Global Warming Data - HADCRUT4 Audit - "Freakishly Improbable Data"

[Centerpiece]

"Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data”  that it is effectively useless."

HadCRUT4 is the primary global temperature dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”.  It’s also the dataset at the center of “ClimateGate” from 2009, managed by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

The audit finds more than 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy.

But according to an analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

Main points:

The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.

McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.

Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.  One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!

Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.

Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.

When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890)  had an average monthly temperature of  81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.

The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).

At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.

More Here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

And Here: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

Edited October 10, 2018 by Centerpiece

[betsy]

Lol.  I suspect other nations are experiencing rebellions in their own turfs  - just like several provinces are now rebelling against the carbon tax.   They hafta  take it up a giant notch!   They hafta scare the world bigtime!

 

I'll believe it when all these green promoters show their panic through their own actions.   I'll believe it when they ban all big estate houses and mansions, and private planes, and limit everyone to only one car per household! 

[Michael Hardner]

You know of course that these temperature readings have been under scrutiny for decades ?  The last time we went through this it was pretty clear of the agenda of the people who reported it.  Temperature corrections happen all the time, and the model changes very little.  If they correct the temperatures down they exclaim that the researchers were 'caught'.  If the temperatures are corrected upwards they accuse them of fraud.

 

News flash: it's getting hotter and most have stopped disputing that.  

[-1=e^ipi]

HadCRUT4's main problem is that it underestimates warming over the instrumental period. It fails to adequately account for coverage bias due to the fact that not all parts of Earth, specifically polar regions which warm the fastest, have data coverage; other datasets such as Berkeley Earth and Cowtan & Way mostly correct for coverage bias using a statistical technique known as kriging. In addition, the ocean component of HadCRUT4, HadSST3, has a cool bias due to not adequately taking into account the recent switch from ship engine intake measurements to buoy measurements; this is taken into account by NOAA's ocean dataset ERSSTv4 however. Also, a recent paper that compares sea surface temperature observations with nearby island / coastal land measurements provides some pretty convincing evidence that there could be an underestimate of temperature change prior to 1950 due to the treatment of bucket measurements.

 

Overall, HadCRUT4's main results are confirmed by the other datasets, there are only minor differences between the various temperature datasets (like +/- 0.1 C difference in trend since 1880).

 

If you are skeptical of HadCRUT4's temperature data, then I encourage you to look into Berkeley Earth's dataset, which you may find more reliable and convincing.

Edited October 11, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[betsy]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You know of course that these temperature readings have been under scrutiny for decades ?  The last time we went through this it was pretty clear of the agenda of the people who reported it.  Temperature corrections happen all the time, and the model changes very little.  If they correct the temperatures down they exclaim that the researchers were 'caught'.  If the temperatures are corrected upwards they accuse them of fraud.

 

News flash: it's getting hotter and most have stopped disputing that.  

Climate does change - that's been shown to happen throughout earth's history!  Nothing new with that. 

It's the cause of it,  which they're trying to sell,  that's the questionable part.   The environment - like everything else - is now so politicised.

 

Quote

11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/health/climate-change-hunter-gatherers/index.html

 

We are at a disadvantaged though, compared to our ancestors. 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Thank you -1=e^ipi... you have detailed knowledge of this I know.  A cool bias... ok.

[ReeferMadness]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:38 AM, Centerpiece said:

"Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data”  that it is effectively useless."

HadCRUT4 is the primary global temperature dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”.  It’s also the dataset at the center of “ClimateGate” from 2009, managed by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

The audit finds more than 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy.

But according to an analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

OH MY GOD!!  It's a BOMBSHELL.  It's a freaking conspiracy!!

Wait.  Who exactly is this John McLean that is calling out climate scientists?  Is he a climate scientist.  In a word, no.

Quote

McLean is not affiliated with any university or scientific organisation. He has no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science. On his website McLean describes himself as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer". In 2006, McLean published his first peer-reviewed paper -- a "review" of CSIRO reports -- in the journal Energy and Environment. In the scientific community, E&E is regarded as a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. It is the journal of choice for loony papers, amateur enthusiasts and semi-retired climate sceptic scientists who have no credentials in the field of climatology.

