Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
This thread isn't about climate models, the number of birds/bats kills by windmills, the inability to supply solar energy at night, the wait for Mega-battery storage, or any financial wizardry.
It is about gathering reports of Temperature Data Corruption that would be expected to have some significant impact on the Climate Change discussion. It is, after all, a very weak link in the chain from which hangs many of the doom laden climate forecasts.
I do admire those who produce these reports because they are doing an important task, for little reward, and little chance of of attending a 'world climate summit'.
Maybe their chance will come, when the truth will out.
From July 2011:NCWatch: NASA adjusts observed temperature data to fit their climate models
From July 2015:JoanneNova: Scandal: BoM thermometer records adjusted “by month” — mysterious square wave pattern discovered
From November 2015:NoTricksZone: “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
From November 2015:NoTricksZone: Climate/Geology Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert Says “Standards Of Science Not Met” By Climate Models
From January 2017:NoTricksZone: Robust Evidence NOAA Temperature Data Hopelessly Corrupted By Warming Bias, Manipulation
Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard has done a lot of work in this area.
What happened to the GWPF professional study of temperature data fiddling that was announced about a year ago?
It was April 2015, actually. They promised to publish all submissions. Here they are, in full:
the date of the last and first frost of the year will be recorded in dusty records in stately homes, vineyards, sportsgrounds etc all around Europe. Some may go back hundreds of years.
Whether there was, or was not a frost, is not subject to interpretation or adjustment.
golf charlieI guess local newspapers will have reports of particularly early or late frosts. Four or five years ago there was a late frost here which decimated the Apple crop later in the year, as it came just as the blossom would normally set the fruit.
Steve Goddard/Tony Heller is particularly good at finding these references.
SandyS, that is the sort of data I meant, thank you! Unexpected or late frosts have been blamed for putting up orange juice prices, cups of coffee etc. French vineyards must have records going back hundreds of years.
You do not need a calibrated thermometer to see a frost. The number of degrees below zero is NOT relevant.
golf charlieDo you know any searchable online libraries of newspapers? Using an ordinary search engine gets far too many irrelevant results. Or you find only recent events such as http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/frost-rot-and-mildew-cause-champagne-shortage-324640/or http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/late-frosts-hit-early-wheats.htmGetting a comprehensive list would be quite an undertaking if it involved visiting many well established vineyards with a long history. If Dégustation was involved then a teetotal driver might be required.
It's the sort of research I'd expect to have been done already but I can find no trace.
SandyS. Perhaps you have already discovered why - researchers visiting vineyards with climate research zeal get somewhat distracted and have to go into rehab.
SandyS. Some data here. https://www.victoryseeds.com/frost/ca.html
SandyS & ACK
I don't think the information will be online anywhere. That is part of the point! It is not subject to computer aided adjustment.
Steve Goddard/Paul Heller has posted many newspaper clippings from USA etc that contradict the history revisionists of the Hockey Teamsters.
European vineyards will have centurys of data, as attempts were made to make a better wine than had been made previously, and grapple with the reasons why.
If anyone has the funding, I'll drive!
'climatereason' a fine commenter doing historical climate researcher has given me the tip over at Judy's that the EU has funded paleo temperature series through the CRU, not from biological proxies, but historical record. There is potential, given the morale and morals at both ends of that money stream, for corruption of that important record.====================
The challenge has been how to credibly demonstrate that for whatever motive the historic record has been tampered with in a biased way. We believe the graphic record strongly supports this. However graphs are easy to make and climate consensus defenders have easy access to a media committed to defending the extremists. So how to break through the impasse? I suggest a physical test: rebuild weather stations to the older specs and do side by side tests against modern stations. If skeptics are correct about suspecting the homogenization and retroactive adjustments that underpins the consensus nothing will be more clear than current QA tests. This is the only way I can think of achieving a credible QA test. Thoughts?
h, respectfully, I think that fine suggestion will only impact one tiny part of the adjustments, or the need for adjustments. The problem is vast; I cannot help but think that satellite temperature series will eventually be most relied upon, for their steadiness of the data stream. But, of course, the satellite record is much too short to be of much use, for some questions; it is fine for some others, too.==============
kim, thanks for the feedback. This idea is based on tightly focusing on a single aspect. If the historic temperature adjustments can be shown to be faulty or not in a side-by-side comparison then some things would become clear. This is a dangerous test for skeptics, by the way. What if it turns out that the adjustments *are* justified?
hunter, I agree with the thought, but many weather stations had to be moved due to construction work, so can't be moved back, or they were not moved due to construction work, and so the continuity of the site can not be restored.
