Stunning Evidence That Man-Made Global Warming is Real


NASA has doubled global warming over the past 15 years, by simply altering the data.

About stevengoddard

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

196 Responses to Stunning Evidence That Man-Made Global Warming is Real

  1. gator69 says:

    What are you talking about? We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

  2. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, I have asked you before, but you always refuse to support your claims with evidence. I will ask again. If you have any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is incorrect or, worse, fraudulent, please post that evidence. You have never posted any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is incorrect, let alone fraudulent.

    • David A says:

      Martin, you have never read all the evidence posted by our host and many others.

      • Martin Smith says:

        David, I have never read any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is incorrect, posted by our host, because our host has never posted any with any of his blog posts claiming fraud or error. The ethics of blog posting require the blogger to support each of his claims with factual evidence, and that factual evidence must be included in the same blog post where the blogger makes his claims. That’s just standard ethics.

        Furthermore, evidence of adjustment is not evidence of error. Steven often, if not always, posts evidence that data has been adjusted, and then he calls it fraud. But no one disputes the data have been adjusted. Evidence of adjustment is not evidence of error, except that the original data was incorrect and in need of adjustment. Each adjustment is explained and peer-reviewed.

        • wizzum says:

          If the adjustments are so good then why do they keep changing?

          Where/what is the control that these data sets are interpreted against?

          Where is the published algorithm used for the changes.

          Don’t ask me to look for it myself, YOU are making the assertion and must back it up.

        • Menicholas says:

          Each adjustment is not explained, and they are not peer reviewed.
          Your fact free whining and belly aching is laughable Marty.

        • Andy DC says:

          Could you be as kind to explain why said adjustments always warm the present and cool the past? Can you be so kind to provide evidence that the adjustments have ever cooled the present and warmed the past?

          When you have a vested interest in the result and you invariably alter the data to support your vested interest, it is commonly referred to as CHEATING! It is no different than a football referee altering his calls to favor a particular team when he has bet heavily on that team. Please demonstrate how there is any difference. Your can’t “PROVE” that the referee’s calls are influenced by his heavy bet, but you would have to be totally naive and stupid to believe otherwise.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “Could you be as kind to explain why said adjustments always warm the present and cool the past? Can you be so kind to provide evidence that the adjustments have ever cooled the present and warmed the past?”

        Yes, Andy, I have already refuted your claims twice today. Here is the proof you are wrong by counterexample. See item 4:

        You were wrong because you have never bothered to actually look at the data.

        • gator69 says:

          You were wrong because you have never bothered to actually look at the data.

          You are not presenting data. You are referring to artifacts of analysis, from people who are paid to convince us man is causing global climate change. You get what you pay for.

    • You say that NASA data is correct. Which data set is the correct one? The 2001 version or the 2016 version which is altered far outside the 2001 error bars?

      A signal to noise ratio of ….. zero.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Or NOAA/Hansen’s 1998 graph?

        The Climastrologists have sure done a fine job of eliminating the infamous BLIP
        Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:

        If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

        I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

        …. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Sorry, Steven, but I can’t tell you anything from your graph. You have not provided any way to check anything about it. My position has not changed: The datasets published by NASA, NOAA, et al, are correct in the sense that all the known errors and biases have been removed. Each update is explained, and the adjustments and arguments for them are peer reviewed.

        All you have done is show that the data have been adjusted, but there is no way to verify your graph anyway. The bottom line is, evidence of adjustment is not evidence that the adjustment is incorrect or fraudulent.

        • Winston is getting really desperate

        • Yes, but to the socially manipulable mind, social pressure as identified by Asch, 1955, amounts to a form of duress, replacing O’Brien strapping him to the table.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Looks like you are the desperate one, Steven. I get the impression you expect no one will see your blog posts for what they really are. You’re almost right. Your followers are easily convinced by your proclamations.

        • Woah! My mistake… I thought you were referring to WINSTON Smith, struggling to see that fifth finger…

        • darrylb says:

          Martin, have you ever posted any reasons why the homogenizations are valid.
          It think that we all know that the adjusted data is because of Time of observations, changes in instrumentation etc.

          However, why are there continuing changes to the changes? Which is in itself an admittance that each prior change must be incorrect.

          Also, as you know the heat island effect is given little consideration. AT WUWT, Watts, did an extensive study of the placings of all stations in the United States and found that the majority did not meet specifications and some were terrible, like placing to close to an air conditioner.
          I have been keeping in contact with several Scientists in Australia who are trying to unravel the bizarre and twisted climate historical record there. It seems they are having even greater political influence.

          Also, have you ever seen a peer review of the homegenizations?

          Also, are you forgetting basic science methodology in that the original is the null set, and it is you that should be presenting validations as to the validity of the changes.

          Also, Watts found out that a large number of the stations reading temperature were having the white paint wearing away from the boxes containing the instruments, with a darker color showing. No needs to explain what effect that would have on temp readings.

          Watts also found that the newer and better instruments, with better placings, showed much less warming.

          Also, perhaps you have missed it, but our host has given multiple reasons for temps not being valid, such as infilling missing data with biased temperatures, Adjusting out lying readings, when in fact those readings were the only ones meeting station requirements.

          So Martin Smith, here is a short list, care to respond?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey darrylb! “Martin, have you ever posted any reasons why the homogenizations are valid.”

          Good luck with that. Several commenters have asked for that. Early on, I asked for Martin to justify the changes done to just one singe year. He responded that he was not able to do so. Instead he just repeats over and over that the adjustments are all documented and justified — he even posts links to sites that he says show the details. Of course they do not, and when someone asks him exactly where the information is, he either ignores the request or just repeats that the information is available. Ask him again, and he claims that he already answered the question.

          Good luck.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Martin, have you ever posted any reasons why the homogenizations are valid.”

          No, darryl, but the algorithms and theory behind the homogenisation process is peer reviewed science, so those reasons are in the climate science record. Steven is making claims of fraudulent and incorrect adjustments that are not in the climate science record. He is claiming to have disproved science that has been peer reviewed, but he doesn’t provide his proof. So your implication is not justified.

          “So Martin Smith, here is a short list, care to respond?”

          You posted a short list of errors and biases that have been addressed. That’s the point we started with. I don’t have to address them again. Steven claims that what has been done to address these points is not only incorrect but fraudulent as well. But he makes his claim without providing any evidence that any adjustment is incorrect or fraudulent.

          All you have done, darryl is ask the same questions again. Climate science has progressed to where it is now by trial and error and then correcting the errors. Steven is attempting to invalidate climate science by proclamation. That won’t happen.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey darrylb! I am guessing that you see why I said “good luck!”

        • gator69 says:

          Ask him again, and he claims that he already answered the question.

          Yep! You nailed that one Jason! 😆

        • Econaziism being a religion it is not productive to debate the brainwashees other than publicly as an example. On Youtube The God Debate II, the mystic “proves” only Christians know morality because they have a “moral lawgiver,” which by definition is Ghawd, not reasoned consideration of the facts of reality, and the debater therefore “cannot see” the evidence of Sam Harris. Same thing here. Reality control and doublethink will cancel all evidence except Revelation by the sort of computer models that predicted stock prices in 2007.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          There is not a shred of evidence that supports the need to continuously alter surface temperature data, especially, when as time goes buy, more numbers are made up while NASA is ignoring the stations in those areas where good data is available. Just because math is used to derive the numbers doesn’t take the results out of fantasy land. You can stick your axx in here all you want, but understand there is not a shred of respect for your dogged opinions, NASA, or NOAA here. In fact, many government paid scientists who are supposedly peer reviewed in a neutral manner are publishing papers so far out in left field it is hilarious just reading the abstracts. Fantasy stuff.

        • Menicholas says:

          Doctors Brown and Brozak have analyzed Tony Heller’s graph showing that the sum of all the adjustments mirrors the increase in CO2.
          It is statistically impossible for this to be coincidence…it is proof that the so-called adjustments are completely bogus, no matter the details of the sophistry that attempts to explain them.
          And most adjustments are just slipped in these days, no explanation given.
          So the assertion that each of them are justified and peer reviewed in another of your transparent lies, Marty.
          Besides, there is no such thing as adjusted data. Once adjusted, it is no longer data.
          It is then a model.
          Just as worthless as most of the models that the warmistas have staked their flimsy reputations on.

        • Martin wants to know whether the data tampering is valid tampering or invalid tampering. I mean, good cheating or bad cheating. He thinks there is good cheating.

          Martin, you are obviously being paid to be here. For the record, the reason we know it’s deliberate cheating is that it always cools the past and warms the present, time after time. That’s obvious fraud.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “For the record, the reason we know it’s deliberate cheating is that it always cools the past and warms the present, time after time. That’s obvious fraud.”

          Your claim is false, Morgan. Proof by counterexample. See item 4:

          I don’t think you lied, Morgan. I think you are simply ignorant on this subject, because you haven’t taken the time to look at the science. I think you swallow everything Steven posts here without ever doing any fact checking. You certainly were ignorant in this case. Or did you lie? Please don’t say you lied.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Martin, I have tried to be polite with you, but let me be blunt. You are a liar. Shame on you. Steven has posted huge amounts of information, all of which you apparently ignore. The “official” charts are adjusted far beyond even their own earlier error bars; that is prima facia evidence of fraud. Locations like Iceland have station data changed in such a way that cooling trends become warming trends, in spite of the fact that the actual scientists (real scientists!) who took the original temperature readings dispute the changes.

      I suspect that even if every employee of GISS and NOAA raised their hand and swore an oath that they had committed knowing fraud, your response would be “Sure, they CLAIM that fraud was committed, but they have not PROVEN that fraud was committed. They could be simply lying!”