Quote

Clearly McLean has no standing or expertise in the field of climate science. So why does he persist in publishing opinion pieces as an "expert" on climate change? His affiliation with the International Climate Science Coalition holds the key to this question. Despite its name, the ICSC does not conduct scientific research. It is funded by the Heartland Institute, an American right-wing think tank historically bankrolled by Exxon to promote climate denial.

 

[ReeferMadness]

Pseudo code for right wingnut climate denial

1. Deny climate change is happening by attacking the data

2. Deny climate change is happening by claiming the scientists (who could make a lot more money working for industry) are hyping it for money

3. Deny climate change by claiming it's a Chinese hoax.

4. Blame climate change on the sun/moon/stars/ocean/rainforest/aliens

5. Claim climate change will be a good thing

6. Claim dealing with the impacts of climate change will be cheaper than avoiding it

7. Randomly go back to any previous point on the list and start all over again

8. Repeat until apocalypse comes

9. Then blame environmentalists for providing enough warning of the problem

[Centerpiece]

23 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

McLean is not affiliated with any university or scientific organisation. He has no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science. 

  Quote

Clearly McLean has no standing or expertise in the field of climate science. So why does he persist in publishing opinion pieces as an "expert" on climate change? 

 

Reefer,  Reefer...........always trying to shoot the messenger........that's the Alarmist Way....

Quote

 

“We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.

“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said.

Dr McLean is an IT specialist who has been extracting and analysing climate data since 2004.

He was an Expert Reviewer of the IPCC’s 2013 Climate Assessment Report and is the author of four peer-reviewed papers on climate matters.

He was awarded his PhD by James Cook University, in December 2017 after his PhD on problems with climate data recorded data had been externally examined.

The Met Office said many of the problems identified are well known to anyone who has worked with climate data and are dealt with extensively in the literature including in the papers describing the construction of the data sets.

 

Link: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/britains-met-office-welcomes-audit-by-australian-researcher-about-hadcrut-errors/news-story/c82ba88888d9eba2af9d1dca52e7fe07

 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Centerpiece]

23 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

Pseudo code for right wingnut climate denial

1. Deny climate change is happening by attacking the data - silly statement - anyone with a brain understands that Climate Change is a natural phenomena - the question is and has always been - "how much are humans contributing to any of the recent warming cycle".

2. Deny climate change is happening by claiming the scientists (who could make a lot more money working for industry) are hyping it for money - in the end, it's always about money

3. Deny climate change by claiming it's a Chinese hoax. - not a Chinese hoax but a scam nonetheless, one that China is only too glad to sign up for. Imagine - China - the world's largest emitter by far, is designated a "developing" economy so their "plan" is to NOT decrease emissions until at least 2030 while their main economic adversaries are forced to drastically reduce emissions or pay up. Great deal for China, India and the like. Like I said - it's always about money. 

4. Blame climate change on the sun/moon/stars/ocean/rainforest/aliens - nope - wrong again. Natural variability augmented by an as-yet unconfirmed amount of human activity - land usage, emissions, etc.

5. Claim climate change will be a good thing - it very well might. Average temperature has gone up around 1.5 degrees over the past century and on the whole, the globe is a better place for it - and Miami, Los Angeles and New York are not under water.

6. Claim dealing with the impacts of climate change will be cheaper than avoiding it - absolutely. Whatever happens will happen ever so slowly and we'll be able to effectively plan for it. Why do you think we're still building beachfront condos - albeit, maybe set back a few more feet

7. Randomly go back to any previous point on the list and start all over again - blah, blah, blah

8. Repeat until apocalypse comes - blah, blah, blah

9. Then blame environmentalists for providing enough warning of the problem - hypothetical question.....if humans end up only mildly effecting Climate Change and nothing of substance comes to pass - what do you think we should do with all those who made us waste trillions of dollars?

 

[Guest]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:01 AM, ReeferMadness said:

Pseudo code for right wingnut climate denial

...

I was once accused of being a climate change denier because I denied we were ever going to stop it.  So much for that, eh?