The 0.01 Degree Shell Game

Gavin and the clowns at NCDC juggled fake temperatures to get a world record temperature by 0.01 degrees – ahead of the fake Lima climate talks. But regardless of their fake temperatures, it is all a distraction from the fact that temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions after the year 2000 Scenario C

ScreenHunter_778 Mar. 21 07.51

ScreenHunter_344 Mar. 06 17.11

And no, 2014 is not a record year by any stretch of the imagination.ScreenHunter_633 Dec. 19 15.13

ScreenHunter_635 Dec. 19 15.13

Whatever claims they make about “record heat” are far below what climate models predicted, and are just a distraction from the fact that even their own fake temperatures are not alarming.

About stevengoddard

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

39 Responses to The 0.01 Degree Shell Game

  1. Jason Calley says:

    It is said that an example of “chutzpa” is the young man who murdered both his parents and then begged for mercy because he was an orphan. Perhaps we need to throw out that old example and create a new one based on self-described “scientists” who work for GISS.

  2. KTM says:

    Thanks especially for the top plot, this should be one of the primary images used by skeptics in the climate wars.

  3. Bob Greene says:

    0.01° difference with no statistical testing of differences of means, using measuring devices that have resolutions of 0.1°, estimates for missing data and data corrections. I surprised that that they didn’t look at thousandths of degree differences.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually they do not even get 0.1C. It is more like an error greater than 2C.

      64.4 % of US surface stations (the best in the world) are class 4

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

      The whole thing is a giant farce. How anyone with any science,engineering or math training could believe this junk leaves me scratching my head.

      This is the correct graph to show the public.

      • Dave1billion says:

        “How anyone with any science,engineering or math training could believe this junk leaves me scratching my head.”

        I agree wholeheartedly.

        As an engineer and computer programmer, the idea that you could model climate in any meaningful way just never made any sense to me. Just extrapolate the uncertainties in a “simple” 4-day forecast over decades. The exponential increase in uncertainty pretty much literally boggle my mind. I can’t conceive of how climate could be modeled. Yet they throw garbage together and show their results with a high degree certainty that also has a ludicrous number of significant digits.

        But maybe that’s just because I don’t know the difference between climate and weather.

        I like to ask people “If the climate models predicted a disastrous decrease in temperature over the next century could (or should) humanity burn more fossil fuels to counter it?”. And then I ask them whether they really think that we could actually stop a new Ice Age by driving SUVs and using incandescent light bulbs.

        I think a lot of the informed (and they are out there) ‘believers’ are in the “We should be doing this stuff anyway because it’s the right thing to do.” At least that’s been my experience.

      • Ernest Bush says:

        There was no official temperature instrument capable of better than 2 degrees accuracy in the entire southwest corner of Arizona the last time I looked. The same is true of most of the state. Our average surface temperature could have dropped 3 degrees F in the last 18 years and it would be undetectable using real data. RSS and UAH data suggest this may not be the case, but I am talking about a very small part of the surface of the planet. When my personal weather station temperature varies from the station at MCAS Yuma, I have no idea whether this is due to microclimate conditions or inaccurate instruments.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          Top off we only occupy 3% of the earth surface and that were the thermometers are you think we might just might have and data collection problem, let alone a accuracy problem. I have said many time but I will say it again to call the climate scientist morons would be an insult to morons.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “By knowing this the minimum uncertainty for every annual global mean temperature should be expanded not only to the value described here i.e. with 95 % confidence interval to ± 1.084 °C, but should be at least 3 to 5 times wider. Thus, the average global temperature anomaly for the last 150 years is dissolved in a wide noisy uncertainty band, which is much wider than the whole assumed variation of the 20th century.”


          Thanks Jason, It supports my Wild A… Guess of ±5 °C (I was being conservative above)

      • pete j says:

        Aren’t the NCDC referring to their land-sea surface index when they claim the record’s been broken? Perhaps the accuracy with which they measure sea surrace temp more than compensates for the sloppy way they treat land temps?

  4. Climate Science

    Step 1
    Design climate models that increase temp with increase atmospheric CO2 levels.
    Step 2
    Run the climate models with increasing estimates of CO2 through the latest greatest computers.
    Step 3
    Announce to the masses that you’ve proven beyond doubt that temperatures will catastrophically rise and ruin the world.
    Step 4
    Ask for more money and better computers to make even better (more extreme) predictions.

    Did I leave anything out?

  5. gregole says:

    Whatever claims they make about “record heat” are far below what climate models predicted, and are just a distraction from the fact that even their own fake temperatures are not alarming.

