Paul Vaughan: NOAA Corruption of SST records

Posted: February 2, 2016 by tallbloke in Accountability, Analysis, Critique, Dataset, Ocean dynamics, Temperature, Thermodynamics, Tides, waves, weather, wind

NOAA’s vandalism of ERSSTv3b2 (good) to ERSSTv4 (corrupted) hinges on a single point.

Visual catalog of the beautiful natural patterns being systematically defaced:

— —

1. Secular

— —


— —

3. Centennial

— —

4. Multidecadal — (proven independent of centennial)

__ __ __

  1. ren says:

    The solar wind weakens. The number of neutrons in Oulu exceeds 6500.

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    data: KNMI Climate Explorer
    TB noticed: (February 2, 2016 at 8:13 am) (February 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm)
    I’m on a new file now. Like I explained: The investigation is finished. America went too far. This is now in the hands of the higher ups. Correction will come from Asia.

  3. oldbrew says:

    From the GWPF:

    Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

    The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

    – See more at:

    The study always looked like a ploy to gloss over inconvenient climate data prior to the Paris climate con…ference.

  4. oldbrew says:

    GWPF: ‘A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as official NOAA temperature trends.’

    What’s an ‘official temperature trend’?

  5. tallbloke says:

    One that you have to mop the fevered brow of?

  6. oldbrew says:

    Or one that you decide on before collecting the ‘data’ :/

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB it’s too late for any of that too matter. All it does is prove to the higher ups that westerners are ignorant &/or deceptive. I know this is upsetting, but the matter is now out of our hands and correction will come from the East.

  8. oldbrew says:

    PV: Is that data correction or some other kind of correction – or both?

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    cultural, biological — something along those lines…

  10. ren says:

    The strength of the galactic radiation depends inversely on the solar wind.

  11. oldbrew says:

    The controversy rumbles on…

    300 Scientists Request Explanation for Temperature Shenanigans

    ‘Approximately 300 scientists, engineers, economists, and other climate experts sent a letter to U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in support of his ongoing investigation of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ‘

  12. tallbloke says:

    I’m one of the signatories on that letter. We need to get to the bottom of the everchanging data debacle.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:


    Get the 300 to sign a letter stating the following (if it’s true):

    I know how to subtract 1 column of numbers from another.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    …and therefore I easily see what NOAA did wrong.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Rumour has it that pretty soon the NOAA will be able to work out the temperature of the whole USA from one weather station’s data – after adjustments, obviously :/

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Recommendation for honest, competent parties genuinely and seriously concerned with integrity: Independently understand simple #2 firsthand by subtracting one column of numbers from another.

    The formula’s written on the graph. It says: Put ICOADS SST2.5 in one column and HadNMAT2 in another. Subtract one from the other and compare with IPO. Notice that the “bias” “corrections” match a natural pattern (the IPO).

    Diagnosing and understanding the impact of the vandalism on the other patterns (1, 3, & 4) demands advanced awareness and skill, but #2 can be used as a simple black-&-white test of integrity.

    Observing who refuses to acknowledge #2 firsthand decisively maps out unbelievable (that’s the key word because it’s literally unbelievable) incompetence and/or sketchy/shady corruption in the climate discussion community. It’s a perfect test exactly because it’s evasion-proof dead-simple black-&-white.

    No one can look good claiming to be unable to subtract ICOADS SST2.5 from HadNMAT2 all by themselves. Anyone who tries to pretend they can’t do it is immediately suspected of lying and if someone really can’t do it, why (?!) would they want to draw attention to that very unflattering fact???

    Trust in the existence of fair judging is fatally razed either way. BOTH noaa & their American critics are absolutely conclusively guilty on this file.

    This is going to upset people, but with such outrageous, unchecked corruption in plain view I would say the time has come that it needs to be said: Every day I respect China more and America less.

    What do I really think is going on?
    The central US climate blogs are actively supporting the corruption at noaa by showcasing deliberately weak criticism. (Why? I don’t know…)

  17. Bob Weber says:

    “The central US climate blogs are actively supporting the corruption at noaa by showcasing deliberately weak criticism. ” – is purely unproven crap that doesn’t advance your point.

    Basically Paul is convicting people because they don’t do what Paul expects, because they don’t understand him, although he didn’t explain himself for a year. Who is the responsible party here? The time for teasing everyone to see who ‘gets it’ was over a year ago. This article has barely advanced this matter beyond the suggestions page because who can read Paul’s mind?

    What can Lamar Smith do with information put together without data links for each graphic, that’s short on explanation, yet with several comments with invective & insult by it’s author?

    How do you think your comments should be seen by Smith relative to those of skeptics who signed the Quality Data Act letter – should he take your dark accusations of them to heart and dismiss their petition because they’re not as good as you or something?

    Is there some kind of resistance here preventing the writing of a rather dry, detailed, but informative letter that fleshes out all the reasons why this should garner Rep. Smith’s and the public’s attention?

    I’ll remind again that there’s not much talking about this subject going on here, because in truth, Vaughan the Vague isn’t saying enough about it for people to really have an opinion.

    Get an idea what things look like from the outside. Example: what would it look from here if someone spent most of his time in WUWT’s suggestion pages tossing insults and innuendo across the Atlantic at the Talkshop? That would be a worldwide joke.

    Which leads to the only logical questions: Is Paul actually trying to be ineffective, and is he also deliberately trying to reduce other skeptics’ effectiveness? See Paul, innuendo is way too easy 😉

    It is absolutely unclear how most of those graphics posted above are individually related to NOAA’s corruption of SST records. We’ve seen them all before anyway – yawn…

    The one thing seen at WUWT occasionally, are comments to Anthony telling him the lead article was poorly written or unsubstantiated.