The Admiralty had an interest in conditions at sea, (Beaufort Scale etc) but not on land. It was not until the end of WW1, the RAF etc that a UK Met office came into being. Weather stations were at RAF Bases, that were grass, without many buildings, and no jet engines. Weather data collection was simple. Temperature data then was a simple thermometer recording MAX and MIN, not a rolling average, hour by hour or minute by minute.
Hence my previous suggestion about frost, as this is a simple Yes/No answer and was important to many, over the centuries.
I do not doubt that some change in the climate does occur over sucessive decades. It always has done. I do doubt it will have much similarity with a Hockey Stick though.
hunter on Feb 2, 2017 at 4:15 PM"What if it turns out that the adjustments *are* justified?"
Unjustified or not, there should be some explanation to accompany the changes. That is a win for truth, no matter how justified the changes are!
In addition, there isn't just one weather station that is being questioned, or one range of years, or one set of recorded data. The questions keep on coming:The Temperature ‘Truth’ Changes After The 1980s The raw thermometer or instrumental temperature data available in the 1950s have not changed in the last 35 years. In other words, daily high and low temperature numbers from thermometer accounts that were not available in the 1870s or 1910s or 1930s did not subsequently become available, or appear, in the years following the early 1980s. And yet after the 1980s, the thermometric instrumental record accepted during the 1950s to 1970s was fundamentally changed to reflect a new truth that aligned with climate models. For instead of a global warming +0.7°C between 1860 and 1940, the Met Office decided that the 1860-1940 warming trend should be +0.3°C instead. Again, no new raw thermometric evidence had emerged. And yet about 0.4°C of warming was lopped off the previously accepted trend anyway.NoTricksZone: Could A New Global Temperature Reconstruction Using Ice Cores Be More Accurate Than The Instrumental Record?
gc, my experiment doesn't care if the stations are moved. The vintage stations will be placed by the current stations and then the differences in measurement are taken in current real time. The results, if the experiment is performed correctly, will give a reasonable test of the assumptions made by the hogemizations and inference based adjustments.
hunter the problem now is that the bottom has fallen out of the Unprecedented Temperature Records market, and the smart money is about to be stopped.
If some wealthy Climate Science experts want to invest their own time and ill-gotten money for the next 30 years or so, before reporting back, it might be ok.
Trump could confiscate the assets of Climate Science fraudsters, and build some remote weather stations in places like Death Valley, and Alaska. These weather stations could have high and secure fences around them, to prevent outside interference, and the incarcerated climate scientists from escaping. Computers would be banned, so that nothing but raw data could ever be recorded, and written down with pencils on stuff called paper.
gc,If we take the time to gather hard data showing that the adjustments were based on a flawed correlation between modern stations and vintage/legacy stations, we will have something that is much more difficult for them to dismiss and much more easily comprehensible to the typical person.
A number of parties have inquired about the status of the work of the International Temperature Data Review set up by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.Panel chairman Professor Terence Kealey said: "The panel has decided that its primary output should be in the form of peer-reviewed papers rather than a non-peer reviewed report. Work is ongoing on a number of subprojects, each of which the panel hopes will result in a peer reviewed paper. One of our projects is an analysis of a subset of the submissions made to the panel by members of the public which have a common theme of the impact of adjustments on individual station histories. The stations histories provided by the public are from many different geographical regions and from several different adjusted data sets."
Panel chairman Professor Terence Kealey said:
"The panel has decided that its primary output should be in the form of peer-reviewed papers rather than a non-peer reviewed report. Work is ongoing on a number of subprojects, each of which the panel hopes will result in a peer reviewed paper.
One of our projects is an analysis of a subset of the submissions made to the panel by members of the public which have a common theme of the impact of adjustments on individual station histories. The stations histories provided by the public are from many different geographical regions and from several different adjusted data sets."
Above actually for Schrodinger's Cat.
Thanks for the update from September 2015. Anyone care to bet on which will surface first, Anthony Watt's game changing paper on US Surface trends, announced summer 2012 to much fanfare, or the GWPF's temperature data review?
Phil Clarke, do you still accept Mann's Hockey Stick as an honest representation of past climate? It was Peer Reviewed, published, and accepted by the IPCC.
Heh, Phil, the more you look the more you find. It is a mess, not necessarily a deliberate one, merely from the nature of the data. Satellite series have fewer things to complicate matters.
So no one will know definitively for awhile yet. One thing is certain; fatigue is setting in at the manipulations.==============
Phil Clarke, do you still accept Mann's Hockey Stick as an honest representation of past climate? It was Peer Reviewed, published, and accepted by the IPCC.Feb 3, 2017 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie
Feb 3, 2017 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie
Heh. It was also unpublished by the IPCC in their next magnum opus. You've got to be producing some seriously bad shit before even the IPCC decides that it is no longer tenable.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.