Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Are surface temperature records reliable?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.

Climate Myth...

Temp record is unreliable

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)

Temperature data is essential for predicting the weather. So, the U.S. National Weather Service, and every other weather service around the world, wants temperatures to be measured as accurately as possible.

To understand climate change we also need to be sure we can trust historical measurements. A group called the International Surface Temperature Initiative is dedicated to making global land temperature data available in a transparent manner.

Surface temperature measurements are collected from about 30,000 stations around the world (Rennie et al. 2014). About 7000 of these have long, consistent monthly records (Fig. 1). As technology gets better, stations are updated with newer equipment. When equipment is updated or stations are moved, the new data is compared to the old record to be sure measurements are consistent over time.

 GHCN-M stations

Figure 1. Station locations with at least 1 month of data in the monthly Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-M). This set of 7280 stations are used in the global land surface databank. (Rennie et al. 2014)

In 2009 some people worried that weather stations placed in poor locations could make the temperature record unreliable. Scientists at the National Climatic Data Center took those critics seriously and did a careful study of the possible problem. Their article "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" (Menne et al. 2010) had a surprising conclusion. The temperatures from stations that critics claimed were "poorly sited" actually showed slightly cooler maximum daily temperatures compared to the average.  

In 2010 Dr. Richard Muller criticized the "hockey stick" graph and decided to do his own temperature analysis. He organized a group called Berkeley Earth to do an independent study of the temperature record. They specifically wanted  to answer the question is "the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)?" Their conclusion was NO. None of those factors bias the temperature record. The Berkeley conclusions about the urban heat effect were nicely explained by Andy Skuce in an SkS post in 2011. Figure 2 shows that the U.S. network does not show differences between rural and urban sites.

rural-urban T

Figure 2. Comparison of spatially gridded minimum temperatures for U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data adjusted for time-of-day (TOB) only, and selected for rural or urban neighborhoods after homogenization to remove biases. (Hausfather et al. 2013)

Temperatures measured on land are only one part of understanding the climate. We track many indicators of climate change to get the big picture. All indicators point to the same conclusion: the global temperature is increasing.


See also

Understanding adjustments to temperature dataZeke Hausfather

Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature recordsZeke Hausfather

Time-of-observation Bias, John Hartz

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible,” Andy Skuce



Check original data

All the Berkeley Earth data and analyses are available online at

Plot your own temperature trends with Kevin's calculator.

Or plot the differences with rural, urban, or selected regions with another calculator by Kevin

NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISSTEMP) describes how NASA handles the urban heat effect and links to current data.

NOAA Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) DailyGHCN-Daily contains records from over 100,000 stations in 180 countries and territories.

Last updated on 15 August 2017 by Sarah. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Comments 301 to 350 out of 523:

  1. Jennifer Marohasy has been really attacking homogenization this year. Recently she wrote a "paper" detailing her criticisms, directed at a few stations in Australia, who, after homogenization, experienced cool to warm trend shifts. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone was on top of this or could direct me to some information that might clear this up.

    Thanks :)

  2. ronswanson - There is a significant literature on this, for example these papers. For a more informal discussion Victor Venema has written a great deal on the subject. The BEST temperature record project applies a closely related methodology to identify individual station break-points, although they simply separate the data into separate non-overlapping station records rather than correcting a single record for regional consistency. 

    Station moves occur, as do equipment changes, both of which change the absolute temperatures recorded at the station affected and thus bias anomalies. Homogenization looks at nearby stations that do not experience simultaneous changes to detect and measure how the temperature anomaly offsets have changed for the modified station, and corrections are applied accordingly. Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 demonstrated strong correlations in observed temperature anomalies over distances over 1000km, meaning that nearby station anomalies are very reliable indicators for identifying individual station changes. 

    As I've said before, It could be argued (and has by people like Marohasy) that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and would have to disagree.

    Ignoring known and correctable biases to search out some subset of raw data that seems to support your thesis IMO indicates either (a) deliberate distortion or (more charitably) (b) a huge misunderstanding of science and statistics accompanied by confirmation bias. Either way, such claims are simply not meaningful. 

  3. ronswanson - I will also point out that your question seems to indicate that you have not read the opening post nor any of the links provided. I would suggest you do so, as you might find them informative. 

