Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
Even the right-leaning Politifact is giving this denier nonsense a pants-on-fire rating. That's got to sting the poor deniers, seeing more and more of their bestest pals abandon them.
Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact
Get the headline. Bury the retraction.. Works for Unemployment figures and GDP announcements. Why not Global temperatures?? It's government folks.. We live in the American Pravda Era..
Get the headline. Bury the retraction.. Works for Unemployment figures and GDP announcements. Why not Global temperatures?? It's government folks.. We live in the American Pravda Era..
Did you read the article Mammoth posted? Any comments?
Get the headline. Bury the retraction.. Works for Unemployment figures and GDP announcements. Why not Global temperatures?? It's government folks.. We live in the American Pravda Era..
Did you read the article Mammoth posted? Any comments?
Make up your mind. Do past temperature records get adjusted up or down?
Yet no climate scientist - not even Judith Curry or Anthony Watts - could be found to back up Goddard's accusations. So, once again, we have all the world's climate scientists - including several big name deniers - in an evil conspiracy.
Can you people not hear yourself?
The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that youve done due diligence. Thats what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.
Im talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is fabricated. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.
Dr. Judith Curry and I have been conversing a lot via email over the past two days, and she has written an illuminating essay that explores the issue raised by Goddard and the sociology going on. See her essay:
Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.
Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible
way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isnt limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. And theres more about this below.
Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?
No our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.
The metadata also tells us that Time of Observation was 6pm until 1983, after which it changed to 7am. This is the usual pattern, which is corrected by a warming adjustment, and not the cooling one we see here.
Quite simply, it is a mystery, which underlines the vagaries of the USHCN system and hardly inspires confidence.
The core of Goddard/Heller's charge was that NOAA had altered the data to make global warming look worse. ZERO evidence supports that charge. ZERO. That a clerical error was made for the readings in bum fuck Texas doesn't bother me in the least. That it's now your big deal tells me you're unwilling to admit that your original charges have fallen flat on their face.
Yet no climate scientist - not even Judith Curry or Anthony Watts - could be found to back up Goddard's accusations. So, once again, we have all the world's climate scientists - including several big name deniers - in an evil conspiracy.
Can you people not hear yourself?
Im afraid that you simply havent been following this story.
the skeptical side may still think Goddard is a bit of a crank but in the recent story.......
The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that you’ve done due diligence. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.
I’m talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is “fabricated”. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.
Dr. Judith Curry and I have been conversing a lot via email over the past two days, and she has written an illuminating essay that explores the issue raised by Goddard and the sociology going on. See her essay:
Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.
Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible
way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. And there’s more about this below.
even funnier perhaps is NOAA's response-
Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?
No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.
hahahahaha. yes, it is working as designed. they may regret saying that.
I like facts and figures so Paul Homewood's site is where I would send people to understand what the actual problem is. here is one of his latest articles on NOAA adjustments, mostly TOBS, in Alabama-
Temperature Adjustments In Alabama | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
the odd part is that the outlier, Brewton, the adjustments go the wrong way!
The metadata also tells us that Time of Observation was 6pm until 1983, after which it changed to 7am. This is the usual pattern, which is corrected by a warming adjustment, and not the cooling one we see here.
Quite simply, it is a mystery, which underlines the vagaries of the USHCN system and hardly inspires confidence.
I recommend people who are interested in links to the actual NOAA data read this and some of his other recent articles. he has lots of other temperature dataset stuff as well, especially GISS and NOAA
Still the k00ks return.......which is clearly the MO of social oddballs. People have made fun of these social invalids their whole life so it just rolls right past them............the dynamic fascinating to watch.
