Well….. this is a bit irksome/refreshing.
So, after literally years and years of skeptics saying that you can’t simply just make up data and pretend it’s real, some people are now paying attention. Of course, this is after many pooh-poohed it in the LSM and other places.
In the recent post of Steve’s, he makes a point I tried to make in my original post surrounding this hubbub. These people aren’t seeing the forests through the trees. They can’t really be this obtuse, so they’re willfully trying to get people to remain ignorant of the huge beam in the eye of climatologists, and their apologists.
Steve quotes yet another bit of sophistry from The Blackboard. Here’s a graph Zeke offered …
Lets take a look at how big a difference the choice of methods makes. The figure above shows Goddard’s method using the raw data in red, the correct method (gridded anomalies) using the raw data in blue, and the fully homogenized data (e.g. NCDC’s official temperature record) in green. Goddard’s method serves to exaggerate the effect of adjustments, though significant adjustment remain even when using a method unbiased by changes in underlying climatology. The majority of these adjustments are for changing time of observation at measurement stations, while much of the remainder is correcting for a max cooling bias due to the change from liquid in glass thermometers to MMTS thermometers. NCDC’s adjustments have been discussed at length elsewhere, so for the remainder of this post I’m going to focus on the factors that result in the difference between the red and blue lines. These differences may seem small, but they result in a non-negligible difference in the trend, and drive incorrect claims like Goddard’s assertion that the U.S. has been cooling since the 1930s and that most of the warming post-2000 is due to “fabricated data” from infilling.
Lets focus in particular on the period after 1990, where the majority of the decline in station availability occurs. It’s worth mentioning again that the decline in stations reporting isn’t a result of some great conspiracy; rather, the network was created in the late 1980s and purposefully included stations that were currently reporting at that point in time. As much of USHCN represents a volunteer effort in the form of co-op stations, these volunteers will sometimes quit or pass away, and NCDC has had difficulty finding new volunteers to take over. Some stations have also been closed as a result of poor siting identified by Anthony and others.
Notice the red-herring. It doesn’t matter that the closings weren’t from a conspiracy. What matters is the conspired effects of how one deals with the closings.
Zeke wants to concentrate on 1990 to the present. Well, sure, let’s do that. But, also, let’s concentrate also on the start of the graph. I’ll just post a graph from The Blackboard that I used the other day.
I note, that in order to show warming, the past must be cooler. Right? Where, on the temp graph do we see the coolest period? Oh, right, that would be when we had the least actual stations, and the most imaginary temps reported. Oddly, when all of our stations came on line and was giving us actual data, that was when we had the warmest temperatures, until our stations started dropping like flies and we just started to make up imaginary temperatures, again.
Sorry, Zeke, Blackboard, Mosh, Nick, and the rest. There’s no amount of rationalizing which makes this fact go away. There’s no amount of beautiful maths which makes this go away.
Zeke, you’re agreeing with the lunatics because it fits your notion of how things are. However, you’ve clearly demonstrated how things are. When the fact don’t fit your notions, the correct answer is not to change the facts.
Our infilling and adjustments, for whatever reasonings and rational are the coolest and warmest part of our temp record. They have created the outliers.
Yes, there is a TOBS bias. I observe that when we make up temperature records, they fit rather nicely to some preconceived notion of a warmer world/nation. And, yes, we call this confirmation bias.