    If that’s never happened here, let me be the first. Roger, Paul’s article sucked.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Point of clarification:
    This isn’t “my” article.
    Rog just blogged a comment I made.



    “data: KNMI Climate Explorer”

    “Put ICOADS SST2.5 in one column and HadNMAT2 in another. Subtract one from the other and compare with IPO. Notice that the “bias” “corrections” match a natural pattern (the IPO).”

    That’s all there is to it.
    Just do it.

    __ __ __

    Lamar Smith: You won’t be able to win the case if you don’t fully understand how ridiculously simple this is. This is a smoking gun. The other stuff is a long list of minutia by comparison. Even in aggregate it looks frivolous and it is sure to be dismissed as such by a sensible judge. Never mind trying to understand #1, #3, & #4. That’s way too advanced for simple folks. #2 on the other hand is a simple smoking gun.

    The following is an EXHAUSTIVE description of the methods for #2:

    data: KNMI Climate Explorer

    Put ICOADS SST2.5 in one column and HadNMAT2 in another. Subtract one from the other and compare with IPO. Notice that the “bias” “corrections” match a natural pattern (the IPO).

    NO other info is needed to reproduce #2. I caution you to regard with deep suspicion anyone suggesting otherwise to you. You can use this as a failsafe test of who’s competent (at the ever-so-difficult task of subtracting one column of numbers from another) & trustworthy.

    This is getting totally ridiculous.
    With due seriousness: I recommend firing anyone who can’t complete the task in 5 minutes.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:


    I suggest challenging the 300 signatories to…

    “Put ICOADS SST2.5 in one column and HadNMAT2 in another. Subtract one from the other and compare with IPO. Notice that the “bias” “corrections” match a natural pattern (the IPO).”

    “data: KNMI Climate Explorer”

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    NOAA’s definition of “bias” “corrections” = Figure 5:

    Cookbook Recipe: (August 30, 2015 at 4:57 pm)

    Now making it even simpler (CUT AND PASTE FOR ABSOLUTE DUMMIES):

    1. HadNMAT2 (KNMI Climate Explorer)
    2. ICOADS2.5SST (KNMI Climate Explorer)
    3. ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2 (basis of Figure 5 “bias” “corrections” of original paper — see above)
    4. Noticing simple reflection symmetry at record discontinuity:
    a) before 1941: ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8
    b) 1941 onwards: -(ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8)
    5. IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation )
    6. shifted & scaled IPO (column 5 regressed onto column 4)

