Some More Trouble With Temperatures and Nice Analysis

Here are some links to very good examples of what is wrong with the temperature data as presented by NCDC, GISS, and Hadley (and others). Anyone who does an average, homogenize, slice and splice, and similar data adjustment.

First off, a very nice article about why slice and splice (as taken to extremes in B.E.S.T.) is a Very Bad Idea. I’ve talked of this as ‘splicing is bad in data series’, but without much other than a nod to my Chem Teachers as to why. This explains it rather well:

I ran into it in comments on this posting at WUWT:

Stephen Rasey January 29, 2015 at 12:54 pm

All told, BEST’s uncertainty levels are a complete mess.
The breakpoint process is a complete mess, too.
They have reduced the temperature record to analyzing the noise after throwing away the signal.

There is also a link in there to this article by Willis of similar inclination:

followed by this comment:

Rud Istvan January 29, 2015 at 1:49 pm

Dedekind’s prior post, to which Willis was trying to get BEST to respond, was about ‘scalpeling’. Technically it is called Menne stitching in homogenization algorithms. And the inherent warming bias Dedekind explained to WUWT has been confirmed for actual stations. See Zhang Effect of data homogenization…in Theor. Appl. Climatol. 115: 365-373 (2014. Results from the anchoring on most recent data.

Also referenced are these two PDFs that look useful:

Pat Frank January 29, 2015 at 7:42 pm Edit
Mike M, all the groups working on global surface air temperature — UEA/UKMet, BEST, GISS — all assume that sensor measurement error is random and averages away.

The assumption is promiscuous and entirely unjustifiable. Nevertheless, the Central Limit Theorem is assumed to apply throughout, and they clutch to it in a death grip.

They ignore systematic measurement error entirely, and until recently never even mentioned it in their papers. Available calibration experiments show that temperature sensor systematic error is large and persistent. Solar loading has the greatest impact.

I’ve published on this problem here (870 KB pdf) and here (1 MB pdf). From systematic sensor measurement error alone, the uncertainty in the 20th century global surface air temperature record is about (+/-)0.5 C.

If they ever admitted to the systematic error, obviously present, they’d end up with nothing to report. The prime evidence base of AGW would vanish. One can understand the reluctance, but it’s incompetent science regardless.

I’ve corresponded with Phil Brohan and John Kennedy at UK Met about the papers (Phil contacted me). They can’t refute the work, but have chosen to ignore it. Apparently likewise, everyone else in the field, too.

The two “here”s are:

Not had time to read them yet, but a quick scan looks pretty darned good.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Some More Trouble With Temperatures and Nice Analysis

  1. omanuel says:

    The Great Social Experiment Ends !

    An incorrect formula in the Standard Climate Model has been admitted, but does not make up for seventy years (2015 – 1945 = 70 years) of purposeful deceit in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, meteorology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar & theoretical physics>/b>, using deceptive:

    1. Standard Solar Models
    2. Standard Nuclear Models
    3. Big Bang Model of Cosmology
    4. Manipulation of Observations and Experimental Measurements with public funds from the US DOE, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., etc.

    FEAR of deceitful government science that hid the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom life and world in the solar system induced mental, emotional and spiritual sickness in society worldwide.

    FEAR is the most powerful emotion and easily overwhelms logic.

    FEAR of nuclear annihilation in 1945 is the root cause of today’s social insanity, induced by common knowledge politicians, world leaders, their puppet scientists and perhaps even members of the medical and banking community are lying.

    Society’s challenge now is to . . .

    a.) Retain the benefits, and
    b.) Eliminate the deception . . . P

    that came from the 1945 decision to form the United Nations.

  2. By ”finding small faults” those guys are actually: ‘officially endorsing the the Warmist lies! Those guys are giving oxygen to the Warmist!!! Here are the real proofs::
    the ”correct” monitoring is completely WRONG, not only the manipulated data; therefore: the overall ‘’global’’ temp is same every year, BUT hypothetically: even if there was any fluctuation in temp, nobody would have known, because nobody is monitoring on every 10m3, for every minute in 24h!!!

