reading. As Jo, tongue in cheekly points out, there may be a reason for it. But the consistency of the adjustments, both current and historical, and the magnitude tend to belie any feeble attempts at excuses.

      550

      • #

        I think the primary reason for it is occurring in Paris towards the end of 2015.

        The UN System needs AGW to justify its Post-2015 agenda to what is variously called Marx’s Human Development Society or the Great Transition. This way it looks like it’s for our own good, not the oligarchical power grab it actually is.

        Plus it buys time for K-12 education globally to turn Climate Change into a ‘social fact’ even though it’s not a scientific one. Few will know.

        471

    • #
      Menicholas

      I have been wondering that myself, Griss.
      I have also ben wondering if there exists anywhere on the Earth, even one single weather station showing, with unadjusted data, that any of these so-called warmest years evah have actually been measured to be warmest.
      It seems that everywhere we look, we see altered data set and/or no real warming trend.
      The standard response is that it is “global” warming, and individual locations and even regions do not matter. But how can it be warmer “everywhere” in the aggregate, without having any specific locations that are warmer than ever…I mean evah?
      After discounting locations obviously being increasingly impacted by UHIE in recent years, one must conclude that we may really be getting colder…by quite a bit.
      And even though the satellite data seems to show recent years being warmer (although not “warmest”) than in the 80′s, there are some who say this may be due to that data being calibrated using the tainted surface data!

      70

    • #
      aussieguy

      Those with an agenda and have a vested interest in it, are bound to produce numbers, surveys, studies, reports, etc to support their agenda. They need the material for propaganda purposes in order to deceive the public with their scam.

      It all unravels when you apply the simple exercise of looking at the methodologies in how they got their numbers…You soon find its kind of like pulling on a loose thread. Their whole argument comes apart when placed under any form of scrutiny…Which explains why they must silence any opposition by any means!

      Its blatantly obvious that politics trumps scientific and academic integrity in the 21st century.


      In the aero world, if the simulation numbers don’t match the numbers produced by wind tunnel experiments or flight tests of prototypes; you don’t continue to go by the simulation numbers. Unlike the climate clanks, we actually do verify and test the instruments in wind tunnels and prototypes. (Verify sensors and check with the built-in test equipment). We even question if the numbers make sense and align. (Simulation numbers ~= Wind tunnel numbers ~= Flight test numbers => 3% to 5% tolerance. Lower for big brand companies like Boeing.)

      In the Climate Change realm, its a different story. The numbers are exaggerated, things are hyped with emotion, and simulations, satellite, and ground sensors don’t even align within 5% of one another!…Seriously, who would side with these scammers when they are intellectually dishonest with everything they do? This tinkering and tampering shows the true nature of the Climate Change movement as a whole.

      120

      • #
        aussieguy

        Amendment…

        These “scientists” practice:
        [SNIP - we need to be careful about what we accuse people of - Jo]
        => The Collective Worship of Consensus Science

        The best thing we can do is to hold them to account. Keep pushing out the raw numbers. Keep showing their academica and scientific dishonesty.



        On a side note:

        What’s the difference between ISIS and the Climate Change movement? Apparently not much! They want us all beheaded!
        => http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/25/greenpeace-activist-calls-for-climate-change-deniers-to-be-beheaded/

        Check out the sick mind of a Climate Change nutter…

        “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

        “The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

        “If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

        “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

        “And we be many, but you be few.”


        Climate Change nutter…Carries the tone of a ISIS nutter!

        40

    • #
      Peter C

      I am actually beginning to wonder if there has been ANY REAL WARMING AT ALL since 1900 or earlier.

      I agree.

      My perception over 60 years is that Melbourne is about the same as I remember it from when I was a tiny tot.

      BOM data shows 1.2C warming, but when they moved the official site from Latrobe St to Olympic Park last year the difference was 1.2C down. Consequently it seems that the Urban Heat Island effect was responsible (ie gradual warming at the site due to encroachment of urban development). Latrobe St had been affected over the past 60 years by high building development on the south side which would affect night time temperatures and diminish the effects of the southerly cold snaps. On the North side there is now a 6 lane major arterial road with 24 hour traffic.

      So Melbourne probably has not warmed at all.

      At the other extreme we have the Armargh Observatory in Ireland with a 160 year record of no warming.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/on-the-scales-of-warming-worry-magnitudespart-1/

      In the view of Dr Darko Burtina, estimated global temperatures are rubbish (even without adjustments). What you have to do is show warming in one place, then another place. If all the places show warming (or even a majority of places show warming), then you might conclude that the world is warming.

      But when we look at particular places with apparent warming in the thermometer record, what we find are adjustments!

      So if Melbourne has not warmed (southern hemisphere) and Armargh has not warmed (northern hemisphere), where are the warming places? When identified, they need to be scrutinized!

      170

      • #
        tom0mason

        Has been my point for many a year. There is no such thing as a ‘Global Climate’.
        There are climates that range across vast swaths of this planet. Broadly there is the Norther and Southern hemispheres. Each of these can be broken down in to smaller inland/oceanic/coastal, countrywide, or smaller macroclimates. It is the ignorance of the smaller areas that is, and (IMO) will continue to be, a cause of major problems to climate observeration.

        As you rightly say, Melborne may have changed a little over the decades, but Armargh Observatory shows no such effect, so the questions remain where, when, and by how much has elsewheres’ climates changed. If we can’t answer those questions – even in the broadest terms – then we know very little.

        We should have better than ‘the hottest year eva’ – we need to know where, when, how much, and why – right down to the macro geographic level. Isn’t that why all these billion dollar super-computers were bought? If it is being done then it is not being shown. Instead we get the homogenized, averaged, statistical pap that is passed off as science.
        Homogenization and averaging is the antithisis to this regional view, because with the averaging methodology, the regional specifics of climate variation are willfully lost, and reasons to blame all humankind for any climate variation are more easily be generated.

        40

  • #
    the Griss

    ps.. I have pointed out, a couple of times, that since Gavin Schmidt took over in 2013 there has been a quite large divergence of trend between the NCDC based surface data sets and the satellite data sets.

    He seems to be on a mission to create warming wherever he can.

    630

    • #
      James Bradley

      Griss,

      There’s only so many hottest evvaaaa years the alarmists can claim before an increasing number of people begin to ask * “Why is it so?”.

      *Couldn’t help throwing that one in, Professor Julius Sumner Miller was one of my heroes when I was a kid. Professor George Gamow was another, his book, ‘Gravity’, was given to me by my grandfather in 1963. I was 8 years old when I first read it.

      270

  • #
    Robert O

    It is invalid to give results beyond the precision of the original measurements; if you can only measure to an accuracy of 2 degrees celsius then it a nonsense to present data with an accuracy of 0.2 degrees. The 2014 hottest year on record by 0.02 or 0.04 is a classic when the best you can measure accurately is about 0.2 degrees.

    When I studied science subjects at Uni the concept of scientific honesty was drummed into us. However, this seems to have been swept aside by politics these days.

    700

    • #
      Roger

      “When I studied science subjects at Uni the concept of scientific honesty was drummed into us. However, this seems to have been swept aside by politics these days.”

      That would be the ‘Licence to Lie and Deceive to Further a Political Aim’ that forms the Keystone of Post Modern Science.

      (Post Modern Science is practiced by ‘climate scientists’ at CRU, University of East Anglia. They proudly claimed this 3 or 4 years ago in personal profiles on the CRU website. I am sure the Wayback machine will still have these. )

      230

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        I happened to watch a video on narcissism yesterday and light dawned. Some of the traits of extreme narcissists:

        amoral/conscienceless
        authoritarian
        contemptuous
        critical of others
        cruel
        envious and competitive
        feel entitled
        grandiose
        hyper-sensitive to criticism
        impulsive
        lack sense of humor
        naive
        pessimistic
        secretive
        self-contradictory

        Does this ring any bells?

        220

        • #
          MacSual

          Without naming names or gender that entire list covered a certain red-headed PM,and unfortunately it also covers a leftist contender to the office.
          Politicians do tend to mirror society in general,which doesn’t bode well for the future.

          110

          • #
            jorgekafkazar

            There is a growing body of thought that says modern society fosters the development of narcissists, then enables them. It’s worth some consideration. Imagine a society that contains millions of “boys from Brazil.”

            50

          • #
            Dennis

            There was a PM who walked in floodwaters in Brisbane Qld with a bag on his head while talking at a television camera, a reporter alongside him also with a bag on his head. During the 2013 federal election campaign it was reported that the opposition had been handed an opinion on the water wader, grandiose narcissist.

            10

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          I won’t name any names either, but his initials are Barak Hussein Obama. And even our military chiefs are now claiming that climate change is a much greater risk than terrorism.

          70

          • #
            jorgekafkazar

            The video had a section on professions that attract narcissists, so I wasn’t thinking of anyone specific, but rather an entire class of people: academic promoters of AGW hysteria.

            40

        • #
          ROM

          I’ve been curious for sometime about the psychology of the individuals and groups that allows them to justify within themselves the wholesale corrupting of basic scientific data, weather data in this case, that has been laboriously collected for close on a century now by thousands of dedicated observers operating often in quite trying and harsh conditions to collect all those small bits of data every day that goes to make up the great pre-corrupted original Climate of the Earth record for the last century.

          It seems beyond comprehension that there seems to be no recognition or expressed concenr that invariably sometime in the years ahead the organisations and the individuals involved in this wholesale corrupting of the data for who \knows what end, won’t be found out.

          And that of course will mean a complete destruction and total discrediting of any carefully built reputations whether the owner of that reputation is alive or dead. Few indeed want to be remembered as a wholesale corrupter of scientific data but still they persist with their ideologically driven actions that in another time and place I would label as outright f***d [ Can't use the "F" word here due to legal consequences for our hostess ]

          Lysenko is one that springs to mind as a classic example of a very powerful figure who controlled all of the major science in the USSR for many years but reduced to abject scorn for his total corruption of what was never science at any level when his patron, Stalin, died

          So I decided to follow up with the not too damning “Psychology of falsehoods ” on google to see what might come up.

          And very quickly found this highly relevant paper below which unfortunately is impossible to do justice too in any one post due to the very wide range of psychological traits it expands on.
          All of them with dealing with the psychology of lies, of false hoods, of deliberate alteration of data and facts plus straight out corruption right across the board in all aspects of life.

          I have picked out a couple of paras as below which are not necessarily representative of the whole article.
          ___________________________

          The Psychology of Deceit:

          Implications for Record-Keeping by Organizations

          Owen Ambur, May 19, 2002

          [ Gore, Flannery, Hansen,Steffen and etc probably fit this profile below ]

          Narcissistic individuals tend to see the world only from their own perspective and are thus prone to lying. These lies are often fueled not so much by sociopathic motives as by the need to perceive and define the world according to their own internal states. (p. 123)

          The narcissistic person often has poor reality testing; the outside world is perceived in very personal terms, and the internal world is contaminated with grandiosity… in times of stress, people may turn toward and look for narcissistic leaders.

          We should not be surprised by the “lies” of these politicians. They and their constituents are involved in mutual self-deception.
          The politician says what others want to hear or describes how things should be; neither half of the dyad wants to know the truth. (pp. 123 & 124)
          … when the self-esteem of a narcissistic person is threatened, he or she may, in response to narcissistic injury, react with sadistic behaviors.
          The resulting tension can, in its milder forms, result in increased self-deception by group members; they will distort their own views of reality to placate the leader.
          When the tension becomes unbearable, “The group processes, in reaction to the rages of the leader, can worsen the situation, leading to ruination, blood baths, or mutiny.” (p. 125)

          [ / ]
          ____________________

          This following arguably applies quite distinctly to a number of warmist trolls who appear on Jo’s blog on a regular basis.

          Informal groups and formalized organizations may be no less subject to the tendency toward revisionist history than individual “pseudologues,” whose behavior Ford summarizes as follows:

          The pseudologue spins tales that appear plausible on the surface but do not hang together over time. Fact and fiction are woven together in an interesting matrix until the two are virtually indistinguishable.
          Unlike a delusional psychotic person, the pseudologue will abandon the story or change it if confronted with contradictory evidence or sufficient disbelief. The stories do have an enduring quality and after repeating them enough times, even the pseudologue begins to believe them. (p. 135)5

          [ / ]

          _______________

          “Group think” appears to be endemic in climate science. We only have to look at the various local university climate research groups to see the highly incestuous nature of their group thinking where outside influences are extremely and usually deliberately limited and the whole of the climate research projects are retained “in house” without any outside critical examination by those independent of the climate research unit being permitted let alone countenanced.

          (p. 258)
          Groupthink is … a particular form of defective group decision making… the group process can interfere with the consideration of potential errors or analysis of the risk assessments of a variety of options…

          Ford notes several feature of groupthink (p. 259):

          ! An illusion of invulnerability

          ! An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality

          ! Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings or other essential information contrary to the proposed plan

          ! Stereotyped views of the enemy …

          ! Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus

          ! A shared illusion of unanimity about judgments conforming to the majority rule

          ! Direct pressure on any member who expresses any strong arguments against any of the group’s illusions

          ! Emergence of self-appointed mind-guards – members who protect the group from adverse information that might destroy the shared complacency about the decision

          Ford observes:
          … groupthink represents a dangerous form of self-delusion. To meet social needs (i.e., support, acceptance, and approval), an individual suspends his or her independent critical faculties and yields to the demands of the group… Groupthink is more likely to occur when the group is shielded from outside influences…
          Bureaucratic institutions, whether corporations or government agencies, promote self-deception that may result in disaster for many persons… this process [may be attributed] to the depersonalizing effects of alarge organization and to the compartmentalization of functions and decision making.

          Structural compartmentalization – in which means, ends, actions, and their consequences are divorced from one another – may result in psychic compartmentalization, in which personal responsibility for action is separated from corporate activity.
          Thus, the corporation or government agency collectively engages in behavior that very few individuals, if acting on their own, would find morally acceptable and compatible with ethical values… the people most likely to succeed in the bureaucratic or corporate environment are those who allow themselves to be manipulated.
          When people perceive themselves as objects to be molded to fit external criteria for organizational ends, they find it easier to see others as objects to be used. (pp. 260 & 261)

          [ / ]

          110

    • #
      RB

      They treat the resolution of the instrument as if it were the mean and SD of many precise measurements.