    1880	18.355356667	18.956368333	0.601011667	-0.198988333	0.729250000	-0.119208041
    1881	18.359669167	18.985033333	0.625364167	-0.174635833	0.877750000	-0.114346338
    1882	18.259919167	18.920623333	0.660704167	-0.139295833	0.941750000	-0.112251058
    1883	18.209173333	18.892033333	0.682860000	-0.117140000	0.918750000	-0.113004050
    1884	18.248849167	18.800771667	0.551922500	-0.248077500	0.811000000	-0.116531649
    1885	18.301118333	18.808220000	0.507101667	-0.292898333	0.626500000	-0.122571947
    1886	18.271940833	18.839868333	0.567927500	-0.232072500	0.378750000	-0.130682970
    1887	18.060323333	18.767694167	0.707370833	-0.092629167	0.088500000	-0.140185389
    1888	18.043990833	18.895550833	0.851560000	0.051560000	-0.217000000	-0.150187074
    1889	18.175808333	18.971355833	0.795547500	-0.004452500	-0.505000000	-0.159615832
    1890	18.000716667	18.724331667	0.723615000	-0.076385000	-0.739750000	-0.167301251
    1891	18.175301667	18.853800000	0.678498333	-0.121501667	-0.888250000	-0.172162954
    1892	18.034177500	18.754010000	0.719832500	-0.080167500	-0.918250000	-0.173145116
    1893	18.043589167	18.753581667	0.709992500	-0.090007500	-0.807250000	-0.169511116
    1894	18.048405000	18.708985000	0.660580000	-0.139420000	-0.550000000	-0.161089075
    1895	18.088139167	18.797365833	0.709226667	-0.090773333	-0.161250000	-0.148361890
    1896	18.214889167	18.988042500	0.773153333	-0.026846667	0.330500000	-0.132262614
    1897	18.154274167	18.941858333	0.787584167	-0.012415833	0.887000000	-0.114043505
    1898	18.024252500	18.764396667	0.740144167	-0.059855833	1.465000000	-0.095120512
    1899	18.100247500	18.856385833	0.756138333	-0.043861667	2.015750000	-0.077089651
    1900	18.133895833	18.914097500	0.780201667	-0.019798333	2.492750000	-0.061473272
    1901	18.074520000	18.798304167	0.723784167	-0.076215833	2.858000000	-0.049515447
    1902	17.965049167	18.711340000	0.746290833	-0.053709167	3.085000000	-0.042083752
    1903	17.795934167	18.589335000	0.793400833	-0.006599167	3.159750000	-0.039636532
    1904	17.729381667	18.536629167	0.807247500	0.007247500	3.082750000	-0.042157415
    1905	17.796555000	18.666754167	0.870199167	0.070199167	2.870000000	-0.049122582
    1906	17.921455833	18.723826667	0.802370833	0.002370833	2.546000000	-0.059729934
    1907	17.812818333	18.605243333	0.792425000	-0.007575000	2.141750000	-0.072964570
    1908	17.773510833	18.522520833	0.749010000	-0.050990000	1.690250000	-0.087746111
    1909	17.785392500	18.525525833	0.740133333	-0.059866667	1.224000000	-0.103010549
    1910	17.788624167	18.507547500	0.718923333	-0.081076667	0.770000000	-0.117873937
    1911	17.797292500	18.519386667	0.722094167	-0.077905833	0.344500000	-0.131804271
    1912	17.915916667	18.619094167	0.703177500	-0.096822500	-0.042500000	-0.144474164
    1913	17.893281667	18.554972500	0.661690833	-0.138309167	-0.382000000	-0.155588967
    1914	18.131524167	18.673612500	0.542088333	-0.257911667	-0.663500000	-0.164804922
    1915	18.235440000	18.811199167	0.575759167	-0.224240833	-0.879750000	-0.171884675
    1916	17.947226667	18.590775000	0.643548333	-0.156451667	-1.027000000	-0.176705454
    1917	18.009190833	18.578395000	0.569204167	-0.230795833	-1.105500000	-0.179275445
    1918	18.104485000	18.602780833	0.498295833	-0.301704167	-1.117500000	-0.179668310
    1919	18.152506667	18.629116667	0.476610000	-0.323390000	-1.064500000	-0.177933157
    1920	18.066940000	18.677840833	0.610900833	-0.189099167	-0.949750000	-0.174176387
    1921	18.115490000	18.716122500	0.600632500	-0.199367500	-0.777250000	-0.168528954
    1922	18.016971667	18.625254167	0.608282500	-0.191717500	-0.553750000	-0.161211845
    1923	18.011402500	18.626638333	0.615235833	-0.184764167	-0.289500000	-0.152560633
    1924	18.005854167	18.675705000	0.669850833	-0.130149167	-0.001000000	-0.143115506
    1925	18.061810833	18.703847500	0.642036667	-0.157963333	0.287250000	-0.133678564
    1926	18.147775000	18.807924167	0.660149167	-0.139850833	0.548250000	-0.125133753
    1927	18.086460000	18.750722500	0.664262500	-0.135737500	0.758250000	-0.118258617
    1928	18.063045000	18.706118333	0.643073333	-0.156926667	0.902250000	-0.113544239
    1929	18.022077500	18.632765833	0.610688333	-0.189311667	0.975750000	-0.111137941
    1930	18.116805000	18.790433333	0.673628333	-0.126371667	0.985750000	-0.110810554
    1931	18.143252500	18.824957500	0.681705000	-0.118295000	0.949750000	-0.111989149
    1932	18.055361667	18.767323333	0.711961667	-0.088038333	0.893750000	-0.113822518
    1933	18.072265833	18.764938333	0.692672500	-0.107327500	0.843750000	-0.115459455
    1934	18.135561667	18.768299167	0.632737500	-0.167262500	0.822750000	-0.116146969
    1935	18.114685833	18.770065833	0.655380000	-0.144620000	0.841250000	-0.115541302
    1936	18.159363333	18.807762500	0.648399167	-0.151600833	0.897750000	-0.113691563
    1937	18.298264167	18.955544167	0.657280000	-0.142720000	0.973750000	-0.111203419
    1938	18.234760833	18.908913333	0.674152500	-0.125847500	1.043500000	-0.108919892
    1939	18.204786667	18.953328333	0.748541667	-0.051458333	1.072250000	-0.107978653
    1940	18.254360833	19.050262500	0.795901667	-0.004098333	1.028000000	-0.109427342
    1941	18.446028333	19.299885833	0.853857500	-0.053857500	0.889250000	-0.113969842
    1942	18.308065833	19.367623333	1.059557500	-0.259557500	0.648750000	-0.121843510
    1943	18.386028333	19.311020833	0.924992500	-0.124992500	0.315750000	-0.132745510
    1944	18.413090833	19.448988333	1.035897500	-0.235897500	-0.086500000	-0.145914669
    1945	18.544155833	19.495251667	0.951095833	-0.151095833	-0.529000000	-0.160401561
    1946	18.241745833	19.200823333	0.959077500	-0.159077500	-0.981500000	-0.175215842
    1947	18.150573333	19.080665833	0.930092500	-0.130092500	-1.412750000	-0.189334424
    1948	18.157692500	19.093488333	0.935795833	-0.135795833	-1.794000000	-0.201816068
    1949	18.171598333	19.203404167	1.031805833	-0.231805833	-2.102500000	-0.211915970
    1950	18.133460000	19.179101667	1.045641667	-0.245641667	-2.320500000	-0.219053015
    1951	18.240322500	19.272897500	1.032575000	-0.232575000	-2.439250000	-0.222940741
    1952	18.294848333	19.330015000	1.035166667	-0.235166667	-2.461250000	-0.223660993
    1953	18.278710000	19.319809167	1.041099167	-0.241099167	-2.394750000	-0.221483867
    1954	18.148811667	19.148574167	0.999762500	-0.199762500	-2.255500000	-0.216924997
    1955	18.102450000	19.118534167	1.016084167	-0.216084167	-2.064500000	-0.210671898
    1956	18.077139167	19.116166667	1.039027500	-0.239027500	-1.845500000	-0.203502114
    1957	18.327884167	19.315978333	0.988094167	-0.188094167	-1.622500000	-0.196201374
    1958	18.402660833	19.333692500	0.931031667	-0.131031667	-1.418500000	-0.189522671
    1959	18.339298333	19.300895833	0.961597500	-0.161597500	-1.250750000	-0.184030748
    1960	18.289291667	19.262389167	0.973097500	-0.173097500	-1.126750000	-0.179971144
    1961	18.327242500	19.295355833	0.968113333	-0.168113333	-1.047500000	-0.177376598
    1962	18.271025000	19.267049167	0.996024167	-0.196024167	-1.008500000	-0.176099788
    1963	18.317672500	19.299590000	0.981917500	-0.181917500	-1.004750000	-0.175977017
    1964	18.128523333	19.106743333	0.978220000	-0.178220000	-1.033500000	-0.176918256
    1965	18.167733333	19.136920833	0.969187500	-0.169187500	-1.092250000	-0.178841657
    1966	18.272248333	19.246019167	0.973770833	-0.173770833	-1.180750000	-0.181739036
    1967	18.224271667	19.215021667	0.990750000	-0.190750000	-1.295000000	-0.185479437
    1968	18.189601667	19.220423333	1.030821667	-0.230821667	-1.425000000	-0.189735473
    1969	18.344402500	19.390314167	1.045911667	-0.245911667	-1.553750000	-0.193950586
    1970	18.279775833	19.270305833	0.990530000	-0.190530000	-1.657250000	-0.197339046
    1971	18.131011667	19.090941667	0.959930000	-0.159930000	-1.705750000	-0.198926875
    1972	18.378289167	19.301835833	0.923546667	-0.123546667	-1.670000000	-0.197756465
    1973	18.354814167	19.333146667	0.978332500	-0.178332500	-1.527250000	-0.193083009
    1974	18.187378333	19.164905833	0.977527500	-0.177527500	-1.267250000	-0.184570937
    1975	18.185890833	19.114617500	0.928726667	-0.128726667	-0.894250000	-0.172359386
    1976	18.190672500	19.116713333	0.926040833	-0.126040833	-0.431750000	-0.157217719
    1977	18.423510000	19.293123333	0.869613333	-0.069613333	0.084000000	-0.140332713
    1978	18.357362500	19.247239167	0.889876667	-0.089876667	0.607750000	-0.123185798
    1979	18.491422500	19.363602500	0.872180000	-0.072180000	1.093750000	-0.107274770
    1980	18.498455000	19.348435833	0.849980833	-0.049980833	1.505000000	-0.093810963
    1981	18.446145833	19.328120833	0.881975000	-0.081975000	1.814500000	-0.083678323
    1982	18.382125000	19.329690000	0.947565000	-0.147565000	2.011000000	-0.077245160
    1983	18.505369167	19.426361667	0.920992500	-0.120992500	2.099250000	-0.074355966
    1984	18.364830833	19.315782500	0.950951667	-0.150951667	2.097000000	-0.074429628
    1985	18.347015000	19.273825833	0.926810833	-0.126810833	2.029250000	-0.076647678
    1986	18.401346667	19.315530833	0.914184167	-0.114184167	1.926000000	-0.080027953
    1987	18.595475000	19.468309167	0.872834167	-0.072834167	1.813750000	-0.083702877
    1988	18.540131667	19.445465833	0.905334167	-0.105334167	1.712750000	-0.087009489
    1989	18.505093333	19.390907500	0.885814167	-0.085814167	1.633250000	-0.089612219
    1990	18.632382500	19.490756667	0.858374167	-0.058374167	1.575250000	-0.091511066
    1991	18.604607500	19.460607500	0.856000000	-0.056000000	1.526750000	-0.093098895
    1992	18.418680000	19.361811667	0.943131667	-0.143131667	1.469500000	-0.094973188
    1993	18.450632500	19.367777500	0.917145000	-0.117145000	1.384000000	-0.097772350
    1994	18.511995833	19.428470833	0.916475000	-0.116475000	1.255000000	-0.101995648
    1995	18.524760000	19.495815833	0.971055833	-0.171055833	1.077500000	-0.107806774
    1996	18.456097500	19.427386667	0.971289167	-0.171289167	0.857750000	-0.115001113
    1997	18.618071667	19.597845833	0.979774167	-0.179774167	0.612500000	-0.123030289
    1998	18.758866667	19.702258333	0.943391667	-0.143391667	0.365750000	-0.131108573
    1999	18.507433333	19.496480000	0.989046667	-0.189046667	0.143250000	-0.138392943
    2000	18.553003333	19.520460833	0.967457500	-0.167457500	-0.033750000	-0.144187700
    2001	18.628412500	19.627368333	0.998955833	-0.198955833	-0.153750000	-0.148116349
    2002	18.681162500	19.649873333	0.968710833	-0.168710833	-0.218500000	-0.150236182
    2003	18.720739167	19.676944167	0.956205000	-0.156205000	-0.239750000	-0.150931881
    2004	18.691206667	19.659142500	0.967935833	-0.167935833	-0.234000000	-0.150743633
    2005	18.714440000	19.670277500	0.955837500	-0.155837500	-0.217500000	-0.150203444
    2006	18.698560000	19.629295000	0.930735000	-0.130735000	-0.202000000	-0.149695993
    2007	18.633110833	19.567106667	0.933995833	-0.133995833	-0.191250000	-0.149344052
    2008	18.594257500	19.556503333	0.962245833	-0.162245833	-0.092000000	-0.146094732

