Anyone See A Trend Here?

[SSDD]

Does anyone see a trend here??...and more importantly, can anyone provide a rational, scientifically sound reason for the data manipulation on display here?

Global Surface Temperature Anomoly

US Surface Temperature Anomoly

Arctic Surface Temperature Anomoly (Reykjavik)

Sea Level Rate of Change

 

[Politico]

Yes I see nature has a historical trend.

 

[mamooth]

The trend is that more and more deniers are getting desperate enough to use Goddard's fudged data, despite the way it completely destroys their credibility.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny how the data from the 30s keeps going down 80 years later.. And the raw data from that period is not really available for scrutiny.. After all -- you only have to fudge 0.5degC to make those plots have a different meaning. And you only have to do that at 0.01degC per year to make that happen..

Neat trick.. And it's got NOTHING to do with Goddard. You can get on the Internet WayBack Machine and WATCH it happen from the sausage factory at GISS or NOAA..

 

[SSDD]

The trend is that more and more deniers are getting desperate enough to use Goddard's fudged data, despite the way it completely destroys their credibility.

You got any actual data to prove your claim? Of course you don't...What you have is what all losers of your ilk have...ad hominems and a wheel barrow full of bitterness.

 

[Crick]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

Judith Curry and even Anthony Watts say Steven Goddard, the source of ALL your data, is full of shit. Perhaps that's why you failed to identify its source despite several opportunities to do so. His claims regarding these data were rated by Politifact as "Pants on Fire" - that is, as LIES - to which Judith Curry concurs. But you have no problem with that, do you.

 

[SSDD]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

Judith Curry and even Anthony Watts say Steven Goddard, the source of ALL your data, is full of shit. Perhaps that's why you failed to identify its source despite several opportunities to do so. His claims regarding these data were rated by Politifact as "Pants on Fire" - that is, as LIES - to which Judith Curry concurs. But you have no problem with that, do you.

Got any actual evidence or is an ad hominem the best you can manage?

 

[jc456]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

Judith Curry and even Anthony Watts say Steven Goddard, the source of ALL your data, is full of shit. Perhaps that's why you failed to identify its source despite several opportunities to do so. His claims regarding these data were rated by Politifact as "Pants on Fire" - that is, as LIES - to which Judith Curry concurs. But you have no problem with that, do you.

Got any actual evidence or is an ad hominem the best you can manage?

And he didn't even read it. LOL. From the article Judith writes:

"It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.

Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.

Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated’). I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond."

How do you all post that? Oooooops!

Edit: BTW, again the deniers providing factual evidence of doctored data. Still waiting on one set of data that explains the claim of 120 PPM of CO2. hah!!! more WiNniNg

 

[Youch]

Does anyone see a trend here??...and more importantly, can anyone provide a rational, scientifically sound reason for the data manipulation on display here?

Yes, the trend is in the radicalization of the enviro-nazi movement such that they must manipulate weather data in the face of actual weather trends and hope, often successfully so, that the drones buy it hook, line and sinker. How else monger fear to gain control and power?

 

[hjmick]

More and more people are using animated graphs?

 

[Old Rocks]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

How to analyze the imperfect and heterogeneous surface temperature data is not straightforward – there are numerous ways to skin this cat, and the cat still seems to have some skin left. I like the Berkeley Earth methods, but I am not convinced that their confidence interval/uncertainty estimates are adequate.

Perhaps one should refer to what the BEST study found in a total analysis of data, a study in which Dr. Curry took part.

 

[SSDD]

More and more people are using animated graphs?

Because more and more graphs don't match graphs showing the same data a few years ago...wholesale data manipulation is happening.

 

[jc456]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

How to analyze the imperfect and heterogeneous surface temperature data is not straightforward – there are numerous ways to skin this cat, and the cat still seems to have some skin left. I like the Berkeley Earth methods, but I am not convinced that their confidence interval/uncertainty estimates are adequate.

Perhaps one should refer to what the BEST study found in a total analysis of data, a study in which Dr. Curry took part.

And I'm curious Mr. Sawmill Construction guy how you know there are many ways to skin the cat? Pray tell?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

How to analyze the imperfect and heterogeneous surface temperature data is not straightforward – there are numerous ways to skin this cat, and the cat still seems to have some skin left. I like the Berkeley Earth methods, but I am not convinced that their confidence interval/uncertainty estimates are adequate.

Perhaps one should refer to what the BEST study found in a total analysis of data, a study in which Dr. Curry took part.

In other word, the AGWCult has every right to skew the data to fit their, never proven, insane "Theory"

 

[Crick]

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

Judith Curry and even Anthony Watts say Steven Goddard, the source of ALL your data, is full of shit. Perhaps that's why you failed to identify its source despite several opportunities to do so. His claims regarding these data were rated by Politifact as "Pants on Fire" - that is, as LIES - to which Judith Curry concurs. But you have no problem with that, do you.

Got any actual evidence or is an ad hominem the best you can manage?

And he didn't even read it. LOL. From the article Judith writes:

"It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.

Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.

Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated’). I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond."

