CO2 Drives NCDC Data Tampering

I wish I could say the data below is a joke, but it isn’t.  USHCN temperature adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2

US temperatures have not warmed over the past century (blue line below) – but NCDC alters the data to create the appearance of warming (red line below)

ScreenHunter_3231 Oct. 01 22.56

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which cools the past and warms the present.

ScreenHunter_3232 Oct. 01 22.58 

Note the exponential growth of tampering, particularly over the past 15 years, which is very similar to the growth of CO2.

So I tried correlating the magnitude of the tampering with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and found almost perfect correlation – shown below.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

CO2 causes all kinds of great evil, but who would have guessed that it directly causes NCDC to release scientifically meaningless global warming propaganda?

Again, this sounds like a joke – but it isn’t. They are actually tampering with temperature data in unison with the rise in CO2. Difficult to believe this accidental.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

39 Responses to CO2 Drives NCDC Data Tampering

  1. ossqss says:

    This should be an obvious signal of assimilation.

    Trust but verify……

    Who is verifying?

    We don’t have many options do we?

    http://theoas.org/

    Think about it….

  2. Password protected says:

    Suggests that computer models, tuned to be CO2 sensitive, have been used to adjust temperatures.

    Not only is that putting the cart before the horse, but the horse is pointing the wrong way.

  3. KTM says:

    When so much of the data is fabricated by inserting values for stations that don’t report any numbers, I suppose they can use any algorithm they want to determine the “proper” trajectory the station.

    They already stated that their algorithm is working as designed, clearly CO2 is a major component of that algorithm.

  4. David A says:

    I have challenged both Mosher and Nick what’s his name to explain just ONE climate adjustment, with a link to the Iceland station.

    When the ran and danced, flapping their arms like butterflies, I informed them I just asked them to explain the adjustments at ONE station, having failed that, I assured them that they could not explain the entire system to any reasonable person.

  5. Joe P. says:

    Galvin S. is a mathematician, and expert at manipulating numbers, lots of ways at GISS, selection process of dropping stations, filling in data, “adjusting raw,” rural station disappeared in massive station drop, so have to have more UHI, do not know about altitude or latitude at stations which were dropped by computer code, some dropped due to station moves, or in own words “These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. … About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler)” You can just make up a dozen algorithms and pick the model to use which gives result you want, but I would guess there was something more scientific in methodology to lower prior temp. It was all done by computer algorism as they say, “GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations.” “For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCDC applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes.”
    I do not know computerized threshold for comparative temp jump or deviation from nearby station leading GISS to drop a station, but UHI or localized AGW effect has a smaller daily variation than rural just like temp swings on moon are massive compared to earth, plus longer lived stations will statistically be more apt to be axed just by noise and normal variations as opposed to a documented moving of station to the airport or putting in a parking lot nearby since rolling the dice more often for a deviation.

    Well, could only lower prior temps, but interesting the upward spike still over time follows through comparing GISS to more recent RSS satellite data and deviations in the records, so computer algorism or “adjustments” still working with upward bias on ’79 post data set intertemperally, but the game is up as more data is gathered from satellite – they will have to start explaining why the gap is getting bigger comparing GISS temp rising more than RSS, only will get worse with time as gap gets bigger. Maybe someone can get hauled in for some congressional testimony explaining things.

    “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Joseph Stalin

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey JoeP! ““GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations.”

      Amazing… Just imagine what the scientific world would think if Lawrence Livermore Labs released a statement saying “we have neither the personnel nor the funding to check our lab equipment for accuracy or calibration.”

  6. thegriss says:

    SG, Do you have any information about the new ultra-high quality temperature network in the US?

    (sorry, I can’t remember the actual acronym)

    I know its still only a short period, but a post on it might be interesting.

  7. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    They have been doing this for a while now; I’m a late comer to this subject but it was observable in the data in 2010.

  8. Well of COURSE it’s not accidental!

    The have a concept that they have to prove. They cannot fudge the CO2 numbers that much (not sure if they’re fudging them at all, haven’t looked into it closely enough), so if temps don’t keep up with rising CO2 data, they have to do more fraud or else the spurious linear correlation between CO2 and their climatological “data” falls apart very quickly. All of their careers are riding on a continued “correlation” between temps and CO2.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They are fudging the CO2 numbers. (click on pdfs.)
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

      • That’s very interesting, but I was more thinking about the numbers out of Hawaii.