    As any moron can see: NOAA’s “bias” “corrections” track a natural feature of climate: the IPO. This means NOAA regards a natural feature of climate as a “bias” that needs to be “corrected” out of the record.

    For those who only care about the impacts of the adjustments on the recent record, I’m showing you the reason for what Bob Tisdale illustrated:

    The Simple Brain’s Link to the Kink in Bob’s graph…

    More advanced diagnostics tell more about the impact of the “bias” “corrections” on recorded spatiatemporal pattern (e.g. graphics above comments section), but the details are way too far beyond accessible for the average reader and so I’m suggesting focus on just THE SIMPLEST AND (BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE) MOST POWERFUL feature of the “bias” “corrections” that is easily within the reach of every reader capable of subtracting one column of numbers from another to see FIRSTHAND that NOAA considers a natural feature of climate (IPO) to be “bias” that needs to be “corrected” out of the record, giving for example the KINK Bob Tisdale illustrated (last graph immediately above).

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cut and paste to Excel.
    Put the years on the x-axis of a graph and columns 4 & 6 on the y-axis.

    Subtraction was too hard — even with 6 months to do it(!) — so let’s see how people fare with copying/pasting and graphing. Not expecting any acknowledgement or understanding — only expecting further proof of corruption… I dare anyone to prove this suspicion wrong!!

