More News On USHCN Temperature Adjustments

Posted: June 30, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Paul Homewood now finds that even the adjustments have been adjusted over the last couple of years. The temperature record is in a mess.


By Paul Homewood

1) First I have had a comment accusing me of lying. Will the accuser, who cowardly goes under the name “anonymous”, note that further accusations of lying will be earn him a ban.


ScreenHunter_739 Jun. 29 15.03


The top line highlighted is USHCN Station Code 415429, which, as can be confirmed here, is Luling, Texas.

Such moronic comments, not to mention inclusion of the mandatory “cherry picking” and “denier”, rather sum up just weak some alarmist arguments have become.

2) Kansas

Returning to yesterday’s topic of adjustments in Kansas, I have plotted the annual adjustments for TOBS (Time of Observation Bias) at one of the stations there, Ashland.

They are downloaded from USHCN’s website here.


Currently, 0.3F is being added to actual temperatures, whilst back in 1934, for instance, 1.1F was deducted. This makes a net adjustment of 1.4F.

This figure is way above NOAA’s previously published figure…

View original post 452 more words

  1. colliemum says:

    I’ve been reading the various posts and comments on the various blogs about this juicy scandal over the weekend. This is in fact actually ‘worse than we thought’, since Paul Homewood shows that these ‘adjustments’, which always go up for the years after 1998, and always adjust down especially for the 1930s, are done automatically.
    That infilling was used, and that ‘zombie thermometers’ were used has been shown in exemplary fashion some years ago by “Chiefio”.
    There are actually two scandals here. One is that our energy policies are still using these manufactured data to clobber us with their CO2 policies, but the other is that in spite of all the millions spent on “climate science” no one has asked about these thermometers, there has been no programme to set up a standardised placement/reading programme across the world. If AGW is so awful, at least, one would have thought, someone would have insisted on getting standard data across the globe.
    But then, why would we be surprised in a ‘science’ where computer programme printouts are ‘evidence’ while actual data and actual observations are wrong if they contradict the computer-generated results.

  2. Remember the “Harry_read_me.txt” file from Climategate, 247 pages longI?

    Harry put together the global climate record. Are we only just now appreciating what a mess Harry was describing?

    Have a read of the following blog to refresh your memory.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    The temperature data is not useful scientific data but a POLITICAL WEAPON used to impoverish and kill ordinary people.

    The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 12/06/92 and ratified it in 21/03/94. At that point ALL government’s signing the document agreed to the NEW definition of Climate Change:

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building. It ONLY considers atmospheric changes.

    The IPCC mandate is similar:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

    The IPCC’s ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

    Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

    “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”

    This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

    So the general public has been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the the change of climate is negligible.

    James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) from 1981 to 2013, is a critical figure in this hoax. His testimony on climate change to a congressional committee in 1988 was given on the hottest day of the year and he say to it the A/C was off and windows opened.

    The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works even admits it was a well crafted piece of showmanship designed to influence the US Government.

    The Washington Post also commemorates astronomer James Hansen’s testimony of 20 years ago that started the global-warming panic. They fall for the spin, big time. Here’s how the drama opens: There have been hotter days on Capitol Hill, but few where the heat itself became a kind of congressional exhibit. It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves. James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway. Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message. “We were just lucky,” Hansen said last week. Hmmm. As noted below, Hansen’s cohort then-Sen. Tim Wirth has made clear that this was as close to orchestrated as they could make it — even attempting to time the temperature market (perhaps that’s what Hansen meant by getting “lucky”) — and the aforementioned “overpowered” air conditioner actually had just been turned off and the windows left open before hearing time….

    In Washington DC today it is 72.9 °F (my temp in North Carolina is 68 °F) and on June 23 the highs were:
    2010 – 97 °F
    2011 – 86 °F
    2012 – 91 °F
    2013 – 86 °F
    2014 – 85 °F
    HMMMmmmm seems to be getting a bit cooler doesn’t it?

    Steven Goddard records Hansen tampering with the temperature records HERE:

    Too bad all the relatives of the people who died of ‘Fuel Poverty’ in the UK can’t bring this clown up on charges of Accessory before the fact on murder the next time he is protesting in the UK. After all the precedence has already been set in the EU Seven prominent Italian earthquake experts were convicted of manslaughter on Monday and sentenced to six years in prison for failing to give adequate warning to the residents of a seismically active area in the months preceding an earthquake that killed more than 300 people. Those seven are not nearly as morally liable as Hansen who DELIBERATELY helped set-up and carry through this hoax. The ‘smoking gun’ can be found in Hansen’s hand.