      Shame on you.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Thank you for your candid opinion, Jason, but I have never been fooled by your politeness.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “I have never been fooled by your politeness.”

          I was fooled by yours. I really thought that you might be interested in the facts and the data. Instead you have lied over and over that you just wanted evidence but could not get it. I used to look at the sites you linked to; I am willing to consider that I might be mistaken. Now that I know definitively that you cannot be trusted, I see no reason to waste time investigating information offered by an untrustworthy source.

          Shame on you. You are not an honorable person.

        • gator69 says:

          Shame on Marty? No way. Like most leftists (think Hillary Clinton) Marty is incapable of feeling shame, no matter how many times he is exposed as a liar. For leftists, lies are a necessary tool, and not a source of shame.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Grow up, Jason. I have supported all my AGW claims with facts and data. You are dismissing the entire IPCC research effort. You are dismissing virtually all of climate science for the last 50 years, except for the tiny corner of data that supports your contrarian view. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring the facts and data.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Any reader of this blog can easily go back and see what you have posted, how you have responded to evidence that has been given you, and how you have responded to requests for data supporting your own opinions.

          I urge any fence sitters to read for themselves. The truth will out.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Than you for your support, Jason, and I agree. Go back and check what I have written, if you are in doubt about my veracity… wait… “how you have responded to evidence that has been given you,”

          No evidence has been given, Jason. Once more, slowly: E v i d e n c e o f a d j u s t m e n t i s n o t e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d.

        • Martin Smith, you are a well known liar. Anybody relying on your word either doesn’t know you or is a fool. I know you.

          Here is a small sampling of things you wrote:

          “Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.”

          “The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect.”

          “Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.

          “Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. …”

          “Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, …”

          “Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI …”

          “I have never accused Steven of altering graphics.”

        • Class, repeat: correlaaaation is not causaaaation, therefore all men are NOT mortal, therefore Jesus is reading these words. Q.E.D.

        • Neal S says:

          And here I thought Martin Smith had said “I’m going home now”. I am so disappointed.

          Truly, there is none so blind as those who will NOT see. The constant re-adjustment of previous adjustments simply proves that those constantly readjusting prior data are lying or incompetent or both. This is plainly obvious to any with half a brain. But Martin is either truly incapable of achieving this level of understanding, or he is lying.

        • Martin Smith says:

          What can I say, Neal. This is my subject.

          But I’m on my way now.

          Thanks for all the fish.

        • Hey! The philistine didn’t pay for all those the loaves he wolfed down!

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Once more, slowly: E v i d e n c e o f a d j u s t m e n t i s n o t e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d.”

          Let me correct your incorrect statement.

          NOT ALL E v i d e n c e o f a d j u s t m e n t i s e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d.
          SOME E v i d e n c e o f a d j u s t m e n t i s e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d.

          Suppose you are accused of robbing a bank. Cameras show you entering the bank and then leaving a few minutes later. Evidence of bank robbery? No, just evidence that you were at the bank, not evidence of a crime.

          Cameras inside the bank show you pointing a gun at the teller and handing him a note. The teller hurriedly dumps his cash drawer into a bag and hands it to you. Evidence of bank robbery? You bet it is.

          GISS adjusts historical temperature data and admits to doing so. Evidence of fraud? No, just evidence that data was adjusted (although it is still not evidence that it was justified.)

          GISS adjusts historical temperature data and admits to doing so. Adjustments are far outside reported error bars. Adjustments are readjusted, and readjusted and readjusted. Reasons are given for minor fractions of adjustments, but there is never a complete explanation of either why or how. Reputable investigators try for years to get details of methodology but their requests are turned down. Adjusted data becomes increasingly incompatible with historical records. Adjustments overwhelmingly match political agendas. Scientists who disagree are ostracized and threatened. Evidence of fraud? You say no. That response says a lot about you.

        • It all depends on whose facts… and whether To Me those look like facts, right?

        • Observe that the collective mind works in terms of leaders and followers, and that we followers must be mindless dupes unable to differentiate a constant.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin Smith says @ January 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm
          “What can I say, Neal. This is my subject.”

          WOW! Dr Smith (according to Steven Goddard) is claiming that data manipulation is HIS subject and yet all he can do is point us to a Nazi Cartoonist’s site? Or the Connelated WIKI? Or the ENTIRE IPCC report? (Which he has proved he knows nothing about?)

          I can think of no better evidence of either mindlessness or sophistry of the ClimAstrologists than that demonstrated by ‘Dr’ Smith.
          AND WE STILL HAVE no answer to the Congressional subpoena. “…the Congressional subpoena, liberally invoking its authority to compel witnesses to testify and produce documents in hearings” and yet a branch of the Federal Government flips the finger at Congress and the tax payers who pay them.

        • Neal S says:

          Gail reminds us of congressional subpoena still not being answered properly. If these folk are unwilling to give congress and the public access to what we paid for, then it is time to stop paying them.

        • Gail Combs says:

          gator69 says “Shame on Marty? …For leftists, lies are a necessary tool, and not a source of shame.”
          Honesty, integrity, and even real friendship is completely foreign to Leftists. Only POWER over others matters. They will lie, cheat, steal and fake friendship. This is why they really really feel such brotherhood with islamist jihadists and defend them. Tear away the trapping and the soul is identical. This is why I MUCH prefer Christianity and it has nothing to do with religion. Christianity (and Judaism) is an excellent base for civilized society because it emphases honesty, integrity, honor for wisdom and even property rights.

          5. “Honor your father and your mother” — aka the wisdom of your elders.
          6. “You shall not murder.
          7. “You shall not commit adultery.
          8. “You shall not steal.
          9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Don’t Lie)
          10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” – aka PROPERTY RIGHTS

          All five of those rules are much hated and stomped into the ground by leftists.

      • Jason, you are a patient man and a better person than I am for giving Martin Smith so many chances.

        He is a liar.

        • I had a similar experience with econazis in 1981, an “expose” book titled Honicker v. Hendrie used whiteout-doctored charts from B Cohen’s 1977 Scientific American article on Radioactive Wastes from Fission Reactors. The counterfeiter “couldn’t see” his own tampering and Sci-Amer (by then 100% Soviet) refused me permission to reproduce them side-by-side. This blog is doing great work, against Environmental National Socialism and for Real Science.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You pegged Marty the Toll a couple months ago Colorado.

      • Ted says:


        You’re where I was about 6 weeks ago. I think all of us went through a similar transition with Martin. (Except Gator. He’s not the trusting type) He doesn’t seem like a bad guy. He’s easy to dislike, but hard to hate. He and I could probably be friends, if we agreed to never discuss anything from the ever expanding list of topics the left deems political. The only real problem he has is the blind arrogance that a man shows when he’s trying to convince himself that he’s right. I, too, had hoped I could talk him through that, at least enough for him to help me understand how he arrived at his beliefs. In a way, he did. He convinced me that his beliefs are the product of psychology, rather than climatology. I think he’s tried looking at the evidence, and he couldn’t understand it. He knows he’s intelligent, because he agrees with the experts. So the research must be beyond the comprehension of anyone but those same experts who wrote the papers. Because we disagree with those experts, we must be far less intelligent than Martin, and therefore utterly incapable of understanding ANYTHING on the level he does. Hence the baseless confidence, and unshakable arrogance. He knows we can’t possibly be right, because we’re not intelligent enough to agree with the experts. And he knows the experts are right, because he’s not intelligent enough to understand them. And he probably doesn’t even see the problem with that circle of logic.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, shame on you for resorting to complete distortion. I answered all your questions faithfully and honestly.

        • DD More says:

          Ted -“his beliefs are the product of psychology”
          Marty never replied to how many items on this list he qualified for.

          Published study.
          Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
          – have little education
          – accept information uncritically
          – benefit from the proposed change
          – want to believe the propaganda
          – do not wish to understand their own motivations

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Ted, I am actually a fairly trusting type but once burned I no longer trust again. Marty has shown himself to be a serial liar and I spotted him early. Anyone who knows that we do not know everything about forcings (including not knowing all forcings) and knows that we are not outside natural variability, and yet persists in saying unequivocally that man is to blame, is simply not honest.

          I have debated zealots for many years, and devised a way of spotting them early so as to not waste effort on the worthless.

          BTW – I enjoy your posts, obviously you put much thought behind them.

        • Ted says:

          “I answered all your questions faithfully and honestly.”

          That’s exactly the problem. I think you really do believe what you say. But you can’t even keep your beliefs straight, within a single comment. I had to repeatedly dumb down my questions, just so you could understand them. From the kindergarten level discussion that led to, you still couldn’t understand the subject matter, you still couldn’t follow basic logic, and you still posted links to articles saying precisely the opposite of what you claimed they said. Those are signs of someone reciting what he’s been told, not of someone explaining hat he’s now proclaimed to be “my subject.”

          Any bets on whether Martin can follow the logic of that last sentence?

          You ignored anything you didn’t understand, so no, you certainly didn’t answer all my questions. And the few answers you did give were logically absurd, factually incorrect, usually contradictory. It’s really a pity. I’m still in the same boat as Jason. I’m entirely willing to be convinced. Sadly, your understanding of climate science is too weak to even be wrong. I’d feel a lot better if you’d put up a decent argument, and I just found it lacking. Instead, I was only wasting time with you. The best you could come up with was, “It’s really slow.” That’s a time scale, not an explanation. I still need to find someone who knows what he’s talking about, so I can give your side a fair chance.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Ted says,
          “…Those are signs of someone reciting what he’s been told…”
          Yes I agree. There is absolutely nothing there but pronouncements that don’t really make sense. Those pronouncements are just repeated over and over again as if that is the point he has been told to defend.

          When asked for evidence from Marty you get asinine statements like “I have supported all my AGW claims with facts and data.” Anyone who has followed this blog for the last months Marty has been commenting knows that is an out right lie. Ally he can do is haul out Wiki, SkS or wave a hand in the general direction of the IPCC.

          However when I post peer-reviewed papers to back-up what I am saying I am told by Marty I am spamming – go figure.

          Given his continued presence, I can only assume that Marty is paid by the comment or is in some other way paid to support CAGW. He certainly shows no reason for us to think he actually knows anything much about the subject.

          All he has demonstrated is he has a list of talking points he regurgitates.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Ted, hey gator! Yeah, I think I am a bit guilty of perhaps giving more benefit of a doubt than I ought. Well, it is not the first time — and I suspect that try as I might, it won’t be the last. For example, back when I first started looking in to “global warming”, as it then was, it didn’t take long to see that parts of the theory seemed to be on shaky legs. Of course the first thing I thought was that I was missing something — but more reading made that less and less likely. I finally got to the “it isn’t me, they are making a mistake here!”, but as the various major figures in the field were called out on their errors by Watts, by Bishop Hill, by McIntyre, and Goddard, all I ever saw was that the so-called “climate experts” misrepresented their own previous statements and then added in strings of ad homs. It took a long time before I was willing to say that no, they were not just wrong, they were fraudsters. I have loved science since I was four years old. It is a crime what these scientists-in-name-only have done to the reputation of one of our most noble fields of human endeavour. Shame on them.

    • Steve Case says:

      Hi Martin

      I’ve collected as many old pages of GISSTEMPS monthly data that I can find on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine. So far I have 87 since 2005

      Here’s the link to today’s table data:

      Here’s the header and first entry for January 1880:


      GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius
      base period: 1951-1980

      sources: GHCN-v3 1880-11/2015 + SST: ERSST v4 1880-11/2015
      using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
      Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 – Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

      Year Jan
      1880 -29


      I looked at just the January 1880 entry to see how often an adustment had been made. Turns out to be at least 27 times these past ten years. So on average just the January 1880 entry has been changed about every 4.5 months. Does that make any sense to you?

      Below is a listing of the year and month for each new adjustment.
      As of August of 2005 it was -20 and in May of 2006 it was changed
      to -22 and so on.

      2005 08 -20 2012 01 -46 2014 06 -33
      2006 05 -22 2012 03 -42 2014 08 -34
      2006 07 -21 2012 05 -43 2014 09 -33
      2007 09 -23 2012 08 -47 2015 02 -34
      2007 10 -22 2012 10 -48 2015 03 -35
      2007 12 -23 2012 11 -46 2015 04 -34
      2008 06 -22 2012 12 -34 2015 06 -29
      2010 01 -41 2013 02 -33 2015 07 -30
      2011 11 -43 2013 08 -34 2015 11 -29

      Really, what the hell is going on?

      Here’s a graph showing a summation of all the changes that have been made since 2005

      It boggles the mind

      • Steve Case says:

        Let’s see if I can make the columns in that mess line up:

        YYYY             MM          TMP
        2005          08          -20
        2006          05          -22
        2006          07          -21
        2007          09          -23
        2007          10          -22
        2007          12          -23
        2008          06          -22
        2010          01          -41
        2011          11          -43
        2012          01          -46
        2012          03          -42
        2012          05          -43
        2012          08          -47
        2012          10          -48
        2012          11          -46
        2012          12          -34
        2013          02          -33
        2013          08          -34
        2014          06          -33
        2014          08          -34
        2014          09          -33
        2015          02          -34
        2015          03          -35
        2015          04          -34
        2015          06          -29
        2015          07          -30
        2015          11          -29

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Steve! Great information! How on earth can anyone familiar with scientific method look at these alterations and think that it is somehow acceptable? As you say, it boggles the mind.

        • Steve Case says:

          How on earth can anyone familiar with scientific method look at these alterations and think that it is somehow acceptable?

          Money, power and prestige probably play a role in that.

        • In Political and Creation Science we say: Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

        • skeohane says:

          It really does boggle one with a mind, perhaps that why Winston remains unscathed?

        • David A, says:

          Martin cannot, as nobody can explain all those adjustments. No peer reviewed study explains them. No peer review study explains all the adjustments since the 1980s. There are published explanations of both the UHI and TOB adjustments, and peer reviewed studies disputing their accuracy. However those adjustments make up only a small portion of the total adjustments.

          Increasing NH snow cover, GLOBAL sea ice, great lakes ice, declining troposphere T since the warmest year in earth’s satellite record 18 years ago, all mean nothing to alarmists.

          Yet decreasing global sea ice, snow cover, Great Lakes ice, and increasing satellite T, all meant CAGW.

          The singular possible cause of CAGW supportive observations is human emissions of CO2, and fifty possible excuses for observations going the other way.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “Really, what the hell is going on?”

        Steve, if I were trying to answer that question, I would ask the people at NASA who did the work. I’m wondering why you haven’t done that.

        “It boggles the mind”

        Maybe that’s it! Sit quietly for a few days, until the boggling stops. Then contact NASA/GISS, and tell him about what you are trying to do. Tell him you want to write a paper that explains in narrative form the complete sequence of adjustments to the GISSTEMP dataset. I for one would like to read that paper, but I don’t have the time to do the work myself. Steven Goddard certainly hasn’t done it, and how could he, what with all his blogs about fraud taking up all his free time.

        What do you say, Steve? Do you really want to know? Or are you just being a dick?

        • Ted says:

          No, he doesn’t need to write a paper explaining NASA’s adjustments. HE’S ASKING FOR NASA’S EXPLANATION. Can you point us to it? Specifically, we’d all like to take a look at the algorithms NASA uses for it’s adjustments. We’ve been searching for decades now, but none of us has been able to find them. It’s hard to argue a point, for or against, when we’re not allowed to know how that point was arrived at.

          You can claim all you want that it’s public knowledge, and peer reviewed. But unless you can show us where to find the math behind those adjustments, you’re just spewing bullshit. Put up or shut up.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, I didn’t mean to imply that Steve needs to write a paper. I simply suggested that if he is actually interested in understanding the process and discovering the truth, then the best way to get the knowledge he wants to acquire is to do the work to get it. That’s how you get NASA’S EXPLANATION.

          “Can you point us to it? ”

          Yes. Here is where it is:
          I hope you aren’t expecting to have it jump right out at you. There will be work involved. Sorry.

          “Specifically, we’d all like to take a look at the algorithms NASA uses for it’s adjustments. We’ve been searching for decades now, but none of us has been able to find them.”

          I’m sure you will have to ask for them.

          “You can claim all you want that it’s public knowledge, and peer reviewed. But unless you can show us where to find the math behind those adjustments, you’re just spewing bullshit. Put up or shut up.”

          Ted, I don’t work there, so I can’t show you what you want, but I’ll say this. I have done a lot of difficult algorithmic work in my time. I’m something of an expert. And if I had spent decades developing algorithms and processes, I wouldn’t release them to someone like Steve Case or Steven Goddard, and certainly not someone like you, unless I had some assurance that my work would be analyzed properly, by someone who can demonstrate that he/she has the scientific and engineering background to do the work required. You and Steve Case and Steven Goddard have demonstrated quite clearly that none of you has that knowledge and background, so I’ll be honest. I doubt whether you will get what you want.

          And I understand your FOIA right to that information, which is why I advised Steve to take action, but you really do have to follow protocol. And I’ll be honest, I don’t think you will get very far, because you present yourselves like complete assholes who don’t know your ass from 3rd base. For one thing, you will have to read quite lot of Fortran code, which you might not have seen before. And you will have to reverse engineer all that code into text form. I’m not confident any of you has the required skill set, so I wouldn’t want you grunting and sweating over my work.

          Do you see what I’m getting at? By now you all have made yourselves look like such complete jerks, why would anyone at NASA/GISS waste time talking to you? But, and this is important, they are professional scientists, so I expect they will try to help you.

          Give it a try, Ted. I would be there with you, but I have a full time job, in addition to writing a science fiction novel. I’m really excited about it. Good luck, Ted.

        • bleakhouses says:

          I seem to recall NOAA unwilling to respond to Congress. Why would anyone think they would respond here?

        • Martin Smith says:

          bleak, that was about private emails, not algorithms. I guess you didn’t know that.

        • gator69 says:

          bleak, that was about private emails…

          Yet another lie from Marty.

        • Neal S says:

          You call those private emails. Emails written on government computers should not ever be ‘private’. If they truly are ‘private’ then it is a misuse of government property and that too should be cause for some action.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Neal, the court will decide, if it hasn’t already. That’s how the system works.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin Smith says: “Neal, the court will decide, if it hasn’t already. That’s how the system works.”

          STRIKE ONE
          The Supreme Court decided a long time ago your right to privacy ends at your front door and maybe your front yard. A Farmer even if the field is surrounded by a fence and has a locked gate has NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Monsanto has used that to tresspass on farmer’s land collect samples and sue organic farmers for use of Monsanto’s UNWANTED DNA.

          STRIKE TWO
          Then you can go onto company computers.

          … employers have the right to monitor employees’ use of e-mail, the Internet, and company computers at work.

          Monitoring employees’ use of company computers, e-mail, and the Internet involve the same basic issues as come into play with general searches at work, telephone monitoring, and video surveillance. Those basic issues revolve around letting employees know that as far as work is concerned, they have no expectation of privacy in their use of company premises, facilities, or resources, and they are subject to monitoring at all times….

          STRIKE THREE
          The US government has strict regs on the use of GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, and therefore those e-mails have ZERO privacy protection.
          Departmental Ethics Office

          Use of Government Property
          5 C.F.R. §§2635.703, .704, and .705
          It is your responsibility as an employee to protect and conserve Government owned or leased property and vehicles and to use them only for authorized purposes.

          You may not use Government purchasing authority or a Government charge card for personal acquisitions, even if you reimburse the Government.

          When leaving Government service, you any not remove Government property or files and you may not use Government copiers to make copies of files to take with you.

          You are prohibited from using official Government envelopes (with or without applied postage) or official letterhead stationery for personal business. This includes mailing your resumes/applications for Federal or private positions. Violation of the prohibition against using franked (postage paid) envelopes may result in a fine (18 U.S.C. § 1719).

          You must use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties.

          You are prohibited from engaging in any financial transactions using “insider” or non-public information (information not available to the public), or allowing the improper use of non-public information to further your own private interest or that of another. [HANSEN VIOLATED THIS REG.]…


          It is important to note that any e-mail on any DOI e-mail system may become an official record. Employees have no right to privacy for e-mail transmissions; DOI is often required to release employee e-mails pursuant to Inspector General, court, or Congressional orders.

          Three strikes and you are out.

          NOAA is WILLFULLY ignoring the law and no amount of dancing can get around that point.

        • Ted says:


          “And if I had spent decades developing algorithms and processes, I wouldn’t release them to someone like Steve Case or Steven Goddard, and certainly not someone like you, unless I had some assurance that my work would be analyzed properly, by someone who can demonstrate that he/she has the scientific and engineering background to do the work required. You and Steve Case and Steven Goddard have demonstrated quite clearly that none of you has that knowledge and background, so I’ll be honest. I doubt whether you will get what you want.”

          In other words, you now admit that those algorithms have never been published, they’ve never been peer reviewed, and you don’t think they ever will be. Therefore, all their adjustments are fraudulent, until they prove otherwise. There’s the proof you asked for. No peer review = fraudulent. The measurements are God, until PROVEN wrong. The only thing now proven wrong is your repeated claims that the algorithms are available for review. You’re now claiming that no one has ever bothered to ask. Steven McIntyre would beg to differ. He’s spent DECADES trying to pry that information out of NASA. He’s even conclusively proven their code to be faulty, merely through analysis of the published data. They agreed with his analysis, and fixed that particular bug, but still refused him access to that very same code he’d just invalidated. I guess the biggest question is, why do YOU trust this secret code? What reason have you found to accept that peer review isn’t necessary, when dealing with possibly the most complex algorithms ever devised?

          Incidentally, no one needs to, “reverse engineer all that code into text form.” FORTRAN IS PLAIN TEXT, YOU LYING, F**ING IMBECILE. If you were such an expert in “difficult algorithmic work”, you’d know that. It can easily be read, as is. I can write it out longhand, and have done so many times. The code that runs the milling machine in front of me is a derivative of Fortran.

          How, exactly, can you do “difficult algorithmic work”, when you’re too stupid to even follow your own arguments?
          “Here is where it is:
          Then you follow it with several paragraphs of bullshit, trying to explain why it’s NOT there.

          “I’ll be honest, I don’t think you will get very far, because you present yourselves like complete assholes who don’t know your ass from 3rd base.”

          Is an asshole someone who tries, politely, to understand another person’s point of view, like Jason has? Or is it the man who turns someone like Jason against him, as he’s done to everyone else here? Is a person who can’t tell his ass from third base a man who can’t follow his own arguments, doesn’t read his own links, and provides nothing but blind assertion to support his claims? Or is it someone who posts page after page of peer reviewed research, most of it so far over your head that you call her an irrelevant spammer?

        • Steve Case says:

          What do you say, Steve? Do you really want to know? Or are you just being a dick?

          Tell you what, you don’t call me names, I won’t call you any either.

          From time to time I have emailed big names in climatology. Sometimes I get a reply, and sometimes not, but never an answer that describes the details of why they bumped up the metric I was asking about. I haven’t sent a query off to Gavin Schmidt and I’m not going to.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “In other words, you now admit…”

          No, Ted. I will thank you not to try to put words in my mouth. The meaning of my post is clear. Your deliberate misrepresentations of what I write will no doubt score points for you with your friends, but you understood what I wrote. Shall I assume you can’t deal with it then?

        • Martin Smith says:

          “I haven’t sent a query off to Gavin Schmidt and I’m not going to.”

          Steve, I take that to mean you really don’t want to risk knowing the truth. It confirms what I thought all along.

        • Ted says:


          Feel free to claim I’m misrepresenting you. I think everyone can read your statements, and decide for themselves what the words mean. The only facts that matter are that you can’t produce any evidence that the adjustment algorithms have ever been peer reviewed, or made public, and you wouldn’t allow public discussion of your methods, if you were in their position. That says a lot about both your character, and your concept of proper scientific principles.

          Why do you trust science that’s conducted in secret? If your bank adjusted your account balance down, but wouldn’t tell you why, would you just blindly accept it?

    • Menicholas says:

      Marty, you need to get out more.
      Read some stuff that is not self serving lies every now and then, and give the world a rest from your ignorance:

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Menicholas! Thanks so much for the heads up and links to the articles at WUWT. Dr. Brown’s comments (let me face Duke University and give a quick bow) are priceless. It is also great to see that some of Tony’s work is finally getting a bit more respect and an even wider distribution. I would urge anyone interested to check out both the links you posted.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Dr Brown is an example of what a scientist should be. His students are lucky.

        • Menicholas says:

          Happy to help in any way I can.
          I wish I had more time to comment and share information.
          One must really wonder how Marty has so much time on his hands…and on a weekday at that.
          Hard to imagine that people like Marty get paid to troll, but the possibility does exist. How else to explain someone who does nothing but obfuscate and throw out obvious and well planned lies, ad nauseum, over a period of months?

    • sunsettommy says:

      Not true Martin,he has posted many times with FULL links to the data and charts.

      Try using the search bar at the top of the page.

      • Menicholas says:

        Marty does not let common sense deter his lying face.
        From his comments, it would seem that one must explain every word in detail, every time one says anything.
        Of course, Marty himself throws out endless strings of misinformation, none of which is ever backed up.
        The man is comical.
        But evidently oblivious to how he comes off to even casual readers.
        As astutely pointed out above by Ted and others, he cannot even keep his lies straight within individual comments, let alone over an entire discussion thread.

        If Swiss cheese had as many holes as Marty’s logic, it would qualify as a non-dairy product.

  3. RAH says:

    “Evidence” of the tampering has been presented here and at other sites like WUWT time and again in DETAIL! Some people just won’t read it or can’t understand it. The same people generally will ask for the “evidence” that the Mann et al hockey stick was a manipulated fraud despite McIntyre taking it apart piece by piece in detail to prove it. The same people probably don’t know that NASA GISS has been caught red handed TWICE manipulating their temperature “data”.

    • Martin Smith says:

      RAH, even if your defense of Steven is correct, there is NO EVIDENCE in Steven’s blog post above. None. His claim is baseless because it is not supported by evidence. Claiming that evidence exists somewhere else is as silly as it sounds.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Note, despite all the evidence patiently presented by Steven and others, Never is ANY evidence provide to back up any of their claims except perhaps from the Nazi Cartoonist site SS or the Connelated WIKI.

      The ClimAstrologists know they have no leg to stand on and that is why they refuse to show their work and instead censor and attack other scientists. As scientists wake up to the scam more and more are abandoning the IPCC and its ‘consensus’ is rapidly shrinking.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Amazing how Marty continually defends adujstments

    (black diamond is stations used.)
    1975 far north ground stations with over 600 individual temperature series and more than 540 combined series with records of more than 20 years.

    Dropped to less than 30 locations reporting stations by 2009

    Getting rid of stations, especially rural norther stations allows wholesale data tempering.

  5. annieoakley says:

    Martin just proves that AGW/ Climate Change IS a religious belief.

    • Jason Calley says:

      At the very least a movement,
      but one that has its own version of the apocalypse, Thermagedon.

    • Gail Combs says:

      More like a political agenda hiding as science. This is The Cause of Climategate e-mail fame and Marty is a propagandist for The Cause. That is why he really knows nothing about climate. His focus is The Cause.

      Christiana Figueres, disciple of Al Gore, and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention explains what The Cause is.

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.

      We see the implementation of Soviet style Communist actions happening in Europe (and the USA) right now.

      One is the Soviet ‘forced migration’ strategy a ‘lets you and he fight’ strategy that massively disrupts the invaded territory and makes it very hard for them to resist. Pepper the community with strangers and there is nolonger cohesive power to resist the Elites power grab. In the EU andthe USA this same goal is reached via open immigration policy and the flooding of countries with immigrants who are not compatible with the local culture.

      Historically, with the expansion of the Russian Empire to include non-Russian regions, and the out-migration of Russians to this periphery, the empire became increasingly ethnically mixed and the share of all Russians living in the traditional core in central Russia declined. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution brought brief periods of independence for some of the non-Russian territories, but most were soon brought back into the newly created Soviet Union. It was during the 1920s and 1930s that most of what are now the 15 newly independent successor states to the Soviet Union were established. In this period, dictator Joseph Stalin was tightening his grip on Soviet society and economy, and the internal passport system was introduced, requiring people to obtain permission before migrating to different regions.

      This state-directed policy on internal migration encouraged the movement of ethnic Russians to the periphery of the Soviet Union. As a result, the percent of Russians in the 14 non-Russian states doubled from 9.6 percent in 1926 to 19.6 percent in 1970, before falling to 18.2 percent by the last Soviet census in 1989. The share of Russians living outside of Russia increased from just seven percent of all Russians in the USSR in 1926 to 17 percent in 1989.
      Migration Policy Institute

      The other strategy that goes hand in hand with forced migration/open migration is the ‘need’ to confiscate private property to deal with the influx. So say bye-bye to the concept of individual property rights.

      A discription of the Soviet style confiscation is in the book Natasha’s Dance: A Cultural History of Russia by Orlando Figes

      Nothing better illustrates the everyday reality of the Revolution than this transformation of domestic space. The provincial gentry were deprived of their estate, their manor houses burned or confiscated by the peasant communes or the local Soviet, and the rich forced to share their large appartments with the urban poor….

      This Soviet ‘war against palaces’ was a war on privilege and the cultural symbols of the Tsarist past. But it was also a part of a crusade to engineer a more collective way of life which lay at the heart of the cultural revolution in the Soviet Union. By forcing people to share communal flats, the Bolsheviks believe that they could make them communistic in their basic thinking and behavior.

      Now look at what is happening in Europe, the confiscation of private property including homes to house muslim migants. A listing of events in Europe HERE

      BBC NEWS The Hamburg region’s leftist government – a coalition of Greens, Social Democrats (SPD) and Die Linke – says the new law will be in force until March 2017.

      Confiscation will only take place if the property owner refuses to hand it over willingly

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Not only is there no reasonable explanation for the increasingly bizarre “adjustments” being done to the data, when one digs into the nitty gritty, if adjustments are to be made they are in the OPPOSITE direction needed!

    They lower the old readings because of TOBS (Time of Observation)

    “….Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960…” – Zeke Hausfeather

    However the ” Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting” 1918

    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 by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….

    …..The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter…

    …The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree….

    On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau. He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ ordinarily in the larger cities that take reading twice daily and a continuous reading too. There were also 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations that recorded other aspects of the weather.

    So that is one example where the correction applied by the Climastrologists is IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!

    Here is another.
    Hausfeather goes on to say:

    ….For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s….

    Yet notrickszone reports

    …German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

    Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!…

    So with just those two wrong way adjustments they change the data by more than 1 °C and that does not get into dropping rural stations and smearing the data from airports for 1200 kilometers. shown above.

    • RealOldOne2 says:

      The Urban Heat Island Effect is further evidence that the adjustments are in the opposite direction needed.
      In 2010 NASA found the the UHI effect in Providence, RI was 12.2°C or 22°F: .

      The “raw” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 for Providence, RI was 52.7°F.
      The “adjusted” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 was 48.4°F.
      So they “adjusted” the annual mean temperature 4.3°F.
      This “adjustment” is way beyond the magnitude of a TOBS adjustment, as it is equivalent to every single maximum and minimum temperature being measured wrong by over 4°F, each and every one of the 365 days during 1900.
      The “adjustment” is also OPPOSITE for a proper UHI adjustment, unless of course one is claiming the the UHI effect in 1900 was ~26°F, which is ludicrous.

      The adjustments corrupted the temperature trend for Providence too.
      The Tmean raw for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 1.7°F/century.
      The Tmean adjusted for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 4.4°F/century.
      So the “adjustments” nearlytripled the warming trend over the 20th century.
      The data source was:
      But don’t expect that you will get the same results, as the data changes constantly, pointing out the the “adjustment” process makes it nearly impossible to replicate science, as proper conclusions in Feb may be false conclusions now.

      Another improper “adjustment” is for station moves. Their “adjustment” amplifies the true warming trend, as Zhang(2014) shows with this graph:

      • ristvan says:

        ROO ( and I am fast becoming one) your point is trenchant. Discussed at length in essay When Data Isn’t in my newest ebook. With lots of archived examples. Even GC might like it.
        Plus, a fairly recent guest post at WUWT used the Surface Stations project to show how this arises, even if maybe unintentionally. fn 24 to the essay provides explicit methodological flaws like regional expectations and Menne stitching that your host Tony Heller aka S. Goddard has been generally exposing the skewed results of for years. Perhaps a bit technical, but the footnote is something you (all) should be aware of.

        • Gail Combs says:


          I am always open to new information as long as it is not propaganda. I have had my fill of propaganda.

        • Gail Combs says:


          is comming up as Nothing Found in both FireFox and Opera.

          (Bother are old.)

        • ristvan says:

          GC, is simple. I post blog comments under a handle that is also my universal internet address for these purposes. Supposedly easy to to find. And I usually respond when found. And do no propaganda, only deconstructions of peer reviewed lit, using their own SI or other peer review. You might really like essays like No Bodies, Shell Games, and A High Stick Foul in my latest ebook, Blowing Smoke.

          My Amazon/iBooks/Nook/Kobo plus ebooks author stuff actually uses my ‘real’ name. Rud Istvan, BA/JD/MBA (all Harvard). And now you can also find me on Linked In, and perhaps reissue your prior here very wrong opinion of who I am and what I stand for. Still some spam safeguards in place. Linked In probably hates me as thier worst senior exec user. Their problem, not mine.
          Want to get in direct touch, easiest is to go through Dr. Judith Curry. As I have not described the other filters/spam sceens being necessarily deployed. I will let Judith know through direct back channels that you are (avitars excepted) legit.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Dr Edward R. Long, Ph.D. in physics and a retired NASA scientist has provided more validation of data altering.

    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.

    I figure we should put this info out periodically for any new readers.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Marty of course doesn’t like all this evidence because he can not refute it. Therefore he dismisses it as SPAMMING.

      Don’t you wish our judicial system could do the same? Call any evidence brought up by the accused as SPAMMING and dismiss it out of hand? Sure would be easy to toss anyone you dislike into jail that way… OH WAIT….

      • David A says:

        Gail, how is any of that cogent to NASA GISS and the surface record??

        Once again you are spamming and using racist sites, damit!!

        (Steve C, can I borrow a sarcasm mark) Truly, within minutes Martin accused both Gail and I of racism and the above.

  8. Barbara says:

    I am really, really tired of Martin Smith, but he does elicit a lot of good and valid information from the honest informed readers here. Thanks to all of you. I learn so much.
    There seems to be no solution to the totally closed mind. Sadly, Martin is an obviously intelligent, literate person.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ —- Upton Sinclair

      We see a lot of that here recently.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Barbara, “Sadly, Martin is an obviously intelligent, literate person.”

      I agree with you. I even agree with the “sadly” you put in there. If Martin were not obviously intelligent and literate, I would think he was just misinformed or simply mistaken. Sadly, I can no longer give him the benefit of that doubt. I cannot see how someone can be both intelligent and literate and put out the absolutely-impervious-to-reason-or-evidence appearance that Martin has achieved. I do not think he could have reached his level of intelligence and composition without the ability to read and comprehend. I think he is being deliberate in what he posts. He is not just mistaken, he is lying. Having said that, the question remains, “why is he doing it?” I do not have any information on that.

      There is the slight possibility that Martin is mentally ill, and that his illness is the cause of what he posts, but that is (in my opinion) probably less likely than that he is doing this on purpose.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…probably less likely than that he is doing this on purpose.”

        And he is paid for it. Thought I would finish the thought.

        There is billions of Climate Con dollars floating around to pay, directly or indirectly for propagandists.

        I am not just saying this. From several years back when I was researching NAIS (Animal Id) I gathered this information.

        Congresswoman Rosa Delauro’s (D -RI) husband, Stanley Greenberg is a very dangerous man. Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” [Perhaps that IV is for spreading corporate/globalist propaganda?]

        “He was also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming……NGO board memberships:.. the Council on Foreign Relations…”

        Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform… He specializes in research on globalization, international trade, corporate consolidation, biotechnology and the Internet. .

        “…Greenberg has advised a broad range of political campaigns, including those of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, Senators Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and Jeff Bingaman;
        Greenberg works jointly on private sector projects with prominent Republican pollsters in the United States – including Fred Steeper (pollster to former President Bush), Bill McInturff and Linda DiVall – to bring a bi-partisan focus to public issues….”

        Greenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries including Bolivia. That fiasco was documented in the film “Our brand is Crisis” LINK

        Even the democratic Underground doesn’t like Greenberg Carville Shrum “Regarding Carville and dirty politics “×2710072#2710135

        “Whether you want to win your election, lead your country, increase your bottom line, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner can help you find the answer,” GQRR states on its website

        Bolivia fiasco.

        Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist and also formed Democracy Corps

        (Very old links that may not work.)

      • lectrikdog says:

        Jason, this begs the question: Is Martin a ‘liberal?’, and if so, then, Is liberalism a mental disorder? I ask tongue in cheek, because I do understand the classical definition of liberalism. But in the current pop definition, the question has merit. 😉 I do think that Marty is actually a convinced believer in AGCC, and cannot, or will not allow himself to understand the infinitesimally small effect of human activity on the atmosphere of Earth, how that is absolutely dwarfed by Solar action, Volcanism, Earth Magnetic-field fluctuations, Cosmic Ray flux, and perhaps some other things we have yet to discover and identify. Because he is convinced, it is we who are wrong, or use the wrong graphs. It is us who must provide proof of the obvious. The best thing to do with Martin is to basically ignore him, address and refute his claims re. climate, but just leave him personally out of it. He’s been hijacking too many posts here of late, and eliciting responses from some here that must make him giggle with glee. To him, it’s a game, that is why he often says, “Gotta go now, thanks for playing guys!” Sure, it’s on purpose, because he believes it.

      • David A says:

        My view is that reason has forsaken Marty, but he can still type.

    • Menicholas says:

      “Sadly, Martin is an obviously intelligent, literate person.”

      Thus proving that these two qualities are not enough to make a person “smart”.
      Being intelligent but stupid is like beautiful hair on an ugly girl…it just is not enough.

      Marty probably has very nice hair.