    (In fairness: 1 individual did the subtraction and noticed that the “bias” “corrections” match a natural feature of climate: the IPO.)

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    NOAA: Ripping nature OUT of the record.
    Actions speak louder than words??…
    NOAA’s actions say: “Nature: BE GONE!!!!!”

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    For those can’t be bothered to do subtraction on their own …or copy/paste and graph (when someone else does the subtraction for them), here’s what you would get:

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lamar Smith: Throwing this in NOAA’s face with absolutely rock solid confidence is your nuclear option, but I suggest giving them avenue to save face: Let them retract v4 and go back to v3b2 for whatever reason they want to project. What matters is not toasting and roasting them, but rather keeping the record of natural beauty in tact. Please: I’m suggesting we stay vigilantly focused on that top priority. I recommend this sort of protective mindset: We are the defenders of natural beauty and NOAA don’t you dare think of defacing and vandalizing natural beauty. It’s a clean good image backed up by absolutely rock solid simple facts that can be made understandable to every Jane & Joe even if their math is only grade 4 level. I can walk a 4 year old through the subtraction, copying/pasting, and graphing. v4 needs to be retracted, but noaa doesn’t need to be convicted if they cooperate with good judges on retracting the violation of natural beauty.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Come on people: WAKE UP. Look at the kinks in 1990 & 2000 (on both Bob’s graph & the IPO “bias” “correction” graph).

  26. tallbloke says:

    Paul, thanks for supplying the data. Here’s what I get following your cookbook instructions.

    Now I need to read the NOAA paper. 🙂
    Will I find anything in it that explains this?
    “a) before 1941: ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8
    b) 1941 onwards: -(ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8)”

    Are there no more data from KNMI after 2008? I’ve been browsing through their time series and fields and haven’t found the relevant datasets yet. Further hints appreciated.

    Tip for others: Change the font colour of the data from white after pasting it into excel. (Nearly got me there)

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote:

    “Now I need to read the NOAA paper. 🙂
    Will I find anything that explains this?
    “a) before 1941: ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8
    b) 1941 onwards: -(ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2-0.8)””

    Figure 5. (No wonder people don’t understand!!)

    Compare column 3 (ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2) with column 5 (IPO).
    Put them on a graph together and see what you notice
    (something I’ve pointed out countless times for a full year).

    Anti-phase before the step.
    In phase after the step.

    …so if you FLIP OVER (that’s what the negative sign does) the anti-phase stuff BEFORE THE STEP, you’ll have an in phase relationship for the whole record.

    0.8 is just a number chosen to make the left half and the right half of graph meet near the same y-value. It’s just the offset that puts everything on a level playing field. (Go ahead and omit 0.8 and see how it looks without it. That’s probably the quickest way to appreciate it’s purpose, if it isn’t obvious (…which it should be).)

    TB asked:
    “Is there no more data from KNMI after 2008?”

    HadNMAT2 & ICOADS2.5SST:

    2009	18.70548667	19.65049417
    2010	18.7100075	19.66802

    ICOADS2.5SST keeps going:

    2011	19.56238167
    2012	19.628815
    2013	19.65831583
    2014	19.76110333
    2015	19.864185

    …but HadNMAT2 does not.

    The IPO file ends at 2008. (I gave the link above.)

    Once I’m confident that more than say 2 dozen people FINALLY understand, we can discuss interpretation at the next level …so please Roger: Please QUICKLY get more than 2 dozen people on board here understanding that the “bias” “corrections” match the IPO in full public view. Once that is accomplished it will BECOME (it isn’t yet) worthwhile to discuss interpretation at the next level.

    First thing first. SEQUENCE matters. The higher ups are watching and I’ve now got the green light to reveal (and simplify) more after results are in from recent tests IF there’s a CLEAR demonstration that american thought police will NOT be allowed obstruct straightforward acknowledgement of “bias” “correction” concordance with IPO.

    (Nor will it be considered sufficient diplomacy if attacks start on the natural beauty summarized above the comments section.)

    This window of opportunity to launch a new era in relations will close, so I suggest making the best of it right now.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tip for pasting in Excel:

    paste special
    unicode text

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB, you should have the series clearly represented with a different color before and after 1941. This will be needed for interpretation at the next level.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB suggested:
    “Rumour has it that pretty soon the NOAA will be able to work out the temperature of the whole USA from one weather station’s data – after adjustments, obviously :/

    They won’t need any weather stations OB. They have a computer model.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Paul: Please QUICKLY get more than 2 dozen people on board here understanding that the “bias” “corrections” match the IPO in full public view. Once that is accomplished it will BECOME (it isn’t yet) worthwhile to discuss interpretation at the next level.

    I want to help you make your point clearly and concisely, with sufficient illustration to enable people to see what you’re saying. Before I try to engage the few ocean experts I know the email addresses of, we need to put a proper post together for them to look at, which

    Introduces the issue
    specifies the problem
    Links the data sources
    shows the data
    explains the methodology
    shows the results
    discusses the results
    draws the conclusion

    I stand ready to assist.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob Weber asked:
    “Is there some kind of resistance here preventing the writing of a rather dry, detailed, but informative letter that fleshes out all the reasons why this should garner Rep. Smith’s and the public’s attention?”

    It doesn’t take a luminary to subtract one column of numbers from another. This is a simple case. ANYONE AT ALL should be able to write the boring letter you want. That’s not my role.

  33. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘They won’t need any weather stations OB. They have a computer model.’

    Of course, but the fig leaf of respectability would be the data from the weather station.
    Otherwise someone might say they were making it up 😐

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: I’ll never be doing any of that stuff you list. That’s not my role.

  35. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘This means NOAA regards a natural feature of climate as a “bias” that needs to be “corrected” out of the record.’