  4. ronswanson @301, I am in the process of drawing together a blog post on her criticisms of the Amberley temperature record (because it is geographically close to my location).  In essence here claim is that three seperate teams (BOM, GHCN, BEST) have looked at the Amberley data and despite all using distinct methods, have all concuded the slight cooling trend in the raw data is spurious, but that her non-mathematical examination is superior to the consensus of the experts.  To do that she compares Amberly to the nearby Archerfield station, but not to the even nearer Ipswich station (available from BEST) that shows the positive trend she says does not exist, or the also nearby Gatton stations (one of which shows the positive trend, and one of which does not)- and certainly not to stations in the wider region which do show the trend.

    She says it is ridiculous to consider the discrepancy found independently by three different teams by mathematical analsysis exists because no change in the metadata is recorded at that time, even though BOM warns that the metadata is incomplete and has not had all paper sources entered into the relevant digital database on which she relies.

    She also neglects to mention that satellite data over the relevant periods shows a temperature trend consistent with the homogenized BOM (and GHCN and BEST) data, but inconsistent with her data.  Presumably climate change deniers John Christy and Roy Spencer are also homogenizing their data to show a trend as well:

    She also claims that there are no natural phenomenon consistent with the warming trend, neglecting to mention that Jaccaranda trees in the area are flowering a month earlier than they used to, a fact attributed to global warming.  (My attention was first drawn to the early flowering of the Jacaranda's by my mother, who studied in Brisbane in the early fifties, and comments every year when the jacaranda's start blooming on their early flowering.)

    So, who are you going to believe - three independent teams of temperature experts, and the (evidently brainwashed) deniers with the satellite data who have so cleverly rejigged the DNA or 78 year old jaccaranda trees to hoodwink us - or former right wing think tank member, Jennifer Marahosy who obviously couldn't have a political reason for her beliefs (unlike those well known lefties, the Jacarranda's).

  5. Tom Curtis asks "so who are you going to believe etc" and then goes on use derogatory terms such as "evidently brainwashed"  obviously suggesting any one who may question his conclusions is unsound.  Naturally one would assume the three independent teams of temperature experts are more likely to be correct, although one might question the importance placed by Ton Curtis on his Jacaranda observations which could be local and ask why  the Jacarandas are not flowering early in Western Australia.  However, one is given cause for pause when the reasons given by the BoM for their adjustments are refuted by those who actually worked where the stations in question are sited.  Are those who refute what the BoM says "evidently brainwashed"?

  6. Apologies Ton Curtis should read Tom Curtis

  7. Apologies again  I should have noted that Dr Marohasy's paper was peer reviewed and asked if the reviewers were "evidently brainwashe"?

  8. Ashton:

    1)  Read my posts more carefully.  I did not say anybody was brainwashed to reject AGW.  Rather, I ironically suggested that those who disagree with Marahosy had been "brain washed" to emphasize the fact that, considering who they were, that was not the case and that their independent finding of a positive temperature trend in the Brisbane valley using satellite data was truly independent, and indeed refuted Marohasy.

    2)  Given that Marohasy accuses BOM of fraudulently tampering with data, something you apparently have no problem with, your taking of offense even at your misinterpretation of what I wrote is simply hypocritical and not worthy of notice.

    3)  Marohasy has not written any peer reviewed reports on the temperature data.  Rather, she has merely echoed the results of an Australian blogger on her blog, and in emails to the Australian, and to a Minister in the Abbot government.  I believe it was you, not she who made up the cannard about her findings being from a peer reviewed report.

    4)  In contrast, the appropriateness and proper conduct of the BOM methods have been peer reviewed, and reported on in a publicly available document.  It has also been peer reviewed in the scientific literature.

    5)  I have been downloading raw temperature data for stations nearby to Amberly today, and in the process noticed that Marohasy has clearly cherry picked her examples.  The most telling point is that she cites airport (29.53 km from Amberley) to support her case, but neglects Ipswich (4.73 km away) and two stations at Gatton (37.99 and 38.61 kms distant), all of which show strong positive trends (contrary to my mistaken rememberance in my previous post).  A number of other local stations also show positive trends.  The key point here is that Marohassy neglects those stations, even though they are in the majority and are often closer and more climactically similar to Amberley than those she does cite.

    6)  I note you do not report on past and present times of jacaranda blooming in Western Australia.  I on the other hand have linked to reports of the phenomenon in Sydney, Ipswich, have verified it in Brisbane, and can confirm it for Grafton (sorry. lossed the link), Camden  San Diego (California), Florida (normal flowering time from April to June)  and Los Angeles.

