Illinois Manufactured Temperatures Warming At 23 Degrees Per Century

Since 1998, Illinois fabricated and non-fabricated adjusted temperatures have been diverging at a rate of 23 degrees per century.

ScreenHunter_301 Jun. 05 21.05

Zeke Hausfather says that all of this disappears when you use anomalies and gridding, and that I am really stupid.

The Blackboard » How not to calculate temperature

Gridding over an area the size of Illinois would have minimal effect, because the state isn’t much larger than a grid cell. The only way this could happen is :

  1. The algorithm being used to generate the manufactured temperatures is incorrect. Or
  2. There has been massive selective loss of warmer temperature records, requiring filling in of much warmer temperatures than those that are measured.

My methodology assumes a Monte Carlo distribution of error, i.e. that the missing data is randomly distributed geographically and by month of year. This is the normal way which scientists work with large data sets. Climate scientists mess with the data and introduce nonsensical biases into their results.


About stevengoddard

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

44 Responses to Illinois Manufactured Temperatures Warming At 23 Degrees Per Century

  1. Truthseeker says:

    “Climate scientists mess with the data …”

    Says it all really. They should try analysing it instead, for a change.

  2. B says:

    I get what he’s saying, but If missing data causes a bias and infilling removes that bias, then looking at real data by itself should show a bias. Instead it apparently shows nothing.

    Anomalies or absolutes wouldn’t matter, we should see some sort of clear error caused by missing data. Once seeing that error, then perhaps go in and fix it with some sort of solid infilling method or better yet only use stations present throughout the record. But first we need to know if the missing data actually causes a problem in the first place and it doesn’t look like it does. Sure I suppose it (missing data) could almost exactly take out the warming by random chance, but if that’s the case the infillers should start playing lotto.

  3. Dave N says:

    Here’s an interesting comment from Lucia:

    “But it’s worth nothing that absolute T does matter for some issues– they just aren’t very useful for assessing whether temperature are increasing or decreasing over time.”

    I had to read that several times for it to sink in; I cannot believe they’re serious.

    • tom0mason says:

      That just takes my breath away. Such a cavalier attitude to the basic data upon which science is built. It is akin to Hillary Clintons comment of “what difference does that make?”

  4. Kevin King says:

    Hi Mr Goddard. l love your blog, although i am a Brit(let’s not get too involved here,after all you are only a yankee – sorry if i don’t know the difference between a confederate and….). This means having to reconcile the issue of gun control with civil liberties, which we(being a level of civilisation beyond you lot of course :))don’t have worry about. Having said that I do agree with your basic “take me as a texan or fuck off” attitude. But like I said, we are a bit more sensitive on the other side of the pond. Take care.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Howdy, Sir. I hope Mr. Goddard will find the time to welcome you but I’m afraid it may not be timely on account of residing temporarily in the Confederate lands back east where it’s already past midnight, and, I reckon, also on account of being called stupid by Mr. Hausfather in a dispute over temperature machinations and preparing a measured response.

      Anyway, may I ask—without it being interpreted as undue prejudice—how it is possible that as a Brit you have not challenged immediately our peculiar habit of referring to your national pastime by the old English term “soccer”?

      Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not calling you an impostor. I’m simply bringing to your attention that we “Yanks” have become accustomed to it being the distinction of a genuine Britisher and find it unsettling when this ritual is not being followed.

      Good day, Sir, and welcome to our lands.

      • Sleepalot says:

        It’s less common, but quite acceptable, to call football “soccer” in the UK.

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        Soccer from Association Football but as we regard it as the premier football globally then Football is normally more usual. Minor football sports are known by their prefix, like Rugby Union, Rugby League, Gaelic and Australian Rules there may be other types of football played around the world.

    • Sleepalot says:

      waffle, verb. Talk or write at length in a vague and uninteresting way

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Zeke Hausfather and The Mosh Pup are loyal defenders of the official data sets.

  6. Bob F says:

    Steve, can you isolate some of the stations that have the longest stretches of infiled/estimated data and plot these against date. Do these show the same warming trend as the combined data for all infiled stations?

    • Bob F says:

      Oh BTW, the 2014 Football World Cup is about to start… I’m not sure what this strange “Soccer” thing some of you refer to is

      • Soccer is a game the nutty English came up with. They called it that cos you kick the ball rather than the boring old “toss & cuddle” game the ruggers play. None of that poofy nonsense really matters though when you could be playing a real sport like table tennis.