      100

    • #
      Duster

      It is pointless to worry the precision issue when the announcement was an assertion that GISS was 38% certain the year was a record. In properly framed scientific parlance, the means they were 62% certain 2014 was nothing special. No responsible scientist leads with the least likely conclusion as the preferred. They tell you what the data really says, which is that there are about two chances in three that there simply was nothing about 2014 of note. As regards precision lab courses expected you to interpolate around the measure if the needle actually clearly fell between two marks. So, if we had a thermometer marked in 2-deg increments, we estimated to the nearest degree.

      40

  • #
    Stamper

    Years ago NZ’s NIWA did the same thing to the New Zealand data; with ‘expert’ assistance from Dr Jim Salinger who learned his skills at the University of East Anglia.

    Just plain corruption.

    See here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/new-zealnds-temperature-record-challenged-by-new-skeptical-paper/

    421

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Differing assessments of the DeFreitas paper [SNIP: OT Ad hom]:
      NZ [snip inflammatory] finally publish an NZ temperature series – but their paper’s stuffed with errors
      and again generally on the issue:
      An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

      So Silly, explain the errors. Make an argument or are you just tossing dirt you don’t understand? – Jo

      250

      • #
        the Griss

        roflmao….. We eagerly await Gareth’s paper in rebuttal. as if !

        .. once he finishes harvesting this year’s truffles, and his next science fiction book.

        oh and plus a link to the conversation…

        great science from the SF.. too much mouldy straw, I reckon !

        140

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        >”but their paper’s stuffed with errors”

        Your link is stuffed with straw men SF.

        Point-by-point rebuttals:

        ‘Analysis of Renowden’s analysis of our reanalysis’

        — by Bob Dedekind

        http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/11/analysis-of-renowdens-analysis-of-our-reanalysis/

        ‘Critical debating points answered – Part 1′

        by Richard Treadgold

        http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/11/critical-debating-points-answered-part-1/

        ‘Critical debating points answered – Part 2′

        by Richard Treadgold

        http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/11/critical-debating-points-answered-part-2/

        ‘Critical debating points answered – Part 3′

        by Richard Treadgold

        http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/11/critical-debating-points-answered-part-3/

        For starters. That’s if you want to go on with it.

        250

      • #
        James Bradley

        sf,

        ‘An Insider’s Story’ great link sf.

        Approproate example concluding correlation between tobacco groups and global warming groups showing that vested interests in both tobacco and global warming groups manipulated research data to promote self serving agenda.

        That’s what we’ve been trying to show you all along sf, that’s why the global warming agenda has squandered kingdoms trying to shut down world wide debate on the subject dismissing those who question the ‘settled science’ as deniers.

        The best example is lack of any debate in any public media, our own ABC is the prime example, where is the debate on a scientific theory that has wasted valuable resources without any mandate from the taxpayer.

        Bravo sf for bringing your valuable insight to notice.

        290

      • #
        tom0mason

        SF
        Could you develope an interesting comment that would raise an argument above the level of banal?

        161

      • #
        MacSual

        When it’s all said and done if you alter the data then you alter the facts and if you alter the facts you are misleading the reader(I use misleading because some moderators don’t like people using the term lying)
        eg If you have a bottle of soft-drink that contains 1.25 litres and you take out a glassful which is about 200mils you still have a bottle of drink but it doesn’t contain the same amount as before,you can pass it off as a bottle of softdrink but it isn’t a full measure.
        In business circles if you sell a 1.25 litre bottle of drink and it only contains 1.05 litres you will face charges.

        Science keeps on telling us that they need to interpret the “raw”data but in relation to the weather it shouldn’t need it,the rainfall and temps should be as they are recorded,it is up to the reader or student to interpret the data as they see it.
        35c in one place and 30c in a neighbouring place doesn’t come to 32.5 average or adjusted or whatever you prefer to call it.

        BTW who was the idiot who came up with an average temp and rainfall for Australia and did they take the temp/rainfall figures from the Continental Shelf?

        90

      • #
        Dariusz

        SF
        I just talked to a teacher and she was completely unaware of satellite data showing no warming but she knew that we were in a grave global warming danger. She knew about 99% ( not 97%) now of the scientific consensus. She was also ok with the 18c provision. When I asked how she knew about all of it she said from the ABC. I guess you won as even teachers that supposed to be the main stayers of independent thinking spit this crap. Will take another generation to get rid of your poison. So Celebrate your hold that you have on the gullible on your Australia Day. Celebrate that Australia is less free and less inquisitive. Celebrate the lack of individualism that your wish for and pray upon. Your ideal world is one that escaped from (Communism) and now you want to imposed that on me again. Stalism and hitlerism disguised as water melons is your ideal where there is no free thought and only ideology that you feel confortable with. Why you dislike, bah hate people like me? I don,t hate you and welcome you on this side. I Want intellectual sparring as this makes me stronger and human. And this is exactly what you don,t want.
        The teacher was my ex-girlfriend of many years and now more that ever I know why we split up.

        110

        • #
          the Griss

          I did a stint of maths teaching out west.

          In one 10M5 (very bottom maths class), there was a guy that even his mates called “Animal”, after the Muppet character.

          SF reminds me very much of him.

          A life of totally incoherent ranting and raving to no particular purpose except to get noticed.

          91

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            Billy Connoly had a story about “Marie’s Wedding”, where the row furthest from the windows were all “animals”. Tried to find a link but failed. Echoes what you said, but funnier!

            30

      • #
        Peter C

        Is Silly Filly actually Miriam O’Brien?

        I am beginning to think so.

        40

        • #
          the Griss

          I don’t think so..

          SF occasionally, (maybe by accident) says something half sensible.. and occasionally even humorous..

          This is a far cry from anything Miriam O’Brien has ever produced. !!

          60

          • #
            Peter C

            Yes perhaps. I see what you mean. But maybe Miriam was trying to be a litttle bit humorous with the name of her blog (Hot Whopper) and her pseudonym (Sou from Bara-something).

            I went to look at her site recently. She seems to have gone into some sort of frenzy!

            00

  • #
    TedM

    Worthwhile looking at Paul Homewood’s site. There’s more info on this. Just click on the graph and it takes you there.

    130

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    “am actually beginning to wonder if there has been ANY REAL WARMING AT ALL since 1900 or earlier.”

    That’s why I have never taken much note of claims of “hottest eva”..

    I lived through the late forties (no real recollection) fifties and sixties, without air-con and many summers of 102 to 105 degrees F for a week on end.

    This summer has been hot but not the same readings.

    KK

    370

  • #
    Ron Cook

    O/T but still in South America. 25th Jan Channel 9′s “Sixty Minutes” ran a doco on the Patagonian Glaciers promoting their melting and blaming AGW and CO2.

    Anybody else see it?

    R-COO- K+

    110

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Saw the link below’

      Scale was amazing.

      Caused by excess ice on the pole squeezing ice out to the extremities.

      Calving is a function of TOO MUCH ICE ACCUMULATION not CAGW.

      KK

      240

      • #
        tom0mason

        KinkyKeith
        January 25, 2015 at 9:47 pm
        ¯

        Calving is a function of TOO MUCH ICE ACCUMULATION not CAGW.”

        ¯

        And I foolishly thought that it was brought about by too much bull getting into the silly cows.

        50

    • #
      handjive

      01/24/15: Melting glaciers reveal items lost in the Stone Age
      http://inhabitat.com/melting-glaciers-reveal-items-lost-in-the-stone-age/

      “The Earth experienced a fairly warm period about 7,000 years ago, but the centuries of cold that followed covered many parts of the world (like Norway) in thick layers of perennial ice.

      Now that climate change is warming things up again, the ice is melting away and revealing the ancient layers beneath them.

      These items allow us to catch a glimpse into the day-to-day lives of Stone Age people, and it’s fun to see that they probably weren’t all that different from those of us living today.”
      . . .
      “… it’s fun to see that they probably weren’t all that different from those of us living today.”

      They’re still looking for the shutdown coal-fired power stations, but, 97% of climate scientists say it is settled.

      160

      • #
        MacSual

        Those bloody glaciers,I put my flints down for a few minutes and then they were gone.

        These items allow us to catch a glimpse into the day-to-day lives of Stone Age people, and it’s fun to see that they probably weren’t all that different from those of us living today.”
        My wife already thinks that I’m a Neanderthal the last thing I need is for her to get unequivocal proof.(shh don’t let Jo hear,between you and me most women think that men are Neanderthals)

        70

  • #
    Frederick Colbourne

    “… if you can only measure to an accuracy of 2 degrees celsius then it a nonsense to present data with an accuracy of 0.2 degrees.”

    Yep. You can demonstrate this with a spreadsheet. Just enter 1000 random numbers mean 20.000 and standard deviation 10.000. (3 decimal places) In the next column round the numbers to the nearest 0.2

    Run this test 30 times each time recording the differences in the average and check the mean and standard deviation of the differences.

    140

  • #
    sillyfilly

    This might explain the necessity for adjustment (homogenisation)!
    And as for this nonsense:

    and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.

    utterly disproven by recent research:

    We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence)

    262

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Wrong again. That says nothing of the magical adjustments.

      240

      • #
        ROM

        As the discussion so far is about adjustments to the global temperature data I will place this post here;

        For those who have forgotten or haven’t caught up with the incredible and quite frankly, [ No! not that one! ] basically spurious adjustments, infills, zombie stations, homogenization and etc being made to the global temperature data on a daily basis first at the NCDC [ National Climatic Data Center ] then further “adjusted” [ ? ] again at GISS and CRU and the NOAA all of whom use the same NCDC global temperature data base, a read of Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc” blog post Understanding adjustments to temperature data of the 7th July 2014 is well worth reading.

        Zeke Hausfather, a researcher with the BEST project provides some inkling of the various adjustments that are used by the “keepers” of the climate record.
        Steve Mosher also plays a role in the BEST project and comes across in this post as “god” [ spelt with a very small "g" ]

        The comments are mostly fairly incredulous and disbelieving at both the sheer scale of the adjustments and particularly the fact that the decades old historical temperatures for a station are changed almost invariably down so as to make the present seem hotter, every time new data comes in from that station.

        If you don’t believe that then read Zeke’s headline post and the first few hundred comments where they back Zeke and Mosher into a corner of admission.

        As well there is the further total apparent stupidity of most of the adjustments including items like zombie stations; ie invented stations to fill holes where there are no stations along with decades long invented data for that Zombie / invented non existent station.
        Plus the data drop outs from stations still reporting, the huge variations between what the stations are measuring compared with their supposed data in the adjusted data base  plus a whole gamut of adjustments that seem to be totally nonsensical although defended by Zeke [ who comes across as reasonable or else he would never have posted this ] and Mosher.

        But this of course it must be remembered is Catastrophic Climate Warming Science where no such thing as common sense and scientific integrity is ever allowed to get in the way of the agenda.

        As it turns out but not admitted, nearly all of these adjustments are geared to fit in with the requirements of the climate modellers as inputs to their models and are not designed to fit public [ tax payers ] expectations.
        However as it also turns out despite some hand waving to the contrary, these same “adjusted for climate model” temperatures are then released as the true global temperatures for media and public consumption.

        The comments run to 2044 comments.
        I read the first 1000.
        I would strongly recommend at least, a read of the headline post to get an inkling on the sheer scale of the “adjustments” and etc to the Global and national temperature data base as described by Zeke Hausfather.

        120

    • #
      Roger

      SF

      Then BEST are out of step with all others.

      CRU work with around 1 deg C allowance for UHI……

      BUT UK weather forecasters routinely warn that night-time winter temperatures in the countryside outside the urban centres will be around 3 – 4 deg C colder.

      Take a drive through a town centre on a freezing winter night and watch the outside temperature shown on the dash display drop by anywhere from 1-3 deg C (depending on the size and population of the town) as you get out into the countryside – which is where I happen to live.

      230

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Take a drive near the coast and you will be impacted by sea surface temperatures as well, not the UHI. Or simply understand that Sydney City is generally cooler during the day and warmer at night than the Western suburbs

        118

        • #
          James Bradley

          sf,

          Suffice it to say you have posted another well thought out and logically sequential representation of cause and effect.

          However, it is the biggest load of cr#p you’ve posted so far bar none.

          I can’t in all good conscience even conceive of a satirical comeback that would highlight for you the utter stupidity of your post.

          How can you even remotely tie any geographical temperature differences to an inconsequential variation of sea temperature then qualify it by the word ‘impacted’ to justify purpoting it as causal.

          The geography of the Sydney basin is a natural heat sink.

          You zealots are un-freakin-believable.

          On a personal note, I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for your capacity to endeavour to percevere.

          140

        • #
          Dariusz

          But you tells us that we are not climate scientists and we don,t know what are talking about, and now you tells that everyone can be the judge of your theory. So judging it I come to a conclusion that your theory is crap.

          90

        • #
          the Griss

          Ah.. but if you travel up or down the coast into Sydney, Sydney centre is definitely warmer.

          Also If you drive into Wagga Wagga in a hot day, the centre is most definitely hotter.
          No sea breeze there, is there, little mule. ;-)

          Sorry, but your idea is, as usual.. is Busted !!

          70

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Yea, California is a regular ice box! They must be, their SSTs are so low.

          Do some research before making a fool of yourself.

          20

    • #
      handjive

      Melbourne changes monitoring site from city to park, new max temperature averages 1.2C cooler

      “Mr Trewin also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena. Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.”

      (theAge.com)
      . . .

      160

    • #
      RB

      No body is arguing that you can’t just average all the station measurements. They change position, equipment, have poor records, are not evenly spread out and have been in service for different periods.

      Homogenisation is supposed to correct for position and equipment changes that were not recorded. If you look carefully at the data, it becomes obvious that the opportunity was used to increase the warming trend. The huge difference between raw data and adjusted, or even the adjustments after a few years, shows a problem. You have a few stations in Iceland where the raw data shows a common downward trend and that is completely changed after identifying break points with their neighbours?

      100

    • #
      RB

      Melbourne max
      Melbourne min.

      The max shows a step up common to many Aus stations after equipment change.

      60

    • #
      ROM

      To help Silly Filly research it’s ignorance on Urban Heat Islands.
      Just a few of numerous studies and peer reviewed papers on Urban Heat Islands.

      From CO2 Science ;

      Urban heat Island papers and studies.