    1] monitoring only for the hottest minute in 24h and ignoring the other 1439 minutes, in which the temp doesn’t go up, or down, as in the ”hottest” minute…. statistically 1439 minutes against one…?!?! Hello ”statisticians! It’s same as: if the car is got 1440 different parts, but you are building that car, ”with one bolt only” you will not get very far…! Some places, sometimes warms by 5C from midnight to midday – other places at different times from midnight to the hottest minute in the day – IT WARMS UP BY 20c-25c- and 30C, in 12h difference – no swindler takes those things into account! Why?! Therefore: ”the hottest minute in 24h misleads by at least 10C!!! They conveniently overlook that; then ”pretend” to know to a hundredth of a degree precision, for the whole year, for the whole planet?!?! The ”Skeptics” are getting fattened on the Warmist bullshit…

    2] the ”highest temp minute in 24h, is not at the same time every day! Sometime is the ”hottest at 11, 50AM, most of the time is after 1pm = that is many more warmer minutes than previous day.

    3]example: tomorrow will be warmer by 2C than today, happens many times; and they will record 2C warmer – because the ”warmest” minute was 2C warmer, not ALL the rest of the 1439 minutes since midnight were warmer by 2C. b] question is: ”is it going to start from midnight, every minute to be warmer than the same minutes in previous day?! Therefore: recording only the hottest minute is meaningless! Nobody knows what was the temp yesterday, or last year on the WHOLE planet… but most of the fanatics in the blogosphere pretend to know with precision the temp for the whole year, for last thousands of years… What repetition and aggressive propaganda can do to a grown up person’s brains… tragic, tragic…

    4] on a small hill, put a thermometer on all 4 sides; all 4 will show different temperatures on different day and on SAME minute simultaneously – when you take in the account that: on many places one thermometer represents millions of square kilometers, where are thousandths of ”independent” variations, every few minutes, on every different altitudes = gives a clear picture about their ”global temperature” for last 50years… or 5000 years, or for the last two years. On small part of the planet is warmer for few weeks than normal – they declare it as: ”warmer year”… what a science… couple of months after, when on that same place is colder than normal – they avoid that place and point other place where is for 3-4 days warmer than normal… what a brainwashing scam…

    5] pointing at some place that is warmer than normal – is SAME as saying: ”the planet is warmer by 12C at lunch time, than before sunrise…? taking in consideration the size of the planet: one thermometer or 6000 thermometers, wouldn’t make any difference! ( look at their ”global” temp charts… they look like seismographs… with ”precision” to one hundredth of a degree, for the last thousandths of years… = the biggest con /lies since the homo-erectus invented language…

    6] a thermometer can monitor the temp in a room; but one thermometer for 10 000km2?!

    7] even those ”few” (6000) thermometers are not evenly distributed; no honest statistician would have taken to make ”statistic” if he wasn’t told: which individual thermometer, how much area represents. Example: if the workers in 4 countries have their pay packet increased by a dollar, and in 2 countries had ”decreased by a dollar Q: would the ”overall’ all workers in those 6 countries get more money, or less? Of course, statistic would say: ‘’yes’’ (the 4 countries were Luxembourg, Monaco, Belgium and Portugal, increased by a dollar. The other two were India and Chinese workers, decreased by a dollar) statistic would be wrong; because two thermometers represent much larger area than the other four combined. So much about the ‘’correct’’ temp data… (there are more thermometers in England monitoring for IPCC, than in Russia… England is a small dot on the map (but most of the lies come from there) Warmist Poms are the most shameless liars..

    8] when is sunny – on the ground is warmer / in upper atmosphere is cooler – BUT, when is cloudy, upper atmosphere is warmer, on the ground cooler – overall same temp; BUT, because ALL thermometers monitoring are on the first 2m from the ground = they are completely misleading! There is much less heat in the first 2m from the ground, than in the rest of 10km up. The rest of 10km up, is not on their ”globe”…?!

    9] for the shonks northern hemisphere summer is warmer by 3,8C than S/H summer. That tops the stupidity; they can’t get it correct even about same year. They come WRONG by 3,8C for two different reasons: a] N/H has more deserts, southern hemisphere has more water. Desert has warmer top temperature, BUT the night temperatures are cooler – by not taking all minutes in 24h, they are wrong by +/- 3C. In deserts get to 45-50C at day time, but nights are cold -/ on islands in south pacific between day / night temp is different 3-5C, is that science? B] on southern hemisphere are ”LESS” thermometers = less thermometers cannot say correct temperature against the N/H more thermometers, when you summon up all the numbers. So: only by those two factors they are wrong by +/- 3C, but when you say the last year’s temp cooler by 0,28C than today’s = it shows the sick propaganda… they call themselves ”scientist” Instead going to Antarctic, Arctic to get reumatizam and spend millions, they can get the whole truth on my blog; but they are scared from the truth as the devil from the cross… The truth: if they have same number of thermometers, distributed evenly AND every minute in 24h is taken in consideration = would have shown that: every day and every month of every year and millennium is ”overall” same temperature on the earth!!!

    10]almost all of those 6000 thermometers collecting data for the ”climatologist; are distributed on land – water covers 2/3 of the planet!!! If you don’t understand what that means… you are qualified to be a ”climatologist”…

    11]When you point out to them that: ‘’6000 thermometers cannot monitor the temp in the whole troposphere – thermometer is good to monitor room temp, but not one thermometer for 1000 km2 – 6000 thermometers is not enough to monitor the temp in all Hilton Hotel’s rooms’’ -> they instantly point out that: ‘’there is satellite temp monitoring’’! Well, ‘’satellite’’ is a great technology, very impressive; unfortunately, they don’t have 350km long thermometers, to monitor from space the temp on the ground! They use infrared photos that never covers the whole planet, in two color blotches for the whole of Pacific, or for the whole of US. The ‘’two’ colors represent THE different temp, BUT: if you look the evening weather report, it says that are many variations in temp even for the big cities in USA; would be much more variations if they were reporting for every square mile! B] temp distribution is three dimensional in the atmosphere and constantly changes, cannot present it on two-dimensional picture! Satellite monitoring is the biggest con! Unfortunately, person responsible for analyzing those pictures will not admit the truth – because he prefers to be seen as very important, by the gullible foot-solders, the lower genera and IQ Warmist & Skeptics…

    12]Earth’s temperature is not same as temperature in a human body I.e: if under the armpit goes 0,5C up = the whole body is higher by 0,5C, arms, legs, the lot. Therefore, can tell if is gone higher or not. Earth’s temp is different on every 100m and FLUCTUATES ”INDEPENDENTLY”! Which means: one thermometer cannot tell the temp correctly for 1km2, when one monitors for thousands of square kilometers = Warmist can get away with that sick trick, thanks to the ignorant phony Skeptics and bias media… (Skeptics don’t need even thermometers, a pit-bog on each hemisphere is sufficient for them… Nobody knows what was the earth’s temp last year – to save his / her life! They ”pretend” to know what was the earth’s temp for thousandths of years = that’s Warmist & Skeptic’s honesty!

    Using only those 12 points above; to put any leading Warmist on a witness stand, under oath => will end up in jail; for using the ”temperature data / charts” as factual =/ Skeptics & Warmist of lower genera and IQ in a nuthouse, for believing in warmer / colder years. Warmist only prosper and flourish, thanks to the Skeptic’s outdated Pagan beliefs…

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    Anyone that uses “Green House Gas” in their argument has no idea of how a green house works or for that matter how gasses behave. Are they stupid or just liers ? There is no cure for stupid.
    Water, Carbon dioxide, Methane etc., facilitate energy movement, that is conductors of energy.

    Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon resist heat energy movement, that is insulation and prevent energy movement.
    A greenhouse works by preventing energy movement out of the “box” by blocking convection and reducing conduction. So called GHG or Greenhouse gas is a term that has nothing to do with the facts.

    Anyone that has had to work in the engineering of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning of spaces and Greenhouses has to know all this to succeed.

    The Earths’ atmosphere is much like an Absorption Refrigeration system, The more heat you add to the gas/liquid in the base, the faster the heat is pumped out the system. Cooling resulting from heating. There is no way “Run Away Heating” can result on a planet with oceans of water that is caused by CO2, CH3 and H2O.
    Just can not happen! pg

  4. p.g.sharrow says: ”Anyone that uses “Green House Gas” in their argument has no idea of how a green house works or for that matter how gasses behave”

    sharrow, so far, you are the CLOSEST to the truth! To get to the whole truth; use the link just above your comment

  5. cj orach says:

    How can a measurement of Global Temperatures be accurate when it Is based on 3500 Ocean buoys covering 335 million sq kms which = ∼1 buoy/100,000 sq kms and the temperature stations on land surfaces are scant or none? Put a Temperature Station at 10 different points on a hill and each of the ten points will reflect a different temperature depending on the side of the hill the temperature station was placed; if it was placed under a shade tree or next to a paved road, etc. So with ten different temperatures what is the true temperature on the hill? Answer. Depends on if you want a hot or cold reading. If your agenda is to stop those evil human from slapping “nature in the face” you’ll get warmer temperatures readings every time. After all those evil humans don’t have a right to cheap fossil fuel to better their lives. The “little people” must remain serfs scrabbling for scraps under the table of the Elite Climate Priests In Power.

