How To Cook the Books on Global Warming by Dr Phil Jones, Prof James Hansen and Tom Rigley.

The temperature record is an honest and real representation of the climate, no really. They stake their reputation on it.

 Global Warming Dishonesty and Caprice

Whenever you catch anyone in an act of dishonesty, be it a child with it's hand in the cookie jar or the smell of weed in someone's bedroom. You automatically know it has to be dealt with, swift, clean and honestly. That is the way it is.
When people notice that some scientists have deliberately and dishonestly exaggerated  temperature results and skewed the outcome to suit their own purposes, they should face some level of accountability and be held accountable for those lies and distortions. The predominately left wing thinking process does not work in that way ofcourse.
They will turn a blind eye to dishonesty, lies, cheating and law breaking (think Occupy Everything, with rape, assaults, carnage, thievery etc) while still demanding that those action are legitimate and their "intentions" were honourable. The rabble prefer ignorance and lies to facts and honesty. It is the way they think. Stupid is as stupid does, should in reality be their calling card and their main slogan.

Never before published paper on UHI and siting – Goodridge 1987

Mind you, this is data that Jim used prior to the big range of adjustments that have been applied by NCDC. Jim provides all that data in the paper. It might be interesting to compare the data then and now to see what has been done to it. Another important distinction of note is that this paper was presented over a year before NASA’s Dr. James Hansen went before the Senate in June 1988, and touted his science and model predictions, deeming it so solid that they had to turn off the air conditioning in the hearing room for “theatrical effect”.
Figure 6 and 7 on page 10 are also instructive:

 
When comparing the temp. results with other factors like population, as compared to open areas where these stations should be, we have an entirely different picture. We can see clearly how the population effects the temperature in a big way. It can be easily shown when comparing population growth with temperature increase. That would ofcourse be a given, as more tarmac, concrete and buildings will store more heat than an open paddock.

Plus answers to yesterday’s Fun puzzle: Name these official stations.
Given that California Governor Jerry Brown has recently setup a website at the governor’s office basically telling skeptics to “shut up” I thought this would be a good time to publish this.
This is a paper that was presented at a climate conference by Jim Goodridge, former State Climatologist of California, titled Population and Temperature Trends in California at the Pacific Climate Workshop, in Pacific Grove, CA March 22-26, 1987.

 Bingo, below, the liars and exaggerators are being continually exposed and nothing and no one in position of power is even bothering to bring them to account. What the hell is going on here. Is everyone complicit in this hoax ?

More information on this link.


Memorandum submitted by Richard S Courtney (CRU 01)

In a press release at

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

your Select Committee "announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)."

Here are the graphs to demonstrate the effect of population growth and temperature.

NOAA/NCDC incapable of Honesty.

Prize winning photo from a volcanic eruption, superb.

Once again we witness the obvious manipulation of the facts as we once again see how vacant and unreliable NOAA/NCDC, under Hansen, has become. They have set up a superior system to detect the variation in the weather but they prefer to use the questionable and debunked old weather system which has been demonstrated to be unreliable and grossly inaccurate.

They prefer to list the highest temp from this old system as it suits their Global Warming theories the best. WUWT has done the sums and come up with an article that once again demonstrates what a farce the NOAA/NCDC has become. They are now a laughable entity not to be trusted to give even a guess at the temperature as they apparently are incapable of telling the truth. Time to either close it down or remove management. It has become a white elephant of the CAGW Hansen mentality and obvious warmistas political viewpoint.

An ‘incovenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network

Posted on August 8, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I decided to do myself something that so far NOAA has refused to do: give a CONUS average temperature for the United States from the new ‘state of the art’ United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). After spending millions of dollars to put in this new network from 2002 to 2008, they are still giving us data from the old one when they report a U.S. national average temperature. As readers may recall, I have demonstrated that old COOP/USHCN network used to monitor U.S. climate is a mishmash of urban, semi-urban, rural, airport and non-airport stations, some of which are sited precariously in observers backyards, parking lots, near air conditioner vents, airport tarmac, and in urban heat islands. This is backed up by the 2011 GAO report spurred by my work.
Here is today’s press release from NOAA, “State of the Climate” for July 2012 where they say:

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895.

OK, that average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July is easy to replicate and calculate using NOAA’s USCRN network of stations, shown below:

Map of the 114 climate stations in the USCRN, note the even distribution.

In case you aren’t familiar with his network and why it exists, let me cite NOAA/NCDC’s reasoning for its creation. From the USCRN overview page:

The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds, and are being expanded to include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity. Experimental stations have been located in Alaska since 2002 and Hawaii since 2005, providing network experience in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29 station USCRN network into Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.

