Zeke’s Nature Trick

Zeke wants me to use temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures. Here is why you can’t do that.

The graph below shows how NCDC tampers with the US temperature record, to create a non-existent warming trend.

ScreenHunter_235 Jun. 01 15.26

Here is NCDC’s 1991 version of US temperatures in absolute temperatures.

ScreenHunter_464 Jun. 14 05.25 www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-1981-1990.pdf

The next graph shows the NCDC 1991 version and 2014 version in absolute temperatures. They have cooled the past.

ScreenHunter_471 Jun. 14 06.18

Now look what happens if I use temperature anomalies, as Zeke demands. As long as they cool all of the years during the baseline period by an approximately equal amount, most of the data tampering during that period is hidden.

ScreenHunter_470 Jun. 14 06.17

The trick NCDC pulls is to stop cooling temperatures after the end of the baseline period. This allows them to create a huge fake warming in recent years, which is largely hidden using anomalies.

By using Zeke’s method, the data tampering becomes invisible. Is it his goal to hide the tampering, or does he just not understand what he is doing?

ScreenHunter_235 Jun. 01 15.26


About stevengoddard

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

43 Responses to Zeke’s Nature Trick

  1. Steve, you might like to check this lot of alarmist tripe: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/effects-of-climate-change-2014-6. Lots of ‘weasel words’ and claims that can’t possibly be proved. Scares the faithful though!

    The alarmists must be getting desperate when this sort of propaganda is promoted.

    There’s one major problem for them though:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

    Although, if you’re a ‘believer’, what do facts matter? What are facts? They’re just nasty distractions from the main game …..

  2. Ben Vorlich says:

    looking at those graphs it appears to me that even if the present cools it will still appear to be warming against the adjusted past.

    • gregole says:


      Bingo. We have a winner.

      Watch them cool the past to get a “trend” that creates an appearance of steady inexorable warming. They really don’t need to alter the present much; but it appears they do that too, just not as much; they dramatically cool the past and then slightly warm the present.

      Even if the present shows clearly the cold is really cold; perhaps even breaks some local records (think ice on the American Great Lakes in June…really, ice in June!) and NOAA claims there are (3) colder records in the local past. Hmmmm. BS meter reading dangerously high! If they have sufficiently cooled the past, then even a little cooling won’t hurt their cause, oops, I meant to say, temperature trend.

  3. Edmonton Al says:

    How can they get away with this?
    Is there any way to get them “on the carpet”?

  4. Alexej Buergin says:

    As long as you call your blog “Real Science” you should use the terminology of real science.
    “Absolute temperature” starts at the absolute zero and is measured in Kelvin K.
    Only an american climatologist can be so stupid and ignorant to call the °C- or the °F-scale “absolute”.

    • slp says:

      When used to mean “not relative,” “absolute” is the right word. Using Celsius or Fahrenheit versus Kelvin does not change the slope, only the offset. Though, I think it would be a good idea to plot the temperatures with a Kelvin scale and show the entire scale on the y-axis. It would show just how insignificant a few degrees, let alone 0.7, are.

      • Alexej Buergin says:

        Even Wikipedia gets the definition right:

        • Words can have multiple meanings depending on the context. You are using a completely different context than the topic of this discussion.

        • Even Wikipedia gets the definition right:

          Absolute temperatures v. anomalies

          Records of global average surface temperature are usually presented as anomalies rather than as absolute temperatures.

          I note with some amusement that you had to hunt to find a place in Wikipedia to support your cause. And you found one in “Simple Wikipedia” which has definitions dumbed down for those unable to handle the complexities of full on analysis.

          Do not pretend that “Simple Wikipedia” is a reliable source of definitions.

          Of course the phrase “absolute temperature” is used as well in conjunction with the well-defined term “absolute zero.” But I would bet that there are more references now to “absolute temperature” in the context of climate science that in that of physics.

          You seem like a nice guy, and you may find it desirable to pas a law requiring that the definition you like be the only one people are allowed to use. But definitions change, in the same way that “nice” no longer just means “ignorant” as it originally did.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • _Jim says:

          What is the _reference_ the so-called anomaly is added to, or subtracted from? Name your ‘reference’, who is holding it, how was it calculated, what has been the ‘chain of custody’, and what adjustments did they see fit to apply to said ‘reference’ before issuance?

        • _Jim says:

          Looking in magazines instead?

        • Alexej Buergin says:

          This is from an American Physics-book, “Physics”, by Jay Orear, 1979, p.243:

          “Example 6. … What is the absolute (Kelvin) temperature at 0° Celsius (where water freezes)?”

        • Ben Vorlich says:

          [ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot]
          1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
          2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
          3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
          4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
          5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

        • Alexej Buergin says:

          Ben Vorlich:
          Thanks, but I am not arguing that the Celsius-scale is not absolute because it is relative to the freezing point of water.
          Proper physics uses “absolute” only for the Kelvin-scale, and Climatology should be based on proper physics.
          A measurement is not the same thing as an estimate
          GIGO is not data
          Several runs of a computer program are not an experiment
          etc etc

        • _Jim says:

          Alexej Buergin June 14, 2014 at 3:23 pm
          This is from an American Physics-book, “Physics”, by Jay Orear, 1979, p.243:

          “Example 6. … What is the absolute (Kelvin) temperature at 0° Celsius (where water freezes)?”
          – – – – – –


          Where’s the integer one-to-one mapping there between deg C and K? (Note: integer)


        • Alexej Buergin says:

          _Jim says: June 15, 2014 at 2:31 pm

          Actually 273.16K is the triple point of water; nowadays 0°C is DEFINED as 273.15K.

