Why I think 'Hottest Year Ever' claims are bogus

[IanC]

before GHCN adjustments

after GHCN adjustments

after GISS adjustments to the adjustments

today's GISS graph (which will soon disappear).


these massive adjustments are happening all over the world. Reykjavik is a well documented site with no need for phantom 'homgenization' by unaccountable computer programs. if they can do this to a well established western civilization country, what can they do to poorly measured and documented countries?


here is the amount of extra 'adjustment' to GISS land temps just in the last ten years.

think about that the next time someone tells you that this year was the 'hottest evah!' by one or two hundredths of a degree on one of the global temp datasets.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep......any time you see statements from the AGW fascists, your radar has to come up......they are ALWAYS using terms like "increased"........"lower"........"hottest"..............."shortest".........".bigger". They do this with statistics ALL the time. They hope the people don't check the record for the specifics. They will deceive at any cost to perpetuate the established narrative.

Having said that, the bottom line is, the whole notion of "hottest" is only a topic in the nether-regions of the internet. Nowhere else. People don't give a fuck...........all the polls show it very clearly!!

 

[jc456]

before GHCN adjustments

after GHCN adjustments

after GISS adjustments to the adjustments

today's GISS graph (which will soon disappear).


these massive adjustments are happening all over the world. Reykjavik is a well documented site with no need for phantom 'homgenization' by unaccountable computer programs. if they can do this to a well established western civilization country, what can they do to poorly measured and documented countries?


here is the amount of extra 'adjustment' to GISS land temps just in the last ten years.

think about that the next time someone tells you that this year was the 'hottest evah!' by one or two hundredths of a degree on one of the global temp datasets.

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

 

[mamooth]

Remember, if the whole planet disagrees with you, it doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you're part of a tiny handful of elite thinkers who understand the RealTruth behind the great global conspiracy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, as the years progress, you people are looking increasingly silly. Another decade, and America is going to wonder how people could have been so deluded.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where the Lab Work, Decline Hiders?

 

[Crick]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

 

[skookerasbil]

Remember, if the whole planet disagrees with you, it doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you're part of a tiny handful of elite thinkers who understand the RealTruth behind the great global conspiracy.

LOL......bad news for you dumbass!!!!


New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11 000 years not CO2 Principia Scientific Intl

 

[IanC]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

I wholly concur that calibration, errors and biases should be studied and corrected. And that reasonable error estimates should be in place.

that is why I am so suspicious of the land station temperature datasets. and the ocean temperature datasets as well.

almost every time any station is investigated it turns out that the adjustments and corrections are at odds with common sense, and seemingly at the whim of a computer program that makes large changes with no accountability to reality. the city in the OP is a prime example. the Iceland Met didnt know why the large corrections were made, and indeed all necessary information and adjustments had been done by Iceland. when GHCN and GISS were asked to explain the changes in a comprehensive way they said yes, only to renege on their promise. how difficult would it be to print out what went into making the final product?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, there will be a period of checking everything out after 1Jan15. Even if 2014 does not come in as the hottest year on record, the fact that it is in the running with a low TSI, and a neutral ENSO indicates that the warming is still going on. Should we have an El Nino in 2015, it may get real interesting.

 

[jc456]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

so question, are there adjustments to areas that no longer have measuring instruments that once did?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I wholly concur that calibration, errors and biases should be studied and corrected. And that reasonable error estimates should be in place.

that is why I am so suspicious of the land station temperature datasets. and the ocean temperature datasets as well.

almost every time any station is investigated it turns out that the adjustments and corrections are at odds with common sense, and seemingly at the whim of a computer program that makes large changes with no accountability to reality. the city in the OP is a prime example. the Iceland Met didnt know why the large corrections were made, and indeed all necessary information and adjustments had been done by Iceland. when GHCN and GISS were asked to explain the changes in a comprehensive way they said yes, only to renege on their promise. how difficult would it be to print out what went into making the final product?

Exposing the Data, Method and reasoning would expose them as being deliberately deceptive just as the EAU and MET were found to be. It is standard practice of warmists to deny access to statistical reviews which show the logic fallacy and fantasy. There is a strong pattern of misconduct among warmists in this regard. It doesn't take much to determine what it is they want to hide from the general public... No warming and their hypothesis a failed endeavor.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

so question, are there adjustments to areas that no longer have measuring instruments that once did?

There is a simple answer to this question. It is being adjusted just as the arctic and antarctic regions are being manipulated. They use adjacent sites and create a ghost temp to fill in which causes a positive bias.

 

[IanC]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

so question, are there adjustments to areas that no longer have measuring instruments that once did?

that is an excellent question.

there are many zombie stations in the USA. some stations that were included by definition into the database for US temps have since been closed down. they are now populated by data that is wholly 'estimated'.

 

[Crick]

Estimate how Ian? You leave your reader to assume that such estimates must be unreasonable and are the source of all observed global warming. Is that what you actually believe?

 

[IanC]

Estimate how Ian? You leave your reader to assume that such estimates must be unreasonable and are the source of all observed global warming. Is that what you actually believe?

when have I ever said that? there has been some global warming, especially compared to the Little Ice Age.

unreasonable? poorly reasoned is more like it. perhaps poorly implimented is even a better description.

all nearby stations are used to calibrate the 'expected' temperature, regardless of quality. poor quality stations run slightly hotter than good quality stations.

hypothetical station xxx is surrounded by a mixed bag of stations that average, say, a rise of 0.15C/decade. due to natural variability xxx would have, say, a 60/40 chance of rising a full degree C compared to losing a 1C. if the threshold for declaring a 'breakpoint' is 1C over or under the expected 0.15C increase then the spurious 1C cooling will be flagged while the 1C warming will not. once the adjustment is made xxx becomes part of the community of stations defining expectation. what is the likely direction of temperature trend of xxx after a large enough swing downward to be flagged? a return towards the middle which in this case would be even more warming after the correction for breakpoint. kriging in BEST is emphasized and indeed they show the most warming. preferentially raising cool temps raises the average and makes it even more likely that more cool temps will be adjusted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I still don't understand the need to do anything to what is recorded? What am I missing?

A significant number of grey cells?

No, sorry. What you're missing is the fact that all measuring instruments develop errors (nothing is perfect) and require calibration. If you make measurements with an instrument with a bias, that data will benefit from correction afterward.

The instruments are DENIERS!!!! and must be taught a harsh lesson.

Oh, where's that experiment you keep claiming you posted?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember, if the whole planet disagrees with you, it doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you're part of a tiny handful of elite thinkers who understand the RealTruth behind the great global conspiracy.

No warming for the past 2 decades can only mean that the planet itself is a DENIER!!!!

 

[Crick]

What do you think caused the surface warming to stop Frank? Do you buy what S Fred Singer is selling?

 

[westwall]

What do you think caused the surface warming to stop Frank? Do you buy what S Fred Singer is selling?

Whhaaaa? You're now admitting that the warming has stopped?