        • Bob F says:

          Many of us Brits prefer more extreme sports such as Badminton and Tiddly-winks.

          Not satisfied with helping to liberate the colonies while we weren’t looking, the French also sneakily created the world sporting association for football, FIFA. I’m always amazed that they didn’t adopt the name Soccer to further rub salt into the wounds.

        • Cheshirered says:

          Women footballers can’t run, can’t shoot, can’t catch and can’t tackle. Other than that they’re indistinguishable from Brazil..

  7. emsnews says:

    The scandal here is worse, actually. Since we are being hammered daily (again, it is unusually cold this week in the northern tier states) about how the TEMPERATURE is too hot…we should have more thermometers, more coverage, more data.

    Instead, it is being rapidly decreased. Less data, fewer thermometer stations or moving these to hotter local areas.

  8. Tel says:

    The process is really somewhat unnecessary, as it simply mirrors the effect of spatial interpolation (e.g. gridding or something more complex), but I’m told that its a bit of an artifact to help folks more easily calculate absolute temperatures without having to do something fancy like add in a long-term climatology field to a spatially-interpolated anomaly field. Regardless, it has relatively little effect on the results [note that 2014 shows only the first four months]:

    Should be very easy to put that claim to the test.

  9. Tel says:

    I might have said this before, but more of the people looking casually at “Climate Science” think that the charts they are shown basically are averaged thermometer data. The “Climate Scientists” don’t sit and explain how mangled the data is, they are quite happy to allow the average punter to think these are what the thermometers show.

    That kind of bothers me, because when someone goes and checks what the thermometers show, the answer you get back is, “You did what? You made a chart of thermometer data.. you idiot!”

    It’s very base duplicity.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I think the word you are looking for is FRAUD. If you did it in accounting you would go to jail. If you did it in a regulated field it would be a major scandal and you could be headed to jail.

      Here is how “Infilling” is treated in another field:

      FDA says CRO Cetero faked trial data; pharmas may need to redo tests

      North Carolina clinical research organization Cetero Research allegedly falsified clinical trial documents and test results over a five-year period, and now an undetermined number of drug companies who worked with the CRO must review their records to determine whether new tests on their drugs are required.

      In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results. The FDA did not identify any of the drugs or sponsoring drug companies whose data was affected.

      Just how much data was falsified is still unknown. Although Cetero conducted its own internal investigation, the FDA determined that Cetero’s inquiry was insufficient….

      So tell me exactly how this scandal is different from what the Climastrologists are doing?

      ….OH, I forgot it is GOVERNMENTS doing the fraud so that makes it A-OK. GRRrrrr

      • This blog is an eye-opener. Perhaps the election fraud so rampant in These States in the 19th and 20th Centuries has not disappeared. Would it not be nice to receive a QR code or hashtag with which to check whether the choices you put on your ballot are the ones being counted by government employees?

  10. Brad says:

    Holy Crap. This makes my head spin. I do believe the data is manipulated but what the hell is all the hand wringing and back door insults have to do with it. Is the data being manipulated or not? Are both sides showing data manipulation? By both sides I mean Lucia’s site and Steven’s site. This kind of harangue drives me bananas. Get to the point for us simpletons to understand.

    • B says:

      Brad, they admit they are manipulating the data. They say we are too stupid to understand the reasons why they are doing it, how they are doing it, and why it makes the data set more accurate.

      Meanwhile when I learned science back in the bronze age of the 1980s this sort of thing just wasn’t allowed. There was data consisting of measurements and analysis and it all had to be clearly documented and described. I’m just too dumb to grasp this new fangled 21st century science where the data set is repaired.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I got my degree in the stone age and if you mangled the data in this way more than once you got booted out the door. (And I am being nice.)

        • B says:

          Degrees? You are being far too nice. I learned these science basics in the fifth grade. Data alteration wouldn’t have been passed by my fifth grade science teacher. Data was what was measured and only what was measured.

  11. Send Al to the Pole says:

    2. “There has been massive selective loss of warmer temperature records, requiring filling in of much warmer temperatures than those that are measured….”

    Steve, don’t you mean cooler temperature records?

    • Dan W. says:

      I believe what Steve has recognized is this:

      In the past and for myriad reasons, some temperature stations reported measurements that were above the grid average. It is now possible that these same stations would report measurements below the grid average, if only due to the random noise inherent to any data sample. Except these stations have been removed so they no longer report any data. Instead an “estimate” has been substituted. This substitute value is based on the premise that the station historically reports temperatures above the grid average! Thus, the substitute measurement is hard coded to contain an upward bias. Steve’s calculations are revealing this bias.

