Correlating US Temperatures With CO2

GHCN HCN daily US temperatures show that as CO2 has risen, there has been no change in US temperatures. Clearly we need a large tax increase to correct this problem.

But let’s talk climate change. The US has also seen a decrease in drought, hurricanes and severe tornadoes as CO2 has risen.

I propose we start an occupy Candy Crowley movement, and demand a huge tax increase to reverse the decline in severe weather.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Correlating US Temperatures With CO2

  1. johnmcguire says:

    Steven , I like your sense of humor but the thought of being any where near that crowley women turns my stomach .

  2. David Appell says:

    This year will almost certainly be the warmest year in the USA48 since 1894, according to NOAA data.

    In the last 30 years, USA48 has warmed 1.5 F.

    • You are about a month late and a dollar short. The thermometers show 2012 as being #3 behind 1934 and 1921, but NOAA cleverly upwards adjusts to get the pre-determined effect

      • David Appell says:

        False. NOAA shows USA48 2012-YTD as first, by an amazing 1.1 F:
        http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt

        If November and December are at the long-term average, 2012 will easily be the warmest year in the USA48 since 1894.

      • You crack me up David. I just showed you that they achieved that number by massively adjusting the raw data, and it flew right over your head.

      • BobW in NC says:

        Let us not forget, too, that an extraordinarily careful survey of 1007 of the 1221 currently operative US weather stations by Watts et al show that 92.1% are CRN3 or above. The largest number not in compliance (~64%) are CRN4, requiring a DOWNWARD adjustment of 2° C (http://www.surfacestations.org/ ). Only 7.9% are CRN 1 or 2, requiring no adjustment.

        I’m not climate scientist, but why should NOAA adjust temperatures UP when they really should be adjusted DOWN? (Maybe Hansen can explain that to me…/sarc)

        Although I know it’s not possible for multiple reasons (poor records of stations lost, moved, etc), but I’d really be curious to see the proper adjustments made to the raw data you showed, Steve. If the raw data shows no increase, I’d bet the properly adjusted trend line is down.

        Thanks for a great blog. Hope your mother is doing well.

        BobW

  3. Andy DC says:

    You let me adjust the raw data, I could make it decline 1.5 degrees over the last 30 years. Any time an agenda driven concern starts adjusting raw data in the direction that fits the agenda, it is highly suspect.

    • David Appell says:

      Correcting data for known biases is fundamental to science, done in every experiment in existence. Only people who don’t understand science, and have never done any of it, don’t understand that.

      • You would blindly accept any amount of adjustment, as long as it has some official looking government logo on it.

      • David Appell says:

        False. Such adjustments are an accepted part of the science, peer-reviewed and published. Trying to make hay of it is a denialists’s last stand.

      • You don’t know anything about the adjustments. They are currently about 4X what is documented in the USHCN literature, and they inexplicably get bigger every year.

      • David Appell says:

        You act like (1) the adjustments are just lies to enforce some warming scheme, and (2) you have a better method. Adjustments are necessary to achieve results that truly reflect the state of US climate, and that’s why scientists perform them.
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php?show=quality_assurance
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php?show=homogeneity_adjustment

      • In other words, they need to jack temperatures up to keep funding coming in, and you blindly accept it.

      • Dear David Appell,

        Please point to a single valid instance outside of climate “science” of the adjustments being greater than the resulting signal.

      • David Appell says:

        They’re trying to capture the true state of the climate by eliminating bias.

      • David Appell says:

        Astronomers correct for known biases every day, such as the rotation of the Earth. Myriad measurements in general relativity have had to correct for the Earth’s rotation around the sun. The measurement of the shift in Mercury’s perihelion due to general relativistic effects (about 43 arcseconds per century) had to correct for numerous perturbations from the solar system (about 500 arcseconds per century), especially from Jupiter.

      • Astronomers correct for known biases every day, such as the rotation of the Earth. Myriad measurements in general relativity have had to correct for the Earth’s rotation around the sun. The measurement of the shift in Mercury’s perihelion due to general relativistic effects (about 43 arcseconds per century) had to correct for numerous perturbations from the solar system (about 500 arcseconds per century), especially from Jupiter.

        Mercury makes 415 orbits per century. The correction you give (unsourced) is 43 arcseconds per century. In what way is 43 arseconds greater than 415 entire orbits? Or are you just mathematically illiterate?

        By comparison, the total claimed warming in the last century is less than one degree centigrade. The total “corrections” amount to more than two degrees centigrade.

        Conclusion: David Appell is an idiot.

      • David Appell says:

        You don’t know much about physics, do you?