So clearly, USCRN is an official effort, sanctioned, endorsed, and accepted by NOAA, and is of the highest quality possible. Here is what a typical USCRN station looks like:

USCRN Station at the Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, PA

A few other points about the USCRN:

• Temperature is measured with triple redundant air aspirated sensors (Platinum Resistance Thermometers) and averaged between all three sensors. The air aspirated shield exposure system is the best available.
• Temperature is measured continuoisly and logged every 5 minutes, ensuring a true capture of Tmax/Tmin
• All stations were sited per Leroy 1999 siting specs, and are Class 1 or Class 2 stations by that siting standard. (see section 2.2.1 here of the USCRN handbook PDF)
• The data goes through quality control, to ensure an errant sensor hasn’t biased the values, but is otherwise unchanged.
• No stations are near any cities, nor have local biases of any kind that I have observed in any of my visits to them.
• Unlike the COOP/USHCN network where they fought me tooth and nail, NOAA provided station photographs up front to prove the “pristine” nature of the siting environment.
• All data is transmitted digitally via satellite uplink direct from the station.

So this means that:

1. There are no observer or transcription errors to correct.
2. There is no time of observation bias, nor need for correction of it.
3. There is no broad scale missing data, requiring filling in data from potentially bad surrounding stations. (FILNET)
4. There are no needs for bias adjustments for equipment types since all equipment is identical.
5. There are no need for urbanization adjustments, since all stations are rural and well sited.
6. There are no regular sensor errors due to air aspiration and triple redundant lab grade sensors. Any errors detected in one sensor are identified and managed by two others, ensuring quality data.
7. Due to the near perfect geospatial distribution of stations in the USA, there isn’t a need for gridding to get a national average temperature.

Knowing this, I wondered why NOAA has never offered a CONUS monthly temperature from this new network. So, I decided that I’d calculate one myself.
The procedure for a CONUS monthly average temperature from USCRN:

1. Download each station data set from here: USCRN Quality Controlled Datasets.
2. Exclude stations that are part of the USHCN-M (modernized USHCN) or USRCRN-Lite stations which are not part of the 114 station USCRN master set.
3. Exclude stations that are not part of the CONUS (HI and AK)
4. Load all July USCRN 114 station data into an Excel Spreadsheet, available here: CRN_CONUS_stations_July2012_V1.2
5. Note stations that have missing monthly totals data. Three in July 2012, Elgin, AZ, (4 missing days) Avondale, PA,(5 missing days) McClellanville, SC, (7 missing days) and  set their data aside to be dealt with separately.
6. Do sums and calculate CONUS averages for the Tmax, Tmin, Tavg and Tmean data provided for each station.
7. Do a separate calculation to see how much difference the stations with missing/partial data make for the entire CONUS.

Here are the results:

USA Monthly Mean for July 2012:   75.72°F 
(111 stations)
USA Monthly Average for July 2012:   75.51°F 
(111 stations)
USA Monthly Mean for July 2012:   75.74°F 
(114 stations, 3 w/ partial missing data, difference  0.02)
USA Monthly Average for July 2012:   75.55°F 
(114 stations, 3 w/ partial missing data, difference  0.04)

============================

Comparison to NOAA’s announcement today:

Using the old network, NOAA says the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 77.6°F
Using the NOAA USCRN data, the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 75.5°F
The difference between the old problematic network and new USCRN is 2.1°F cooler.

This puts July 2012, according to the best official climate monitoring network in the USA at 1.9°F below the  77.4°F July 1936 USA average temperature in the NOAA press release today, not a record by any measure. Dr. Roy Spencer suggested earlier today that he didn’t think so either, saying:

So, all things considered (including unresolved issues about urban heat island effects and other large corrections made to the USHCN data), I would say July was unusually warm. But the long-term integrity of the USHCN dataset depends upon so many uncertain factors, I would say it’s a stretch to to call July 2012 a “record”.

This result also strongly suggests, that a well sited network of stations, as the USCRN is designed from inception to be, is totally free of the errors, biases, adjustments, siting issues, equipment issues, and UHI effects that plague the older COOP USHCN network that is a mishmash of problems that the new USCRN was designed to solve.
It suggests Watts et al 2012 is on the right track when it comes to pointing out the temperature measurement differences between stations with and without such problems.
NOAA never mentions this new pristine USCRN network in any press releases on climate records or trends, nor do they calculate and display a CONUS value for it. Now we know why. The new “pristine” data it produces is just way too cool for them.
Look for a regular monthly feature using the USCRN data at WUWT.

Global Warming: The Farce. Temperature Stations Wrong.

Follow the distortions, the lies, the mis-information and the people involved.