    (And Yes I am angry, livid is a better term, that these people get away with this thanks to the bought and paid for MSM.)

  4. Gail Combs says:

    OH, this comment @ NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT, is a real gem:

    It is worth repeating since it is one of the last comments and people may not see it:

    JustAnotherPoster @ June 30, 2014 11:03 am

    Never annoy professional accountants. They will run rings around 99% of us with regards to maths numbers, and valid calculations.

    Lesson to Nick Stokes et al. Paul has probably been dealing with numbers, adding and subtracting, “adjustments” for his entire professional life, longer than you have ever looked at climate science or NOAA “adjustments”

    Accountants have to sign accounts that are a “Valid and true” representation of a company. There are serious professional consequences if they are wrong.

    Accounts have 20 years experience of looking for “adjustments” of figures. Climate science is easy pickings to these chaps.

    I have no doubt if you gave an accountant a challenge. Work out the entire Adjustments for a state such as Texas.

    They would do it manually, correctly and 100% accurately.

    Don’t dick with them.

    If you accuse an accountant of “lying” as some people have… you have best be 100% accurate of your allegation.

    They are Grade A Students(normally) and have to sit and take years of professional, difficult exams.

    I think Nick Stokes just had his rear-end handed to him. {:>D

  5. catweazle666 says:

    First Climategate -which should have told everyone all they needed to know – and now this.

    Hopefully the decline in the credibility of the AGW hoax isn’t going to be hidden for much longer, I’ll be interested to see how the Usual Suspects try to talk their way out of this one.

  6. Doug Proctor says:

    I understand why a Time of Observation change would create a step change. But I don’t understand why such a change would create a POSITIVE change. Should it not be just a change to zero?

    Also, the changes keep happening. Are we to believe that the temp readings in the 1990s were still being done fundamentally “wrong”? And if yesterday’s correction gets corrected today, are we not admitting that the fundamentals of error correction are still not understood? There are only a few reasons to change a temperature reading. You do it and move on.

  7. tallbloke says:

    They’ll tell us “it doesn’t matter”.

  8. They can adjust al they want the problem for them is the temperature trend going forward is going to be down.

  9. J Martin says:

    Endless adjustments to data sets ends up looking like surreptitious systematic fraud.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    J Martin if you follow Steven Goddard’s site at all it is very definitely FRAUD. Raw data has been removed and “Estimated” data substituted. In some case the stations “Reporting” have been dead for years, Stations that have reported hourly data from inception get Tobs ‘Adjustments’ (WTF!!!) and other similar issues that all have one point in common. They cool the past and warm the present.

  11. Chaeremon says:

    The “publish or perish” culture motivates researchers to violate research norms, says a new article on How often do economists commit misconduct?

    It appears that perceived pressure is found to be positively related to the admission of being involved in several unaccepted research practices.

    IMHO it works like this: over time, all too many researchers have violated research norms in one way or the other (see article), and this affects peer reviewers directly who are recruited from the same self-interest pool of experts because science critics are banned and/or called deniers of research norm violation.

    Then the tipping point happens at a time when undisciplined researchers and reviewers are ‘extremely likely’ involved in currently unaccepted research practices (and/or slipped through, lag doesn’t matter here but yields an interesting subfield of study). As soon as this happens the research norm is blamed and therefore adapted, thus the apocalyptic percentage drops to appreciable levels because now the science is settled … how come that Climastrology works not just with same vocabulary but also same method …

  12. A C Osborn says:

    Gail, I have looked at some stations as well, I don’t think it is a straight forward case of Cooling the Past, I think they are also taking out the natural variation to make it a better fit to MM’s Hockey Stick.
    We also have stations with over 40 years of Estimated values at the beginning of the 20th Century where there were no values at all, ie Manufactured as well as Estimated values replacing the actual ones.

    This is Fraud on a large scale, but it is obviously Government sanctioned fraud.

  13. tallbloke says:

    This comment made me laugh:

    JJ says:
    July 8, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    Richard Day says:

    Germany demolished Brazil 7-1 today in the World Cup.

    I’m sorry, but that is not correct.

    Your problem is, you are using the raw score. When the proper pairwise homogenization algorithm is applied, comparison to similar soccer games played within a 1500 km radius flags the score 7-1 as a soccer score discontinuity. To correct this obvious error, the anomalous values are replaced with regional average scores. After adjustment, Brazil won 3-2.

  14. Anything is possible says:

    That’s the one I meant!

    My bad. I should’ve specified “comment” instead of “post.”