    Isn’t this what the man-made-climate-change-global-warming malarkey is all about? Getting rid of anything that smacks of natural variation then announcing that man is corrupting the climate.

    We’ve seen it with things like the Medieval Warm Period, sunspot records…you name it, they’ve tried it, and they’ll keep on trying it as long as politicians are backing them.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Paul: It doesn’t take a luminary to subtract one column of numbers from another. This is a simple case.

    What, in the NOAA paper, indicates that this is what they actually did? Actually, they would have had to do more than that, with the switch in which column is subtracted from the other at 1940, and adding/subtracting the constant which matches up the adjacent values.

    How would I convince Lamar Smith that’s what NOAA did? Or are you saying that’s the effect of whatever they did? (weaker case).

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: We’ve reached a point of unworkable philosophical conflict. Towards resolution…

    A crude outline of my philosophy:

    1. Exploration should be free-spirited.
    2. An administrative platform is not inspiring …at all.
    3. Exploration takes precedence over communication.
    4. Key pieces of information should be conveyed as concisely as possible.
    5. Communication should be informal.
    6. Anything that makes exploration & communication onerous (killing joy) should be promptly discarded.
    7. One should not worry about reaching the masses. Reaching a few luminaries is sufficient.
    8. Exploration can discover without meeting an administrator’s definition of science. My usual example is that all through my childhood I discovered forest trails, lakes, fields, swamps, brooks, etc. …and never did I ever think of it as science …and never did I write it up …but on countless occasions I did share my discoveries of natural beauty with others …and without ever following or even thinking about following any formal protocols.
    9. This is aggressively managerial: The Pareto Principle should be applied devoutly & strictly.

    That’s probably neither an exhaustive nor perfectly expressed list, but in keeping with my philosophy I’m leaving it at that so there’s time for other pursuits.

    — — —

    Back down to earth…

    The case at hand is simple enough that someone else can write it up.

    It’s probably feasible for me to monitor this thread to efficiently coach while more people (should be at least 2 dozen within the next few days) wrap their heads around the calculations and next-level interpretations.

    I should probably just be really clear about this to save us all the trouble of unwanted conflict:

    As for framing up a more formal article: Everyone should know by now that they’re not going to get any support from me for that sort of thing, which I consider a total waste of my time.

    If others want to frame and write I respect that. Just give me crystal clear credit for the discovery upfront.

    More generally an efficient division of labor should be feasible.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: Do you understand Figure 5’s relation to column 3?

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke suggested:
    “Actually, they would have had to do more than that, with the switch in which column is subtracted from the other at 1940, and adding/subtracting the constant which matches up the adjacent values.”

    No. If they did diagnostics they would have effortlessly identified the blunder.

  40. tallbloke says:

    The problem is that interpretation of multiple sets of conflicting data is very much in the eye of the beholder. Roger Andrews looked at NMAT vs SST a few years ago here at the talkshop and reached different conclusions. I can’t find the post just now, but I’ve emailed him to ask if he can remember it.

    So although it’s a clear-cut case in your opinion, we have to consider how well the case can be made to others. Looking at the data you provided, there must have been a sign exchange in the formula which translates the subtraction of the columns. I spotted that when I added the final two years of data you provided. I have browsed through KNMI and I cannot find the datasets. I know you say it’s only 5 minutes work, but I’ve already lost more than 30 looking for datasets you won’t directly link.

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’m astonished at how onerous this is turning out to be. Dozens should have closed the case by now, even if we limit just to those who could not do the subtraction independently but could manage to copy/paste and graph. This is a terrible sign.

  42. tallbloke says:

    I’ve found and I’m faced with a lot of options. When I generate a time series and click the link for the raw data, I get this:

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s no way to link directly to KNMI Climate Explorer data. Go through the monthly observations link (over on the right). That’s one click. That’s all it takes to land on the page where HadNMAT2 & ICOADS2.5SST are listed.

    You won’t find any sign changes in the data. I put the sign change in there (note that I wrote it down clearly) to demonstrate the hidden symmetry. No automated linear algorithm will spot it, but it’s EASY for a human eye to spot. You’re completely missing the main point and I wish I didn’t have to point that out, but I had better do it bluntly because others will be misled if I don’t. Inspect a graph of column 3 vs. IPO.

    This is going terribly.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    KNMI Climate Explorer links expire.
    I summarized the data in a table to save people this trouble. Some people love KNMI Climate Explorer, but I’ve noticed that others have trouble navigating it.

  45. tallbloke says:

    Here’s what I get comparing col 3 to IPO

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Maybe what’s blinding people is the ensemble spaghetti they throw on ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2 (column 3). Can you see that Figure 5 is spaghetti-ized column 3?

  47. tallbloke says:

    Yes, there’s a certainly a similarity between the green curves on both plots

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote: “Here’s what I get comparing col 3 to IPO”

    So now you see the reflection symmetry. The negative sign flips over your green series. The 0.8 slides it vertically.

    Ask yourself why their “bias” “corrections” would match IPO ***at all*** — whether with this reflection symmetry or without it! — to clear your head of unnecessary confusion about the negative sign and 0.8 offset.

    They inflated IPO on one side of the step (jacking up variance).
    They deflated it on the other side (straightening the series).

    Given that this is the MAIN thing (by orders of magnitude) they’ve done, don’t you stop to wonder why there’s ABSOLUTE ZERO discussion of this in the paper?????

    You see? They don’t even realize they did it!!
    Measure the correlation before you do the reflection & alignment offset and again after. The comparison should make you realize what it looks like to automated diagnostic algorithms. It looks like NOTHING to a linear algorithm, BUT IT’S SYSTEMATIC.

  49. tallbloke says:

    But if as you say V3b is “good” and V4 is a train wreck, shouldn’t we be looking at the residuals of a subtraction of those two series as well?