        I remember, years before, seeing what you linked above and thinking, “That doesn’t look very good!” Still, I have not had the time to thoroughly investigate this. The results may be spurious, but it takes a lot more than that to prove scientific fraud.

        • squid2112 says:

          Considering that we know for fact that the primary increase in CO2 (overwhelmingly) is due to outgassing from the oceans, I find it curious that they use CO2 measurements from the most remote and central part of the Pacific ocean that they can find, from one of the most volcanically active regions of the world, all the while claiming that this is justified because CO2 is a “well mixed gas”, when we also know that CO2 is not “well mixed” at all. [hmmm]…

        • But if you agree that CO2 is increasing, then there shouldn’t be any need for fraud to show an increasing trend in their results … ?

        • Gail Combs says:

          On the ‘reliability’ of current CO2 measurements Anna V may have an explanation for that in a comment at WUWT about the collusion going on. (Reminds me of the Temperature measurements.)

          anna v says: June 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/#comment-403748

          Hi Willis:
          I am amazed with the 1,2,3 ,4 statements you are quoting.
          Are they making a dress from a pattern? Talk about cherry picking data.
          particularly
          4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
          On the lines:” you will obey me, or else”

          They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it, is my conclusion from this series.

          You say there are independent measurements. Once I had managed to find a link and publications for those measurements. The were all Keeling and another fellow, possibly the graduate student going through the loops. I do not call that independent.
          Here are the locations I find:
          http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html
          something like 14, and practically all the publications are Keeling et al
          There is a map too
          http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html
          Do you believe that these 14 or so stations are representative enough so that the measurements could produce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

          bubbagyro – an Analytical Chemist’s comment is also of interest:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/#comment-403682
          A comment further down is even more interesting:

          bubbagyro June 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm
          I guess since I am a diffusion expert in my career, I will add one more wrinkle.

          Diffusion according To Fick’s Laws also pertains to gases in gases.

          The Mauna Loa method measures frequently and dismisses outliers (rejects them according to some arbitrary rules relying on operational reasons, not entirely upon statistical reasons).

          OK. However, the volcano business worries me immensely because there is a sink with parts per hundred! of CO2 right nearby. Forget about the winds, and assume for a moment the air is static. Imagine concentric spheres around the volcanic CO2 emanation point. The CO2 diffuses into surrounding air into each sphere, with concentration decreasing in half with each diameter added, since the concentration is directly proportional to distance traveled. By the time it reaches the measuring venue, it becomes proportionally less, but it is a positive contributor!. It may be large or small, but remember we started at parts per hundred, 10,000 times the concentration at the measurement point.

          This is a classic case of introduction of systematic error or bias.

          One experiment to do is to perform inverse isotopic dilution. Release a cannister of 14C CO2 at the volcano vents periodically and count the radioactivity. Or, if people are afraid of 14C, they can use 13C and do GC mass spec.

          Then, we can know the amount of systematic error after several experiments under different conditions. It may be large, or small, but it has to be something!

          This is why it would be great if it were not a volcano setting!

          Lots of info on CO2 on : http://www.co2web.info/

          Historic CO2 measurements that are left out of the picture: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm

          Allen MacRae: “… early 2008 I discovered that atmospheric dCO2/dt varied ~contemporaneously with average global temperature T, and CO2 lagged temperature by about 9 months.”http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

          This particular pdf looking at the dogma and politics behind the 70 years of CO2 measurement as well as the science. It is a very interesting read.
          Tom V. Segalstad’s Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

          I wrote another comments on Mannua Loa CO2 measurements:

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/arguing-about-the-accuracy-of-co2-measurements-is-pointless/#comment-401504

          And finally the clincher: New Paper With Stunning Admission By Climate Alarmist Scientists: Actual CO2 Emissions Are Unknown; Please Send Money!
          http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/new-paper-with-stunning-admission-by-climate-alarmist-scientists-actual-co2-emissions-are-unknown-pl.html

        • Gail Combs says:

          Dang, Sorry tony too many links again as usual.

      • Gail Combs says:

        This I thought was the clincher:
        http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

        …Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

        The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding….