        Other bodies in the solar system, especially Jupiter, cause a shift in Mercury’s perihelion, of about 500 arcseconds per century. Verifying Einstein’s prediction for spacetime’s contribution required taking first correcting for all of these perturbations; only then would the GR’s effect of 43 arcseconds/century stand out.

        That “noise” was accounted for, and Einstein’s prediction was verified.

    • David,

      Maybe you should not generalise on subjects which you know exactly zero about? If you’re an idiot, fine. But why announce the fact to the world?

  4. Neil Gibson says:

    The so-called TOBS errors in the raw data are greater than the anomaly being measured. Only in “climate science” could this happen. Climate “scientists” have no idea about accuracy and make things up.

  5. Sundance says:

    Appell, in his own mind, emerges as the beautiful butterfly to tell us that we all look like little ants to him from his lofty view. :-)

  6. Billy Liar says:

    David Appell says:
    November 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    The measurement of the shift in Mercury’s perihelion due to general relativistic effects (about 43 arcseconds per century) had to correct for numerous perturbations from the solar system (about 500 arcseconds per century), especially from Jupiter.

    What kind of gibberish is the above?

    Are you hoping nobody here knows anything about celestial mechanics?

    Try and re-phrase it so it makes some kind of sense.

    • It’s irrelevant political/idealogical “let’s change the topic” drivel.

      E.g., Avandia was a bad drug that researchers from GlaxoSmithKline promoted that should never have made it to market. It caused a lot of unnecessary deaths. Presumably there is a David Appell out there somewhere who would defend that drug my reminding everyone how many lives Penicillin saved…

      David possesses the qualities of both arrogance and ignorance.

    • David Appell says:

      Einstein’s prediction, and its verification, is one of the great stories in the history of science. If you don’t about it, you should.

      • Relativity explains how the further a temperature reading is from any living person’s memory, the more it must be adjusted downwards.

        David goes completely off topic with another straw man.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s not a straw man. Someone asked for an experimental measurement whose correction was greater than its signal. Mercury’s perihelion is such a measurement — by a factor of at least 10.

      • Bullshit. Your comparison is moronic. If you’re trying to compare thermometer readings to the orbit of Mercury, then that would be like suggesting that relativity “corrected” newtonian mechanics by as much as 10%.

      • David Appell says:

        False. Verifying Einstein’s prediction required picking out a signal from a measurement where the noise was 10 times as great.

        QED.

      • David,

        You’re still bullshitting hard. The gravitational effects of the orbits of the other planets are not “measurement noise”. They can be precisely calculated. You are confusing yourself again.

      • David Appell says:

        Likewise, the biases of temperature measuring sites can be calculated and adjusted for, so the true climatic change is found. Same thing.

      • Nope, you’ve just managed to confuse yourself. If you wanted to present an analogy that even remotely made sense, it would have to involve *measurement error*. The example you offered was between two competing theories in physics, which has no relevance at all to the issue at hand. No wonder you gave up physics and turned to creative writing…

      • David Appell says:

        Temperature adjustments aren’t a question of “measurement error,” i.e. of how well one can read a thermometer. They are about correcting for known biases in the measurement scheme. Hence they are directly analagous to digging out the GR signal in Mercury’s orbit by accounting for compounding factors.

      • Me says:

        BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA, You said it toshinmack! :lol:

      • David,

        The “measurement errors” *are* the corrections of biases of all kinds. Including, but not limited to, biases within the thermometers themselves.

        There are no measurement errors or biases in the general theory of relatively when measuring the orbit of Mercury. The orbit of Mercury is measured. It’s calculated precisely using the theory of relatively.The orbit of Mercury measured observationally and its position as calculated by relativity, precisely agree.

        The fact that you’ve confused yourself and are stubbornly refusing to admit it, only demonstrates that you are also intellectually disingenuous.

      • David Appell says:

        False. The precession of Mercury’s orbit agrees with general relativity only after all other Newtonian effects — biases from the point of GR — are corrected for.

        I realize you and all the other assclown engineers here are desperate to paint scientists as some kind of manipulators of data to get a warming trend. It’s complete bullshit, which is why your ideas never rise above assclown blogs like this one instead of the proper, esteemed scientific literature.

        Go back to your little engineering job and leave the science to people who understand it and can do it.

      • No David, you keep tossing Newtonian mechanics into the argument when it happens to have nothing to do with the argument. To repeat:

        (1) Measure Mercury’s orbit observationally.
        (2) Calculate Mercury’s orbit relativistically.

        Both agree. There is no measurement error or “bias” that requires adjustment.

        You’re asserting that the calculation is different if Newtonian Mechanics is used. For your analogy to make sense, you would have to show:

        (1) Measure Mercury’s orbit observationally.
        (2) Calculate Mercury’s orbit using Newtonian Mechanics.
        (3) Show us the Newtonian adjustments to bring (1) into line with (2)

        You can’t demonstrate this because no such thing occurs in science. As far as I can see you seem to know SFA about science, although in your own mind you seem to think you’re some sort of authority on the subject… very odd.