  9. Ashton - Marohasy's article is an online publication through the Sydney Institute, "a privately funded not-for-profit current affairs forum encouraging debate and discussion", in Sydney Papers Online, which is most definitely not a peer-reviewed publication.

    Your above claim about its review status is wholly in error. And there is no sign that anyone with knowledge or expertise on the temperature records had critical input to the article. 

  10. Tom Curtis and KR you ar eboth quite correct and I apologise unreservedly for my sloppy assessment of the piece I read.  That said, have you read the piece in the Weekend Australian (  More questions regarding the treatment of temperature data by the BoM which is not coming across at all well in the MSM.  It really does give one cause for pause in blindly accepting that what they say is gospel. There does not appear to be any affiliation with the Heartland Institute or the fossil fuel industry.

  11. Ashton @310, the article for which you provide a link just rehashes the same allegations, except for Bourke.  Curiously it draws attention to high temperature prior to 1910, as Marohasy notes in her address to the Sydney Institute, "Temperatures before August 1908 were apparently not recorded in a Stevenson screen".  Indeed, they may have been recorded on a Glaisher stand, or simply on a thermometer kept within the post office.   The site info notes only that an alcohol thermometer of unknown type was installed in 1871.  Ironically Marohasy suggests that "the Bureau could easily apply an algorithm to correct for this", but it is a bit hard to device an algoritm for temperature records from a thermometer of unknown manufacture, operated in an unknown environment, and read by various postmen of unknown training.  Further, (and here is the irony), we know how Marohasy responds to BOM algorithms that do not give her the message she wants to broadcast.

    As to the MSM, the MSM in question is The Australian, which has a well known inability to report accurately or fairly on climate science.  This is epitomized by the extended period when a cap and trade scheme was the favoured policy of the then Labor government in which for about a year, the Australian ran an article in the opinion pages on the issue every day, and managed to find next to zero such articles in favour of the policy (and less than 10% of articles by people other than AGW deniers).  On climate science (as on many issues) the appropriate comparitor for The Australian is the Soviet era Pravda.

    This propaganda approach to "reporting" is shown to be in full force by Friday's article, "Bureau of Meteorology told to be more transparent" in which Graham Lloyd reports the stale knews that a 2011 peer review told the Bureau to be more transparent about its proceedures, but neglects to report the 2 year old news that BOM published in 2012 a freely downloadable PDF detailing it homogenization process along with a host of other information about the ACORN network, and the review itself.  I assume supersleuth Lloyd only published on the review because he did not know about it prior to uncritically running Marohasy's story.  Don't, however, expect him to catch up to the 2012 developments, however, because they run counter to the angle he is pursuing.

    Speaking of the PDF on homogenization, it contains this fascinating figure showing a histogram of corrections to maximum and minimum temperatures as a result of the homogenization process:

    Does it not astonish you that with all her close scrutiny of temperature records, Marohasy has not managed to report on one adjustment that has lowered temperatures?

    Of course, the timing of the adjustments is relevant in one way, so they also show the adjustments by decade, which are about even, with a spike of positive adjustments in the 1960s, and a large spike of negative adjustments in the 1990s.  (That is right, the highest rate, and proportion, of negative adjustments is in the 1990s.)  In another way, the timing is irrelevant because the mathematical proceedure used in homogenization (which has been fully described in a scientific paper) does not look at the effect on trends.  It has an effect on trends.  It causes some trends to increase, and others to decrease (although the later entirely escape Marohasy and Lloyd's attention).  Further, overall, the effect does increase trends relative to the raw data.  But that effect is the result of a mathematical algorithm that is blind to trends.  The change in trend is not a factor in the algorithm in anyway.

    If Marohasy were interested in a scientific critique of the BOM's results, she would look in detail at that the algorithm used by BOM to make the adjustments.  She would try to show mathematically how it is not blind to trends.  She would look at the overall statistics of adjustments, discussing records which had the trends changes downwards as well as upwards.  When she doubted a particular adjustment, she would discuss it in detail - not merely handwaving about multidecade trends of just one nearby station (as she does for Amberley).  She does none of that - and the reason is that if you even start doing any of that you see she has nothing to argue.

    So she cherry picks, knowing that gullible fools will believe what is convenient without appropriate scrutiny.