        Since then Ferdinand Engelbeen has spent a lot of time trashing Dr. Jaworowski’s reputation with quite a bit of success. He always shows up on WUWT to make sure the CO2 record as written by Climastrologists is protected but never shows up for any other discussions. (Sort of like L. S. always shows up to protect Climastrologists declaration that the sun is constant and therefore has no effect on the climate.)
        Dr. Glassman says this of Engelbeen in his article THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (Do read the entire article plus comments)

        III. MODELING VOSTOK CO2 CONCENTRATION

        Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists.

        Engelbeen’s result is shown in Figure 5. He shows a best linear fit and a best quadratic fit, also known as the first and second order fits, respectively. Mathematics guarantees that increasing the order of the fit improves (or at least can’t worsen) the fit.

        Mr. Engelbeen found this important Vostok relationship “surprisingly linear”. (Comment #2, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13#comment-69.) More importantly, his analysis confirms that the curvature in the data is not an optical illusion.

        Curves like Engelbeen’s are purely mathematical fits. They indicate correlation, a mathematical relationship, but he gives them no connection to physics. The goal here is to uncover the physical relationship between the historic CO2 concentration and temperature. What causes the concentration effect to be curved as it is? In other words, can a cause and effect model be developed which might account for the correlation seen in the Vostok data? ….l

        Dr. Glassman’s follow-up article, ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA in answer to the question:
        “You posit that CO2 does NOT accumulate in the atmosphere. How do you explain atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increasing over the last 100 years?” — by Myles Goodman at Drexel

        Layman friendly explanations were done by Lucy Skywaller:
        http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
        http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm

        Lucy also did an terrific flick graph that can be quite usefull: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

        • They could just as easily have meant, “If you do work that spuriously suggests that good ice data that we believe in are really bad, then you could harm our cause.” Unethical and unscientific, yes. Proof of fraud, no. Not in my view.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I have more. It is in moderation.

          “Unethical and unscientific, yes. Proof of fraud, no…”

          And if no one is allowed to dig then actually proof of fraud will never appear. Mikey Mann and the millions backing him being a case in point.

          It is not just one bit of evidence it is all the evidence from the cherry picking of low historic values by Callendar who in 1938 revived Arrhenius hypothesis of greenhouse warming due to man’s activity to the continued cherry picking going on today at the explicit direction of politicians.

          Probably the biggest clue is that instead of actually debating the science and having open discussions and scientific investigations we have mudslinging, nasty names, science papers calling us mentally ill and worse. More important we have Senator Wirth and Jim Hansen colluding to sway the opinion of Congress. Wirth, is now president of Turner’s UN Foundation. The is the same Turner who wants to cull the human herd down to ,i>”.. total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels,…” What Wirth and Hansen did was find out what historically was the hottest day of summer in DC and then altered the temperature in the hearing room that day.

          From an Interview with Wirth:

          …Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well.

          So a number of things came together that, for the first time, people began to think about it. I knew it was important because there was a big article in, I believe, the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated on climate change. [Laughs.] So there was a correlation. You figure, well, if we’re making Sports Illustrated on this issue, you know, we’ve got to be making some real headway.

          … What we did was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

          So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

          After that bit of subtrifuge and manipulation the US signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and ratified it on 21/03/94.

          From then on it is not and never was science. It is the politics (development of propaganda) of getting people to go along with the decisions already made by the politicians no matter what the actual facts are and the government scientists and academics got those ‘marching orders.’ Any who did not toe the political line were harassed or fired. Think Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dr Gray, Dr Tim Ball and Dr Salby.

          Here’s the official definition of Climate Change:

          “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

          The IPCC mandate is similar:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
          http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

          So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

          The IPCC’s ROLE

          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.
          http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

          So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

          Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

          The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

          We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

          This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

          SEE: Tail wagging the dog – IPCC to rework AR5 to be ‘consistent with the SPM’

        • I did say unethical and unscientific. I also said the results may be spurious. I also said I’m not sure if they’re fudging the numbers at all, which I hoped would be seen as a suggestion that they may be fudging them somewhat.