    • If they are filling in warmer temperatures, it is because they believe that warmer temperatures are the ones being increasingly lost.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Steve is talking about The Bolivia Effect

      E.M. does a very good job of explaining how the “Bolivia Effect” works with a lot of great graphs and maps.

      (In other words Steve is tanking their chain HARD!)

  12. northernont says:

    So let me get this right. Taking the actual raw mean temperature readings of a weather station averaged over a period of time and comparing it with what the USHCN Network says the temperature record is over that same period of time for that specific weather station location, the USHCN adjusted temperature is taken as the actual temperature? Isn’t the averaged mean raw data for that specific weather station the actual temperature average for that location, which can then be used to validate what the USHCN adjusted temperature says it is for that specific location. These people are too caught up in the beauty of their systems and the belief it can be used in a meaningful way to determine temperature of a chaotic system with huge variability in temperature swings over an expansive 3D environment, most of the variability natural but some man made. When statistics trump reality, it really is time to take a step back and re-evaluate, and this is what Goddard is trying to demonstrate.

    • Dan W. says:

      It should be a simple matter of scientific integrity to report “raw” temperature trends as well as the “adjusted” temperature trends. If only because Mother Nature only cares about “raw” temperatures. A “raw” temperature of 31 means water can freeze, even if the “adjusted” temperature of 33 and claims otherwise.

      • Gail Combs says:

        They demonstrated that point in my town (mid NC) this February when the initial “Official Data” was above freezing temps and RAIN…. We had enough solid rain (aka snow) to cover my boots up past my ankle bone ~ 4 inches.

        I called Jeff Masters a liar on his blog so he changed the ~ 4 inches to 0.37 inches and showed part of the day below freezing.

        Please note that we had at least 2 inches of ice on the stock tanks and I had to use a sledge to break the ice and then add hot water from the house to keep the tanks open for a while so my animals could drink. That means the 2″ built up in less than 24 hours. (Ice cold water is bad for goats so I haul hot water to them.)

        A friend in New Hampshire said this is the first winter in her entire life she has ever seen a stock tank de-icer not work. Normally the entire tank was ice free when I used them in NH. This season she had a small spot where the de-icer sat that was not frozen. (she, like me is retired)

      • Mary Brown says:

        Well, it’s not quite so easy. It is really a trend if the location of measurement was changed and the time of observation was changed and the local biosphere was changed?

        These factors disguise the true data. Thus, adjustments are warranted and appropriate.

        However, the rabbits are guarding the cabbage. That’s the problem.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You never ever change the data.

          You can do an analysis ON the data and do adjustments based on what you think should be adjusted with meticulous notes stating exactly what is done. However that is not what we are seeing.

          The data is being manipulated, krigged and otherwise mangled and then presented to the world as THE Global Temperature. When climastrologists are asked to show their work we get all sorts of excuses like The dog ate my global warming evidence or The Goat ate the Data but NO real information on exactly what was done and what the raw data was to start with. The Climastrologist have gone to great lengths for DECADES to hide what has been done.

          In other words we are being fed Bovine Feces and any reputable scientist would ignore them as crackpots. Unfortunately they have the ear of governments and are using the B.F. to radically change our civilization.

    • Andy DC says:

      The total absurdity of the situation is that many billions are being spent to study climate change/global warming, while at the same time, they are reducing stations, which are relatively inexpensive to maintain. Does that make any sense, unless you want a concocted result?

  13. geran says:

    1) Their IPCC science was wrong from the start.
    2) They had to “adjust” temps, as documented in the Climategate emails.
    3) They have attempted intimidation of the “real science”.
    4) Now, they are corrupting historical temp data.

    (Hardware stores are running our of pitchforks….)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not to mention tar and chicken farmers are reporting mid night raids that leave their chickens plucked but still alive. image

  14. Brad says:

    From Watts:

    “In case you didn’t know, “Steve Goddard” is a made up name. Supposedly at Heartland ICCC9 he’s going to “out” himself and start using his real name. That should be interesting to watch, I won’t be anywhere near that moment of his.”

    I don’t get it. Too many egos everywhere. I don’t give a shit what your real name is. It has nothing to do with your analysis of the data. Maybe since I’m not a scientist or engineer I’m left wondering, if the arguments are moving in the same direction what’s the point of being so obtuse. It’s rabbit hole, fill it in with concrete and end it.