    Speaking of cherry, picking, here is the 120 month running average of the Amberley Mean monthly temperure from BEST, minus the regional expectation (ie, the temperature estimated for Amberley using local stations, but not Amberley):

    As can be seen, the BEST "homogenized"(1) Amberley result sits comfortably above the regional expectation until the 1980s, when it drops like a stone and stays well below it.  This comparison is not how either BOM or BEST check for inhomogeneities in the data, but it clearly shows that in 1981 something extraordinary happened to the temperature record at Amberley.  (The spike at the end is an artifact of my not having as yet deleted the averages that overrun the data, as you can see by the data running on to 2012.)

    Using BOM's minimum temperature data for the 10 sites with reasonable length of records closest to Amberley, I calculated a similar value:

    These are annual values.  The erraticness of the line is partly due to the small number of comparitors, which drop down to for some time periods, but are around seven or eight in 1981.  Again the Amberley record plummets in 1981.  You will notice that the Brisbane Regional Office (Brisbane Reg) rises sharply around 1969, an inhomgeneneity that would require a downward adjustment if it were an ACORN site (it isn't in that period, although its data is used rather than Brisbane Aero prior to the 1940s). 

    More importantly, Brisbane Aero shows no inhomgeneity in 1981.  Rather, it shows a smaller inhomgeneity around 1987.  This is important because it is the negative trend of Brisbane Aero that Marohasy points to suggest the negative trend in Amberley minimum temperatures is due to a regional change.  That was unlikely in the first place because of the sharp nature of the change; but even the site Marohasy chooses as showing a similar change in tempertures does not show the change of temperatures at the same time.  Therefore they do not have the same cause.

    Had Marohasy been interested in a serious scientific critique, she would have investigated and shown that herself.  That she obscures the difference in timing of the reduction in temperatures between the two stations with handwaving rather than bringing it out shows her clear intent is to obfusticate and deceive.

    (To the moderator, Ashton has not replied in detail to the posts showing Marohasy's claims to be without substance.  Rather, he has merely shifted the point of attack to stations that have not been examined in detail.  It takes time to do the detailed analysis, so I am not going to do it station by station as Marohasy cherry picks her way around Australia.  I suggest that any attempt to simply publish another cherry pick by Ashton should be regarded as sloganeering.  I invite him to respond in detail, but simple avoidance should not be acceptable.)

  12. Just realized I failed to include my footnote for the preceding post.  In it I referred to the "homogenized" data for BEST.  Strictly speaking BEST do not homogenize the data.  Rather, they break up records were they recognize an inhomgeniety, and treat the two records as distinct.  The resulting long term record is a "break point adjusted record".  Here, for example are the breakpoints for Bourke:

    And the breakpoint adjusted record:

    And the same for Gayndah:

    You will notice that except for the initial period, the adjustments to Gaynday reduce the trend.

    And finally, for Rutherglen:

    Those, with Amberley, are all the stations I have seen Marohasy cherry pick todate.  As this is clear evidence that a simple algorithm in fact produces results inline with those produced by application of BOMs distince simple algorithm (and the GHCN's algorithm, which is very similar to that of BOM, though differing on several points), no doubt Marohasy will now accept these adjustments in line with her comments about pre-1910 Bourke temperatures.  Or perhaps not.

  13. Tom Curtis.  Thanks for you very extensive comment, you certainly provide chapter and verse.  It is very impressive.  What I and possibly others, think about homogenisation is that in our daily lives we would not consider the temperature on a particular day from a site very distant from our own location as having any relevance whatsoeever on the temperature we ourselves will experience on that day.  I can see however that that comment shows I'm not distinguishing between weather and climate.  But in all of this particular debate it is the temperature on particular days that is the subject of discussion.  With regard to your comments to the moderator.  I haven't responded in detail as I don't have the experise that you clearly do,  to assemble the relevant data in a time frame that fits into my working life.  And as for shifting the "point of attack" as you put it, I don't have any "point of attack".  I read stuff in the MSM and from time to time, post my, admittedly superficial, observations hoping that those such as yourself will provide a more expert analysis of these obsertvations.  Mostly my hopes are realised.  However many readers of the MSM don't do this but accept what they are told without any further thought or follow-up. Should I follow their example? Perhaps I should and  perhaps that is why the more sceptical side of the climate debate is still not entirely convinced by the arguments put forward by its proponents.  Yes, I do read the Australian, a paper that reports on both sides of the AGW debate.  I also read The Guardian, a paper that reports on only one side of the debate.  I don't regard articles in The Australian as being any more accurate and relevant or, conversely,  more readily dismissable than those in The Guardian and  vice versa.   