    And I’m not sure ‘reflection symmetry’ is going to cut any ice with chaos merchants anyway. Aren’t they going to invoke TOB’s biases or some such to explain the big step-up in 1939?

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    I had better point this out again:

    “The coefficient Ay is set to be the value of 1886 before 1886 and the value of 2010 after 2010 (the final year of the HadNMAT2 dataset at the time of analysis).Kent et al. (2013) cautioned against use of pre-1886 HadNMAT2 for long-term trend analyses.”

    That’s why I chopped off my graph at 1890. Interpreting the graph before 1886 demands higher awareness.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Everyone (I sure hope!) knows what the big step is. That’s not the issue here.

    v4 BY DEFINITION is based on the subtraction ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2. THAT’S why we’re looking at ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2.

    This case is absolutely perfect. If anyone questions it, it exposes distortion artistry with CRYSTAL clarity. Zero trust remaining. ZERO.

  52. tallbloke says:

    Take it easy Paul, I’m just trying to understand the argument. And now I have to serve Sunday dinner. Back later.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remember that the v3b2 correction was just straight lines. Recall also that I checked and there’s NO statistical justification for NOT using straight lines.

    For v4 they’re overfitting the “bias” “corrections”. They’re overfitting them to the point where they’re chasing IPO (a natural feature).

    The only statistically significant thing needing correction is the big step.
    Chasing every bounce in the series is going WAY overboard.

    Like I said last year: I think they lost their better judgement because they got fond of the effect it had (straightening a part of the series they liked straightened). They convinced themselves that the lowess filter reduced the overfitting to a reasonable level, but they maybe never stopped to realize that smoothing ENSO gives you IPO.

    And then beyond that they just didn’t realize that the “biases” went in opposite directions either side of the big step relative to IPO.

    …so it was a double awareness failure.

    Like I said last year: They probably did the work in a rush. For SURE they should have noticed something this systematic. It’s EXTREMELY embarrassing. I doubt they could admit it honestly. It’s way too embarrassing. Their superiors would be SOOOOO choked.

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    Technical Caution: Note on Figure 5 that the colored lines are all STRAIGHT before 1886. So ignore that part of all curves when interpreting the “bias” “correction” IPO relationship.

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke wrote:
    “I’m not sure ‘reflection symmetry’ is going to cut any ice with chaos merchants anyway.”

    Make sure you’re interpreting the reflection symmetry properly.
    It means the “biases” were in the opposite direction for the old vs. new SST measurements.

    That does NOT change the fact that the “biases” are associated with IPO on BOTH sides of the step — just in opposite directions. The real question is why the “biases” match IPO at all!! (in either direction)

    They would have noticed the correlation if the sign didn’t flip. Automated diagnostics would miss the systematic sign flip at the big step. They’d measure near-zero correlation and miss the systematic pattern.

    Reflection symmetry is just the human eye’s diagnostic clue that automation failed.

    The pattern is too systematic. They can’t just shout it down. All that will do is expose extremely rude tactics. Make sure you understand fully just how egregious it is to deny something this simple and clear cut. It’s unforgivable.

  56. tallbloke says:

    The “biases” are the difference between SST and NMAT, which changed sign through the C20th. So one of the questions we have to consider is whether the there might be a physical reason that could happen, or whether it reflects a bias in the measurement, not a change in Earth’s energy transfer profile. I hope we can find the post Roger Andrews did. I can’t remember whether he also analysed the hemisphere differences of the shifts in NMAT relative to SST north and south. Remembering the polar see-saw, we have to use geographically differentiated data to examine this possibility. You yourself have frequently insisted on this. Indeed, it appears in several of your plots at the top of this post.

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    I already commented extensively on all of that a year ago. Keep in mind that IPO isn’t global, so what physical basis could there be for using it to correct “biases” uniformly?

  58. tallbloke says:

    They didn’t use it. According to you they ended up with something approximating it by applying Lowess smoothing to spaghetti (if you reverse the differencing operation around 1940 and offset the data to splice it). I should probably read their paper before asking further questions.

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    Roger Andrews was looking at something interesting, but it wasn’t v4. That was way before v4.

    v4 is defined by ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2. Indeed you need to read the paper.
    They toss spaghetti around the core, but the core is still ICOADS2.5SST-HadNMAT2 by definition.

    SST was measured differently before & after the step, so looking at it categorically:
    For what reason would all “bias” “corrections” during measurement era B match IPO (including in places where there’s no IPO)?
    For what reason would all “bias” “corrections” during measurement era A match IPO (including in places where there’s no IPO)?

    You see it just doesn’t make any sense… It doesn’t make ANY sense.

    This exchange has been enlightening. I now understand why the discussions about this at wuwt are going backwards and moving forwards I won’t be discussing this with anyone who answers “no” when I ask if they’ve done extensive EOF analyses on both v3b2 & v4.

  60. oldbrew says:

    More NOAA trickery exposed.

    ‘NOAA has 16 USHCN stations in Maryland, but they have stopped collecting data from all but four of them. One of the disappearing stations is at Laurel, which has been collecting since 1895 – but no data reported since August 2015.

    Laurel raw data shows no warming over the past 60 years, but Beltsville (at I-95 and The Beltway) is five miles closer to Washington DC and shows two degrees warming during that period as the city has expanded. Beltsville is one of the four stations still reporting.’ [bold added]

  61. Bob Weber says:

    “It doesn’t take a luminary to subtract one column of numbers from another. This is a simple case. ANYONE AT ALL should be able to write the boring letter you want. That’s not my role.”

    “This exchange has been enlightening. I now understand why the discussions about this at wuwt are going backwards and moving forwards I won’t be discussing this with anyone who answers “no” when I ask if they’ve done extensive EOF analyses on both v3b2 & v4.”

