Exposed! By a blogger. Top work, Encyclopedia Brown, you've busted yet another conspiracy!

Steve Goddard is such a loon that even Anthony Watts won't let him publish on WUWT any more. But, of course, you uncritically accept every word he utter because, after all, you're a SCEPTIC!

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:


- and here was I thinking that Anthony Watts was a layperson. Silly me.

This is extreme man-made global warming in action in New Zealand.

This is what the thermometers recorded from 1850 – 2000.



Here another version of those thermometers after adjustments.

This is what man-made global warming looks like.



The entire NZ record was based on adjustments described in an  annex in James Salinger’s 1981 thesis. When the skeptics asked for information on the adjustments they became very difficult to find. After years of searching, NIWA finally admitted the statistical calculations were entirely lost. [See “New Zealand – Unaffected by Global Warming”]

Faced with such an inexplicable, hard-to-believe record, the logical next step was to get justice. (If only that were easy). Read on for a brief summary of the High Court action and the latest news.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/dont-mention-the-peer-review-new-zealands-niwa-...

For historical reference to GISS temp manipulation - hansen



Then within 2 years, 1934 and 1998 were virtualy the same




Then there is the Arctic temps

Changes in the relationship of the 1930s to recent values have not merely been made in the United States. In the Arctic, there has also been a progressive change in the relationship of temperatures in the 1930s to recent temperatures, a point previously discussed at CA here . Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 showed very warm 1930s in the Arctic, as shown in the excerpted figure showing the 64-90N temperature history.



Excerpt from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987, showing 64-90N temperature. The horizontal plot is from 1880 to 1985 (as seen in the full Figure 7 of the original article shown here )

The graphic below compares the most recent version of the same graph (plotted from online data at GISS), marking two bold points for 1937 and 1938 obtained from the printed information in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 (which prints out the data now shown online). For both 1937 and 1938, the GISS estimates have been reduced by approximately 0.4 deg C. Despite recent warming, 2005 was the first year in which 64-90N values exceeded the former 1938 value – see dotted line – (indeed, 2003 was the first year that exceeded the “adjusted” 1938 value). While there are undoubtedly “good” reasons for these adjustments (and I am not here arguing the point one way or the other), the net effect of the adjustments has been to consistently lower temperatures in the 1930s relative to more recent values. Whether these adjustments prove justified or not, modifications to the temperature record of this magnitude surely warrant the most careful scrutiny before turning the “lights out upstairs.”



64-90N from Hansen 64-90N zone downloaded today. Thick – 5 year running mean (often used by Hansen). Points are selected values from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. Dotted line compares 1938 value from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 to other values

http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/

a full writeup can be found here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-re...

Can you refer us to any peer reviewed papers, progs.

At the moment all you are doing is regurgitating noise from discredited sources. If there was substance to any of these claims why arent we seeing papers published on this problem. Can you point me to the soure of Goddard's data? Has he used the same technique to analyse data outside of Oklahoma. How about you use your skeptical powers on Goddard?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

As opposed to the still current pal-review process.

Blog Memo to James Hansen Regarding GISS Southern Hemisphere Land Surface Temperature Data

James, you should look into this matter. I don’t have the time or the inclination to carry this investigation any further.

Some persons might think GISS has been manipulating data to acquire a higher land surface temperature anomaly trend in recent years.  They also might assume GISS has been reducing coverage in recent years to create a little more variability, thereby increasing the chances for new record temperatures with each El Niño. And the way that all suppliers of temperature data appear to use data for a grid one year but not the next, and then have data for that grid reappear a year or two later,  may lead some persons to think data is being cherry picked for use. We wouldn’t want people to think those things.

Final note: As you know, GISS, in effect, deletes sea surface temperature data in areas of seasonal sea ice and replaces it with much-more-variable land surface temperature data. This, of course, creates a warming bias at the poles in the GISS data. Refer to the zonal-mean graph in Figure 11 that compares the linear trends of the Reynolds OI.v2 data and the version of it with the GISS modifications, for the period of January 1982 to October 2011. It’s from my most recent post that discusses this subject: The Impact of GISS Replacing Sea Surface Temperature Data With Land Surface Temperature Data.