It does not matter how big the lies are or how many people are involved in the fraud. The truth will eventually out those who have maliciously and intendedly deceived the public and they should be facing charges for their deliberate deceptions.

There is now no excuse for the "Global Warming" hysteria to even exist, for anyone to utter those same lies and exaggerations, as they have been for so long. It is now way too embarrassing for anyone to utter the AGW lies as it will single them out as being part of that conspiracy as well as being part of the team that was solely interested in filling their pockets with taxpayer's loot, under false pretenses. They should be roundly ashamed and bought to justice. The entire saga is a total and complete disgrace to all involved.

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

Posted on July 29, 2012 by Anthony Watts

 

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29^th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.

The Age, More Comedy on AGW and the Arctic Ice.

Gillard: Spreading the Carbon Tax, just to stay in Power. taxing Aussies into poverty.

Two great things about this post from Here, one is that it covers two of my favourite topics, which are the juvenile antics of the Australian "The Age" newspaper, a fantasy, pretend fish and chips wrapper which promotes it's favourite hysterical topic of AGW, it really stands for "another great w..k". They believe it is an actual, genuine, serious topic, that they can use to demonstrate how on the boil they really are. It's more comedy than journalism ofcourse, but they pretend otherwise.

Always Hot In The Cubby House

THE SILLY’S little green imp Ben Cubby keeps the faith – the faith in cherrypicking, that is. The Arctic is melting, he tells readers, advising that the cracking pace at which ice is vanishing represents “the impact of warmer air and water temperatures” which “can be directly measured”.

Yes, it can be directly measured – as it was back in March, when ice levels were up and nudging the 1980s average. Somehow, perhaps because he was too busy being a carbon-tax supporting quality journalist, the easily distracted Cubby neglected to mention that little fact.

WUWT has all the charts, some of which show declines while others describe increases. Fairfax shares should be so lucky.

The Cooling Planet and the CO2 Reduction.

As the Global Warming hysteria increases to a crescendo, it appears that all their fake and false claims are all but exposed, once again.

Amazing Shale: US CO2 Emissions Plummet Towards 1990 Levels

by John Hanger (via The GWPF)
America’s carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011. But the shale gas revolution makes a reality of many things recently thought impossible. Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future.  After the first quarter, the USA’s 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA’s latest Monthly Energy Review.

 As you can see on the above graph, Shale is the most affective alternative to the ever decreasing level of all those nasty CO2 molecules that the environmentalists have been blaming all along. It would appear that not only are levels decreasing but we won't be barbequed in our sleep overnight. Is that not great. Catastrophic Global hysterics would sensibly be a claim of the past and all those models that have been claiming otherwise are just another joke.

Too bad the CAGW Labour Government in Australia have not got the message yet as they have just introduced the highest "Carbon" tax on the Planet which will do absolutely NOTHING to cool the planet. It appears to be cooling down itself as the SUN goes into a cold period and will do until at least 2035.

The Sun has changed its character

Posted on July 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Guest post by David Archibald
A number of solar parameters are weak, and none is weaker than the Ap Index:

WUWT: Has Been Dr.Mann-Handled.

One of the most viewed AGW sceptic sites on the web is ofcourse WUWT (Watts up with that), which has a view rate of about 100 million hits per year.

• Blog Stats

  • 118,871,240 views

Those hits on this one single site would outstrip every AGW hysterics site by about a thousand to one and it's growing daily.
Enter Dr Mann (the hockey shtick exaggerator), one ignorant and delusional academic who is apparently a bit dim about the hit rate of this site and makes some delusional remarks, just as a child would...

It is the usual case that whenever one is confronted about their lies and exaggerations, Mann also resorts to childish retorts and ridiculous starwman arguments. A practice that only those with no other arguments can come up with. Pathetic response for a supposed academic.

Roger Sowell questioned this self elevated, mighty in his own mind, academic about his delusional hockey stick study. Leaving the sad impression, as other studies have demonstrated it, to being a complete and total farce. It just does not stand up to scrutiny or questions either..

Roger Sowell says:

June 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Dr. Mann enjoyed worldwide fame prominence when his Hockey Stick graph was given such a prominent place in the IPCC report.
As everyone now knows, thanks to Steve McIntire, the peer-review on the hockey stick paper failed to uncover the fatal flaws.
The Little Ice Age did exist. So did the Medieval Warm Period even though the hockey stick graph essentially eliminated both.
Mann’s debunked work no longer has a prominent place, and that most likely rankles.
It is quite interesting that Mann chose to evade the actual question and instead discussed the unintentional switch of the name Briffa for Bradley.
A gentleman would have gently corrected that minor error then answered the question.
But, as I stated during the TV interview with David Nazar at PBS KOCE, it may be that Mann has been advised by his attorneys not to speak about such things until the litigation is resolved.