    In spite of all the badgering, I didn’t bother to look into this, I didn’t even try to find two columns to subttract from eachother, because every bit of this taunting and teasing from you is not motivational – it feels more like you’re jacking us around. I doubt anyone else looked into this very far either.

    I think the truth is you really don’t understand that people don’t appreciate it when you play the games you’re playing. You’re doubling down on stupid here with the same attitude.

    “ANYONE AT ALL should be able to write the boring letter you want. That’s not my role.”

    So why aren’t there scores of people writing this up all over the world then? I think you are too lazy to write clearly. Writing is work. It’s very arrogant and aloof of you to act as though it is so beneath you to explain yourself clearly, even after you were asked. If you’d spent a fraction of the time writing something people understood that you spent writing your bi-weekly vague pop-offs in the suggestions pages, this issue would’ve gone places for you.

    You’ve chosen a role for yourself that allows you to criticize everyone else, that’s all. I think it doesn’t appeal to you to be understood because it’s clearly more fun for you to be critical than to actually inform. You can prove me wrong on this…

    It’s one thing for you to define what your idea is of your own role in things, but your putting on others the role of explaining your ideas and work for you is grossly inappropriate, presumptive, and it only sets up a never-ending cycle of you criticizing people because they didn’t understand you.

    There will NO follow up on this by anyone because of your gamesmanship with your fellow skeptics.

    If you had simply laid this out a year ago instead of playing these immature games you’d have accomplished something by now. That’s why you don’t get any respect from me. I know you. You’re going to go to your grave playing this game because it’s what makes you feel superior.

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    [ :

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Wuwt’s boss:

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    Karl’s judgement questioned:

    There’s a revealing comment from Karl in the article.

    Look who (!) is questioning his judgement:

    Fyfe, Meehl, England, Mann, Santer, Flato, Hawkins, Gillett, Xie, Kosaka, Swart

    For the record I note that at this stage ACADEMIA is doing more spearheading on this file than the network of climate “skeptic” blogs, which all appear to be pretending the TOTALLY INSANE assumption of uniformity is ok.

    Why would they ignore such a smoking gun and leave all the spoils of victory to academics they hate???

    Are you starting to see why I’ve become so suspicious about what’s really going on with wuwt and the intimidating (& corrupting) influence they wield over otherwise-bright, well-intending people like Jo?

    This issue isn’t going away folks. Get to work on this file.
    “Skeptic” performance on this file to date has been absolutely ridiculous. Shame!

    Fyfe, Meehl, England, Mann, Santer, Flato, Hawkins, Gillett, Xie, Kosaka, & Swart:
    I challenge you and your colleagues to race past the “skeptics” on this file and COMPLETELY outline FORMALLY what is wrong with the uniform IPO-matching ERSSTv4 “bias” “adjustments”.

    “Skeptics”: PAUSE to consider that you may be very close to humiliating defeat by academia on this file. Imagine how good it’s going to look on them if they admit the mistake and correct it (and history shows that you didn’t even notice it even though it was pointed out to you repeatedly).

    In all my life I’ve never seen such a clear-cut case of failed justice. This is the sort of thing that undermines human beings’ faith in one another. Leaving this uncorrected is fatal for the integrity of the online climate discussion.

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    This is just classic hilarious.

    “[…] the issue of natural variability merits further discussion. Figure 2 shows the ratio of the change in temperature and the change in anthropogenic radiative forcing for three periods. The 1972-2001 period shows higher ratios (more warming per unit forcing) than the other periods. This period also corresponds to when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was in its positive phase, suggesting that these variations in the Pacific have caused a large part of the difference between models and observations. “

    NOAA has a solution for that!

    They just straighten out the post-(WWII)-step record while balancing the correlation to zero with oppositely-oriented “corrections” before then (which camouflages this systematic “corrections” to automated algorithms). Genius!

    What’s it going to take to get people to be real and sensible on this file? My guess: DIVINE intervention, no less!

    At least it has been fun observing how long the train can be off the tracks and people don’t even realize crash is imminent.

    Adding to the humor, Judy Curry (always challenged with numbers) doesn’t understand where they got 1972! “D’oh!” Look at the graph Judith. The kink is not at 1976. (1976 is halfway up a steep slope!) If you’re looking for help interpreting the stats, you can be sure Judy doesn’t have any of the answers. How can she be so ignorant? Eyes closed? Didn’t look at all?? You see, this is what makes people suspicious about motives — when something is so simple and clear-cut and yet people act like it’s not. It just completely razes trust to zero (and below in cases like this).

    Figure 2 from this new paper — now that is one classic (in the humorous sense — material for Josh) graph. (It screams “liar, liar, pants on fire”. Josh can cartoon Karl wearing his burning Dept. of Commerce uniform, trying to run away. Busted!!!)

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    Josh: Include sickle & hammer on US Dept. of Commerce jersey — make it look like a hockey jersey!
    [ :
    Gotta have some fun with this (it’s such a hopelessly depressing chapter otherwise).

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Research into the nature and causes of this event has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing and internal variability. This has led to more widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more — particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions.

    The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

    Gotta give this guy some credit for sounding a lot more sensible than a lot of others. (not sure he understands the nature of the volcanic signal (it’s not even close to how the mainstream thinks — better described as in a parallel universe of clearer perception that’s for some reason inaccessible to them), but at least he recognize the coherence)

  68. oldbrew says:

    PV – re ‘this guy’:

    ‘Ed Hawkins is a climate scientist in the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading. He was a Contributing Author for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report’

    He says: ‘Point of clarification: Although I am a co-author of the Fyfe et al. paper, I disagree with the sentence at the start of the ‘Claims and counterclaims’ section of the paper. My views are represented here.’

    New post: