background preloader

Temperature Adjustments and Homogenization

Facebook Twitter

Also see the Urban Effects group for resources related to how urban warming is contaminating unaffected sites through homogenization.

Australia - Temperature Data Adjustments

Arctic - Temperature Data Adjustments. Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record. I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where Paul Homewood has been looking at the manual adjustments to raw temperature data and finding that the adjustments actually reverse the trends from cooling to warming.

Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record

Here is an example of the comparisons he did: Raw, before adjustments; After manual adjustments I actually wrote about this topic a few months back, and rather than rewrite the post I will excerpt it below: I believe that there is both wheat and chaff in this claim [that manual temperature adjustments are exaggerating past warming], and I would like to try to separate the two as best I can. At some level it is surprising that this is suddenly news. However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases. On the Integrity of the NASA/NOAA Temperature Record, Olympia Washington February 7 2017 3. GISS Swiss Cheese. By Steve Goddard We are all familiar with the GISS graph below, showing how the world has warmed since 1880.

GISS Swiss Cheese

The GISS map below shows the geographic details of how they believe the planet has warmed. It uses 1200 km smoothing, a technique which allows them to generate data where they have none – based on the idea that temperatures don’t vary much over 1200 km. It seems “reasonable enough” to use the Monaco weather forecast to make picnic plans in Birmingham, England. Similarly we could assume that the weather and climate in Portland, Oregon can be inferred from that of Death Valley. GISS 1200 km The map below uses 250 km smoothing, which allows us to see a little better where they actually have trend data from 1880-2009. GISS 250 km. The Changing Climate of Global Warming. More Data Manipulation By NOAA, NASA, HadCRUT…Cooling The Past, Warming the Present. Thousands Of Non-Urban Thermometers Removed 0.3°C Of Pause-Busting Warmth Added Since 1998 0.5°C Of Warming Removed From 1880-1950 Trend Over the course of the last few decades, overseers of the 3 main 19th century-to-present global temperature data sets — NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT — have been successfully transforming the temperature record to the shape dictated by climate models.

More Data Manipulation By NOAA, NASA, HadCRUT…Cooling The Past, Warming the Present

Namely, there has been a concerted effort to cool down the past — especially the 1920s to 1940s warm period — and to warm up the more recent decades, especially after about 1950. In this way, a trend of steep linear warming emerges that looks similar to the linear shape of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the 20th and 21st centuries. Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments.


Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments

Roy Spencer proves what we have been saying for years, the USHCN (U.S. Historical Climatology Network) is a mess compounded by a bigger mess of adjustments. USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends Guest post by Dr. Roy Spencer PhD. Instability of GHCN adjustment algorithm. Yesterday there was an article in the Mail by David Rose, regarding manipulation and adjustment of temperature data.

Instability of GHCN adjustment algorithm

This issue comes up fairly regularly, but what’s new is that the source of the information this time is a “whistleblower”, John Bates, a highly regarded climate scientist who actually worked at NOAA until retiring last year. Bates has a substantial and technical article at Climate etc. The purpose of this post is to confirm one detail of Bates’s complaint. The Mail article says that “The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.” and later on in the article, “Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs.

They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.” Climate scientists versus climate data. By John Bates A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

Climate scientists versus climate data

I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data. By Judith Curry Not surprisingly, John Bates’ blog post and David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday have been receiving some substantial attention.

Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data

Most journalists and people outside of the community of establishment climate scientists ‘get it’ that this is about the process of establishing credibility for climate data sets and how NOAA NCDC/NCEI have failed to follow NOAA’s own policies and guidelines, not to mention the guidelines established by Science for publications. Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”!

UPDATE: “Being retired sure is liberating.” – John Bates.

Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”!

Read: ===================================According to a just published article by the Online Mail of the UK here, a “high-level whistleblower” has disclosed that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” and “duped” world leaders with manipulated global warming data. The result of the manipulated data was to exaggerate the computed global warming. The aim was to make “the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015,” the Sunday Online Mail writes.