      Asia;

      * — Urban Heat Islands of China

      * — Urban Heating in China’s Shenzhen Economic Zone

      * — Extreme Temperature Occurrences in China: 1961-2008

      * — The Warming of South Korean Cities: 1954-2008

      * — Urban Warming vs. Global Warming in East China

      * — Global Warming and Urban Heat Islands

      * — Urban Warming in Jakarta, Indonesia

      * — Urban Heat Islands of North China

      * — The Urban Heat Islands of Beijing and Wuhan, China

      * — Land Use Changes and Surface Warming in Eastern China

      The 1958-2000 Temperature History of the Tibetan Plateau

      Urban Heat Islands of South Korea

      Twenty-Nine Years of Warming in South Korea

      The Urban Heat Island of Shanghai, China

      Recent Dramatic Growth of Urban Heat Islands in China

      Urban Heat Islands of South Korea

      On Assessing Surface Air Temperature Trends

      Urban Warming in China

      Non-Uniform and Discontinuous Warming in the Area of the Eastern Mediterranean

      ________

      General;

      * — Urban Heat Islands of the Anatolian Peninsula

      * — A New Analysis of the Urban Heat Island Effect

      * — The Urban Heat Islands of Beijing and Wuhan, China

      * — Non-CO2-Induced Anthropogenic Warming

      * — Urban Heat Islands of Coastal Tropical Cities

      How “Pristine” are the Surface Air Temperature Data that Suggest an “Unprecedented” Global Warming Over the 20th Century?

      The Industrial-Region Heat Island Effect

      More Reasons to Question the Veracity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record

      Do Urban CO2 Domes Contribute to Urban Heat Islands?

      Are the Near-Surface Air Temperature Data We Possess Precise Enough to Detect a Component of Historical Global Warming that Can Confidently Be Attributed to the Model-Predicted Greenhouse Effect of the Past Century’s Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions?

      Urban Heat Islands of Small Towns
      ___________

      America;

      * — A New Analysis of the Urban Heat Island Effect

      * — The Urban Heat Island of Mexicali, Mexico

      * — New York City’s Urban Heat Island

      The Urban CO2 Dome and Heat Island of Baltimore (USA)

      Fifty Years of Temperature Change in California, USA

      Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA)

      The Urban Heat Island of San Juan, Puerto Rico

      Urban Heat Islands of Cities in Tropical Mexico

      The Urban Heat Island of Barrow, Alaska

      Effects of an Urban-Rural CO2/Temperature Gradient on Plant Productivity

      Urban Heat Islands of Coastal Tropical Cities

      The Urban Heat Island of Houston, Texas

      Most of North America Fails to Board 20th-Century Climate Catastrophe Train

      Urban Heat Island Effects Appear to Inflate U.S. Coastal Air Temperature Trends

      Unsuspected Urban-Induced Warming

      The Urbanization of America’s Watersheds: Climatic Implications

      _______________

      Rest of the World;

      South African Urban Heat Islands

      The Urban Heat Island of Debrecen, Hungary

      Urban Heat Islands in Australia

      Two Centuries of Temperature Change in Rural Norway

      A Three-Thousand Year Record of South African Temperatures

      Non-Uniform and Discontinuous Warming in the Area of the Eastern Mediterranean

      Urban Warming With No Change in Population

      ___________

      Quotes from the review of just one of these papers; Urban heat Islands in Australia

      What was done;

      The authors studied the characteristics of urban heat islands in several cities in Australia with populations ranging from approximately 1,000 to 3,000,000 people.

      What was learned ;

      The maximum urban-rural temperature differences of the Australian cities were found to scale linearly with the logarithms of their populations; and Torok et al. noted that the same was true for cities in Europe and North America, but that the heat islands of Australian cities were generally less than those of similar-size European cities (which were less than similar-size North American cities) and that they increased at a slower rate with population growth than did European cities (which increased slower than did cities in North America).

      The regression lines of all three continents essentially converged in the vicinity of a population of 1,000 people, however, where the mean maximum urban-rural temperature difference was approximately 2.2 ± 0.2 °C.

      190

      • #
        sillyfilly

        That list, in all it’s glory, bears no specific relationship to the data series in question! If only Anthony Watts had maintained his integrity:

        “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

        ,

        07

        • #
          tom0mason

          I understand all this technical stuff can be very confusing for you at first, but you stick with it. Though please pay attention.

          Points to note.
          1. This is NOT the WUWT blog site run by Anthony Watts.
          2. ROM’s posting — the one that you are replying to — also does not reference WUWT blog site run by Anthony Watts.

          In other words, dear, you seem to have lost the plot — I should quit now and save yourselve further embarrassment.

          80

        • #
          tom0mason

          I understand all this technical stuff can be very confusing for you at first, but you stick with it. Though please pay attention.

          Points to note.
          1. This is NOT the WUWT blog site run by Anthony Watts.
          2. ROM’s posting — the one that you are replying to — also does not reference WUWT blog site run by Anthony Watts.

          In other words, dear, you seem to have lost the plot — I should quit now and save yourself further embarrassment.

          10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It is interesting that you mention South Korea, in your fourth bullet, but not North Korea.

        North Korea does not suffer from climate change, and so it stands, as a exemplary political model, for what we should all aspire to.

        110

      • #
        tom0mason

        DumbDonkey doesn’t understand your message, or apparently what blog they’re on — poor dear thinks it’s WUWT.
        I found it very simply with just a click, and it’s right to the point about UHI effect and measurements.

        I would just say DumbDonkey can always pick through these. But I really wonder if they can.

        20

    • #
      MacSual

      If that is the case why don’t they put the weather stations in parkland,after all if concrete brick and bitumen doesn’t absorb heat then air flowing through trees and over grass won’t cool down.
      I know that I’m being facetious ,but that is all this deserves.

      50

    • #

      Paul Homewood’s claims are not about the Urban Heat Island effect. They are about unaccounted and ad hoc adjustments of the raw data. Homewood has now checked all the other available temperature stations in Paraguay. All show similar ad hoc adjustments. There is no homogenization.
      Sillyfilly – Can you admit that you are wrong?

      20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    60 Minutes Australia just ran a story from April 2014 Wild Patagonia: the glaciers that hold a dire warning for earths future. (Warning explicit warmist BS content)

    Patagonia being the Southern most tip of South America is apparently in peril because of Co2 levels not seen for 750,000 years or indeed millions and the only way the poor Glacier will survive is if we cease to exist, note to scientist DR Stephan Harrison, who refuses to debate skeptics, almost a year on from your unscientific falsehoods we have increased record Antarctic ice cover and increased ice recovery at the Arctic, never leave Patagonia and please never inflict the world with your rampant stupidity.

    381

    • #
      sillyfilly

      NSIDC indicates a retreating ARCTIC ice extent for every month in the satellite record. ANTARCTICA is losing ice mass despite the ice extent increase. Patagonian glaciers are losing ice mass and retreating.
      “please never inflict the world with your rampant stupidity”

      159

      • #
        Bobl

        By how much silly, and have you bothered to check that it is causal for a global forcing of a mere 0.6W per square meter. No? I thought not, maths isn’t your thing is it? Well is IS my thing and very interestingly the ice mass loss supposedly reported of 300 cubic km per annum, takes at least 5W per square meter, and much more likely 30-100W per square meter, therefore it is NOT a cause / effect relationship and global warming cannot be the cause of antarctic ice loss, in fact it’s impossible, unless of course the law of conservation of energy is wrong…

        360

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        False. Ice extent has gone up and down. And is currently at about a 10 year peak. Now how is that a constant down?

        Why not follow your last line.

        270

      • #
        the Griss

        Ice mass stable to increasing over most of Antarctic ice sheet

        The only place loosing ice mass is the geothermic heated area of the West Antarctic Peninsular.

        270

        • #
          MacSual

          I wonder how fjords were made mmmm let me think,oh that’s right,they were caused by glaciers moving down hill,but where did the glacier go,gees I don’t know,maybe someone pinched them!
          Why is it that city folk have this overriding worry about the weather,it’s not as though it makes a lot of difference to your days if it is wet or sunny.
          Country folk you can understand, your entire livelihoods can be altered by a simple short downpour.

          speaking of weather,old Jack had an insurance salesman arrive and tried to sell him some crop insurance , Jack told him that he already had fire insurance the agent told him this is for insuring against floods, Jack asked “how do you start a flood”

          100

      • #
        the Griss

        Arctic ice levels are starting to recover after the period of several strong SOLAR MAXIMUM throughout the whole of the latter half of last century.

        200

      • #
        James Bradley

        sf,

        The direct evidence of Professor Chris Turney and his Antarctic expedition would disprove that.

        210

      • #
        Bill

        Nonsense, pure fluff and nonsense. If you insist on using NOAA’s and NASA’s proxy “data” in place of real measurements (See the Radarsat 1&2 data plus the NRCAN physical arctic ice measurements) you will be left far behind. In reality, the arctic and antarctic permanent sea ice is GROWING in volume (surface area and thickness), not shrinking. NASA uses one glacier in Greenland to represent all sea ice and does absolutely NO remote sensing of the actual sea ice (NRCAN is the only agency int he world that does physical measurements and remote sensing in the arctic). NOAA is even worse, they take NASAs “data” and then models it for the entire world. There is local area fluctuation but overall the effect is of ice pack GROWTH. If you want to see the data for yourself, do an access to information request of Natural Resources Canada.

        240

      • #
        el gordo

        Always a pleasure Silly.

        ‘ANTARCTICA is losing ice mass despite the ice extent increase.’

        On closer inspection you will find only West Antarctica maybe losing mass balance but not because of AGW, its stuff going on underground.

        And I’ll remind you that if the sea ice continues to break records then we’ll assume global warming is a French farce.

        240

      • #
        James Bradley

        sf,

        You still waste your time and effort foraging around for erroneous and discredited information to present as evidence.

        You still havn’t had the courage to request information from the DoE about your claims of missing error bars back in December 2014.

        Why don’t you just do that first, you know, actually obtain a response so that you can judge the veracity of your own allegations, just, at the very least, to try and maintain some semblance of credibility.

        110

      • #
        Just Thinkin'

        SF, you obviously missed “The Ship of Fools”.

        70

        • #
          ROM

          For Silly Filly’s further education to help it overcome its increasingly revealed ignorance.

          This time Antarctica and it’s ice cap gains or losses.
          _____________________

          Insignificant change in Antarctic snowmelt volume since 1979

          5. Discussion and Conclusions

          [8] The insignificant change in melt volume over the period 1979–2010 is not necessarily contradicted by the rapid regional warming observed from the 1950s to the 2000s in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula [Vaughan et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2005].
          Of the four Antarctic Peninsula stations that have an air temperature record for 1979–2010 (READER database, http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER), only Faraday exhibits a statistically significant warming trend in summer temperature for that period.

          An observation-based reconstruction of DJF near-surface temperature [Monaghan et al., 2008] does show statistically significant trends in parts of West-Antarctica, although these are likely affected by recently discovered biases in the Byrd station temperature record (A. Monaghan, personal communication, 2011).
          A reconstruction of near-surface temperature without the questionable Byrd station (A. Monaghan, unpublished data, 2011) leaves DJF temperature trends for 1979–2010 insignificant over nearly the entire continent, and mostly suggests statistically insignificant cooling along the coastal margins.

          This finding also seems consistent with RACMO2 DJF nearsurface temperatures, which show no statistically significant trends for 1979–2010 in any of the areas that experience melt.
          [9] The finding that snowmelt has not changed significantly over the past 31 years provides additional insight in the relation between snowmelt and the breakup of ice shelves in the past 20 years. Scambos et al. [2000] demonstrated that breakup of many ice shelves is preceded by intense ponding of meltwater at the surface.

          The circumstances needed for widespread ponding to occur have to be of an episodic nature: the flat trend in meltwater production precludes the option that the snowpack is being preconditioned by melt over multiple years prior to breakup.
          Rather,a single long and intense melt event, driven by a particular atmospheric circulation, likely precedes breakup of an ice shelf [Van den Broeke, 2005]. Still, ice-shelf breakup seems to have increased, and the ice shelves that break up had been in place for centuries [Scambos et al., 2000].
          This suggests that an increased forcing must have been acting in recent decades, and that this forcing must come from below the ice shelf, in the form of increased basal melt [Shepherd et al.,2003].

          A picture emerges in which the ultimate fate of ice shelves is governed by oceanic forcing from below, whereas the timing of their breakup depends on the occurrence of ‘favorable’ atmospheric conditions.

          ________________

          Climate of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet

          The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is very cold. Temperatures as low as -85°C have been recorded at Dome C . It is also dry, receiving very little annual precipitation and far less than the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet6. East Antarctica is so cold, high and dry, that it creates its own climate .

          Surface mass balance

          Surface mass balance of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. From Van den Broeke et al., 2011.

          The surface mass balance of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is shown in this figure, from Van den Broeke et al., 2011.
          Surface mass balance is the sum of accumulation (snow, rain) and melting (by sublimation and run off).
          This can be calculated using measurements from satellites.

          This figure is the average surface mass balance from 1989-2009.
          This figure shows that the Antarctic Peninsula, West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the coastal regions of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are significantly wetter than the ice sheet interior.
          Peak values of 3000 kg per metre per year of accumulation are experienced in the western Antarctic Peninsula, but the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet receives less than 50 kg per metre per year.

          Although there has been rapid ice sheet thinning observed in West Antarctica and on the Antarctic Peninsula, so far, this has not been observed around East Antarctica .
          In fact, parts of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are thickening, especially deep in the interior, which contrasts strongly with the observed rapid thinning of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet .
          Shepherd et al. indicate that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained 14 ± 43 gigatonnes between 1992 and 2011 . This is because precipitation in the interior increases under a generally warmer global climate .

          Although most of the glaciers in this region are close to mass balance (input = output), some of the glaciers of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are thinning and receding. These glaciers include Totten Glacier, the largest discharger of ice within the ice sheet 7. Moscow University Ice Shelf and most glaciers in Wilkes Land are also thinning. These glaciers are grounded well below sea level.
          .

          Current cooling

          Antarctic temperature trends, 1981-2007. By Robert Simmon, NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

          The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently cooling slightly , probably as a result of changes in the circumpolar vortex.
          This results in falling pressure over Marie Byrd Land and northerly flow anomalies .
          The warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica and cooling over East Antarctica is also related to changes in regional sea surface temperatures, broader changes in atmospheric circulation and changes in sea ice.

          Some “models” [ ? ] predict that continued climate change will actually result in increased snowfall around East Antarctica.

          A recent numerical ice sheet model projected climate change and snow fall in East Antarctica until AD2500 .
          However, this increased snowfall increased ice discharge around the continent, meaning that it had little effect in mitigating global sea level rise caused by the melting of other glaciers and ice caps, and global ocean thermal expansion.
          Generally, dynamically driven ice loss as a result of increased snowfall was around 30-60% of the mass gain. Indeed, the authors reported a 1.25 m global sea level contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by 2500 under the strongest warming scenarios .