      • David Appell says:

        False. (1) and (2) don’t agree — Mercury’s perihelion shift is about 574 arcseconds/century, of which only 43 arcseconds/century are due to general relativity. Doing the full measurement to find the GR signal requires correcting for the Newtonian signal, which is much larger.

      • Of course they don’t agree, David. All of this is abstract. You can’t measure something perfectly because we don’t have perfect instruments. The relativistic calculations are not perfect because the mass of Jupiter, Saturn, etc., are also estimates. Of course, these are all very accurate estimates, but estimates nonetheless. The point you were trying to make, however, is that the relativistic calculation more closely matches the observational measure of Mercury’s orbit than the newtonian calculation does. And the point I was making was that your point was a red herring. Of course, your response above is now a red herring on top of your original red herring.

      • David Appell says:

        False — you are way out of your league.

        It’s not the uncertainties of the masses of Jupiter and Saturn that are the problem — it’s accounting for Newtonian effects in the perihelion shift. GR is a whole new ballgame, whose predictions are above Newtonian predictions, and include them. They are, to GR, noise, and the GR signal must be dug out of them.

        And this is just one example. The Higgs cross section had to be dug out of an enormous pile of noise of background reactions. The effects of quantum electrodynamics, such as the electron’s anomalous g-2 factor, had to be dug out of the total effect due to electron spin. And on and on. Adjusting for such effects and biases is what scientists do for a living.

      • You’re still talking shit David. For your statement to make sense you would effectively have to claim that Relativity cannot explain the orbits of planets, and that Newtonian Mechanics is required for that. Relativity is used as an “adjustment” for Newtonian mechanics, which remains fundamental. Clearly this cannot be what you mean. Now, from a *practical* point of view, it is easier to calculate using Newton’s laws and then consider refinements by introducing relativistic factors. But that is a practical matter, and more and more irrelevant to your original red herring.

      • Sorry forgot to comment on the Higgs cross section example, a third red herring. IF physicists were only permitted to run the experiment, i.e., the collision *once* and then were able to extract the signal from the noise, *then* your example would be meaningful. But this is not what scientists do. The point several engineers have made here, is that this cannot be reasonably done. Which is why physicist repeat those experiments an enormous number of times. This is how they can eventually extract the signal from the noise, using statistical techniques. However, this cannot be done with temperature data as one cannot go back in time…

        At this stage it’s not clear to me if you’re simply not very bright, or if you are so ideologically invested, that you make up all kinds of nonsense, to try to defend whatever you believe requires defending.

      • The amazing thing is that all this catastrophic warming was going on in the US during the last century, but Hansen and NOAA didn’t notice it until the year 2000 when they suddenly discovered that the past needed to be adjusted downwards. And each year since then they discovered that the past needed to be adjusted downwards even more.

        If Appell had lived in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, he would have also blindly believed everything the government told him. He has already told us that he believes the private sector has no soul.

  7. miked1947 says:

    ROFLMAO!
    Go! David! Go!

  8. Steve Clough says:

    I would like to disagree with the assumption that from a scientific perspective you can change data after the fact. Using the GSK Avandia analogy, the researchers from GSK would change the study design after the drug trial had been completed to statistically make their endpoint. This was one of the huge problems that GSK and many other drug firms had in promoting their drugs to academic medical institutions. The bias is exposed and recognized as flawed study design. The same holds true for what academia/gov’t is doing in climate research. It ain’t rocket surgery to figure this out but it is rocket surgery to study climate science!

  9. Neil Gibson says:

    Conventional measurement accuracy techniques precludes the huge adjustments made to temperature measurement anomaly data. As an engineer involved in precision measurement I can say there are standards in measuring quantities such as temperature and these adjustments are not acceptable. To make the specious comparison to an adjustment of a planetary orbit where there is at least feedback to show that the adjustment was correct is basically BS. Making an open-ended correction to a reading made decades ago so it agrees with a pet theory is not the same and deserves the derision it is getting from informed technologists.

    • David Appell says:

      The adjustments are not being made on the basis of any orbital factors….

      Have you applied your expertise to the specific problem at hand, and submitted your reasoned findings to an appropriate journal? Or are you just spouting off on some blog?

      • OK, a guy who writes stories for a living is “educating” an engineer on how to measure things properly… Classic stuff. ;-)

      • David Appell says:

        No, a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics is correcting an engineer, whose profession is not exactly known for its understanding of science’s subtleties.

