Experts Say They Are Not Altering Data, And That the Surface Temperature Record Is Valid

As of 1975, scientists showed no net warming from 1900 to 1970

ScreenHunter_7026 Feb. 10 12.08ScreenHunter_7019 Feb. 10 07.52

But now they show a lot of warming from 1900 to 1970.

Fig.A (7)

NASA has massively changed their data many times.

NASANorthernLatititudes1981-1999-2015

gissfiga2002-2014 (4)

They have altered data outside their own error bounds.

ScreenHunter_6906 Feb. 07 16.55

Surface temperatures  and radiosonde have been massively diverging. The vast majority of reported warming since 1980 is due to Urban Heat Island effects.

ScreenHunter_937 Feb. 04 13.40

They are losing rural station data, and infilling it with urban data

all-raw-station-count-ghcn

The global surface temperature record is complete crap, and has no business being used by scientists other than as a case study in UHI confirmation bias.

About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to Experts Say They Are Not Altering Data, And That the Surface Temperature Record Is Valid

  1. gator69 says:

    This is what happens when one spends too much time in fantasyland. The real world fades, and simulation become reality. Time to padlock the doors on the computer lab.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    The more people that get to see this the better.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Dr Edward R. Long, Ph.D. in physics and a retired NASA scientist has provided more validation of data altering. (I don not know if he is a member of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team or an independent.)

    A Pending American Temperaturegate
    By Edward R. Long

    …We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations — a rural set…..

    ……..*oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
    Station Set …….Raw Data* … Adjusted Data*

    Rural (48) ………….. 0.11 ………. 0.58

    Urban (48)………….. 0.72 ………. 0.72

    Rural + Urban (96) … 0.47 ……… 0.65

    The values in the table highlight four important considerations:

    1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small
    (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century

    2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.

    3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.

    4) And this is the “Temperaturegate” aspect: The NCDC’s massaging — they call it “adjusting” — has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC’s treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.

    The criticism this makes of the NCDC’s treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia. For a thumbnail of the points made in that paper, click here.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ARRGGGhhhh I need another cup of caffeine! (And unfrozen fingers)

      A Pending American Temperaturegate
      By Edward R. Long

      …We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations — a rural set…..

      ……..*oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
      Station Set …….Raw Data* … Adjusted Data*

      Rural (48) ………….. 0.11 ………. 0.58

      Urban (48)………….. 0.72 ………. 0.72

      Rural + Urban (96) … 0.47 ……… 0.65

      The values in the table highlight four important considerations:

      1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small
      (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century

      2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.

      3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.

      4) And this is the “Temperaturegate” aspect: The NCDC’s massaging — they call it “adjusting” — has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC’s treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.

      The criticism this makes of the NCDC’s treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia. For a thumbnail of the points made in that paper, click here.

  4. philjourdan says:

    The Clinton defense – deny until the blue dress shows up.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ROTFLMAO!!!!

    • Jason Calley says:

      Isn’t it amazing? CAGW cultists say, “Climate change MUST be true! The only way it could be fake is if you had thousands and thousands of scientists all conspiring to cover it. There is no way that you could keep that a secret!”

      On the other hand…. Every time the Progressives get some bad press, what is the reason? Why, it is propaganda from “The Vaaaaaast Right Wing Conspiracy!”

      • gofer says:

        Rather than a conspiracy, its a giant bandwagon. Since the govt. tossed out billions, it was quickly discovered that a grant could be had for studying global warming impact on everything from mental problems to swamp rats. Of course, it was necessary to ramp up the danger in order to obtain more money. How many times has it been said, “X needs more study.?” As Hulme said, global warming is very plastic and applies to many areas. With trillions at stake including carbon trading, green energy and the vast AGW support system, nobody inside this system is going to rock that boat. Those that tried are history.

        Does the “blind” algorithim that adjusts temperatures believe the world is warming from CO2 when it stumbles on a break and then “corrects” it based on another station that complies with its belief?