          110

      • #
      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        In terms of both the Arctic, and Antarctic, the correct measure should be expressed in cubic metres of ice, and not just in surface area.

        But of course, that would require somebody to actually get of their butt, and go there to measure the depth, rather than sitting in a nice warm office looking at the latest Google Earth update.

        By the way, did you know that submarines from three nations surfaced together at the North Pole last summer? It was staged as a photo-op, of course, but it does be-lie your alarmism, because that has always been possible, with the first boat to surface at the pole being the USS Skate, on 17 March 1959, before climate change was even an issue.

        90

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Looking at the RHS of that first figure it seems to me that they claim no data from most of Brasil.

    I spent a bit of science time there.

    Unless someone comes up with a very valid explanation as to why I call BS

    200

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Mods

      Possible drunken click on “Report This”

      Please ignore

      KK

      90

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Possible drunken click on “Report This”

        I’m guilty of this on multiple occasions when reading Jo’s blog on my mobile, got to be so careful where you put your fingers on a small touch screen. I do it without the help of alcohol!

        140

      • #
        Annie

        It happens to me when I’m scrolling on my ‘phone. I just ignore it. Now I’m wondering whether they still show up even if I’ve filled nothing in?!

        60

        • #

          Sigh. Yes they do register. And I suspect more than half of all reports are unintended.(It’s good to find out why that’s happening). It’s not a great plugin, and I might trash it. But I do want people to report comments that are defamatory or offensive – email to support AT joannenova.com.au. Thanks.

          160

          • #
            Annie

            OK Jo. Sorry about the ‘dud’ reports….even did it to you a couple of days ago, entirely unintended. The report button is terribly easy to touch while scrolling.

            30

          • #
            ROM

            Jo, You have a “Cancel Reply” on the “Reply” panel.

            Can a similar “Cancel Report” be put in place.

            I also very recently accidently opened the “Report This” panel but couldn’t find a way to cancel it.

            10

          • #
            Dariusz

            Suggest to move “report this” to the other side of the page.

            10

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Another Ian. Homewoods figure is taken from the US gov website for GHCN. The grey is ‘no data’. Homewoods catch (read original post) was infilling that grey to show rapid warming (LHS is also offical US gov chart, ye 2014) using amongst others fiddled rural station data. No womder you find it incredible. So was BOM ACORN on Rutherglen.

      220

  • #
    RexAlan

    It appears to me that eventually when this “terrible” man made Global Warming/Climate Change/Disruption/ is finally put to bed the land based temperature records will be totally useless.

    So many adjustments it makes you want to cry.

    But I guess we have to keep going.

    Emergency Chocolate anyone.

    260

    • #
      tom0mason

      Reminds me…

      … as Forrest Grump related those immortal words …

      “My momma always said, “Temp’ature records was like a box of chocolates. You know the descriptions are crap, but you’ll never know how dissatisfied you’ll be ’til you taste ‘em!”"

      :)

      220

    • #
      Rabe

      Physically they are useless anyway. Using selected statistical formulas and applying correct math to some numbers doesn’t mean something meaningful coming out of that.

      100

    • #
      JoKaH

      Emergency Chocolate anyone.

      Just don’t feed it to the bears!

      10

  • #
    the Griss

    Notice, there’s that 1940′s peak again, the one that Tom Wiggly was soooo soooo anxious to get of.

    210

    • #
      the Griss

      I suspect if all the unadjusted data could be put together,

      that 1940′s peak would be up there with 1998 and 2010.

      Combine that with a probably peak in the late 1800′s(as shown in Australian data from that time) and you have a regular 60 year (+/- a bit) cycle with only natural ocean warming and cooling period , and basically zero other warming !!

      240

  • #
    tom0mason

    2014 was the hottest year for adjustments – eve!

    230

    • #
      tom0mason

      now why did it autocorrect that….(autocorrect off)

      2014 was the hottest year for adjustments – EVA!

      90

  • #
    • #
      • #
        the Griss

        Seriously.. how the **** can you lose 5000 or so weather stations?

        Did they get buried under snow or something ??

        140

        • #
          MacSual

          It was them glaciers what nicked em,one minute they are there then they’re gone.

          50

        • #
          tom0mason

          “Seriously.. how the **** can you lose 5000 or so weather stations?

          A sheepish look came to his face as his voice whispered -

          “Sorry,…er I, umm,.. There were here!…”, “umm, let me see…”,
          “..I must have left them in the, ..errr”, Gavin spluttered, all the while failing to appear contrite.

          [to be continued...]

          80

    • #
      Hat Rack

      “A graph that really makes a point.”

      You’re not wrong Pointman.

      So throw in a few extras like “homogenisation” and I’m convinced – global warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide – global warming is man made!

      130

      • #
        MacSual

        Crikey Hat,that’s what the warmies have been trying to convince everyone about,that globul warming is man made,now you’ve gone and given em more ammunition .
        I think that you need to go out into your backyard and burn something as penance or if fire restrictions are in force then turn on your aircon and heater at the same time for 1 hour.
        shame shame shame

        20

  • #
    eliza

    My father was an WMO expert for the United Nations (Atmospheric Physicist/Meteorogist) and attempted to set up the Stevenson Boxes by WMO standards in Paraguay in the 70s as many were in UHI areas (ie:Asuncion Airport), or placed directly in the sun (Chaco), not painted ect. I live here and an Asuncion temperature reported as ~36-38C frequently (its very hot here) is in fact about ~32-34C max in an adjacent rural area. So I suspect ALL temperatures here are overstated dramatically. So what GISS is doing is even exagerating the effect even MORE. As an aside in 97 (retired) he clearly told me as a young adult that “Global Warming”was simply a tax grab and utter nonsense. He did not even bother to explain the science. Obviously he was correct LOL

    500

    • #

      That’s very interesting Eliza. I presume we can’t ask your father for more info (let me know if we could).

      If the Stevensons went in in the 1970s that could explain some of the temperature changes. Usually Glaishers record higher than Stevensons (if that is what was there).

      These kind of details are very important. We would like to know more…

      330

  • #
    Leigh

    I know I promised to bite my tongue and jab a burning stick in my eye rather than say the dreaded word.
    But why is the mainstream media supporting what is so in your face obvious?
    It’s not as if the adjustments and homogenisation is happening out of sight or on a small scale.
    The sheer bastardry of a hell of a lot of alledged scientists from so many different disaplines is simply breathtaking.
    Their collective selfishness in pursuit of the funding dollar is becoming farcical.
    In the process doing so much damage to sciences credibility right across the board.
    It really is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

    320

  • #
    Mikky

    Hold you horses, its quite possible that the rural South American stations switched from poorly screened to properly screened thermometers in the 1950s. Just take a look at annual Tmax data from Cape Otway or Wagga Wagga, you will see 2-3C steps down in temperatures when Stevenson screens were introduced around 1908.

    Its getting embarrassing watching some sceptics picking on isolated sets of data and drawing dodgy conclusions.

    244

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      That does not explain the changes since 1950 now does it? And where is the measuring devices documented in the changes?

      Its getting embarrassing watching alarmists try to justify magical adjustments and drawing dodgy conclusions.

      320

    • #
      the Griss

      Nor does a change in screen explain away this adjustment

      Not a step change….. the whole of the data trend changes ..

      maybe Gavin is ADDING some major UHI effect !!!

      270

    • #
      the Griss

      And it certainly doesn’t explain the adjustments at Reykjavik

      With the whole of the once worldwide 1940′s peak TOTALLY SQUASHED. !!

      240

    • #
      Annie

      Thumbs down intended Mikky …touch screen fumble fingers again.

      40

    • #
      the Griss

      “Wagga Wagga, you will see 2-3C steps down in temperatures when Stevenson screens were introduced around 1908″

      NO, the Stevenson Screen was installed at Wagga Wagga is 1897 !

      170

      • #
        Mikky

        There is very little change in Tmax at Wagga Wagga in 1897, big changes in 1908, more in summer than winter, likely to be the result of going from poor screening to proper screening.

        05

        • #
          tom0mason

          Mikky
          ¯

          You have of course full access to all documentary evidence of this happening? Or are you like stupidFilly, just inventing facts on the hoof?

          30

          • #
            Mikky

            I’d like to see any documentary evidence for a Stevenson screen being installed at Wagga Wagga in 1897. I hope its not just the newspaper report cited in comments below, which was a report about Mount Kosciuszko, not Wagga Wagga.

            04

        • #
          the Griss

          There was this same step down at many sites.

          Obviously all to do with screen changes on the same day. !

          00

        • #
          BruceC

          Since Wagga Wagga is part of the ACORN-SAT Network, it’s pretty easy to check its history. Although, just like the BoMs temperature record, there is nothing before 1910.

          The original site (072151) was in the Wagga Wagga town area. It was initially at the Post Office but moved to police station grounds in July 1925. There was a further move in April 1928. The screen was initially facing east before being reoriented in October 1933. Temperatures were observed at this location until 1953. Rainfall observations continued under the same site number until 1984 but moved to a different location in the suburb of Kooringal, southeast of the town centre.

          The airport site (072150) started operating in 1943. A grain shed to the northeast, built in 1969 and removed in 1999, cast shadows over the site after sunrise in mid-winter. The automatic weather station was installed on 21 October 1994 and became the primary instrument on 1 November 1996.

          00

  • #
    eliza

    Hi Jo Im pretty old myself hahah my father passed away in 2007. There is a plaque dedicated to him for his work here in the 70′s in The Ministerio De Defensa here (Met office). I can see if I can get the Met office here to send you something. I doubt it though, because I think ALL WMO or met office staff everywhere including here HAVE to be OFFICIAL AGW lovers, there jobs/funding depend on it especially in poorer countries me thinks.LOL

    360

  • #

    Sharing the same miracle, San Juan Bautista and Rutherglen should be made twin towns.

    110

  • #
    Bengt Abelsson

    The future is certain.
    The past can be changed
    /Soviet Politburo

    250

    • #
      tom0mason

      As George Orwell wrote — ‘He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.’

      Also it is said that
      “If you can control the language, you can control ideas. By controlling ideas, you can control the way people think and act.”
      Or as is attributed to Joseph Stalin, Josef Goebbels and assorted other tyrants:
      “He who controls the language rules the world.”

      So be aware in these days of ‘climate change’, of air and ‘insulating blankets of CO2′, stirred by ‘wind farms’ mixing the ‘carbon pollution’ ‘greenhouse gases’ that ‘the deniers’ allow, stopping efforts to ‘save the planet’ thus condemning the ‘future generations’. Etc., etc.,etc.,…

      250

  • #
    shub

    Jo, is there a place to obtain station meta-data for the PUERTO CASADO station?

    40

    • #
      tom0mason

      A link in the body of the main text above links to https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

      Within this notalotofpeopleknowthat blog post are links to the nasa/giss data download pages.

      113

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/
      Click metadata in the menu on the left of the screen.
      Enter station.

      70

      • #
        shub

        Thanks Rud. The meta-data link leads to the Historical Observing Metadata Repository which contains this information (and not much else) ‘No remarks, updates, or backups for this station’.

        Berkeley Earth reports this station moved two times: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157455, once in the early ’70s and the next somewhere mid 2000s.

        Where are they getting this information from?

        50

        • #
          Rud Istvan

          Be careful on BEST ‘station moves’ . Most, if not all, are algorithmically determined record trend break points that they then algorithmically homogenize using regional expections. Same way they QC outliers. And their regional expectations method is flawed, the problem illustrated by BEST station 166900. Discussed in a technical footnote to essay When Data Isnt in my new ebook.
          I called this to Moshers attention several months ago over at Judy Curry’s. The response was a classic ‘You are too stupid to understand’, with a bit of vitriol attached. I was hoping for something more constructive to put in the technical footnote… Regards

          140

          • #
            shub

            That was my thought too. But (i) BEST’s making the explicit claim – ‘station move’ – on their chart and (ii) they have a separate legend icon for empirical breaks. So *how* do they know the station moved?

            My thought was exactly that BEST determines data breaks automatically and assumes a interruption/break of whatever origin and tries to adjust for it – completely circular and therefore statistically meaningless – in terms of data integrity.

            But they explicitly label the Puerto Casado station moved. So, the question.

            The page is: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157455

            80

            • #
              Rud Istvan

              You are right.
              I got curious, and found a BEST back door. Go to
              berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/157455-TAVG-Data.txt
              They clearly say metadata moves in 2007 and 2013, denoted by a 1 in column 5 rather than a 0.
              From the source listings, the metadata came from WMO. I have not figured out how to access that, although spent an hour trying.

              60

              • #
                the Griss

                Moves in 2007 and 2013 do not account for the “adjustments” shown in earlier years.

                70

              • #
                Rud Istvan

                True. But more outrageous is what nClimDiv did to Maine. Absolute smoking gun for NOAA NCDC manufactured warming. Paul Homewood nailed GISS and Gavin Schmidt. You all nailed BOM with Rutherglen. What is different now is this irrefutable stuff starting to get some media traction, thanks to folks like Joanne and Paul.
                BTW, you seem like type that might enjoy my new ebook. Available at iBooks, Amazon Kindle, Kobo…

                20

            • #
              Rud Istvan

              Well, BEST is messed up for this station. You are right that your link shows a station move about 1972. The backdoor link I just provided shows no metadata moves in the 1970s. All 0s in column 5. The backdoor data was compiled 11/2013. So maybe new info since then? But the flagged 2013 move is not noted in your link.
              Evidence that BEST data processing is buggy, in addition to the logically flawed regional expectation assumption shown by station 166900. A total hash.

              90

              • #
                shub

                Great. I came up on the station data file on BEST and saw the ’1′s. Note how the moves are recorded in the continuity break column itself. I hope the ’1′ is not algorithim determined ’cause then the trend adjustment becomes circular.

                I’m talking to BEST on Twitter and someone’s giving me borderline useless answers.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “and someone’s giving me borderline useless answers.’

                Would that be Mosher ?

                60

          • #
            Arcawaches

            I just made a cursory review of the BEST report and there were many questions I had about the consistency of warming trends at numerous locations and stations. Some of the numbers defy credulity.

            00

  • #
    Athelstan.

    Wot bloody warmist fabrication – a scam is all it is!

    It is truly gob smacking! Though, the gobs which need smacking are in NOAA and GISS – [it maybe that, mad Jim Hansen's ghost was never properly exorcised].