The entire article gets better as it goes along. Check that out for yourself.

Ever more evidence about Michael Mann and his conniving and scheming as shown in the Climategate email release..

Lord Leach, Nature, WUWT and Skeptical Science (SS)

Climate Fraud is the total and complete scam that has so far cost taxpayers BILLIONS for no benefit.

There are a few things that appear to be changing in regards to the AGW hysterical rantings. When one has a look at the calibre of people involved in exposing this fraud has definitely expanded as we see here -

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony

It appears that the compulsive liars in the AGW fraud are reaching desperation level as they are now and have been in the past, naming or calling anyone who fails to follow their lockstep a "denier", akin to being a "Holocaust" denier. Even though there is ofcourse now comparison to that claim, they use it as a put down to discourage any competing or challenges to their completely incorrect model based assumptions. The weather bureau has problems predicting tomorrow's weather let alone next week or next year or next century that those claiments swear black and blue is 100% true, as far as they concerned, with no margin of error.

They are of the opinion that everyone else besides themselves are uter and complete morons and only they have the insight to predict the future weather just like a sooth sayer or magic glass ball viewers claim they do. It has been demonstrated that the temperature gauges have been placed in the wrong place (in front air con duct and on top of tarmac, at airports) as WUWT site owner has already demonstrated via a peer reviewed study. That result has already darkened their claim dramatically plus they have also been shown to include questionable assumptive information in their models as well. One AGW study used one single tree ring study when 1400 were available because it fitted their deceitful and dishonest claims.
 

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford

There are also deceitful sites like Skeptical Science (SS) which is run by a CAGW fanatical and compulsive liar, who makes endless claims regarding that fraud, only to be constatntly demonstrated for the compulsive sharlatan they are like. Paid stoolies,payed to spread the lies, as every one of those frauds are. There is no evidence that everyone will BBQ in their beds over nigh or the next week or the next century, as it has been all made up using false and questionable information and even if it does warm a degree or two, the world would benefit from it. But the fraud continues.

The Global Warming Scam.
Global Warming Commentary.

Hubert Lamb, One Honest Climate Scientist.

One normally meets a blatant obvious lie with such incredulity as to respond with their mouth open. Why, because the lie you have just been told is that obvious and that blatant, that the mind has only one response and everything else is forgotten. That is how the majority of people reacted when faced with the blatant chicanery by the CAGW pseudo-scientists, when those UEA (Uni. of East Anglia)  emails were released. One wondered how it was possible for a group of scientists to blatantly and obviously lie about the weather. Not only that, but they colluded and adjusted data and studies of what was supposed to be "peer reviewed"(now know as Pal Review) climate information to be used as guidelines to an ignorant public and government.

Their methods worked well as we have seen billions of dollars wasted on copious useless methods that were supposed to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and has in actual fact achieved absolutely nothing noticeable at all. The entire CAGW is a total scam waiting to be exposed but unfortunately, the main stream media have fallen for those lies as well and refuse to ask the apporpriate questions or practise any level of journalistic integrity on the subject. It has all become a major farce of gigantic proportions and it's still growing in magnitude as we have just witnessed at the latest energy wasting, CO2 inducing RIO20 carnival.

Meanwhile the old scientists, those who still have/had integrity and were not affected by political bullying, have records and studies that shows what happened in the past. The honest, untainted and true version that is.

Hubert Lamb was one of the leading climatologists of his time, indeed described in one obituary as the greatest. He spent most of his career at the UK Met Office before founding and becoming the first director of the Climatic Research Unit. He wrote many books, but perhaps “Climate: Present , Past & Future” was the most significant. Here we review Volume 2, amounting to 836 pages, which particularly looks at climatic trends over the centuries.

Here we have a scientist with obvious integrity and un-influenced by politics, who would study the facts and declare the truth of what he had studied. That was how it was originally done.  There are a lot of honourable scientists right now who are totally disgusted by the actions of the CAGW alarmists, those who stand to make money from their own dishonesty and lies.

Quotes from Lamb's Huge Books on the topic.

It was after 2000-1500 BC that most of the present glaciers in the Rocky Mountains south of  57 ^o N were formed and that major re-advance of those in the Alaskan Rockies first took place.
And at their subsequent advanced positions – probably around 500 BC as well as between 1650 and 1850 AD – the glaciers in the Alps regained an extent, estimated in the Glockner region, at about 5 times their Bronze Age Minimum, when all the smaller ones had disappeared.

More information on this topic..