    • Mike D says:

      Yeah, the data should speak for itself. Only those who are making forecasts need a reputation, but then their reputation should go to hell once they’re wrong numerous times. But as we’ve seen, the lazy or compliant media can’t do anything but parrot what’s being told the them now. Can’t so much as google what track record they have.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The arguments are not necessarily moving in the same direction and Anthony Watts is trying to stay middle of the road.

      Those whose employment is dependent on being a “team player” and have a family to support and a mortgage to pay might decide to use a pen name. We may have “Free Speech” but your boss is free to fire you or not promote you if he thinks you are a crazy “Climate-change Den1er”

      Remember Interior Secretary Sally Jewell bluntly said “I hope there are no climate-change den!ers in the Department of Interior.” According to Environment and Energy Publishing, Jewell said in the speech that if there are climate den!ers at Interior, they should travel to lands the agency manages affected by climate change, such as melting permafrost in Alaska.

      Jewell picked up on that theme Thursday.

      “In context I said I have been on the lands and waters around the Department of the Interior and it would be very difficult to see the lands that I have seen and deny that climate change is going on,” she said.

      “Every place I have gone on public lands, I see droughts, I see wildfires, I see coastal erosion, I see the impact of storms and that is a reality that we are facing in this country,” said Jewell, whose prepared remarks touted Interior’s efforts to improve “resiliency” to climate change.

      The fact that even Watts is banning free speech, I find sad. The whole fiasco was vicious.

  15. Chuck L says:

    I just see a lot of hand-wringing, “justifications and rationalizations about why raw date is adjusted but the fact is, all these adjustments ALWAYS result in a rising temperature trend when raw data for long-established 1st class weather stations show no such rise. Maybe I’m just too cynical but I do not find this credible; governments are selling catastrophic manmade global warming/climate change 24 hours a day 7 days a week and rising temperatures fit and support this narrative. R Pielke Sr. says ocean heat is a better metric and he may be right. Of course the Argo data is adjusted also for similarly vague reasons so it may be that in this current environment and under the current Administration, to have accurate data may just be wishful thinking.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at

      Near its beginning that document says

      2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

      So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.

      The role of the IPCC is to assess….the risk of human-induced climate change…

      It’s right there in plain sight.

      They do NOT exist to objectively compare reality with computer models.

      They do NOT exist to improve climate science.

      They DO exist purely to find anthropogenic causes to Global Warming Climate Change, using information THEY feel is RELEVANT in order to reach that goal.
      Then there is UNFCCC. It is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. USA Entry went into force March 21, 1994 per the United Nations. SEE:

      The objective of the treaty is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The treaty itself set no limits on emissions and contains no enforcement mechanisms. This explains the positions of the DOE and EPA on CAGW. Their job now is to change public opinion so those limits can be set and enforcement mechanisms can be put in place. Make you wonder just who the DOE and EPA actually are working for doesn’t it? (The USDA and FDA did the same sort of propaganda footwork for the UN and WTO to make sure that US law is now written to comply with the WTO, OIE and FAO standards.)

      The Kyoto Protocol is part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and was signed but was not ratified by the USA.

      This was a really interesting comment by Dr Spencer:

      …By way of background, I have always been convinced that the IPCC was created by bureaucrats to achieve specific policy ends. I was even told so by one of those bureaucrats, Bob Watson, back in the early 1990s. Not that there aren’t ‘true believers’ in the movement. In my experience, the vast majority of the scientists and politicians involved in the IPCC process appear to really believe they are doing what is right for humanity by supporting restrictions on fossil fuel use….

      Bob Watson was the head of the IPCC while working for the World Bank. (He also worked at NASA.)

      The Copenhagen talks broke down thanks to the Danish text leak: a secret draft agreement .. hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank … GEE, imagine that!

      The World Bank released a very inflammatory document: The World Bank 4 degree report in full here and summary for policymakers here.

      All the while the World Bank is lecturing the West on the evils of CO2 it has MASSIVELY increased its lending for Coal Plants it our direct manufacturing competetors. GRAPH of World Bank spending on coal fired plants in the third world.

      World Bank: Record sums were invested last year in coal power.. (Much of this is money from the USA tax payer BTW)

      More than 1,000 New Coal Plants Planned Worldwide

      Coal’s not dying — it’s just getting shipped abroad

      And people wonder why I hate central banks?

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Steve my last comment got dumped into the coal bin. Too many links I guess.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s