    Splice and dice and if that don’t work, churn out a few inversions of real data. I must say well done Paul but really, this sort of stuff is nothing new, McKitricks’ paper alluded and nailed these sort of shenanigans many moons ago.

    It must be confusing to Paraguayans though, and here’s me thinking it was the locals who were whacked out, when all the time it was NOAA/GISS grossing out on the Scooby snacks.

    Seesh.

    150

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      For the worst, most brazen example see what new nClimDiv did in 2014 to various US states compared to the previous version in 2013. Essay When Data Isnt in newish ebook Blowing Smoke illustrates California, Michigan, and Maine. Maine is the proverbial smoking gun. Essay gives many other examples, including Rutherglen thanks to Jo and Jennifer Merohasy.

      140

      • #
        the Griss

        Do you have a link for that please Rud?

        I’ve been looking at this chart.

        The 3 data sets can only possibly be so well aligned with massive manipulation. !

        10

        • #
          Rud Istvan

          Griss, no link. I had Dr. Curry review the essay When Data Isnt, but asked her not to guest post it. Wanted to save it for the ebook. Her single review comment was, “wow”. The original source materials can all be traced through the footnotes. The Maine thing was compiled by me for the book from screen captures that Joe D’Aleo of Weatherbell Analytics had by pure chance made for other reasons. Then he put them up in a post at WUWT essentially for a different argument with Tony Heller on gridding. Everybody sort of missed the big picture in a classic sceptical skirmish between warring guerrilla figuter tribes.

          Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate. Foreward by Judith Curry. Available at all ebook stores for all readers. Read in color.
          Joanne was gifted an authors copy as a very small thanks for this great blog.

          30

  • #
    john robertson

    At the risk of diverting the thread, I am attempting to follow thermometer response times.
    Ancient lessons in control system technology, current practise in setting up electronic temperature controls on boilers and A/C.
    Something a “Mike G” said back in January22 6:14am 2011 @ WUWT, on a discussion of proper methodology of measuring temperature.Metrology.

    The platinum resistance thermometer stabilizes in 2.5 to 10 seconds.

    The mercury in glass thermometer does what?
    2-3 Minutes on temperature rise, up to 10 minutes on temperature fall?

    Does this mean a 2 minute temperature increase would not have registered on the mercury, but now will be recorded as a new high by the electronic device?
    A sudden drop in daytime temperature will register on the electronic sensor but not have been seen by the mercury?

    So is the unadjusted perceived temperature increase an artifact of the response time?
    Thinking of those days when it seems to get unbearably hot for a few minutes, then cools
    As with the daily average calculated from two reading daily compared to 24 (hourly station) or 144 (10 minute).
    Higher daily average as an artifact of sensor response time.

    I do wonder if all the extraordinary claims of a significant signal, less than the measurement error, is entirely man made.

    Does anyone know the official sensor response times?
    Were the mercury in glass & alcohol types also slowed by the metal High/Low indicator?
    Is this thought a blind path or just a nasty blind spot of the Cult of Calamitous Climate?

    150

  • #
    Bill

    It should also concern everyone that these agencies will not allow access to the raw data, only the massaged results.

    110

  • #
    el gordo

    Gosselin sees the introduction of EMS as the possible culprit in Germany.

    Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/14/germanys-warming-happens-to-coincide-with-late-20th-century-implementation-of-digital-measurement/#sthash.F5awVD6h.dpuf

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    So South America too? Then everything below the Tropic of Capricorn is suspect, so below 22.5 degrees South. Only 2% of the world population live in what is 30% of the area of the planet plus South Africa. It means adjustments of the measured temperatures for whatever alleged justification will have a huge effect on ‘world’ temperatures. No surprise there that world focus would be on Australia, Chile, Argentina, South Africa and Paraguay data.

    There is also the very creation of a ‘world’ temperature itself. Is this a meaningful measure or just a creation of an unreal but representative figure? What is the basis for such a number, for a place which does not exist?

    For example, Stevenson Boxes measure a precise air temperature without radiation and wind effects but as hot air balloonists know, the air changes in wind direction and temperature multiple times above that, so what are they measuring? At jet altitude, the temperatures is -60C. As was known before the invention of the airconditioners, go up a mountain and it is much cooler, so the summer retreats of the rich in every country. Populations also live near water and use lots of water and that must modify local temperatures with evaporation, an urban garden effect. Mountains, valleys, large bodies of water, irrigation, flukey winds all affect temperatures. Consider the Gulf Stream. So the boxes live where people live, which is a different measurement to the open country, especially in Australia. Finally, most of the Southern Hemisphere below the Tropic is water, so how does that one temperature again?

    This search for a single temperature for a house, a streeet, a city, a state, a country is absurd, a creation of models based on data which by definition measured where people lived. So the ‘hottest day’ is nonsense. You can be very sure no one lived there. An ‘average’ temperature of Hobart and Darwin is just rubbish and not meaningful. What is ‘climate’ on a National scale anyway? How can you even average Amsterdam and Athens in any way? So the IPCC has created a world temperature, but what is being measured?

    Also there are the ‘error bars’. Even without fiddling, omission, editing, homogenization and time limitations and excluding older records, the temperature rises are insignificant. For example, if the entire records of a Stevenson’s Box can be deleted because it was allegedly moved and that presumably not by random tradesmen but by professionals with considerable care and cross checking for a period, the idea that the second location produced a significant discontinuity disqualifies both sets of data or you have to accept that the real margin of error is as big as the discontinuity. Now try raising the box 100 metres into the air. It will be vastly different again.
    This is only ever representative data. The variation over even small distances could be huge, so that variation should be the real error bar, not a reason to selectively discard.

    No the data should not be touched. Ever. What should be done is to examine each set of data and create differential data. The movement of these differences should tell what happened to temperatures in all these locations over this time. If they go down, that is the result. Any urbanization would tend to increase local temperatures, so the warming would be enhanced at worst lie. Even so, it looks like in many of the graphs shown here, the raw data is going down. What is being measured is the temperature at these locations over time, at this place, in this valley, next to these buildings, in this city at this altitude. That is all.

    The only true way to create a word temperatures is by satellite on a grand scale unaffected and unbiased by human habitation over a world which is after all 66% surface water where no one lives. Not only is homogenization scientific rubbish, there is no city, state, country, continent, world temperature. The concept is a fanciful construction and the creation of it open to politicization for a myriad of reasons. That anyone edits, deletes, omits, fiddles raw data is scientifically wrong. These homogenized and therefore manufactured results are often in violent disagreement with the original data. That is absurd and not science.

    180

    • #
      TdeF

      Every time. No 30% below the Tropic of Capricorn with about 2% of the people, 40% in the equatorial region with 40% of the people and 30% above the Tropic of Cancer with an amazing 60% of all the people.

      90

    • #
      ghl

      TdeF
      You are right.
      A thermometer reading tells you the temperature of the thermometer. Hopefully you have put it somewhere useful and it represents something of interest.If you are worried about glaciers, measure glacier temperatures, no other temperature is relevant. Some parts of the Earth regularly heat to lethal levels and cool to benign, without affecting the average temperature at all.There are an infinite number of states with the same average temperature, but quite different radiative balances, temperature alone defines nothing.

      10

  • #
    the Griss

    “These homogenized and therefore manufactured results are often in violent disagreement with the original data. That is absurd and not science.”

    And so say all of us !!!! :-)

    130

  • #

    The more remote the area involved, the freer they feel in their ability to falsify the data in order to create any evidence of global warming. If there was no Warmista Agenda available to fund this scurrilous activity, they would not touch these areas with a barge pole.

    150

    • #
      the Griss

      “they would not touch these areas with a barge pole.”

      They would use satellites, and get measurements that are consistent over time and spacing.

      Oh wait, there are two groups that do that. and neither of them shows any warming over this whole century.

      Anything before the advent of these satellite measurements is MEANINGLESS…

      …based on an ever changing set of points, irregularly spaced, each point changing within itself

      ..subject to adjustments, homogenisations, fabrications and massive infills at the hands of rabid climate activists.

      140

  • #
    Scott Basinger

    Satellite datasets show warming as well. Land records (except GISS) seem to be following the satellite datasets reasonably well.

    I’m sure that there are some problems; this branch of science has generated many zealots. However, I think that the small erroneous data is swamped by much larger, correct data.

    [UAH Satellite Based Data set here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2014_v5.png This shows clearly no warmong since 1998, and 2014 was NOT the warmest year. - Mod]

    116

    • #
      the Griss

      Yes, the satellite bought the land data sets into line until recently.

      Goodness knows what the global temperature would be in HadCrut and Giss if the satellites didn’t exist.

      If you read Steven Goddard analysis, you will see that the real data is more often than not swamped by the fabrications and adjustments.

      In particular, there has been a divergent warming trend ( as oppose to the satellite data) in the land based data since Gavin Schmidt took over. This is what enabled him to CREATE 2014 as the “hottest ever by 0.02C”

      This thread has highlight some of these huge adjustments he has made since 2012. !!

      I have absolutely no doubt that the 2014 Hottest Ever farce is purely and totally A FABRICATION !

      201

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes and it would take a brave experimental scientist to draw anything but a straight horizontal line through the lot as noise. You note the two identified discrete events of Mt Pinaturbo cooling and El Nino warming. This raises questions about other smaller effects like extensive cloud cover (Monckton) or the lack of it or variation in solar energy or a combination of many underlying cycles. Just because a cause or multiple causes have not been clearly identified does not mean they do not exist.

      The correlation with steadinly rising CO2 is just not there and that is the whole, the sole argument about fossil fuels. From the Satellite records there is no case at all against fossil fuels. If a CO2 hothouse effect is even present, it is not detectable under the noise and gross events. At this rate we will suddenly run out of fossil fuels before a case can be made against their use, so it is certainly a non problem. When the world runs out, the Greens will have for windy days to travel by train or get on the internet or charge their wooden iPhones. The London New York trip should be possible by sailing ship in two weeks.

      120

      • #
        TdeF

        No idea how words go missing. Like warmist scientists, you see what you expect to see.

        ..the Greens will have to wait for windy days to travel by train or get on the internet or charge their wooden iPhones.

        70

      • #
        tom0mason

        Tdef

        Please understand that the United States as a whole has more currently recoverable coal resources than any other country on the planet— over 262 billion tons— enough to last over 200 years! Long after the rest of the world’s natural gas, and petroleum reserves have run out, America will still have enough coal to satisfy its own energy needs.
        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Energy.html

        And these are the figures for known reserves, more may well be out there. Australia has coal in abundance, in fact coal is known to be available on every continent. And these are only the known resources, exploration (which is price dependent) may find more.

        And also don’t forget that the deep seas contain a huge abundance of Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, which may well become available if recovery techniques and market prices become optimized for its exploitation.

        So I can not imagine that we will run out of anything in the foreseeable future. Exactly how the elites allow us to use these resources is the fight of the moment.

        10

    • #
      the Griss

      “Land records (except GISS) seem to be following the satellite datasets reasonably “

      From 2001-2013 all datasets were basically zero trend.

      Since 2013, GISS trends up a lot compared to the satellite records.

      90

      • #
        tom0mason

        Slightly off topic but

        And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers.

        – Plato, Republic, 380BC

        and

        Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher).

        – Karl Popper, 1975

        30

  • #
    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Snow is expected Monday in NYC about (12Z) 7 AM local time on the east coast of US. I will look at this webcam to see if the forecast holds:
      Ellis Island** and part of NYC from the Statue of Liberty:
      http://earthcam.com/usa/newyork/statueofliberty/?cam=liberty_ellisisland

      **Ellis Island if synonymous with immigration in US history.

      80

    • #
      Menicholas

      Once the blizzard passes, there will be several weeks during which the Midwest and Northeast regions of the US will not get above freezing at all. By next weekend the high temps in such places as Philadelphia and New York will top out below 20 degrees F., with low temps getting below zero.
      People will die from this event.

      40

      • #

        Once the blizzard passes, there will be several weeks during which the Midwest and Northeast regions of the US will not get above freezing at all.

        And just watch electrical power consumption figures rise considerably, and umm, guess what method of power generation will show the biggest spike of all.

        Coal Fired Power.

        It happened last year when the Polar Vortex struck, as shown by the data at this link.

        Compare the coal fired power totals (left hand column) for January 2014 with the previous two January Months and also note how it stayed high in February and March as well. Note also the spike in total power consumption (far right column) virtually all of it covered by coal fired power.

        When serious electrical power is required, there is only one go-to source, always.

        Tony.

        90

        • #
          tom0mason

          Tony,
          Well said, and for some this can not be said often enough as they fail to see that unless you are on regular, reliable supplies during freezing weather then real hardship, injury and death often follows.

          Security of electricity supplies should be priority one for governments where such weather is likely; currently only nuclear and fossil fuels fulfils this requirement.

          50

        • #
          the Griss

          In a blizzard or freezing cold..

          … neither wind nor solar can provide ANYTHING !!

          Yet this is when many major NH cities require most power.

          60

        • #

          You know how we are told that Concentrating Solar Power (you know, that wonderful Solar Thermal type of power generation) is the answer to replacing coal fired power, and is the way of the future for power generation, you know, because coal fired power is old technology.

          During this polar vortex when power was really needed, then coal fired power supplied 42% of the total power generated for consumption across the U.S. for that Month of January.

          CSP (you know, that wonderful Solar Thermal type of power generation) supplied, umm, 0.015% of the total power generated for consumption across the U.S. during that same Month.

          The way of the future??

          Really??

          Tony.

          50

          • #
            tom0mason

            New advertising slogan?
            ˙

            “The future’s dark…
             
            ˙
             
            ˙
             

                …   …   …the future’s solar!”

             

             

            º¿º ˙
            ’—   .   ˙˙˙ :)

            30

        • #
          Robert

          Many of the names we see in politics who are advocating wind and solar are doing quite well financially. It leads me to wonder how many of them have some sort of backup or standby generator at their home powered by NG, LP, or diesel. Most government installations have some form of backup power, also fossil fueled. Someone should do a study…

          It’s pretty easy to advocate an unreliable energy source for the masses when one knows that their power won’t be going out.

          00

  • #
    redress

    On Stevenson screens………and the BoM refusing to use temperatures before 1910 because of lack of the same….

    This is from the Wagga Wagga Express: Tuesday 14 December 1897

    ” The thermometers are fixed up in a Stevenson double-covered screen, raised 4ft above the ground.”