  6. poitsplace says:

    Thankfully, this story is starting to break in smaller news organizations. As soon as I saw a published paper had documented how and why the adjustment bias occurred, I knew it was coming. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

    Once the media giants start putting out scandal headlines, the green movement will collapse. And probably a lot of newly skeptical (horribly disillusioned) eyes will turn toward all that government funded, nanny state pseudoscience too.

  7. tom0mason says:

    p.g. sharrow

    I made this point just today at JoanneNova’ blog. My reply was –

    February 1, 2015 at 3:58 pm · Reply
    Reed Coray, TdeF and KK

    Just a small point but one that bugs me alot.

    That phrase ‘Greenhouse gas’ or the even more dubious ‘greenhouse effect’ are just wrong as a type of definition.
    As Professor Wood’s experiment showed that greenhouses do not require ‘special’ gasses to warm them, thus the phrases are worthless.
    These phrases were introduced by those that agree with CO2 catastrophically warming the air because it obscures the reality of the argument. The link to most ordinary people is that they know what a greenhouse is, and that it gets warmer inside than the outside atmosphere. By continuously linking greenhouses with ‘Global warming’ the CAGW advocates are winning the argumet in the publics eyes as this oversimplification appears logical to much of the public.
    By reusing the CAGW advocates’ language, as they like it to be used, you allow them control of the argument.

    Is there a scientific definition for a ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse effect’? (and I do not mean just a wikipedia definition.) As far as I can tell there are many many different ones, but no agreed, definative, scientific one.

    Using phrases such as ‘Infra-red active gases’, and the ‘effects of IR active gases’, is IMO a much better way to explain these things.

  8. cdquarles says:

    Nice one, Tom.

    How many people know that oxygen, depending on circumstances and molecular form, is UV active (most I hope), visible active (relatively weak but still) and near or SW IR active (relatively weak, but still)?

    Nice article here:

    Some work that sheds some light on hydrogen bonding:, which has a link to a paper published in Science.

  9. Neal S says:

    You had previously written about Liquid CO2 on Ocean Bottom …

    Since CO2 has some beneficial effects for plants, I thought there might be some value in a way of greatly increasing atmospheric CO2 without having to burn through lots of fuel and without reducing atmospheric Oxygen to gain the increase in CO2.

    What if a pipe was constructed and lowered in the ocean, and water was pumped out. The pipe has perforations in the last few sections that wind up nearest the ocean floor. Some weights are also attached to the bottom end of the pipe via some cables. Some floats are attached near the top end of the pipe, but below the ocean surface.

    When the bottom end of pipe hits a portion of the ocean floor where there are reserves of liquefied CO2, we start pumping water out of the top end of the tube which is now well enough above the surface such that swells do not put water back into it as we begin to pump the water out.

    Since the liquefied CO2 is denser than water, I would expect the fluid level in the pipe to begin to fall below sea level as more liquid CO2 is moving up the pipe.

    At some point the rising level of liquid CO2 would reach a point where the pressure become less than that required to keep it liquid and a change of state will likely occur. Bubbles of CO2 will rise and there may be enough of them to carry some of the water up and out of the top end of the pipe.

    I also expect that if we keep pumping long enough, we will eventually start getting a stream of CO2 coming from the top end of the pipe. I also imagine we can stop pumping, and that the stream will continue on its own as long as there are liquid CO2 reserves at the bottom end of the pipe, and the perforations do not get plugged up with debris.

    Such deep ocean CO2 pipes that spew out CO2 without requiring any additional ongoing power, could increase the atmospheric CO2 levels. It might even be possible to harness some power from their operation.

  10. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Although the mass hysteria about “climate change” persists due to a determined and powerful political agenda abetted by the press, governments and the education systems, supported by the ignorance of the masses, there are endless amounts of evidence to counter the validity of all that.
    This post is one example.
    “If they ever admitted to the systematic error, obviously present, they’d end up with nothing to report. The prime evidence base of AGW would vanish. One can understand the reluctance, but it’s incompetent science regardless.”

Comments are closed.