Because of that monumental bias, when I present GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data, I usually limit the latitudes to exclude polar data. Now, with this find in your land surface temperature data, I’ve had to switch to an average of the GHCN and CRUTEM3 data for that chapter of Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.Sorry to say, but with all of the biases toward warming, your GISS LOTI data, in my eyes, is becoming more and more unsuitable for research.


much more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/blog-memo-to-james-hansen-regarding-giss-s...

July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC

I’ve noticed there’s a lot of frenetic tweeting and re-tweeting of this “sound bite” sized statement from this Climate Central piece by Andrew Freedman.


July was the fourth-warmest such month on record globally, and the 329th consecutive month with a global-average surface temperature above the 20th-century average, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

It should be noted that Climate Central is funded for the sole purpose of spreading worrisome climate missives. Yes it was a hot July in the USA too, approximately as hot as July 1936 comparing within he USHCN, No debate there. It is also possibly slightly cooler if you compare to the new state of the art Climate Reference Network.

But, those comparisons aside, here’s what Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman and NOAA/NCDC won’t show you when discussing the surface temperature record:




It isn’t hard to stay above the average temperature value when your adjustments outpace the temperature itself. There’s about 0.45°C of temperature rise in the adjustments since about 1940.

Since I know some people (and you know who you are) won’t believe the graph above created by taking the final adjusted USHCN data used for public statements and subtracting the raw data straight from the weather station observers to show the magnitude of adjustments. So, I’ll put up the NCDC graph, that they provided here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-ra...

But they no longer update it, nor provide an equivalent for USHCN2 (as shown above), because well, it just doesn’t look so good.



As discussed in: Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments on April,13th of this year, this graph shows that when you compare the US surface temperature record to an hourly dataset (ISH ) that doesn’t require a cartload of adjustments in the first place, and applies a population growth factor (as a proxy for UHI) all of the sudden, the trend doesn’t look so hot. The graph was prepared by Dr. Roy Spencer.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ushcn-vs-crutem3-ishpdat.png
GRAPH BELOW

There’s quite an offset in 2012, about 0.7°C between Dr. Spencer’s ISH PDAT and USHCN/CRU. It should be noted that CRU uses the USHCN data in their data, so it isn’t any surprise to find no divergence between those.

Similar, but not all, of the adjustments are applied to the GHCN, used to derive the global surface temperature average. That data is also managed by NCDC.

Now of course many will argue that the adjustments are necessary to correct the data, which has all sorts of problems with inhomogenity, time of observation, siting, missing data, etc. But, none of that negates this statement:  July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC

In fact, since the positive adjustments clearly go back to about 1940, it would be accurate to say that: July was also the 864th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC.

Dr Spencer concluded in his essay Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments :


And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.

To counter all the Twitter madness out there over that “329th consecutive month of above normal temperature”, I suggest that WUWT readers tweet back to the same people that it is also the 329th or 864th consecutive month (your choice) of upwards adjustments to the U.S. temperature record.

Here’s the shortlink to make it easy for you:

http://wp.me/p7y4l-i66



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-also-the-329th-consecutive-month-...

Nice graph you show here.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Yeah...right.

Meanwhile, on Planet Earth:

'Arctic sea ice shrinks to lowest extent ever recorded on August 26
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-lowest-extent-ever-recorded-on-August-26/articleshow/15880401.cms

So now you want to talk about total ice. Is that right, progs? It doesn't matter how you measure it, the earth is warming and the Arctic is melting.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:


No s#it, Sherlock. Who do you think is going to fall for that sort of logic?

Grow up, sunshine.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

errrr....both of those graphs show 2012 at unprecidented lows for the equivalent time of year.

And - as you have already been told - Arctic sea ice it at its lowest level ever measured.

Still in denial?