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/145694056?searchTerm=stevenson%20screen&searchLimits=l-title=701

    130

  • #
    pat

    MSM is sure to pick up on the Booker revelations (sarc)…
    btw i have still not found a single word online from ABC about BOM admitting their claim the Qld drought was the worst in 80 yrs was WRONG.

    going topical:

    a prediction (of mine) that actually came true!

    25 Jan: India Today: Disappointed over Indo-US climate change statement: Greenpeace
    Greenpeace India on Sunday expressed disappointment over the Indo-US joint announcement on climate change, saying it did not go beyond the ***”rhetoric and the usual platitudes”, although it noted that the agreement reached to phase out HFCs marked a big shift…
    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/greenpeace-obama-modi-climate-change/1/415358.html

    Climate change: India, US fail to ink comprehensive deal
    Hindustan Times – ‎1 hour ago‎

    Modi says no climate change pressure on India
    Sky News Australia‎ – 5 hours ago

    AS FOR THE CAGW-INFESTED/INVESTED MEDIA?

    US And India Announce ‘Cooperation’ On Climate Change
    ThinkProgress-26 minutes ago

    Modi Shifts on Climate Change With India Renewables Goal
    Bloomberg-3 hours ago

    50

  • #
    pat

    ABC – the answer is NO, NO, NO. so i won’t be wasting a second listening to the audio:

    26 Jan: AUDIO: ABC Mornings with Steve Austin: Can zero emissions be reached?
    AM by Halina Baczkowski
    Last year Clive Palmer caught many by surprise when he teamed up with Al Gore and became the unlikely saviour of the renewable energy target…
    The Abbott government wants to scale it back, and the uncertainty around the policy has left the renewable energy sector in precarious position.
    In Queensland, the State Government abolished solar incentive schemes, and blamed the solar industry for rising electicity prices.
    So in this political landscape, the idea of a zero carbon energy policy seems fanciful.
    Five years ago Matthew Wright was the lead author of a report called Zero Carbon Australia, a 10 year roadmap for achieving 100 per cent renewable energy.
    He’s now the executive director of Zero Emissions Australia and a columnist for Business Spectator…
    http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2015/01/can-zero-emissions-be-reached.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    this should keep us all awake???

    26 Jan: Guardian: Davos: Observer Editorial: Climate change is not a concern for CEOs? That should keep us all awake
    Apart from insurers, the future of the planet is not something that most chief executives lose sleep over
    PHOTO CAPTION: Snowmen decked out in various country flag scarfs, in Davos, as part of a climate change protest.
    Former US vice-president Al Gore teamed up with pop star Pharrell Williams to launch a second round of Live Earth concerts to raise awareness before crucial UN talks in November.
    He accused fossil fuel companies in particular of using the atmosphere as “an open sewer” for carbon emissions, which are in danger of driving global warming to ruinous levels.
    Yet according to PwC’s 18th annual survey of global chief executives, climate change is not among the top 19 risks that keep them awake at night…
    Gore has a seven-point programme that involves fighting for a moratorium on new coal-burning power plants, cutting dependence on oil, and people and corporations making themselves “carbon neutral”. Will business respond with a sense of urgency? No.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/25/climate-change-is-not-a-concern-for-ceos-that-should-keep-us-all-awake

    50

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      Good sleuthing by Robyn Grace, cool Australia Days have become the norm. Its unusual to get this kind of honesty from a Fairfax rag.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    There is another absurd underlying concept in this averaging business, that with enough data, everything will end up a horizontal flat line. No, in ordinary experience there can be huge variation from one summer to the next, one winter to the next, one location to the next. In fact every location and country experiences variations, often lasting a decade or more.

    So we have endured this Chicken Little scare since 1988 created and propagated and perpetuated by the IPCC along with the myth that on a global scale climates are affected by human activities and these controllable by their governments. I would have thought that had to be proven before anyone would give it any credence. I would be very wrong and the Profiteers of Doom have had a ball. Worse still, in Paris this year the world’s governments will be asked to surrender their sovereign rights to a body of unelected communist bureaucrats. It was tried in Copenhagen. Let us make sure it does not happen.

    40

  • #
    Faye

    Don’t knock “adjustments” – it’s a convenient thing. I once had a manager in my employ who often used them when balances didn’t balance.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    BOM announcement 6th January, advertised nationally.

    “2014 was Australia’s third-warmest year since national temperature observations commenced in 1910″

    Examine this statement. It could have read

    “2014 showed a decrease in temperature but still ranks as the third hottest in Australian Federal records if you exclude all State temperature records prior to 1910 including the possibly hotter Federation drought of 1895-1902″.

    70

    • #
      the Griss

      2014 was Australia’s third-warmest year since national temperature observations began in the late 1800′s.
      This data was TRUNCATED at 1910, then ADJUSTED and HOMOGENISED to create a warming trend.

      So in reality, 2014 was probably nowhere near the third warmest.

      But we are going to tell you that it was, anyway.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        Not sure what you mean? The BOM makes it clear that only records from 1910 onwards are considered in forming this conclusion.

        Yes, the country had Stevenson Screens (invented 1864) and other similar screens before 1910 and even before Federation in 1901. Records were maintained fastidiously by paid State authorities and schools, post offices, stationmasters and many more. Australia did not start in 1910. If temperatures were higher prior to 1910, the BOM formed in 1907 should say so or it is guilty of deception by omission. The BOM review panel should investigate why the state records entrusted to the BOM for continuity have been so obviously excluded.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          A carefully read thermometer in a purpose built screen, any thermometer in any screen is far better than a theoretical proxy tree ring, especially from the Northern Hemisphere or from another side hundreds of kilometeres away. It is not understandable why such records would be discarded where very minor and precise corrections could have been made if necessary and by simple cross calibration.

          Also the very idea of dropping all site records because a Screen might have been moved needs investigation. From what had been written, as you would expect the people moving the screens ran parallel tests for a considerable time to make sure that the readings matched. To drop all records because temperatures had fallen rather than increased is not justifiable and very questionable as to motive.

          There are a lot of simple questions to be asked by the investigating committee that have nothing to do with statistics.

          60

        • #
          the Griss

          “Not sure what you mean? “

          Truncated.. hummmm… what’s the word for cutting off the bit at the start?

          Circumcised?

          20

  • #
    pat

    reminder:

    2013: Steven Goddard: Obama Says That Africans Will Boil The Earth If They Get Cars And A/C
    Obama at a town hall event in Johannesburg, South Africa: “Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”…
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/obama-says-that-africans-will-boil-the-earth-if-they-get-cars-and-ac/

    now, before u read the following patronising, absurd piece in Christian Science Monitor, note the following about the author, which CSM doesn’t tell u:

    LinkedIn: Lorena Galliot
    Associate Producer, Years of Living Dangerously
    Researched, reported and field-produced stories for Years of Living Dangerously, Showtime’s new documentary series on climate change…

    26 Jan: Christian Science Monitor: Lorena Galliot: Africa’s quiet solar revolution
    The continent skipped land lines for mobile phones. Now a new generation of start-ups is trying to bring sun power to rural Africa – ***and leapfrog the fossil fuel era.
    Going smaller better fits the budgets of the rural poor. People use the money they normally would spend on kerosene to finance their solar systems, allowing them to pay in small, affordable installments and not rely on government help. The concept is called pay-as-you-go solar.
    Many see it as helping to overcome the problems that have plagued previous solar “revolutions” in Africa. Richard Hosier, a senior analyst at the World Bank, likes to tell the story of his first encounter with solar panels in Africa.
    “It was in a village in Kenya, in 1981, during the Carter administration,” he recalls. “There were solar panels all right – cut into little bits to make necklaces for the women.”
    African villages, Mr. Hosier says, are littered with failed solar projects donated by well-meaning government agencies or nongovernmental organizations that installed the technology but couldn’t afford to follow up with maintenance or battery replacements…
    ***Some observers are even asking, Will rural Africa leapfrog the carbon energy age altogether and go directly to a solar-powered future?…
    The Global Off-Grid Lighting Association, a nonprofit group based in the Netherlands, estimates that an African household living on $2 a day can save as much as 86 percent of its expenses for kerosene and mobile-phone charging by switching to solar…
    As technology has improved, the cost of photovoltaic panels has dropped by more than 99 percent since 1977. LED lights and batteries are also becoming increasingly affordable…
    According to the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), a World Bank-backed umbrella group of 34 organizations, at least 25 companies are promoting pay-as-you-go solar products and services across the developing world, with an estimated 250,000 such products sold as of late 2014. The organization projects that at least 3 million pay-as-you-go solar systems will be sold around the world in the next five years…
    CGAP sees such technology as allowing developing countries to carve out an energy future that is smarter, cheaper, and cleaner than the one the West pursued decades ago…
    Investors as far off as Silicon Valley are starting to take notice of the technology. More than $45 million flowed into the off-grid solar sector in the first four months of 2014. M-POWER’S parent company, Off-Grid Electric, completed a $7 million round of funding in March, with Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, the US solar firm SolarCity, and Omidyar Network as lead investors…
    “We’re not just doing this out of the goodness of our hearts,” says (Fabio De Pascale, the chief executive of Devergy). “We’re in it for the money.”…
    Most systems currently on the market only power a few lights and cellphone chargers, not energy-intensive appliances.
    “Africa must not be cornered to focus just on green energy,” says Mwangi Kimenyi, a senior fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative at the Brookings Institution in Washington. In an e-mail, Mr. Kimenyi stresses the need to invest in all power sources to boost electricity supply across Africa – including the continent’s recently discovered coal, oil, and natural gas reserves. “These will be cheaper sources and, given that Africa’s contribution to greenhouse gases is very low, it must utilize these sources.”
    But others believe that pushing the development of fossil fuel-produced electricity over off-grid solutions is a colossal mistake…
    http://news.yahoo.com/africas-quiet-solar-revolution-212932127.html
    (Lorena Galliot reported this story while on a Pulitzer Fellowship awarded by Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism)

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I think that when Mwangi Kimenyi stressed the need to invest in the continent’s recently discovered coal, oil, and natural gas reserves. “These will be cheaper sources …than solar: he blew his chances of an invitation to the Paris Conference.

      Fancy thinking about cost, reliability and convenience…no invitation, and no kiss from sillyfilly (well, not all bad news for him).

      40

  • #
    pat

    followup to the CSM piece…follow the money:

    Sept 2014: Sierra Club: Are Mini-Grids The Next Big Opportunity Beyond The Grid?
    by Justin Guay, Associate Director, International Climate Program
    Beyond the grid solar start-up Devergy believes the time has come for the next evolution in clean energy access markets: mini-grids…
    With a highly conservative estimate of a $5 billion market opportunity and the $1 billion Beyond the Grid Power Africa Initiative launched earlier this summer, many investors have waited with baited breath to see if mini-grid operators like Devergy will succeed…
    In the meantime, high-profile investors like Solar City and Bloomberg Philanthropies have started investing money in fast-growing pay-as-you-go (PAYG) solar lanterns and solar home system companies…
    In order to realistically bring mini-grids into the mainstream, companies need to switch from Alternating Current (AC) in favor of Direct Current (DC). Currently, most grids in the developed world rely on AC, but solar panels create DC power…
    It’s time for impact investors, multi-laterals like the World Bank, and foundations to step up and catalyze this mini-grid market. Because when it comes to mini-grid investment, the time is now.
    http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2014/09/are-mini-grids-next-big-opportunity-beyond-grid

    10

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      “… investors have waited with baited breath …”
      The Sierra Club, or Justin Guay, or someone needs a proof reader.

      Cruel Clever Cat
      Sally, having swallowed cheese,
      Directs down holes the scented breeze,
      Enticing thus with baited breath
      Nice mice to an untimely death. —- Geoffrey Taylor

      50

  • #
    PeterS

    A number of posts indicate that science used to be honest and based on factual observational evidence. As I keep saying, the wrong people are being blamed for the AGW scam getting this far. It’s not the Al Gore’s or the politicians. On the whole the blame rests on the majority of scientists who are silent on this subject. They should be screaming from the roof tops that all this talk of AGW is anything but science, and if we are to talk about it we should conduct proper, unbiased and open research on the matter. The scam artists are only doing what comes naturally. As long as the scientific community as a whole do nothing, they are aiding and abetting the scam artists. If we can’t rely on the greater good of the scientific community to put a stop to the corruption of the science of climate change in relation to man’s influence, then it will only get worse.

    150

    • #
      TdeF

      They have not been silent. The scream was 17 years ago, across the US. In 1998 32,000 degreed scientists signed the Oregon petition against this scam. To prove they were really qualified, they had to give their name, details, qualifications and sign. Even the man in charge of the Manhattan project signed, the late Edward Teller.

      Warmists supporters examined the list, found some duplications and other minor faults and claimed most were not ‘climate’ scientists but physicists, chemists, geologists, mathematicians, engineers, microbiologists, computer scientists etc., including thousands of PhDs. Now if you can ignore such a document, you truly have the support of the media and politicians. Worse, the manufactured story was then put out that 97% of all scientists supported
      ‘the science’ of man made global warming, when that is so transparently wrong that it is past ridicule.

      Yes,other scientists in narrow disciplines by definition do choose not to get involved, do decide that it is irrelevant to them, that it will sort itself out or that it is simply not their field of expertise. Even more cannot be seen to be politically active or they would prejudice their careers and most have mortgages and families. Which is why so many retired or independent people get involved, at their own expense and in their own time, gratis. Big Oil? They stay out of it.

      Basically if 32,000 qualified scientists in the US alone will not heard, what can be done? Great blogs like Jo’s do get international attention and are quoted more and more. It is the grinding down of a generation of opportunists as the world refuses to warm. However they are richer and have their beach houses and awards including a part Nobel, beach houses and fame. Even when man made Global Warming is a distant memory, the windmills of the UN will keep turning uselessly, perhaps for 20 years before they become the henges of the 20th century, monuments to a time of religion and folly and opportunism.

      As Kevin Rudd said, Global Warming was the moral challenge of a generation. To take the money or not?

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        The Oregon Petition was no anonymous 5 second online survey as is so popular today, click and go. You could not be more seriously opposed than to give your name, address, qualifications and signature. I understand this survey was extended around 2002.

