If The Present Refuses To Get Warmer – The Past Must Become Cooler

USHCN mean temperature

From the looks of the USHCN graph above, you would think that temperatures at Long Beach, Washington were getting a lot warmer. More than a degree warmer since 1950.

Whether or not the temperatures are getting warmer, one thing for sure, the trend we see is due to adjustments. The plot below shows USHCN final temperatures minus measured  temperatures.

In the 1950s, they subtracted about 2.2 degrees from the thermometer readings. Starting in the late 1960s, they subtracted 1.2 degrees from the thermometers, and in recent years they have subtracted between 0 and 0.5 degrees from the thermometer readings.

By making the past progressively cooler, they have made the present appear to be getting warmer.

Here is their explanation for why they do it.

Here is the spreadsheet with my calculations.

Here is the USHCN data.

About stevengoddard

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

27 Responses to If The Present Refuses To Get Warmer – The Past Must Become Cooler

  1. Brendon says:

    So which adjustment did they make that you disagree with and why? (apart from the fact it doesn’t go the direction you want it to).

    No point getting all mad about an adjustment if there is a legitimate reason for it.

  2. etudiant says:

    I do not see how to reconcile the roughly 2 degrees C, or about 3 degrees F, cumulative adjustment shown in the graph with the 0.5 degree F cumulative adjustment total since the 1940s claimed in the actual text.
    Could someone please help?

  3. suyts says:

    The very first item they list for adjustments…..”A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development at the NCDC of more sophisticated QC procedures this has been found to be unnecessary. ”

    Nice, what they’re saying, is they’re adjusting without even to bother to look at the records. They’ve simply produced an algorithm to auto-adjust.

    This is probably why we’ve seen this all-too-familiar pattern in their temp manipulations.

  4. Layne Blanchard says:

    In other words, the entire trend is an artifact of the adjustments. If these adjustments were warranted, you would think that charts of all time highs for the same location would bear them out. I doubt this would occur.

  5. etudiant says:

    Thank you for the backup data summary.
    The USHCN paper is actually quite dishonest. The final sentence of the USHCN document is:

    The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940’s until the last decade of the century.

    This is untrue. The half degree warming is for the most recent record, prior years are adjusted much more, several times as much in the 1950s. In the financial industry that I worked in, such phrasemaking would have been red penciled by our lawyers as actionably misleading.
    At a minimum, the cumulative effect should be the annual average of the adjustments, which looks to be about 1.5 degrees F.

  6. Interglacial John says:

    My head hurts. I just reread the warmist explanatins for making their “adjustments”. Has anyone else noticed they keep adding excuses? And for God’s sake, are we really supposed to believe that different kinds of scientific quality thermometers give different readings?

    Got to find some aspirin.

  7. Bruce says:

    That’s another good one. Extrapolate backwards as the good climate modellers do and we get glaciers around about 800 AD (I’m charitably thinking the scale is in F, as C would mean Columbus missed an iceberg by this much).

  8. Paul says:

    Next year in congress I want Rep. Barton’s climate hearings to review the retroactive effects of anthropogenic CO2 on past climate records.

  9. LightRain says:

    When you have this many adjustments it leaves plenty of chance to steer the data the way you want to. If the original data is that suspect then it shouldn’t be used at all.

    Why is the UHI effect only 0.1°C for the last 50 years, while urban centers grew the fastest, and yet to compensate for the fact the older records were downtown they cool it by even more.

    Figures Lie, and liars figure.

    • KuhnKat says:

      Figures DON’T lie, BUT, LIARS FIGURE!!!

      In other words the math is correct. The assumptions behind the math is where the lying happens.

  10. John Marshall says:

    Why the varied adjustment? Using the same equipment in one place will produce the same errors. A collection of that equipment will have varying errors which is why each one should be calibrated against a known, and agreed, standard. Positional errors should remain fairly constant so final data sets should be accurate and no such large adjustments will be necessary.

    • ChrisD says:

      Why the varied adjustment? Using the same equipment in one place will produce the same errors

      By far the most common reason for changes in the adjustment is changes in the environment around the station. It doesn’t have to do with the equipment, except when the equipment itself changes.

  11. Lawrie Ayres says:

    With the money being spent on climate “research” none seems to be spent on providing accurate thermometers in reliable locations. I am not a scientist but usually if one is reliant on real data to prove or disprove an assumption then the mechanism for gathering that data should be above reproach. Here we are at least twenty years down the track and instead of having stand alone temperature records we have adjustments. One gets the impression that if the temp record was garnered from properly sited thermometers it would not show significant warming. The warming is indeed man made.

    • ChrisD says:

      With the money being spent on climate “research” none seems to be spent on providing accurate thermometers in reliable locations.

      Untrue. One of the adjustments was for the bias that was introduced when older liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced by newer, more accurate electronic ones.

      And, incidentally, the bias was upward. In other words, the new thermometers were found to be reporting a higher temperature, so the effect of the adjustment is opposite what you assume.

      The fact that the temperatures are adjusted is meaningless by itself. Most scientific data are adjusted for one reason or another. You have to show that the adjustments are invalid. No one here has bothered to even try. Did you carefully read the USHCN’s explanation of what adjustments are made, and why? What do you find wrong with the explanations, specifically? Which of the adjustments are unjustified?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s