Or urban heat islands?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

Summer. It happens every year.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 9:14pm:

jestreams further north and a major storm low pressure cell breaking up the ice recently. Not sure who to believe though on the graphs. Mine shows no big deal yet, the other shows a pretty major melt.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 9:22pm:

THe graphs you posted were not specific to the Arctic ice cap - yet they did still show that the Total IMS Sea and Lake Ice extent coverage was lower in 2012 than any other year on that graph at mid August.  Entirely consistent with the NSIDC graph

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

progressiveslol wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:


Maybe the retired radio presenter (Watt's his name?) is on to something...... nah.

Ajax wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2013 at 2:44pm:


That was debunked long ago.

Quote:


What data are you using to back that up? Have a look at this article - or do you consider New Scientist to be a "greenie group" ?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940...

From the 'We told you so' department

A paper out of China that quantifies many of the very problems with the US and global surface temperature record we have been discussing for years: the adjustments add more warming than the global warming signal  itself

A paper just published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.

The effect of homogenization is clear and quite pronounced. What they found in China is based on how NOAA treats homogenization of the surface temperature record.


According to the authors:

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

Basically what they are saying here is that the heat sink effect of all the concrete and asphalt surrounding the station swamps the diurnal variation of the station, and when it is moved away, the true diurnal variation returns, and then the homogenization methodology falsely adjusts the signal in a way that increases the trend.

You can see the heat sink swamping of the diurnal signal in the worst stations, Class 5, nearest urban centers in the graphs below. Compare urban, semi-urban, and rural for Class 5 stations, the effect of the larger UHI heat sink on the Tmax and Tmin is evident.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-study-on-temperature-adjustments...

Yay science finds new ways to present data. Welcome to how science works

whats going to be the next doomsday prophecy/science fraud when this crap becomes a trivial pursuit question?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

Just ask the nearest real estate agents son or daughter...they even know climate change is happening but expect their vote, expected by daddy in return for the house whilst they were too high to compete in the workplace, will be usurped by a higher power and sanity will return to the world somehow...  : yeh, go the clever country full of methed up tryhard MIDDLE-upper-CLASS-holes!

** WE ALL KNOW I DON'T BREATHE A WORD OF A LIE INCLUDING THE ALMIGHTY ANDREI!   

An asteroid is probably what they are hoping for...

As Wils said
"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably ..."

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 6:26am:

A paper about one weather station in suburban Beijing "quantifies many of the very problems with the US and global surface temperature record"?!?!  Really?!?!

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:


Someone's in denial.

Quote:


The simple explanation is that you are wrong on all three counts. Perhaps you should study the science?

I don't understand why you deniers continue to ignore the science.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 5:37pm:


 

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 5:37pm:

Do you have anything of value to add?

Are you one of these people that think that ignoring the vast mountains of scientific evidence and then trusting blindly some nutjobs blog about a weather station in suburban Beijing that they are being "sceptical"!

Why?

Are you genuinely confused by the subject?
I would be happy to explain to you whatever it is you don't understand.

IQSRLOW wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Oh dear!  Still persisting with your fantasy?

What is this "science" I am "denying"?
You still haven't shown us?

It has just been demonstrated that you are a pathetic little liar.  I told you that:
- The arctic continues to melt
- Sea levels continue to rise
- Global glacial mass balance continues to decline

You told me I was wrong on all three counts.  You were shown evidence in Post #58 of this thread that I was correct all 3 counts.
Want more evidence?
I will be happy to show it - you only need to ask.

But evidence to support your claim?!?!  Where is it?!?!?!
Nothing
Nil
Zilch
Nada
Bugger all.

You are a pathetic liar.  You are not fooling any body.

Now you tell us:
there has been no significant warming for nearly 18 years

This is complete bollocks.
I ask you again:

Why is it that :
The arctic continues to melt?
Sea levels continue to rise?
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline?

Why is this happening if there has been "18 years of no global warming"?!?!

Any answer at all?
What does Professor Andrew Bolt say about the question?
I'm sure you can you tell us?

Come on Champ.
What have you got?
Come and show us just how ignorant you are.

We are waiting....

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:



Prove it.

Quote:


Rabbit is a denier

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 10^th, 2014 at 9:32am:



Not good enough.

"We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2009."

greggerypeccary wrote on May 10^th, 2014 at 9:38am:

Don't be silly Greggery.

Empirical data is empirical data.  And all current empirical data availaible to date indicates that globally:

The arctic continues to melt
Sea levels continue to rise, and
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline

and no available empirical data to date indicates the contrary.

To try to pretend that the data does not exist makes you sound as retarded as that IQS idiot.

The claim is that there has been no glabal warming for 17 years and 8 months and it goes back to 1996


You can deny all you like, denier. I'm sorry the science doesn't fit your religion.
Quote:


Do you like describing natural occurrences or do you have incontrovertible evidence that the above is caused by man?

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 10^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

lies, damned lies and statistics ay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

another 3 billion word circle party and iq came bac just in time 

IQSRLOW wrote on May 10^th, 2014 at 9:34pm:

Who are we

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

Wow, so your rationale depends on the appeal to authoritative fact that more people die from cold than heat??

Seriously, 

Selective in the science we choose to listen to aren't we 

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 4:29pm:

even a tradie who left school at 15 understands rates of change where vested interests such as yourself don't, apparently!



..sleep well now 

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

Ooooooooooooooh, deflection ay: you are hardcore chessplayer!!

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

Rates of change: 

...what gives you the authority to deflect from the question? 

Yes, the whole forum is watching

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS: GOOD SHOW 

CO2 increasing temperature decreasing.

CO2 has NEVER controlled temperature here on earth.

Don't believe me, look into our history....!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:10am:


CO2 is an important driver, however it is not the only driver. Paleoclimatology tells us that CO2 has had a significant influence on global temperatures, however it is not the sole driver of temperatures.

Ajax wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:10am:


Yes there have been times when temperatures have been low despite a high concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and times when temperatures have been low, despite a relatively low level of atmospheric CO2. That's because CO2 is not the only driver of climate change.

Ajax wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:10am:


To understand why the relationship between CO2 and temperature is difficult to discern on a 10 000 year time scale, it's necessary to understand the complex relationship between CO2 and temperature. Firstly, ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise 600-1000 years after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. Exiting an ice age, warmings typically take 5000 years to complete, the lag is only about 800 years. For the other 4,200 years, the heat-trapping properties of CO2 act as an amplifier. It is during this period that CO2 drives further temperature increases. Ice core studies show us that, just as in warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, sometimes three thousand years. Given these time lags and the multitude of factors that impact on climate, it is not surprising that relationship between CO2 and temperature will not always be clearly discernible on any given 10 000 year time period, particularly one that encompasses a glacial termination.

Step back a little and incorporate a whole sequence of these time frames and the relationship becomes much clearer.

Ajax wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:10am:


I'm not sure what you are identifying as a crazy theory. Are you questioning the physics that has clearly identified the heat-trapping properties of CO2, or the scientific studies that show ocean temperatures are rising. Perhaps you can explain the sea level rises some other way.



Ajax wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:10am:

Even Anthony Watts is eating humble pie

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-us...

I think this is an image of progs. One of the inhabitants of those fringe denialist sites that seem to endlessly resuscitate these zombie myths.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/25...

lee wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:


If the time of temperature observation was changed, then wouldn't it be necessary to adjust the raw data.

If Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard, believes these adjustments are flawed, he should attempt to have his findings published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

How much the data should be adjusted is a technical question that I don't have the expertise to answer. The point is that adjustments are necessary and are hardly the smoking gun of some sort of massive conspiracy.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

Here is a straight forward explanation for the adjustments from the National Climatic Data Center.

Perhaps progs could identify the exact adjustments he is questioning and the reasons for his concerns. Or more importantly, perhaps Steven Goddard (or whoever he really is) could publish a peer reviewed paper that actually works towards advancing science in some way.

I hold my breath for neither of these things.

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

doubt can be sown at every step: deny deny deny!

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

The trouble lies in the fact people don't understand what temperature is!
Temperature is an indicator of heat content!! It means next to nothing when discussing the system that is climate as it can only ever be a local indicator of heat content- unfortunately that is all anyone understands so to make the science understandable to the public weird concepts such as global average temperature have to be invented to keep the public- who votes - informed.

THIS is why doubt can be thrown in at every stage... it's simply called groupthink!