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news…..” —- Judith Curry

        • gregole says:

          Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news…

          Truth be told, one doesn’t need any of that claptrap. Just look at the thermometer records as done here. Games. Games. Games. I don’t care for think tanks, talk radio or advocacy groups.

          Gail, I appreciate your comments on JC. I recall her launch of her blog. For some reason, right from the beginning, I smelled a rat. Couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Call it intuition. Lurked there a bit; but those people aren’t my crowd – I’ll call them the academics that take other academics seriously. And I’m in a college town and have a ton of friends that are academics – know their kids and some of them are headed that way. Not my way mind you, but I don’t have anything against people making a living. But JC… hmm, something was fishy from day one.

          I’m still working a lot of this out in my head. I haven’t got it figured out. It’s really weird. Some say it’s about money and power; but these people have plenty of both of those things. And there’s opportunists and hustlers like Mann – boring actually. But the kingpins like Gore…why?

        • Truthseeker says:

          Why? Power. Power is addictive and for someone like Al Gore who got close to the jackpot, close enough that he could touch it, he will do anything to get another hit.

  5. Scott Scarborough says:

    Yes all of those scientists conspired to give the government what it asked for in return for a pay check. This happens alot. Once, scientists conspired to send a man to the moon for the same reasons.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dude, I have been fired three times for refusing to lie on certificates of Analysis. Lying for a pay check is very very common in government, academia and industry. If you haven’t figured that out by now you must be very very young or very naive.

      Fact of life. Those who are willing to lie and stab others in the back win the big bucks.

      EXAMPLE

      Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”…

      [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona…. ]

      “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences….
      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeResources.ViewNewsletter&Newsletter_id=e11153f5-802a-23ad-4c32-a36d03237dfe&SuppressLayouts=true

      I had the privilege this fall to go to Dr Happer’s guest lecture for Physics Grad students at UNC. He presented actual observational data that showed where the climate models when wrong in one of the critical assumptions.

      The CO2 observed data did not support the assumption and therefore CO2 has only a very minor additional effect on temperature if it increases.

      • gator69 says:

        Let’s not forget the muzzling of Dr Alan Carlin.

        [While the EPA was deliberating its “endangerment” finding], Dr. Alan Carlin, a Senior Operations Research Analyst at the EPA, had prepared a 100-page report containing “new research” and “information critical to the justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed endangerment finding,” and how recent data “cannot be explained by the IPCC models” relied on in the proposed finding. Confronted with this highly-relevant information, his supervisor, the NCEE Office Director, refused to allow it to “be considered” or forwarded, and ordered Dr. Carlin “not to spend any additional time” on the subject. In the supervisor’s view, “the time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed . . . The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

        As a result, the report was hidden from public view throughout the comment period.

        This concealment prevented the public at large from commenting on the report and the vital issues it raises, even though it addressed the very subjects on which EPA invited comment, such as “the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.”

      • gregole says:

        Integrity on technical matters is a virtue of highest order in our times. Pity so few in the public understand the stakes. Pity that even a few persons in positions of technical responsibility can cause huge damage and harm and essentially, get away with it. I’ve been a mechanical engineer since 1979 and have worked on many projects, in many industries, on many endeavors. Over time, it alters your brain. Integrity is not negotiable. Die before you compromise it.

  6. Dave N says:

    They cannot be serious (and still sane). Who are the “experts” claiming that they’re not altering data? Perhaps their definition of “altering” doesn’t match reality?

    • Dave N says:

      Never mind; saw your other post. Nutter is an “expert” only by his own proclamation, and by his fellow moronic followers.

  7. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    There is no one connect with this administration that is capable of telling the truth on any subject!

  8. Jim Dodson says:

    Criminal prosecution for scientific fraud is very rare, with few convictions, and the penalties are usually not very severe. Below is a link to “A Prison Sentence for Altering Data”
    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_05_03/caredit.a1300092
    I recall that there was some attempt made a while ago by climate researchers to try to obtain a special immunity from prosecution. I hope they did not succeed with that.

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