  9. Martin Smith says:

    It is amazing that you all spend so much time generating so much spam because of me. Why do you do it? Actually, why don’t you post your work somewhere where someone might see it who might be convinced by it? You certainly won’t convince anyone here. I’m following Steven’s example: “Just having fun.” I certainly don’t expect to change anyone’s mind here. You are no longer in anything like a growth phase. You are manipulated by Steven Goddard. He doesn’t even use his real name, but you all act as if you must defend him. He even tells you with every blog post, he’s “Just having fun” at your expense.

    • David A says:

      Martin, still trolling, more comments then any other individual, less substance, 8 plus continues hours of spamming, claims to have a job.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Martin Smith says “Martin Smith says:
      January 12, 2016 at 8:17 pm

      It is amazing that you all spend so much time generating so much spam because of me. Why do you do it?”


      Real simple Marty, we are not about to let you convince the fence sitters you have ANY reasonable points to make. And we certainly do not want this:

      So yes we will out last you.

      It is amazing that you all spend so much time generating so much spam because of me. Why do you do it?

  10. lectrikdog says:

    Anyone can see the fraudulence of adjusting temperatures from 1880 to 1979 in a downwards direction. And for what other purpose than enhancing the perception of the amount of warming 1880 to present? There’s no valid reason for altering 39 to 136 year-old temperatures. It smells of chicanery.

    And we all know who Tony Heller is.

    There are many more who visit these pages than the ones who do post comments.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And we don not all agree with him on everything either.

      That is the difference between us and the Socialists/Communists/Progressives. We do not think we have to march in lock step as they do.

  11. Billy Liar says:

    I’m beginning to pine for Reggie and his Blowtorch.

    At least Reggie eventually went away. I’m not hopeful that Martin Smith will.

  12. ristvan says:

    Martin Smith, you have to deal with the following factual CAGW problems. Please do, factually.
    1. The pause which now falsifies the CMIP5 models. Now, you will say wrong, Karlized. and I will say prove Karl is legit, when Rep. Smith says NOAA whistle blowers say otherwise.
    2. SLR is not accelerating when measured apples to apples, without GIA.
    3. CO2 rise is causing greening, not harm. Inherent in all C3 plants.
    And so on.
    You appear to have drunk the CAGW coolaid.

  13. Latitude says:

    I don’t think martin knows how many FOIA have been filed trying to get NASA algorithms and code…Horner comes to mind

    • Who cares what their code is? The fact that their adjustments *always* cool the past and warm the present proves that they are fraudulent.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The fact that NOAA refuses to RELEASE the code or their ‘scientific findings with ALL data’ proves they are not scientists. The fact they refuse to release the e-mails proves they are colluding to commit fraud since they are breaking the law by defying Congress.

        Contempt of Congress


        Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person’s conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

        Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who “willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment….

        As I already showed yesterday, the e-mails are NOT private and are subject to discovery by FOIA, the courts or by Congress as the Government Ethics Office plainly states.

        It is important to note that any e-mail on any DOI e-mail system may become an official record. Employees have no right to privacy for e-mail transmissions; DOI is often required to release employee e-mails pursuant to Inspector General, court, or Congressional orders.

        There is ZERO expectation of privacy when using other than personal computers because there is ALWAYS a SYS ADMIN. (Hubby was one for Lincoln Lab and other places.)

        NOAA staff can not claim ignorance:

        “Ethics Training Program

        The Division operates the Department’s ethics training program. Through this program, the Division provides briefings to individual employees and groups of employees on ethics statutes, regulations, and policies.”


        The conduct of executive branch employees is governed by criminal and civil statutes (and by an administrative code of conduct and certain other legal authorities). The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) does not have authority to provide guidance concerning every statute that restricts employee conduct. This website is focused on statutes that are both central to the executive branch ethics program and that fall within OGE’s purview, but it may reference 18 U.S.C. § 201 or another statute that is relevant…

        Use of Government Position & Resources

        An executive branch employee’s position, title, or authority may offer the opportunity to further the employee’s own private interests or the interests of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. An employee may have access to nonpublic Government information that could benefit those interests, and will have access to Government property. The public may lose confidence in the integrity of Government if it perceives that an employee is using public office to serve a private interest, and it expects that Government information, property, and time (including the time of a subordinate) will be used to serve the public’s interests. Accordingly:
        * An employee is required to act impartially.

        * An employee may not make improper use of Government position, title, or authority.

        *An employee may not use Government property, nonpublic information, or time (including the time of a subordinate) for other than authorized purposes.

        Endorsing Organizations, Products, or Persons

        Executive branch employees may not use their Government positions to suggest that the agency or any part of the executive branch endorses organizations (including nonprofit organizations), products or people. [This is what Hansen did]

        Use of Government Equipment or Property

        Executive branch employees have a duty to protect and conserve Government property and may not use Government property, or allow its use, for any purpose other than the one that is authorized.

        Executive branch employees have a duty to protect and conserve Government property and may not use Government property, or allow its use, for any purpose other than the one that is authorized.
        Government Property

        The term “Government property” includes real or personal property that the Government owns or leases such as:
        telecommunications equipment
        office supplies
        Government mail systems

        NOAA has no legal rights of privacy and the fact it defies Congress just goes to show how completely corrupt the US government has become. Who ever wrote The public may lose confidence in the integrity of Government if it perceives that an employee is using public office to serve a private interest, and it expects that Government information, property, and time (including the time of a subordinate) will be used to serve the public’s interests. understood how fragile the trust in government really is.

        I lost that trust decades ago and so are more and more people. The US government knows this and that is why they passed the Anti-Occupy law and want to grab our guns. They are acting more and more like a hated Aristocracy and less and less like representatives of American citizens.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “The fact that NOAA refuses to RELEASE the code or their ‘scientific findings with ALL data’ proves they are not scientists. ”

          That’s false yet again, Gail. NOAA doesn’t refuse that. NOAA refuses to release private emails.

        • gator69 says:

          NOAA refuses to release private emails.

          Marty lies again! 😆

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, Marty does not make any sense in that last statement. Let’s take it apart so the brain dead have a chance to understand.

          “That’s false yet again, Gail. NOAA doesn’t refuse that. NOAA refuses to release private emails.”

          First what is NOAA? NOAA is a department of the US government. It is not a PRIVATE entity.

          Second WHAT is Congress actually asking for? Private e-mails, that is e-mails written on a personal computer or non-private e-mails, that is e-mails written on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY during working hours?

          Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.

          NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

          Smith also said NOAA’s assertion of confidentiality is incorrect.

          “The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents,” he said, adding that his panel would use “all tools at its disposal” to continue investigating.

          So that establishes the fact these are NOT PRIVATE E-MAILS and the use of that word is a twisting of the language. At best they are internal communications or communications to others from inside a GOVERNMENT OFFICE.

          Next does the US government have ethics rules on the use of GOVERNMENT PROPERTY including COMPUTERS? – Yes I just copied and pasted them from the government ethics website.

          Are employees warned that the PRIVATE use of GOVERNMENT property (outside of strict guidelines) is FORBIDDEN – Yes I included pointers.

          Are employees SPECIFICALLY WARNED e-mails are NOT PRIVATE and are subject to subpoena? YES! here it is again:

          It is important to note that any e-mail on any DOI e-mail system may become an official record. Employees have no right to privacy for e-mail transmissions; DOI is often required to release employee e-mails pursuant to Inspector General, court, or Congressional orders.

          So as usual Marty is twisting the truth to suit his warped world view.

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, Marty is not “twisiting the truth”, he is lying. It is what he does. Marty sees leftists he admires getting away with lying all the time, so he thinks it is an acceptable way to go through life. For them the ends always justifies the means.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Also NOAA also HAS NOT RELEASED ” the ‘rationale, methodology and discussions’ relating to temperature adjustments carried out by NOAA.”

          Kent Clizbe, formerly of the CIA, has been trying to get a hold of those NOAA documents via a FOIA request for a year. Back in March NOAA informed Clizbe it needs money to comply with the request:

          NOAA has an annual budget request that exceeded $5.5 billion dollars in 2015 yet they want a US citizen to cough up another quarter million for information WE THE PEOPLE already paid for.

          The rejection letter says almost anything would be be too much. NOAA proudly states it has been a steward of temperature data ‘for decades’ and it has accumulated so much information it would be impossible to find records pertaining to temperature adjustments among them… (So much for Marty’s it is ALL documented and available.)

          If ‘stewardship’ means collecting data and throwing it randomly in the backroom, then yeah, decades of data and adjustments would be difficult to dig through. In case you had doubts ‘thrown-in-the-backroom’ is not how national agencies archive temperature. It is all computerized. It is not like this:

          From top to bottom, these are climate data archives at Mozambique, El Salvador, Paraguay and Saudi Arabia respectively. It smacks of hypocrisy for NOAA which is undoubtedly the largest and best-funded climate organization in the world to be asking for money to produce records. In effect, NOAA’s letter claims their records are the electronic equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s paper records.

          The problem is worse: a clear trail of why each adjustment was adopted, the supporting evidence and relevant authorities’ signing off on them, has to be on file. This is reproducible data science 101. It is inconceivable an organization like NOAA would have functioned in an ad-hoc manner w.r.t one of their public products – the global average temperature record. Procedures must be in place.
          The only conclusion is Clizbe’s request has been unfairly turned down.

          And yeah Dude I have been in contact with Kent Clizbe as we were deciding on whether to crowd fund the money. However CORRUPT agencies are notorious for dribbling out a bit of useless information and then EXTORTING more and more money while never actually complying with the request.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “The fact that their adjustments *always* cool the past and warm the present proves that they are fraudulent.”