Uh-huh...

While I haven’t dug into all this myself, the above analyses seem robust, and it seems that Goddard has made some analysis errors.

Goddard has been wrong before, and the comments at Goddard’s blog can be pretty crackpotty.

 

[SSDD]

Got any actual evidence or is an ad hominem the best you can manage?

And he didn't even read it. LOL. From the article Judith writes:

"It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.

Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.

Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated&#8217. I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond."

Uh-huh...

While I haven’t dug into all this myself, the above analyses seem robust, and it seems that Goddard has made some analysis errors.

Goddard has been wrong before, and the comments at Goddard’s blog can be pretty crackpotty.

Typical dishonest warmer cherry pick. Guess you don't think the rest of the post warrants mention? Maybe someone else wants to hear the rest of the story...

OK, acknowledging that Goddard made some analysis errors, I am still left with some uneasiness about the actual data, and why it keeps changing. For example, Jennifer Marohasy has been writing about Corrupting Australian’s temperature record.

In the midst of preparing this blog post, I received an email from Anthony Watts, suggesting that I hold off on my post since there is some breaking news. Watts pointed me to a post by Paul Homewood entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Excerpt:

So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.

From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.

Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated. It is understandable that a station might be a month, or even two, late in reporting, but it is not conceivable that readings from last year are late. (The other two months, Jan/Feb are marked “a”, indicating missing days).

But, the mystery thickens. Each state produces a monthly and annual State Climatological Report, which among other things includes a list of monthly mean temperatures by station. If we look at the 2013 annual report for Texas, we can see these monthly temperatures for Luling.

Where an “M” appears after the temperature, this indicates some days are missing, i.e Jan, Feb, Oct and Nov. (Detailed daily data shows just one missing day’s minimum temperature for each of these months).

Yet, according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?

But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.

In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.

Note as well, that the largest adjustments are for the estimated months of March – December. This is something that Steve Goddard has been emphasising.

It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.

Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.

Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated&#8217. I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond.

 

[Crick]

I don't use Judith Curry as a reference for my arguments. I believe her to be incompetent. The same goes for Anthony Watts. But she's the best you've got and for some reason you all think highly of Mr Watts. So if you want to throw up Steve Goddard as a reliable reference, you'll need to address their dissatisfaction with the man's work.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't use Judith Curry as a reference for my arguments. I believe her to be incompetent. The same goes for Anthony Watts. But she's the best you've got and for some reason you all think highly of Mr Watts. So if you want to throw up Steve Goddard as a reliable reference, you'll need to address their dissatisfaction with the man's work.

Sure thing Junior.. Here's 1/2 of her resume..

JUDITH A. CURRY
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
[email protected]
Judith Curry's Home Page

GENERAL INFORMATION
Education
1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography

Professional Experience
2002- Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
2002-2014 Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology

1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Dept of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Awards/Honors
2011 Graetzinger Moving School Forward Award, Georgia Tech
2007 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
2006 Best Faculty Paper Award, Georgia Tech Sigma Xi
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
2002 Green Faculty Award, University of Colorado
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation

Recent Professional Activities
World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International
Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme
• Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004)
• GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004)
• Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004)
• Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004) • Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003-2006)
• Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)

National Research Council – National Academies
• Space Studies Board (2004-2007)
• Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
• Panel: A Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Sensor Descopes and De-manifests on the NPOESS and
GOES-R Spacecraft (2007-2008)
• Committee to review CCSP SAP 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for
Understanding and Reconciling Differences (2007)
U.S. Federal Agencies
• DOE Biological & Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC) (2012-2015)
• Earth Science Subcommittee, NASA Advisory Council (2009-2013)
• Search Committee, NSF Director for Geoscience (2007)
• External Advisory Board, NCAR Atmospheric Technology Division (2004-2006)
• Science Board, DOE ARM Climate Reference Facility, (2008-2011)
• External Review Committee, COSIM Program, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2007)
• NOAA Climate Working Group (2004-2009)
Professional Societies
• Executive Committee, American Physical Society Topical Group on Physics of Climate (2013-2016)
• Member, Fellows Committee, American Geophysical Union (2013-2014)
• Executive Committee of the Council, American Meteorological Society (1998-2000)
• Councilor, American Meteorological Society (1997-2000)

Other
• Member, Visiting Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ. (2008)
• Member, Visiting Committee, Dept of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, the MIT
Corporation (2009 - )

RESEARCH
Books
Khvorostyanov, V.I. and J.A. Curry, 2013: Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Clouds and Precipitation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press (in press).
Curry, J.A. and P.J. Webster, 1999: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans. Academic Press,
London, 467 pp (second edition under contract).
Holton, J.P., J.A. Curry, and J. Doyle, eds., 2003: Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences. Academic
Press, London, 6244 pp.

4 Books, 200 papers, about 6 invited papers per year.. Running a Dept that is focused on gaining FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING of how the climate works -- rather than assuming that CO2 is the answer ... .. .;... ..... .... Well -- thanx for your "opinion" Junior..

 

[Crick]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

 

[flacaltenn]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?