Saturday, April 10, 2010

Accumulating Evidence of the Corrupted US Temperature Record

A new SPPI paper examines the raw and adjusted historical temperature records for Pennsylvania and finds the mean temperature trend from 1895 to 2009 to be minus .08°C/century, but after unexplained adjustments the official trend becomes positive .7°C/century. The difference between the raw and adjusted data exceeds the .6°C/century in global warming claimed for the 20th century. An example of the raw and adjusted datasets is shown below for Lebanon, PA:

7 comments:

  1. Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D.April 11, 2010 at 7:04 AM

    Recent comparison of satellite global temperature with conventional global temperatures is bogus, unethical and unscientific...Global satellite temperatures should be higher since there are fewer if any weather stations in arid areas of the world and there is no way possible to coreect for these differences

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm doing an analysis of 1300 Canadian surface temperature stations. What I'm seeing in the raw data is an increase of the average of the yearly mean temps, in most cases, some are dropping. However, that increase is not because the temperatures are getting hotter. On the contraire. Summer maximum temps are falling. For example, the number of days above 30C for Southern Ontario has dropped 30% since 1990. Spring is coming sooner, and winter coming later increasing the growing season. But the biggest contributor to the increase in the average of the year mean is from not as cold winters since 1900. Thus the range of temperatures over the course of the year has been narrowing since 1900. That is, the trend line of the max temps with the tend of the min temps is converging, and if continues, would meet in some 800 years making the summer and winter temps the same. After which the winters would be warmer than the summers.

    Since this is not physically possible, the current converging trend must change before then and start to diverge.

    In other words a cycle. Since the trend in temps must be a cycle, then it cannot be caused by our CO2. (unless increasing CO2 causes fewer heat waves).

    See my analysis here: cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D.:

    1. There are no satellite temperatures in this analysis. Satellite data is only available since 1979, but it not used at all in this paper. This analysis looks at the land thermometer record from 1895 to 2009.

    2. Your statement about global satellite temperatures v. surface based thermometers is disproven by plotting HADCRU or GISTEMP surface based temperature data v. RSS or UAH satellite data. There is a clear high bias to the surface data, probably due to urban heat island effects and extrapolation errors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sometimes my refrigerator freezer has no ice. That doesn't mean the freezer is getting warme(er), just that there is no ice in the freezer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is surface temperture really the most telling aspect of climate? I have not heard to what degree does the recording of surface temperatures have to do with climate. Inaccuracies of the instruments and errors in the recording of the temperatures notwithstanding, just what do the numbers recorded tell us? Does an increse make plants grow better? Does CO2 keep some heat out as well as keep some in? Who can tell me about that? How much does humidity, ie: water vapor, contribute to our climate change? How does it affect "the feels" like aspect of the wind chill factor? Are plants and trees affected by wind chill? Does a tree grow faster or slower if wind chill is ever present? Can some one fill me in? These are just a few of my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous: surface temperatures are not the most telling, but thats all we have prior to 1979. Satellite data provides temperatures at different levels of the atmosphere & is much more useful. Increased temperature and CO2 make plants grow faster. CO2 can keep some of the heat out (e.g. see my post on the anti-greenhouse effect of CO2). Water vapor appears to be a negative feedback, but Hansen/IPCC refuse to acknowledge that and still say it's highly positive. I don't have any knowledge about plants regarding wind chill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the information. its really very good and informative article.

    ReplyDelete