        Nope. Your claim is false, Morgan. Proof by counterexample. See item 4:

        I don’t think you lied, Morgan. I think you are simply ignorant on this subject, because you haven’t taken the time to look at the science. I think you swallow everything Steven posts here without ever doing any fact checking. You certainly were ignorant in this case. Or did you lie? Please don’t say you lied.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Steve Goddard plotted CO2 vs adjustmentsto USHCN and came out with an R = 0.987
          R = 1.0 is a perfect correlation. So we now know the true reason for adjustments.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Don’t try to change the subject, Gail. Your comment is irrelevant. Morgan’s claim is false:

          “The fact that their adjustments *always* cool the past and warm the present proves that they are fraudulent.”

          The claim is false. Proof by counterexample. See item 4:

          I don’t think Morgan lied. I think he is simply ignorant on this subject, because he hasn’t taken the time to look at the science. I think he and you swallow everything Steven posts here without ever doing any fact checking. He certainly was ignorant in this case, and you swallowed the same hook, line, and sinker.

        • Gail Combs says:

          OH WOW!

          Now Marty says the EVIDENCE is not relevant to the discussion!

          Don’t you love the workings of the irrational socialist brain?

          And just think these IRRATIONAL low information types who can not think their way out of a paper bag actually want us to believe THEY should be our rulers?!?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Check the SkS link and look at Figure 4a. The new “corrections” (compared to the old adjustments) warm the most recent three decades and cool the two decades before that. (I hesitate to call them “corrections” because the entire issue at hand is whether the changes made do, in fact, correct real errors. Oh, they have been altered, but are the alterations actually corrections?) Before about 1930 chart 4a shows very little discernible difference between Karl’s corrections and the previous corrections. The changes in adjustments are slight, but the result is to cover over the recent 19 year measured HALT in warming and create a small, artificial upward trend. This small artificial trend is enough to give the warmists a headline claiming that “the pause never existed”, in spite of the fact that ALL of the new and imaginary warming trend is a result of changing the data.

          Chart 4b is problematic. It claims to show new “corrections” vs no corrections. What exactly does that mean? New adjustments vs raw data? New adjustments vs homogenized data? New adjustments vs previous charts? Without more information I would not want to comment on what it means.

        • Steve Case says:


          Download the GISS data for yourself. Most of the links on the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine are blocked, but not all. You can find old pages of data back to 2005. Do a side by side month by month comparison and plot out the differences. I posted my results from that exercise earlier on this thread.

          It is of course true that not all the earlier adjustments were downward. But since the early ’80s all the adjustments were upward. It really does boggle the mind that it turns out that way, but it does.

        • Tom Moran says:

          What challenges with the data from 2001 were not discovered and corrected until 15 years later in 2016? Since the total temperature anomaly is widely accepted as an increase of only 1°C since the year 1880, is it possible that more adjustments could be made to pre-2001 data and what methodology would you deem acceptable to science for making those changes? Were there adjustments to 1880’s data made in 1895 and why or why not?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Check the SkS link and look at Figure 4a. The new “corrections” (compared to the old adjustments) warm the most recent three decades and cool the two decades before that.”

          No, Jason, it shows that there is almost no difference.

          “Chart 4b is problematic. It claims to show new “corrections” vs no corrections. What exactly does that mean?”

          It shows that the corrections warm the past; they don’t cool the past, which proves that Morgan is wrong.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “t really does boggle the mind that it turns out that way, but it does.”

          No, Steve, it doesn’t boggle “the” mind; it boggles your mind. The reason it boggles your mind, is because you sit here on your ass complaining about it instead of doing the research required to learn the truth. That’s what ignorant means.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “What challenges with the data from 2001 were not discovered and corrected until 15 years later in 2016?”

          I don’t know, Tom. I don’t work with the data, so I haven’t kept up with all the research that has been done. But yours is an interesting question. Will you pursue it at the source, where you can find the answer? Or will you stand on here on the sideline pissing and moaning like all the others?

        • Steve Case says:

          Martin says, ” I don’t work with the data, so I haven’t kept up with all the research that has been done. But yours is an interesting question. Will you pursue it at the source, where you can find the answer? “

          What Martin is doing is an appeal to authority. The source is his bible and he is thumping it for all he’s worth. He doesn’t work with or keep up with its contents which is to say he really doesn’t know what’s in it, but he knows it is the answer. Just like the sheep in “Animal Farm” he never seems to catch on to what is going on. His researchers, the pigs, re-write the history and he swallows it hook line and sinker. It must be true for his bible tells him so … Thump thump thump thump.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “What Martin is doing is an appeal to authority.”

          Steve, that’s not what “Appeal to Authority” means. Tom asked: “What challenges with the data from 2001 were not discovered and corrected until 15 years later in 2016?” To answer Tom’s question requires asking the people who made the changes in 2016. That’s the only way you can answer the question.

          This is “Appeal to Authority: “Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.”

          Do you see the difference?

  14. gator69 says:

    Oh noes! A “climate scientist” committing fraud…

    A CLIMATE scientist who did research on the Great Barrier Reef for the Federal Government is accused of ripping off taxpayers to the tune of $556,508 by claiming bogus expenses related to his research – for seven years.

    Authorities have frozen the superannuation and long-service leave of former career public servant Daniel Alongi pending a trial.

    Police allege Alongi, from Townsville, created an elaborate ruse to claim bogus expenses while working for the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

    Alongi, who was well regarded in the science industry, allegedly pretended he was paying for “radioisotopes” imported from the US and to have samples analysed in US laboratories for his Great Barrier Reef research.

    He told his boss he could “get a discount” on isotopes because he was a US citizen, and he claimed he was measuring carbon levels in “sediment core samples” taken from the Reef.

    He has admitted to police that he made false invoices, credit card statements and created fake email trails to claim expenses over seven years, court documents state.

    • Gail Combs says:

      One down and a thousand to go….

      • gator69 says:

        Actually Gail, it is a rather small cabal of corrupt scientists that are perpetuating this scam. I would be surprised if you could find more than a few hundred. As Donna Laframboise points out in her book, all of this has been orchestrated by a small group of zealots.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And another Climate scientist under the gun. Turnabout is fair play.

      Jan 11, 2016
      …a research institute, and Cause of Action (CoA), a government watchdog organization, have filed a complaint with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that requests the agency investigate Jagadish Shukla, a climate researcher at George Mason University, and revoke the tax-exempt status of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Inc. (IGES), an organization Shukla founded.

      Seems those living in glasshouses (on the take) should not cast stones because the stones just might boomerang and hit you instead of your intended target.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Gator, I think you will love this comment.

      Some related links




      and WORSE

      But the EPA can always SPIN!

        • wizzum says:

          Marty, if you doubled the size of the solar industry it would not equal the layoffs this year in oil and gas.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I use solar panels on my farm. They are great for NICHE use like electric fence a half mile from the nearest building. I think they are an absolutely wonderful idea for traffic lights because they do not take the police from more important duties during blackouts.

          I even looked into a windmill/pumped storage system or solar for my farm as well as geothermal for heating.

          Unfortunately the ROI was bad for all of them despite the great location I have. (We are on top of a very windy ridge with pasture not trees and have never seen a mosquito in over twenty years.) So instead we are putting on a new roof (old roof was black), they are finishing the gutters this minute…

        • J_A_SS says:

          Does that include the recent job losses in the solar industry in Nevada? Amazing how solar doesn’t compete very well when it’s subsidies and incentives disappear.

        • Martin Smith says:

          wizz, as it turns out, we ARE doubling the size of the solar industry, so tell all those oil and gas layoffs to come on down!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin is under the mistaken impression that solar farms actually can add much energy to the grid.

          Okay then, this is just so totally and utterly unbelievable that I have to very carefully explain the maths behind it. I can’t just say it up front and because it sounds so unbelievable people will quite naturally think it must be wrong. It just MUST be wrong.

          There are now 1.5 million rooftop installations in Australia. The average for all of them is 2.2KW, and that is virtually the same on a Worldwide basis. 2.2KW is the average system.

          Because of the nature of solar PV, they only generate power while the Sun is shining on them, and even that is variable, as shown in this diagram from a large array, but indicative of absolute best case for a Mid Summer day which is cloud free, sort of looking like a half sine wave during daylight hours, so the only time it is even close to maximum generation is for a couple of hours at Peak Sun. Keep in mind that this is for a large array totalling at 1300KW at that time, so even then, it never reaches the total Nameplate anyway.

          This is expressed as the Capacity Factor, (CF) and for Australia, the average year round CF for rooftop solar power is around 12.5% for here in Australia, more in the North, less in the South, and most certainly less in the U.K.

          They have an absolute best case life span of 25 years, and after ten years, generation steadily decreases, so that CF falls away, and in most cases, it starts to fall away after five years let alone ten to fifteen.

          Okay then, and note here I’m using the best case life span of 25 years, and the best case CF of 12.5% for ALL of those 25 years.

          So then, the total power generated by the average rooftop system of 2.2KW over the full 25 years at best case CF is as follows.

          0.0022 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.125 X 25 = 60.266MWH (MegaWattHours)

          (where 0.0022 is Nameplate, here 2.2KW or 0.0022MW, 24 hours in a day, 365.25 days in a year, leap year as the extra .25. 0.125 is 12.5% CF, and 25 years, with the answer expressed in MWH)


          Have you got that. That’s over the full 25 year life span of the average 2.2KW rooftop system.

          SIXTY MegaWattHours – six zero.

          Sunk in yet.

          Bayswater has a Nameplate of 2640MW, so if that plant ran all four units, (typical) for one hour then it generates 2640MWH.

          Bayswater will generate 60.266MWH in ….. one minute and 22 seconds.

          So, the average rooftop system will generate for 25 years the same power as Bayswater delivers in 82 SECONDS.

          So, effectively, that average rooftop system on ONE home has save 82 seconds worth of CO2 emitted from Bayswater.

          Don’t you just love it when the reality of Mathematics reduces the seemingly sublime to the absolutely ridiculous.