        72

        • #
          Dariusz

          Ted
          Apologies for unintended red mark.
          I started using geological science in search for hydrocarbons in the 1980-ties and found that the golden years of multi-skilled science passed me in the 1970-ties. However, I still use the excellent reports of this era. Then after the 1985-86 oil crises the big oil contracted exploration from which the industry never recovered. The main reason for increasing reserves now is the production from the unconventionals (looking for hydrocarbons in tight rocks like shale rather than in sandstones), but the big oil has not been responsible for this. Worked in the big oil and never again. They are almost as bad as the government. The calibre of people staying in big companies is low as they play the system knowing well that most of them will never be employed in the more competitive smaller companies. Why? Because fools can be easily identified. Now these companies have no ability to find something new unless they buy new production from someone else. Shell in Australia is a classic example of spending billions on exploration and “finding” the Prelude gas field that was found by Woodside in the early 1980-ties. Having an incredible access to huge money, people and technology and they still have a very poor track record of finding anything. Now these companies live off the old fields that are rapidly depleting with no intelligent generation of new explorers that can replace the diminishing reserves.

          30

  • #
    pat

    ***ABC only positive until para 2…when FIRE becomes the new enemy!!!

    26 Jan: ABC: January wet turns Australia’s Red Centre into a sea of green
    NT Country Hour, Nathan Coates
    ***Pastoralists have welcomed the arrival of lush green grasses, but remain cautious about the potential fire risk it can pose at this time of year.
    Ben Heaslip, from Bond Springs Station, said the new feed for his cattle was good, but he was concerned about fire coming sooner rather than later….
    “You can’t forget that we are going to have some bushfires pretty soon and everyone has to be aware of that.”…
    Ecologist warns of fire risk
    CSIRO arid lands ecologist Margaret Friedel said arid lands were never predictable and in the right conditions fire could strike at any time.
    “There is no such thing as an average year, as I think any pastoralist would tell you,” she said.
    “When you get rains at this time of the year, it really depends on what follows.
    “If we get more rain, vegetation will keep growing.
    “But if it doesn’t and you have high standing fuel, you can get some extraordinarily hot fires at this time of the year because of the temperature and the wind.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/rain-turns-australias-red-centre-into-a-sea-of-green/6041098

    what a total disgrace u r, ABC.

    60

  • #
    skeptic56109

    sillyfilly, you said it has been proven that UHI effects do not exist. Actually, the only thing you warmunistas have proven is that a computer algorithm cannot distinguish between urban and rural weather stations based on population density. Because the population distribution in a grid square is random, there are no parameters the computer can use to distinguish between rural and urban.
    However, this myth suggesting UHI effects do not exist is very useful for the corrupt CAGW managers of the surface temp data sets. They immediately started to massage rural temperatures so they agreed with the urban temperatures nearby.
    But wait; how did the computer know which temperature stations were rural and needed adjustment (up obviously)? I guess it is okay to type in “rural” beside a temperature station when it suits the programmers’ mantra.

    90

  • #
    Jack

    Is there a complete record of all the original temperatures prior to their ‘adjustments’? If so has anyone ever done a model based on the original temperatures to determine if, using the original temperatures, there’s be any global warming/climate change?

    60

  • #
    pat

    ***note the hypocrisy:

    25 Jan: AllGov: Steve Straehley: Largest Area of Federal Waters in U.S. to be auctioned for Offshore Wind Power Projects
    The Department of the Interior this week will lease a huge tract of ocean off the Massachusetts coast to utilities for the right to build wind farms and generate clean power for New England.
    Twelve companies have been asked to bid on the four lease areas within the 1,160-square-mile patch south of Martha’s Vineyard. The auction, to be held Thursday, will be the largest such sale to date by the federal government. If built out, the project would generate enough electricity to power 1.5 million homes, according to Ari Phillips of ClimateProgress.
    Offshore wind power has become popular in Europe, but has yet to gain traction in the United States.

    ***A previous project off the Massachusetts coast, Cape Wind, is on hold because of lack of funding and opposition to its location near Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket and Cape Cod by area residents, including members of the Kennedy clan. The new project will be farther offshore…

    One problem Interior might face in this week’s auction is that energy is cheaper now, thanks to the huge drop in oil prices. Investors might feel that they won’t be able to charge enough for the wind energy to make money on the project.
    “Certainly, the low prices of energy make it more difficult to convince people to invest in higher-priced energy sources like offshore wind,” John Miller, executive director of the Marine Renewable Energy Collaborative, told New Bedford, Massachusetts’ Standard-Times. “The drops this year are certainly an indication that there are unpredictable (fluctuations) in the market.”
    Another auction is planned for later this year for an area off the coast of New Jersey…
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/largest-area-of-federal-waters-in-us-to-be-auctioned-for-offshore-wind-power-projects-150125?news=855469

    10

  • #
    pat

    abc writes –

    - he said it was too soon to tell if the glacier was melting as a result of a CHANGING GLOBAL CLIMATE –

    this misuse & abuse of language regarding climate – just because they dare not say anthropogenic global warming any more – is making the CAGW alarmists look more foolish each & every day:

    26 Jan: ABC: Antarctica’s Totten Glacier, twice the size of Victoria, ‘melting from below’
    Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis recently returned to Hobart from Antarctica, with a team of 23 scientists who had used new technology to collect the first water samples near the Totten Glacier…
    Steve Rintoul from the Australian Climate and Environment Cooperative Research Centre said the results indicated the glacier was being melted by the sea water beneath it…
    The glacier holds enough water to raise the sea level by six metres and scientists said it had been thinning over the past 15 years…
    ***But he said it was too soon to tell if the glacier was melting as a result of a changing global climate…
    Aurora Australis went where no vessel had gone before
    Tony Worby, also from the research centre, said the study was groundbreaking…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-26/sea-water-melting-totten-glacier-in-antarctica-from-below/6047076

    00

  • #
    pat

    re Totten Glacier, which ROM was writing about in the earlier comments -

    is this study really “groundbreaking”?

    20

    • #
      ROM

      We will have to send Chris Turney and his Ship of Fools from the UNSW climate research division down there again to get stuck in all that non existent ice. while he has another go at finding all that bare ice free sea and ground.

      Anybody have any idea on whether Turney still holds a position at the UNSW or if as is more likely with that lot of [snip - lift the tone a little, thanks -J], if he has been promoted?

      Did the UNSw ever compensate the Chinese, French, the Australian Antarctic Division and etc and etc for all the expense of the so called rescue mission as well as the lost research time and research opportunities due to Turney’s abject ignorance of Antarctic Ice conditions and his arrogance and ignorance when he refused to heed the ship’s Captain’s urgent call to return due to fast changing ice conditions?

      [ Group think par excellence here from the UNSW as one would have thought that any Climate Research unit in any university would have been very aware of Antarctic Ice conditions and a number of his peer researchers would have belted some sense into Turney before he even got anywhere near that pot of tax payer's gold he was so insistent on spending on his own glorification.
      Says a hell of a lot about the group think ignorance and the complete lack of any perceptible levels of climate expertise, an ignorance that seems fairly universal and universally prevalent in all academic climate research establishments ]

      41

  • #
    Grumpy

    It may have been on this site or similar that I picked up a line of Soviet humor: “The future is certain, it is only the past that is unpredictable.”
    The future is certain = The Science is Settled
    The Past is Unpredictable = Past Data Needs Management
    As I remember in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, the government of the day had a Ministry of History, the prime responsibility of which was to continuously rewrite historic records so that they were consistent with the government policy of the day!
    Did Huxley invent the future that we are living in?

    00

  • #
    pat

    in honour of Charles Onians’ UK Independent article of 20 March, 2000 – “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” – which included:

    “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    25 Jan: UK Express: Nathan Rao: Britain on RED alert: ‘Displaced polar vortex’ to unleash crippling snowstorms next week
    BRITAIN is on RED ALERT for a devastating “displaced Polar vortex” to unleash nationwide snowstorms IN DAYS.
    The ‘displaced Polar vortex’ will wreak weather havoc across the UK
    Panicked forecasters raised the alert in the past hour after spotting the freak system on the weather models…
    Forecasters say temperatures will plunge to below -15C (5F) while feet-deep snow drifts on a par with the worst winters in history are likely.
    The whole of the UK will be scourged by screaming Arctic gales and blizzards right through the first half of February…
    ***Weather experts say they have issued a stark warning to emergency services and the Government to take action now…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/554183/Britain-red-alert-displaced-Polar-vortex-unleash-weather-hell-next-week

    ***note it’s “weather” experts for the above.

    26 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Kieran Corcoran/AP: ‘Prepare for the worst’: Chaos in the aisles as panic-buyers clear NYC grocery stores ahead of blizzard threatening THREE FEET of snow – as 1,800 flights canceled and workers told to stay home
    Huge lines were pictured in food stores and warnings flooded in to stay home amid snow falling at 4inches per hour
    Bill de Blasio warned New Yorkers not to ‘underestimate’ the storm, which could drop 36inches in places
    Snowfall expected to be accompanied by hurricane-strength winds blowing at up to 65 miles per hour
    New York governor Andrew Cuomo warned commuters to go home early as roads and the subway could be closed
    More than 1,400 flights have been canceled for Monday, and a further 1,000 on Tuesday
    The National Weather Service has issued a warning for the East Coast covering 29million people
    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said ‘This could be a storm the likes of which we have never seen before’
    Boston is expected to get 18 to 24 inches of snow, and Philadelphia 14 to 18 inches
    However, the 36inches predicted in the storm now approaching the city would dwarf even the current record-holder. Below are the top five recorded snowfall figures for a single storm:..
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2926322/Chaos-aisles-panic-buyers-clear-New-York-City-stores-food-ahead-blizzard-threatening-THREE-FEET-snow-1-800-flights-canceled-workers-told-stay-home-case-transport-shutdown.html

    imagine how the “hottest year” story is going down in the UK and the US!

    30

  • #
    pat

    forgot the link for The Independent:

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html#

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    UHI in the US is a huge problem, along with airports.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0c6da25970c-pi

    30

  • #
    albert

    Richard Lindzen said in his latest youtube clip when he was young, hurricanes reached as far as New York every year

    30

  • #
    Michael Whittemore

    Here is a short video that explains the adjustments done on these temperature stations. http://youtu.be/qRFz8merXEA

    11

    • #
      Michael Collard

      Interesting. If the adjustments only make a 3% difference in the global averages, why bother making the adjusments at all? Why not just use the raw data? That would also eliminate the accusations of tampering.

      40

      • #
        Michael Whittemore

        I think we should be asking the question, why are these people making accusations of tampering.

        00

  • #
    Tim Hammond

    I understand the concept of infilling data where none exists, and that such exercises are at best subject to what must be a high level of uncertainty.

    But why are the actual data being changed?

    If a station shows it was cooler during a given period than another station, why is the cooler station altered (or vice versa)? It makes no sense – either the data is accurate and so should be used, or it is not, in which case is should not be used.

    You cannot just take data and alter it as if you “know” what it should be!

    60

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      The idea is that to get the ‘correct’ historical temperature trend, one has to correct for growing UHI and other lesser things like TOBS. NASA GISS uses Tokyo to explain on their website. You correct by warming the past as if it had present UHI, in order to see the ‘true’ trend. Rural stations should need little or no adjustment, although can stlll have siting problems. But GISS overall does the opposite of what NASA claims. It cools the past ( and sometimes warms the present). And as Homewood showed, does so for all three rural stations in Paraguay partly used to infill a large region of South America.
      All illustrated in essay When Data Isn’t.

      30

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    I feel so sad when I think about the absolute and scrupulous Meteorologists of the past. They worked so hard to make sure that any temperature inconsistencies were investigated and corrected before they were accepted into the records – diligent inquiry.

    They were the driving force to make sure Stevenson Screens were used at every Australian site, meticulously set out to screen out the inconsistencies. When new thermometers were put into service, their calibration was checked against a standard meteorological calibrated instrument,they were determined that Australia would have the best climate historical temperature records, it was basic to their professional craft.

    If you read through the BOM’s own History, “The Weather Watchers”, this is all so readily apparent and any discredited or suspect anomaly reading cross checked and rigorously investigated checked and re-checked. Yes there were instances of poor or lazy practices but the quality control measures put in place to protect and enhance the historical temperature records gave the best chance of achieving the bread and butter professional outcome of their labours and diligence. Now this has been cast aside by what I can only describe as vandals on a mission to deceive, and if you look closely at the concerns that were expressed when the lazy computer jockeys appeared on the scene and thought they knew better and could hide behind some computer mumbo jumbo. I say the rot set in.! The former experts were just not up to the task, they understood weather but not computers and the race was on to be the winner, to be funded for increasingly expensive computer toys that in the end really didn’t extend the forecasting ability, but handy for identifying trends of cyclic phenomena in the hope that we might one day be able to predict the regular rain events that cost so many lives where people persist in living in flood prone areas.

    Now that was the last great use of computers, they are now being used for propaganda production, to corrupt the historical records, downgrade past temperature and use spurious mathematical concoctions to automatically produce artificial warming, to smear desert temperatures to corrupt by upping the average added to the areas we live. Worst it doesn’t need to be scientific just media propaganda under the authority of the promoting organisation, and in Australia they get away with this cr@p and we will never know the extent of the actual b@stardy of correcting on corrections, adjusting the adjusted to sell a propaganda meme.

    I for one am sick of this. The sooner the whistle blowers and insiders abandon those who are promoting this rubbish and tell it as it is, warts and all, the sooner we may get back to Weather science and better understand /predict actual variable weather, and the better for all of us.

    The pity is the absolute damage done to the whole Australian temperature history and the dedication and dream of those early weathermen! They had a dream, this is a nightmare!

    80

  • #
    Ruairi

    The temperature record can vary,
    So when choosing a source,be wary,
    Avoid using GISS,
    And give NOAA a miss,
    As a three degree difference is scary.

    40

  • #

    Paul Homewood has published an update

    All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With

    Just when you thought it could not get any worse!….
    These warming adjustments have taken place at every single, currently operational site in Paraguay.

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      They “homogenise” one of them to “regional expectations”….

      … then homogenise all the others to match it. !

      31

  • #
    Dennis

    20 January 2015 – National

    As recommended by an independent peer review, a Technical Advisory Forum comprised of leading scientists and statisticians will review and provide advice on Australia’s official temperature data set. The Technical Advisory Forum is scheduled to meet in March.

    The Bureau of Meteorology is responsible for the climate record, and as a trusted and respected organisation, welcomes robust assessment of its work in order to maintain the highest levels of public… read more…

    10

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    Because it is important to be skeptical of skeptics I thought it would be of use to post this link:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/

    The discussion is about one of the sites in question. This is the explanation they provided

    If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century. Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.

    Is that justified? It may be the reason, but it does not mean it is justified.

    20

    • #
      the Griss

      “Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century”

      ONLY after all those other points are “adjusted” as well !!!