    This bears repeating. There is simply no crises; not even a manufactured crises. Even the faked temperatures are nothing in scale. It’s been hotter. It’s been colder. Climate alarmism based on Man-Made CO2 is a fetish, a neurosis. There really is nothing to it. What heating there has been is probably all net-positive. The added CO2 net-positive.

  6. Bill S says:

    “The whole thing is a giant farce. How anyone with any science,engineering or math training could believe this junk leaves me scratching my head.”
    My degree is in physics with a strong mathematical backing and have been a practicing engineer for decades. I cannot make my brain believe that there could be some bias in a temperature data base due to time of observation. Maybe the reason I cannot grasp TOBS is because it is in fact not understandable.

    Frank W,
    A note from a prior thread. I come from Laramie Wyoming. -100F is rare but it is not an outlier.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” Maybe the reason I cannot grasp TOBS is because it is in fact not understandable.”

      Now you make me feel a lot better. I can see an occasional double count but as Tony said even in grade school he figured out very quickly when to take the readings and reset a Min/Max. If the Weather Bureau commissioned the design of Stevenson screens in 1892, where whitewash was specified, you would also think a test method would also be specified. Heck the Army has been writing manuals for three thousand years. (I have a copy from ~ 400BC)

      Also as w are well aware from the EPA, bureaucrats LOVE to write gobs of regulations.

      (Actually I think Anthony Watts actually posted part of an Army manual on temperature reading from the 1800s)

      • mjc says:

        Not the 1800s one, but a WW II one…

        Here’s another one from the 40s…by the cheif of the US Weather Bureau

        • Gail Combs says:


          That is a real treasure trove!

          The 1882 weather bureau manual states the observers are sent a min and a max thermometer free of charge plus postage free recording forms.

          on page 18-19 are instructions for the max thermometer with the comment:

          When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15 or 20, the highest temperature indicated at the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread. [Climastologists are correcting in the wrong direction!]

          When the fall of temperature from the highest point is very slow a little of the mercury may pass down before the thread breaks, especially when there is no wind to cause a slight jarring of the instrument.

          In some instruments the narrowing of the bore develops a strong capillary action, and when the connection of the column is broken the detached thread jumps a little causing it to register a little too high. This is most apt to occur in very cold weather when the detached columns are very short. It also occurs with longer detached columns when the thermometer is nearly horizontal.

          From that description the Tobs correction for these old thermometers should be 1/2 degree higher if anything. ‘Cooling’ the past has no basis. Of course the correct method of handling the data is to use wider error bars in this time period as Ernest Beck did with the CO2 data.

          Starting on page 22 is the description of the Stevenson screen and instructions.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      I grew up in Minnesota and lived most of my adult life in North Dakota, presently I live in Mesa Arizona, yet I well aware that the temperatures in North Dakota in July can at times exceed Mesa. I saw that fact on 2007, it was 107 in Williston North Dakota and Phoenix that July day was only 98. Three days that month Williston was warmer or tied with Phoenix. if you look a all time highs you will find North Dakota and South Dakota you will find their all time high temperatures are in the top ten, the unfortunate part about those two states is that the all time low temperatures will also be in the top 10. Having lived near Williston North Dakota, yes I was there for the 107 in July 2007 and the -50 in the 1980s, Extreme temperature in the middle of the continent are not unusual. .01 degree for an all time high in world climate pales to a 157 temperature swing that a human can experience in one lifetime as if .01 increase might be noticeable, Yea not in this university.

  7. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Facts hurt when you are a believer!

  8. Don says:

    Ike warned us.

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”'s Farewell Address to the Nation

  9. geologyjim says:

    It’s fascinating that Eisenhower was as spot-on in reality as Geroge Orwell was in fiction (1984).

    I recall the media perception of Eisenhower was that he was an affable, golf-playing simpleton. Yet somehow he earned 5 stars as a general and was instrumental in defeating the Axis powers in Europe. Yeah, any dunce could have done that.

    As a rule of thumb, just about anyone/institution that is ridiculed by the “liberal-establishment mass media” is probably worth listening to – because he’s/she’s/it’s probably right.

  10. Sparks says:

    We’re about to enter a warm period and then a cool period bla bla bla…

  11. Sparks says:

    Their time scale is always distorted too. honestly check out the solar record.. laughable..

  12. Sparks says:

    I don’t think its “Democrats” either Steve?

  13. QV says:

    The whole “hottest year ever” message is just a massive smokescreen to hide the fact that temperatures are far below predicted by most IPCC climate models.
    The most accurate IPCC scenario is the “commitment” which assumed zero growth in greenhouse gasses since 2000.
    It’s funny how the media never mention that!

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 )

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