          But to convince me that CO2 is actually on the decrease, over the last 50 years, is not going to be easy for you. Because it really doesn’t pass the common sense test, in my view. Human population has increased by approximately 7.3/3.5 = 109% in the last 50 years. Oil, gas, and coal consumption have increased by more than that. Anthropogenic deforestation and urbanization of farmland are factors in that, as well.

  9. philjourdan says:

    They found the correlation! CO2 and temperature adjustments.

  10. JN says:

    The last slide of NCDC’s report explains why they’re doing this: they want more funding.

    Attribution research has many values, including
    advancing our understanding of how events may change
    in the future
    • There is great scientific value in having multiple studies
    analyze the same extreme event to determine the
    underlying factors that may have influenced it
    • The science remains challenging, but the environmental
    intelligence it yields for decision makers is invaluable and
    the demand is ever‐growing

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/BAMS%20EE%20Press%20Rollout%20Slides_FINAL.pdf

  11. Jason Calley says:

    Of course correlation is not causation — at least not until a plausible and understandable mechanism is brought in which ties the two factors together in a cause-and-effect sequence. In this case the mechanism which explains the correlation is psychological. “If we fraudulently adjust the temperatures to match the change in CO2, we will be given money, power and prestige.”

    That is one heck of a plausible and understandable mechanism…

  12. Alan Poirier says:

    Could they really have an algorithm that incorporate CO2 levels in their homogenization? OMG

    • They may well have an informal one, but I don’t think they’d put something like that in writing or computer code. They really are not stupid.

      • Alan Poirier says:

        It wouldn’t be that difficult to plant such a code so deep that only a line by line debugging would reveal it. I’ve looked at virii that are very well hidden. Has anyone ever seen their code???

        • Oh, that’s something that they hold very close to the vest! However, it is obtainable by either house of Congress….

        • Gail Combs says:

          Don’t bet on it Richard,

          …On Friday, the IRS issued a report to Congress saying the agency also lost emails from five other employees related to the probe, including two agents who worked in a Cincinnati office processing applications for tax-exempt status.

          House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, whose committee has been investigating the scandal, said the disclosure is yet another example of the Obama administration changing its story on the scandal.

          “The IRS’s ever-changing story is practically impossible to follow at this point, as they modify it each time to accommodate new facts,” Issa, R-Calif., said. “This pattern must stop.”….
          SOURCE

          Isn’t it amazing that when Phil Jones was asked to produce the data the answer was The Dog Ate It.

          When the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition sued the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) , the response was The Goat ate the Data.

          Am I noticing a pattern here?

          Moscow Rules: Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.

        • Sure, well, I attribute that to incompetence. Legally, the House can issue an arrest warrant for refusal to respect its subpoenas and incarcerate the miscreants in the congressional stockade until they get what they asked for. And if they played their cards right, they also should be able to acquire the code within the Intelligence Committee under national security, have their own staff analyze it, and, publicize anything that was not in need of classification. But all of this requires that they have higher brain functions, which are a scarce commodity on Capitol Hill these days. RTF

        • Unfortunately, the extent of their interest in justice seems to be in taking the President to court for a single unlawful executive order. RTF

        • cdquarles says:

          @RTF,

          1. One is enough for impeachment grounds (Nixon and Clinton) and with Nixon, as far as I know; they never went after him over unconstitutional executive orders, but for tampering with the judicial process via interfering with an investigation.
          2. There are likely more than one unconstitutional executive order in play here.
          3. Despite the Constitutional duty to bring charges anyway (Rule of Law, after all), there is no political will to do to O a fraction of what was done to Nixon. Nixon had the wisdom to accept the necessity of resigning from office. Ford took a political risk pardoning him for the good of the country.

        • Sorry I missed your response. Good points, all! RTF

  13. DHF says:

    It seems that you have performed a brilliant and revealing little test. I would expect that your results should have had a tremendous impact by now. I hope that the data series you use are secured in a way so that they do not disappear by accident.
    I also believe that it should be quite easy too replicate your test, but I find it a bit challenging to identify the right data source and data series.
    I think that the argument you put forward in this post would benefit by containing a step by step description of the method and an exact identification of the source and the data series you use.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes I agree. I love graphs but with a finding as critical as this, a more explicit write-up and explanation would be useful. That CO2 vs adjustment graph is powerful but I would like more info so I can use it.

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