Even more on the David Rose bombshell article: How NOAA Software Spins the AGW Game. Guest essay by Rud Istvan The disclosures by Dr.

Even more on the David Rose bombshell article: How NOAA Software Spins the AGW Game

Bates concerning Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ NOAA NCEI paper have created quite the climate kerfuffle, with Rep. Smith even renewing his NOAA email subpoena demands. Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records. WASHINGTON – U.S.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.

“Now that Dr. Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): “I applaud Dr. Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “I commend Dr. An oddity in the Karl et al. 2015 buoy data adjustments. Frank Lansner writes via email: I just want to make sure that people are aware of this little maybe-oddity regarding argumentation for ERSSTv4 data changes due to the shift from ship measurements to buoys. We are all focusing on the data changes ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4 after year 2003 as these affect the pause.

And so the argument goes, that it’s the shift to buoys that makes warm-changes necessary in ERSSTv4. But if so, what about the period 1986 to 2003 ? In this period we have an increase from around 8% to 50% use of buoys. So why is it not necessary to warm adjust 1986-2003, just like 2003 – 2016 ? I’m aware that this may have been addressed many times, but I just have not noticed. All Temperature Adjustments Monotonically Increase. Nothing about climate science reeks more of confirmation bias, than the changes scientists make to their own data sets over time. They all show exactly the same pattern of monotonically cooling the past and warming the present, regardless of the instrumentation. 2001 version : FigA.txt 2016 version : Fig.A.txt 2016 version : RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt 2011 version : global.dat RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt.

Why Automatic Temperature Adjustments Don’t Work. The automatic adjustment procedure is almost guaranteed to produce spurious, artificial warming, and here’s why. Guest essay by Bob Dedekind Auckland, NZ, June 2014. Revealed: IPCC Adds 0.3°C Of Phantom Warming Between 3rd, 5th Reports … Met Office Removes 0.3°C From 1880s-1940s Warming. In the IPCC’s 2001 third report (TAR), the total surface temperature increase for the 20th century was reported to be “about 0.6°C”.

“The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.” This Met Office graph of global temperatures for 1860-2000 was included in the IPCC’s 2001 report. It provided visual clarification of the 0.6°C temperature increase since 1900. In taking a closer look, the graph does indeed show a warming of 0.6°C between 1900 and 2000: Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data. Who’s desperate to find the missing hot-spot? Sherwood’s new paper claims to have found it, but after years of multi-layered adjustments, and now kriging the gaps, and iteratively homogenizing, the results of the new data partly “solve” one problem while creating others. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The Deplorable Climate Science Blog. Homogenization of Temperature Data By the Bureau of Meteorology. Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization – ITIA.

E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23854.31046, European Geosciences Union, 2012. And now, the most influential station in the GISS record is … Temperature Data Review Project–My Submission. An International Temperature Data Review Project has been announced, along with a call for analyses of surface temperature records to be submitted.

Contribution of USHCN and GISS bias in long-term temperature records for a well-sited rural weather station. Guest post by David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D. When Phil Jones suggested that if folks didn’t like his surface temperature reconstructions, then perhaps they should do their own, he was right. Problematic Adjustments And Divergences (Now Includes June Data) Guest Post by Professor Robert Brown of Duke University and Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts: Analysis of the Relationship Between Land Air Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations. Guest essay by Clyde H. Spencer. Changes to the GISS Land Surface Air Temperature-Based Dataset Have Increased Reported Long-Term Global Warming.

No surprise there. But there are also periods when reported shorter-term global warming and global cooling have been decreased. Robust Evidence NOAA Temperature Data Hopelessly Corrupted By Warming Bias, Manipulation. Dr. Thomas Karl recently retired as Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 1989, Karl’s stated position was that global temperatures cooled between 1921 and 1979. Homogenised temperatures, and planning for bushfires - On Line Opinion - 1/9/2016. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt Says He Can’t Be Held Responsible For The Fraudulent Data He Publishes. Watts Up With That?