          By “one-to-one” some people mean a (mathematical) “injection” (f(a) never= f(b)), SG means an “invertible function”. If a temperature is given in one scale, it can be converted into another scale; there is always a result, and never more than one, and that is valid both ways. (If you convert, and convert back, you are at the point of departure.)
          It has nothing to do with integers.

        • _Jim says:

          ” It has nothing to do with integers.”

          That question was meant for someone else; already covered the ‘function mapping’ aspect too, in a post further up or down thread too.

      • Alexej Buergin says:

        Physics is the foundation of climatology, or at least it should be (some climatologists even call themselves “climate physicists”).
        Every science takes some words and gives them a very distinct meaning. “Force” in physics is “mass*acceleration”, in a prayer it is something else. “Group” in mathematics is not the same as in sociology.
        So: Since the words “absolute temperature” have an exact, precisely defined, internationally agreed meaning in physics (temp in K), you should not use it in another sense, but find a different word. In our case I would suggest to simply talk of Celsius-scale- and Fahrenheit-scale-temperature.

        • There isn’t any other appropriate word for distinguishing between anomalies and “absolute” temperatures. It is the only available word.

          Your distinction is meaningless because there is a one for one correspondence between F and K temps

        • Gamecock says:

          Check that, Steve. It’s one to one between C and K.

        • This conversation is getting unbelievably annoying.

          Every F temperature has one and only one corresponding K temperature so there is a one to one correspondence. They are both measures of absolute temperature with different offsets and scales.

          Anomalies are relative to some unknown absolute temperature, so you can’t determine an absolute temperature from an anomaly.

        • Gamecock says:

          I don’t see 1 to 1.8 as one to one. But it’s your call.

        • Every F temperature has a corresponding K temperature. That is a one-to-one correspondence.

          A husband and wife have a one-to-one correspondence, but may have other physical differences.

        • Gamecock says:

          I guess I have integer bias.

        • Gamecock says:

          Perhaps you can tell I was a Fortran programmer.

        • _Jim says:

          Perhaps Gamecock does not remember his calculus classes? Recall one to one functional ‘mapping’? This would have been in Calc I (one) even, for business majors and the like …

    • Dumbest comment of the day so far, from Alexej

    • Perhaps you are right, but the American climatologists at NASA and NOAA use the phrase in the manner, which makes sense in the context. For example:

      But of course, German and Japanese and Chinese and New Zealander and British climatologists use “absolute temperature” as the comparison phrase in exactly the manner that Steve Goddard does here. A Google Scholar[anomalies climate “absolute temperature”] returns thousands of research papers, for example.

      But no doubt, this is never done in the country you are from. Which one is that, by the way?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Alexej Buergin says:

        As far as I know I am the only one with this name to have left traces on the net.

        • Chris BC says:

          Well you’re certainly the biggest dumbass I’ve ever heard of with this name. First you made an asinine comment and called others stupid and ignorant when that actually describes you, then you doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on your dumb shit non point.

          And now Keith has handed your ass to you in quadruplicate and then some with his link and reference to numerous other countries using the term exactly as used here. Did you finally get enough of a clue what a huge dumbass you are???!!!

    • rw says:

      I suppose one could use “actual”. But what’s the point, since the meaning is obvious from the context?

  5. _Jim says:

    Anomaly means, someone else holds the ‘Gold’ standard.

    What is that standard, and who is holding it? This begins to sound like a shell game; watch the pea, if you think you can …

  6. You can see each year and month difference between Estimate Final and non-estimated Final.


    Remember the data I am using the Final data. I am not commenting on all the adjustments before they get to final.

  7. Eliza says:

    It seems that your postings really bother the warmist trolls who come here and try to distract because what you put up is usually 100% correct and 100% devastating proof against the AGW cause. Maybe you should put a sign or something “warning! possible warmist troll” whenever one pops up. That way we dont have to waste our time reading their drivel LOL

  8. Good spot Steve

    I am surprised Zeke missed it.

    In simple terms, it is the difference between an average and a trend

  9. gregole says:


    This is one of your best posts on data manipulation. Instructive. Bookmarked.

    By using anomalies, the data manipulation vanishes; Man-Made Global Warming remains. The people playing these numeric games are sharp – I can see how many people fall for their nonsense.

  10. Jeffk says:

    The quacks suffer from Pathological Science syndrome. Hubris similar to the special translational powers of the scribes in ancient Egypt, happens when left unchecked by the gullible masses. There’s other scribes today too, like tenured academics and the media — all of whom seem to be coordinating from the same “progressive” page today, those arrogant scribes.

  11. Scott Scarborough says:

    You are not giving The Rankine scale “R” any mention here. Am I going to have to complain about your discrimination?

  12. Scott Scarborough says:


    I get your point. There should be a clever simple way of explaining this because I think that some people don’t get the point.

  13. talldave2 says:

    I’m going with “doesn’t understand” and probably still doesn’t after this post. But I bet other people in his office do.

    This is incredibly damning. It’s as though they went out of their way to tamper with temperature in exactly the way that would be most difficult to show using anomalies — then insisted critics not using anomalies were “doing it wrong.”

    Climate science makes three-card monte look bad.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s