          82 bl00dy seconds. 25 years worth of power generation.

          TOny and others have look at the maths and Solar and wind are pitiful!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Tony’s number crunching on wind.

          Very good on wind EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested — the real measure that wind fails.)


          This is TonyfromOz using numbers from the USA. NO WONDER they don’t want the economist Bjørn Lomborg at a uni in Australia! Any economist who wanted to live in a civilized country would be horrified at the numbers… If they bothered to look.
          “I went to the actual article about this new Obama plan, because I was intrigued that it mentions that it would only cost around $8.4 Billion.

          Let’s actually pretend for a minute that the cost of renewable power will come down, and this is totally contrary to what is actually happening as each new wind plant sees a rise in costs, but for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend they can construct these wind plants for around half of what they are currently costing.

          So then, $8.4 Billion would see, under this cheaper costing, eight new huge scale wind plants.

          That’s 8 plants of 200 towers, each topped by a 3MW generator nacelle, so, a 600MW wind plant, and eight of them in all.

          Sounds reasonable.

          So, that gives us a Nameplate of 8 X 600MW, so 4800MW Nameplate.

          Total yearly power generated is:

          4800 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.3 giving us a yearly power delivery of 12,623GWH

          Now keep in mind that this will be the ultimate cost to replace 32% of the coal fired power fleet.

          So, the current delivery from that coal fired power fleet is 1,585,697GWH.

          Then, 32% of that is 476,000GWH, and that’s the power he’s cutting, with this 32% reduction in the coal fired fleet.

          So, we are replacing 476,000GWH of existing power delivery with 12,623GWH of new power delivery.

          What the!

          That’s getting rid of a whole lot, and replacing it with what is only 2.65% of what they have gotten rid of.

          That’ll work!

          Incidentally, that cutback of 476,000GWH is 12% of the total generation for U.S. power.

          Somebody, somewhere, is Maths challenged.

          $8.4 Billion.

          Just who are they trying to kid?”

          Unfortunately the scammers are still trying to dress these slugs up in fancy cloths and sell them to the brain dead as viable energy sources for a civilization.

        • Ted says:

          And you still have to factor in the amount of energy it takes to produce a solar cell. The numbers I’ve found suggest the break even point is around 2-4 years after installation, in typical conditions.

          After that, there’s the basic fact that solar power doesn’t work at night. To get power when the sun isn’t shining, you need to store it in a battery. Losses there are usually in the 20-30% range. Then the battery needs to be made, as well. That takes still more energy. And even we climate heretics can agree that battery manufacturing is an environmentally devastating process. Plus, batteries don’t last 30 years. Even assuming the solar cells last that long, (in real life, they don’t) you’ll need to replace those batteries at least 3 times. 6-10 times would be more likely. And the longer you go between replacing batteries, the more power you lose to charging and discharging.

          Taken as a whole, it’s debatable whether a photovoltaic system is even a net generator of power. For AT LEAST the first 5 years or so, the answer is plainly no. And even if it is positive, the environmental damage from just the battery manufacturing is probably far, far worse than that which would have been caused by burning oil to produce the same amount of net power.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Ted thanks for the additional information.

          I do not think that wind and even solar have a positive EROEI. Especially when you include instillation and maintenance and that doesn’t get into the grid stability problem.

          You can not operate a mine without consistent power. That was the drive behind the invention and refinement of the steam engine.

          If you want to go low emitting CO2 nuclear is the only viable choice.

          Even someone like Hansen sees that.

          The Groniad Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

          James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley, All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies…

          We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.

          Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion…

          Science Fiction UnAmerican

          For once I agree although for another reason. Hydrocarbons should be saved for use as chemical precursors for all the stuff like medicines and plastics and such.

          Unlike so many of the hypocritical Greenies I am willing to back-up my convictions. I can see a nuclear plant out my window.

  15. Little Marty likes to throw in a few red herrings, like pretending that the latest adjustments don’t cool the past/warm the present.

    That will no doubt explain why Karl’s paper says

    Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

    Hey presto, the pause is disappeared, by adjusting historical data.

    He also ludicrously suggests that we should go and ask Karl to justify his adjustments. In fact he has already been challenged by others, and his attitude is just to ignore them.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Paul, I’m not little, and I am in quite good shape for my age, probably in much better shape than you. This is not a red herring. It is an explanation of the most recent NOAA data adjustment, in which the past temps were increased, contrary to the oft-repeated claim by many here (including you, apparently) that past temps are always cooled. The claim is false, but you and the others believe it is true because you never actually look at what you are talking about. Here is the explanation again:

      As for the apparent decrease in the upward trend since 1998, much science has been done on the subject. But we don’t need to appeal to any of that research, because all we have to do is look at the graph. Let’s use the UAH satellite data:

      Note that the ONLY reason you can even talk about a decrease in the the upward trend is because you picked the start year to be 1998. Pick 1979 instead. Or 1980. Or 2000. See how it depends on which year you start? That’s why you picked 1998.

        • Neal S says:

          Didn’t even NASA admit that 2015 was NOT the hottest year ever, but at best was only second hottest? Apparently Berkeley did not get the memo and they need to better coordinate their lies with others. But in any case I am not impressed. There is no reason to believe that this is not as tainted as other surface temperature records. So if things have been so hot for so long, why haven’t there been more northwest passage transits recently than much longer ago when things were supposedly so much cooler.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “Best claim that UHI plays no role. But remember results for all 11 countries analysed; First BEST first avoids the cold trended stations (by deselecting or warm-adjusting [non-ocean influenced] stations) and THEN they compare the remaining warm trended OAA [Ocean air affected] stations with city stations. It is on this basis that BEST concludes that UHI is not an issue in climate data.

          BEST prefer unadjusted data?
          BEST also claim that they prefer unadjusted data over adjusted. So why did they not require the large bulk of unadjusted longer datasets from national meteorological institutes and year books like I did?But the BEST project did not contact the National MI´s to get the bulk of existing datasets.

          The BEST project instead collected data from databases that to a large extend hold the same few longer temperature datasets, the same old “darlings” already used. — Frank Lansner January 6, 2014
          Frank uses the actual raw data from the original lab books. BEST does not bother to go to the trouble.

        • Neal S says:

          And just comparing this Berkeley chart to the UAH one Martin Smith posted above is interesting. The UAH shows that 1998 was warmer than 2015, and not by just a little, but by a lot. Yet the above Berkeley chart shows 1998 to be much cooler than 2015. I think Martin just disproved the validity of the Berkeley chart. I never thought I would say this but “thanks Martin, for posting a UAH chart”.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Neal S,

          We already knew that Zeke Horsefeathers was a propagandist. link And Mueller lied about being ‘a skeptic who changed his mind’ when he went out with BEST BEFORE peer-review.

          It amazes me that after Zeke and the Mosh pup cut Anthony’s throat he STILL allows them to post at his website. Judith, Trojan Horse Curry I can understand.

      • Jason Calley says:

        But Gail! Look! They warmed up the past in May of 2012! Well, sure, they didn’t actually warm it up — but they cooled it down a little bit less than in the earlier “correction”. Isn’t cooling it less, just the same as warming it more?! Of course they DID do a turn about less than a year later and cooled it even more than it was originally, back before May of 2012. Nonetheless, for about nine months it was cooled less than before, so therefore they warmed the past. QED!


    • David A says:

      Marty, he was referring to your ability to be rational, your intellect.

  16. Latitude says:

    either martin only reads one wedsite…
    …or he’s shilling

  17. D W says:

    After Obama’s Sputnik remark last night, does anyone else find it ironic that shortly after Sputnik, the world was being warned of a coming ice age?

  18. Robertv says:

    Winter deaths rose by 151% last year, with an estimated 43,900 excess deaths in England and Wales between December 2014 and March 2015, official figures showed.

    A less-than-effective flu jab and cold weather were said to be major factors.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Since cold/fuel poverty rarely kills outright, winter deaths can often be attributed to something else.

      There is another bit of sleight of hand. They compare the the average for the last five years to the current year in the data I looked at. This means as deaths due to fuel poverty rise over 25 years the actual rise can be hidden by not comparing this year to the years before the CAGW scare caused cheap coal plants to shut down. (Delabole Wind Farm in North Cornwall was the first commercial wind farm in the UK, completed and commissioned in 1991. )

  19. Henry P says:

    guys, guys
    there is no global warming, anymore, either natural or man made….
    It is now naturally cooling.

    if you do your sampling right
    according to the correct procedure
    and – to eliminate errors between recordings at stations – if you rather look at the derivative of direct temperature measurements, namely looking at the speed of warming / cooling in K/year versus time (i.e. acceleration / deceleration ) you get a beautiful curve, just when you look at the speed of a thrown ball in m/s versus time in s.
    The science behind this is really first year maths/stats.
    Here are my results of the change in minimum temperatures measured at 54 weather stations

    this outcome came from a summary of
    54 (stations) x 365 (days) x 40 years =788400 recordings of the minimum temperature around the world.

    If there was any man made warming at all, [which should affect minimum temps.]
    there should be chaos (i.e. less than 100% correlation). There is none .

    For the long term: it will only get cooler. But it is not by that much. The current drop is about -0.01K per annum on minimum temperatures, ON AVERAGE. [there are variations from year to year, like when there is el-nino or -nina, etc]

    If you look carefully at it, this is also exactly what RSS is currently showing. My take on that is that only RSS comes closely to being a more balanced data set, like mine.

  20. Henry P says:

    ok, looking at this graph we are only down by -0.03K since 1998

    1) this is looking at average temps. i.e. means, not minima
    2) this is not looking at what is happening on base weather stations on the ground
    3) 2015 was a bit warmer than normal [according to RSS]

    The trend of RSS is still down, and it will go down more so in the years to come.

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