      • You’re not a physicist David. You’re a creative writer. You’re attempting to correct a practising engineer. It’s been my observation that people with academic degrees who don’t then make use of that knowledge, tend to not be very good at understanding practical issues, such as accuracy in measurement.

      • *I should add that the stuff I wrote above is complete drivel. But it’s not any ordinary sort of drivel. It’s David Appell Drivel ™. This is created by taking something David wrote, inverting it, and tossing it back at him.

      • David Appell says:

        Wow, a “practicing engineer.” You must be enthralled with yourself….

        I’ve known plenty of engineers, and I’ve known plenty of scientists. There is no comparison in their understanding of what’s really going on… In fact, I started out studying engineering, and left it after one semester because all the students were money-grubbing suck-ups who were only interested in plugging numbers into equations instead of understanding them.

        So engineers don’t impress me in the least.

      • David Appell says:

        Do you even understand the first thing about general relativity?

      • I don’t think anyone could care less if engineers impress you or not. I would imagine some engineers who have to build things that work every day, actually think people with physics degrees are masturbatory clowns who never have to do anything practical or useful with their ‘skills’. (This is why string theory and related fields have been so heavily criticised.)

        BTW, this is not my point of view on the matter. Just pointing out it cuts both ways.

      • David Appell says:

        Physicists discover the laws of nature, and when they get bored with them they turn them over to chemists, who then turn them over to engineers to do arithmetic, ad infinitum. The thinkers then move on to the next advancement of knowledge. It’s been this way for centuries, and everyone knows it (especially the physicists).

      • Nope. Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and a few other geniuses discovered the laws of nature. All you have done is copied their recipes and got a degree for working hard at memorising this stuff. You yourself have discovered nothing because you’re not smart enough.

        Oh BTW, I am jogger… therefore I am an Olympic champion, or something.

      • David Appell says:

        You don’t get a PhD for memorizing, but you do for producing new knowledge. Jealous?

      • You get phD’s in engineering degress too, dumbarse. :-)

  10. lorne50 says:

    stevengoddard says:
    November 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm
    It is truly wonderful how these honest souls remove more and more bias every month. And always in a way which makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
    David Appell says:
    November 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm
    Astronomers correct for known biases every day, such as the rotation of the Earth. Myriad measurements in general relativity have had to correct for the Earth’s rotation around the sun. The measurement of the shift in Mercury’s perihelion due to general relativistic effects (about 43 arcseconds per century) had to correct for numerous perturbations from the solar system (about 500 arcseconds per century), especially from Jupiter.

    EPIC none answer David why not just say don’t look there nothing to see . LOL you kill me.

    • David Appell says:

      There is something to see. Dirk Whats-his-name asked for examples where the noise is greater than the signal. Mercury’s perihelion shift is just such an example (noise ~ 10x signal). Just because you don’t understand this example doesn’t make it false….

  11. lorne50 says:

    non answer still to Steve why are all the older temps being put down and now up every year it look’s shady to say the lest . Do you have papers to cite for the last up and down that we see and please not hidden behind paywalls thx. Lorne

  12. gator69 says:

    There is not one day of the week that I would take a “Theoretical Physicists” word over an engineer. If an engineer does not know, he will tell you. If a TP does not know, it waves it’s hands, squeaks and burps, and you get Schrodinger’s Cat furballs.

  13. Andy DC says:

    In an ideal world, with genuine biases being eliminated by obective, impartial scientists, the mathematical odds against the biases being tilted so strongly toward the warm with older data and toward cold with newer data and both much rapidly more so over time would be astronomical. Especially with the increasing UHI effect, which includes air conditioning exhaust, vehicle exhaust and increased development obviously warm biasing the more recent temperature data.

  14. Neil Gibson says:

    For the arrogant Appell – in our local uni ( ranked in the top 1% worldwide for research) you need and op score of 7 to enter engineering. If you are not smart enough for that you can do science with a score of 10. If you are not bright enough even to do science you can get into environmental science with a score of 12 which will give you a cushy government job and the ability to tell people much smarter than you what to do.

  15. Me says:

    David Appell says:

    November 22, 2012 at 6:20 am

    Temperature adjustments aren’t a question of “measurement error,” i.e. of how well one can read a thermometer. They are about correcting for known biases in the measurement scheme. Hence they are directly analagous to digging out the GR signal in Mercury’s orbit by accounting for compounding factors.

    I still laugh at this, never mind the Hence par after, it is the part before….. LMAO!
    It’s the measurement scheme and not temperature adjustments that aren’t a question of “measurement error,” i.e. of how well one can read a thermometer…. :lol:

    • Me says:

      And it is known how that bias is corrected for, maybe, probably, err very likely, err something, but then again they aren’t telling us because they aren’t releasing their code, but we can see what their end results always appear to be… :lol: there is no question about that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s