      This proves without a doubt that they were all specifically adjusted to approximately the same trend.

      10

    • #
      Escovado

      The same blog post says, “you need to adjust the temperatures to account for station moves.” Adjust to where? And they want to call this science? Bwhahahaha!

      10

  • #
  • #
    Pat Lane

    I’ve enrolled for the on-line course “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” offered by the University of Queensland. I plan to be ‘cured’ of my skepticism.

    The course starts in March, but they have opened a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/denial101x

    There’s a video by Kevin Cowton who explains (very slowly, so deniers/ stupid people like me can understand) that by homogenizing the data, NOAA fixes the raw data so it shows warming rather than cooling. He answers the charge that NOAA tampers with the temperature records by asking “Why would they do that?”

    I can think of a couple of trillion good reasons.

    20

    • #
      Peter C

      Good Pat,

      I am also enrolled. I have not watched the video, but thanks for the summary.

      I may want to chat with you about the course. I am not sure how long I will last.

      Making sense of Climate Change Denial? Maybe we can explain it to them.

      10

      • #
        Pat Lane

        Peter,

        I’d be pleased to chat once the course starts, or before if you want to.

        The start’s been put off till April now, apparently.

        I’m thinking of starting a blog to record my activities/ impressions.

        If I decide to go ahead, I’ll post the address here, if that’s OK with Jo.

        00

  • #
    old farte

    Is my memory incorrect re “Climategate” emails that said, “delete these emails,” “protect yourselves from FOIA requests by erasing your files”?

    That’s reflective of legitimate trustworthy science, from the perspective of climate scientists, at least those climate scientists who have not condemned this chicanery.

    10

  • #
    Timboss

    Looks like you got tricked.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA

    It pays to be skeptical.

    ———–
    Please explain what’s in the youtube before posting links. This is a written blog. People shouldn’t need to watch a video to be a part of the conversation. Despite that. I’ll publish it since it seems relevant. Hopefully a skeptic will do this explanation for you… But please do it yourself in future.-Jo

    12

    • #

      Cowtan seems to be saying the Paraguay stations were calibrated with other stations. What I didn’t hear (did I miss it) is that they have documentation to explain the changes. Do they? What it sounds like is more homogenization with “neighbours”. All 3 stations in Paraguay had raw falling data. Maybe there was a change in operating practices, but if we have to “guess” what that was, and make large adjustments, why are we using that data? Someone needs to do the historic document research and find real reasons instead of guessing. And by the time Cowtan is telling us that the ocean is not affected by temperature stations he “trying too hard”. As if we have good measurements of ocean temperatures from 1950 – 1970. – Jo

      30

      • #
        Timboss

        Thought you would have known already.

        http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

        [Judith Curry has preferred to assume that all scientists carrying out the temperature adjustments are acting in good faith but does not have the data to prove that. When the various agencies carrying out the adjustments refuse to expose their station by station adjustment calculations to public scrutiny, and when their generic explanations of changed temperature gauge locations, or homogenisation with other nearby stations are shown to be false, the community has no reason to trust that the adjustments are being done according to best practice. If they were, why the reluctance to be scrutinised? See here for details. - Mod]

        01

        • #
          Timboss

          Dear Mod, if you applied your criteria to Paul Homewood then this thread would not exist.

          Your reluctance to allow my post whilst freely allowing others that simply “cheer” is most telling. Denying freedom of speech and restricting open and honest debate seems your last and only resort.

          ——
          Dear Timboss, Your comment contained no argument. Just a link. Please explain your point in future, it makes moderation faster. As it was, the mod explained why your Curry link was already well known information and irrelevant. We’ve discussed it all many times here. (You should do your homework before you comment). Unless you can name the specific documented reasons for the adjustments — the only ones I’ve seen suggest it was more vague “homogenization” with neighboring stations which may be 500 km away and may themselves also be homogenized. – Jo

          01

          • #
            Timboss

            No, the Mod gave me their opinion. That is not the same as mathematically proving where the homogenisation of data failed. You make many assertions about their methods, but seem incapable of actually producing the science to show where they went wrong.

            00

            • #

              We don’t have to prove where the homogenisation may have failed. You want our money for your pet project, you need to show your methods are legitimate. The raw data should stand as is until such time as there is an accepted, published and replicatable method for adjustments or a documented reason for making a change. In medical research the observed data would never been changed with such abandon. If it was so wrong, isn’t it time to drop it altogether, and admit the error bars are even larger on the global set?

              We are merely pointing out that homogenisation is a dubious risky process. Without documented station moves or changes people are taking three records that were in agreement and assuming that other international records are better and correct. The changes are huge. It’s possible that the other stations were wrong, and the homogenisation just spreads the errors. It’s also possible that some step changes in temperatures are natural and homogenisation deletes that information from the record.

              It ain’t science.

              20

              • #
                the Griss

                There was a comment recent by Mosher, (mouthpiece for BEST, on another forum.)

                It basically showed him basically ADMITTING that climate stations are homogenised to FIT climate models. !!!!!

                Steven Mosher | July 2, 2014 at 11:59 am |

                {quote}
                All the data is used to create an ESTIMATE, a PREDICTION

                “At the end of the analysis process, the “adjusted” data is created as an estimate of what the weather at this location might have looked like after removing apparent biases. This “adjusted” data will generally to be free from quality control issues and be regionally homogeneous. Some users may find this
                “adjusted” data that attempts to remove apparent biases more suitable for their needs, while other users may prefer to work with raw values.

                With Amundsen if your interest is looking at the exact conditions recorded, USE THE RAW DATA.

                If your interest is creating the best PREDICTION for that site given ALL the data and the given model of climate, then use “adjusted” data.”

                10

              • #
                Timboss

                You have to prove their method is wrong if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific world, otherwise it’s just an unsupported assertion. They may well be incorrect, but at the moment their methods are accepted best practice even if they do not agree with your personal view.

                That you personally cannot grasp their method doesn’t mean they are wrong. I can’t grasp quantum mechanics but I don’t go around claiming Hawking is wrong.

                How can we prove their method is wrong when it is not published in enough detail to be independently replicated? We had to grill the BOM in a major daily paper before it would even release the names of the stations used to “homogenise” Rutherglen. A mystery method is not science. What they do is an “unsupported assertion”. – Jo

                00

              • #
                Timboss

                NOAA is not the BOM. Paraguay is not Rutherglen.

                Congrats Tim, you get a gold star for geography. We all saw you dodge the point. – Jo

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Timboss,

                You have to prove their method is wrong if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific world, otherwise it’s just an unsupported assertion.

                Can you please explain to me, how you can prove (I know that you really mean “demonstrate” since it is impossible to “prove” a negative), that a method is flawed, if that method is not published?

                At one time, all children learning “General Science”, were instructed to use the headings, “Aim”, “Apparatus”, “Method”, “Observations”, “Calculations”, and “Conclusions”, to explain their “experiments”.

                Now I realise that the world has moved on, and science is now so much more sophisticated, and socially aware, but even so, I can’t see a valid reason for not documenting any scientific process (especially in the physical sciences) using those heading or equivalents.

                You see, the issue is that school children were required to turn in their lab books for marking by a teacher, so they were doing the equivalent of publishing their workings. It is high time that Climate Scientists stepped up to the same standard, and published their workings as well. If they did that, and the skeptics could find no fault, then all of these arguments would simply evaporate.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I can’t grasp quantum mechanics but I don’t go around claiming Hawking is wrong.

                Neither can I. But he does publish his method, and the maths involved, so that people who are more capable than you and I, can find flaws in his reasoning. In fact they have done, on occasion, with much debate, and thus real science advances.

                10

              • #
                Timboss

                Google found it in 0.34 seconds. Why does it take you so long? ;)

                ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf

                Found what? You reply with (again) a blank link? Does this list even USHCN station and the algorthim and neighboring stations for every station? – Jo

                00

              • #
                Timboss

                It lists the method Jo. I await your peer-reviewed rebuke of its methods with great anticipation.


                Ignored my point again. Unless it contains a database of every station and all the stations used to adjust every station, and the station-by-station reasons, and the step changes etc, how can anyone replicate it? – Jo

                00

              • #
                Timboss

                You can replicate it by using the data provided in the earlier link. But that would take time, effort and skill. Time you seem to have.

                00

              • #

                By “earlier link” I assume you mean Menne and Williams?

                Richard C discussed M and W here last year. It’s just one method of many different groups use.

                No specific mention of “paraguay” or any of the stations we are discussing, nor the exact neighbours. All the workings should be listed publicly.

                10

              • #
                Timboss

                Of course there is no special mention of any station. The method does not use the “name” of the station, just the data. It’s concerning that you expect to see station names play any part in the method.

                00

              • #

                So the future of the world depends on estimates of global trends, why not publish all the work, including a station by station analysis?

                It’s a dead end method anyhow. What they should have done first is a proper historical search for documents, maps and photos that demonstrate that moves occurred. It needs to be done station by station.

                Why take a bunch of flawed records — which may all have unknown moves — and try and guesstimate what the real trend was? A serious scientist would start with only the absolutely best long records and work out from there. Homogenisation sometimes means using bad data to adjust good data.

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                To get an accurate realistic record, you need a set of consistent points, with little or no outside or local effects, set up on an approximately equidistant grid

                The fact is that there are only 3 data records that even attempt any consistency of location and an even spread of measurements.

                They are the two satellite records, RSS and UAH. The other is USCRN.

                Neither of the satellite records show any warming since the culmination of the 1998 El Nino event (finished at the beginning of 2001)

                And USCRN shows a very slight COOLING trend since it was installed in 2005.

                WARMING HAS CEASED. !!!

                End of story.

                10

              • #
                Timboss

                You’d be more convincing Jo if you could publish your method and demonstrate why it is better than NOAA’s. If you think you really are better, then go ahead and publish.

                00

              • #

                So, you’ve run out of arguments. Admit defeat?

                00

              • #
                Timboss

                My arguments stand. You can access the data, can access the method, but you are incapable of replicating the process let alone mathematically prove it to be faulty. All you have are assertions but no scientific method to support your claims.

                Oh, sure you have plenty of excuses, and that’s good enough for a blogger, but it’s not science Jo. You’re all talk but nothing of substance to show.

                00

              • #

                Your arguments stand? What arguments.

                You have not found any objections to my point that using flawed stations to “correct” potentially good ones is fundamentally bad method. you can’t defend the approach, you just resort to ad homs. One fallacy after another.

                I haven’t made any excuses. You are merely projecting your own failures onto me.

                10

              • #
                Timboss

                They publish their method, the data is available, you’re incapable of produce peer-reviewed science to demonstrate any issue. It’s not for me to defend, they’ve published, you haven’t.

                Your inability to publish is your failure, no projection required from me.

                [Reliance on "publishing" is a mutation of argument from authority. You might find that published material is not necessarily valuable or accurate: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=errors+in+published+scientific+papers . Reliance on "published" science of-the-day is apparently perilous.] ED

                [Publication is a process - a mechanism - for sharing information amongst interested parties. That is it, nothing more, and nothing less. It does not guarantee anything at all, least of all veracity.] Fly

                00

              • #

                I’ve already explained to you how they haven’t published enough to replicate their work. You were unable to provide the full answer only the generics. I’ve explained that you are arguing with fallacies, not the scientific method. You don’t even know what the scientific method is. It does not involve committees, editors, or publishers. A theory is right or it isn’t. – Jo

                00

            • #
              Michael Collard

              Mathematically, changing the data to match the surrounding stations has the same effect as simply eliminating it. The average stays the same. Why bother?

              20

            • #
              The Backslider

              No, the Mod gave me their opinion. That is not the same as mathematically proving where the homogenisation of data failed. You make many assertions about their methods, but seem incapable of actually producing the science to show where they went wrong.

              You are lost here sonny. It is not up to us to show where they went wrong, but rather for them to show us where they went right. It is they who adjusted the data, not us.

              In the same vein could you please look at the USA graph here, presented to us by none other the James Hansen and based on the GISS data set, showing that the USA has cooled since 1940: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

              Could you please explain to us why GISS today shows warming whereas back in 1999 (the end of warming) and attested to by James Hansen it showed cooling.

              20

      • #
        Tristan

        As has been pointed out innumerable times, the unadjusted global temperature series and the adjusted global temperature series are almost identical. The entirety of adjustments amounts to a 3% difference in the rate of warming.

        As has been pointed out innumerable times, the trend for the UAH data set and the trend for the various GMST data sets are within each other’s error range.

        Given we have two sources of verification, with regard to the global impact of adjustments, banging on about them sounds a bit like, shall we say, ‘alarmism’?

        41

        • #
          Jaymez

          Tristan since the UAH data-set has only been available since 1979, how does that possible verify the GMST data sets especially when it is known that surface temperature records have been almost uniformly ‘cooled’ through prior to 1970′s or so?

          Detailed examples of this surface temperature data adjustments are provided here,and here and here, and here, as just some of the many demonstrations of this remarkable temperature record adjustment.

          10

          • #
            Tristan

            Obviously it only verifies the record post 79.

            Here’s a link from skeptic-friend Judith Curry, helpfully explaining adjustments.

            Don’t you ever wonder why ‘skeptics’ don’t post the global adjusted and unadjusted temperatures together, and why they just focus on single stations or regions (continental US, while large, is still only 2% of the earth’s surface)?

            Keep in mind, that’s still land-only data, which is only 30% of the earth’s surface.

            Of course, it’s much easier to just claim a conspiracy of climate scientists than actually look at the “whys”.

            12

            • #
              Tristan

              Oh, the link was already posted and responded to. Yet again, the ‘skeptical’ response is: “Demonstrate everything to my satisfaction” rather than, I dunno, actually doing the legwork themselves.

              11

        • #
          The Backslider

          Wrong Tristan please see my post here.

          I keenly await your explanation.

          00

  • #
    shub

    Jo, Cowtan says in his video there was a calibration error prior to the 70s. He provides no basis for this. Following the video, he says in a comment:

    We still don’t know why there appear to be synchronized breaks across the Paraguay stations.

    So he doesn’t know. Yet he made a video.

    It ain’t science is correct.

    00

  • #
    shub

    It’s also possible that some step changes in temperatures are natural…

    Yes. Underlying detecting ‘breakpoints’ and shifts in climatic time series and ‘correcting’ them lies the assumption that long-term trends only happen gradually and slowly. Where is the evidence to show the assumption is valid? It may be in the literature, or, maybe it doesn’t exist.

    00