  14. Tom Curtis, this may well be struck out as off topic.  I'm in the UK at the moment where the Mail on Sunday, a widely read but sensationalistic newspaper has reported on Arctic sea ice.  I don't read this paper as I think it is a "rag" but as my attention was drawn to the report by local radio I looked at it on-line.  You yourself might care to do so to see just how the MSM can sway the climate change debate.

  15. Ashton at 313,

    There is no such as thing as "both sides" of the "debate." The so-called debate consists of on one side, the science, on the other, people saying the science is wrong without doing any of the work to prove it. Or people saying the science shows things that it doesn't show. Or people organizing harassment campaigns against scientists coming to conclusions they don't like. That is a far cry from a debate.

    I'm not sure what you're otherwise saying but it sounds like "I may be taken for a ride but what choice do I have?"


  16. Ashton @313:

    1) Scientific studies have shown that correlation between neigbouring temperature records are high out to a distance of 1200 km.  That is unsurprising given the average size of weather systems found on synoptic charts:

    In this case, the 10 "nearest" neigbours used were all within 55.1 kms of Amberley.  I have since expanded that to the twenty "nearest" neigbours, which are all within 93.4 km of Amberley.  Given that, it is hardly surprising that the running 11 year correlation between Amberley and the mean of the twenty nearest neighbours is 0.71, nor that the number would be significantly higher except for an excursion down due to the 1981 inhomegeniety and another around 1963 due to an inhomgeniety at UQ Gatton:

    You are are either simply mistaken about the distances involved, or you and your friends are misinformed about the correlation of temperatures with distance.

    2)  The distinction between weather and climate has no bearing on this topic as it is short term fluctuations in temperature we are concerned about.  However, it need not be daily temperatures.  My analysis with BOM data has beed done with annual means to make the analysis easier, for example.  Monthly means are more commonly used for this type of analysis.

    3)  We are given many reasons for the repetition of denier memes on this site, and the most common is "I was just asking a question/seeking clariffication".  Try as hard as I can, however, I cannot see the question or request for clarrification in the following (from your comment @305):

    "More questions regarding the treatment of temperature data by the BoM which is not coming across at all well in the MSM. It really does give one cause for pause in blindly accepting that what they say is gospel."

    (My emphasis)

    4)  I cannot comment on the Gaurdian, which I do not read.  The Australian, on the other hand has four types of stories on climate change.  They have the stories in which they report a denier/skeptical point of view in which the denier/skeptic is quoted but no comment is sort from mainstream climate scientists.  They have the report of major climate change news (release of IPCC reports etc) that they have to cover, in which the news is reported together with a denier/skeptic take on the news.  They have reports of mainstream science fed to them by a denier/skeptic with a ready made criticism by said denier/skeptic which is given most prominence.  And they have the reports on some stated (often inaccurate) problem with renewable energy.

    Sometimes they are subtle.  On one story on sea levels, there "mainstream" contact was in fact a "skeptic", and they failed to contact any genuine mainstream scientists on the subject, even though one of the world's top five scientists in that field is based in Australia.

    You may regard that as reporting "on both sides of the AGW debate" but I cannot help but notice that even on the mainstream news items, the denier point of view is given the most prominence.

    Further, we do not consider a newspaper reputable if it reports "both sides" of the 911 conspiracy theories.  In many cases in which The Australian reports both sides (including this one), the "skeptic" side which is given most prominence by The Australian has as little merit as 911 trutherism.

  17. Ashton @314, that report is certainly off topic on this thread, and introducing it looks remarkably like introducing a new line of attack to me.

  18. A very slight correction to Tom's work-

    "the correlation of temperatures with distance."

    It should be the correlation of temperature anomalies with distance.

  19. scaddenp @317, as the temperature anomaly is derived by subtracting a constant value from the temperature, the correlation of anomalies and temperatures is the same.  What is true is that the average of nearby stations does not predict the temperature at a given station, but the rather the average of the anomalies of nearby stations predicts the anomaly at a given station.  Although I did not specify it, I have used the anomalies in my neighbour comparisons.

  20. Tom, it's a subtle point, but temperature anomaly is difference between temperature and the long term average for the station. So a station on by the sea and a station high on a hill might have very different temperatures, but the difference from a long term average at each station will be very similar. That is what I think was missing from your discussion.

  21. scaddenp @320, I agree.  However, in caclulating the correlation coefficient, the mean of each time series is subtracted from each value in the time series.  Therefore the correlation of absolute temperature values and temperature anomalies will be the same.  That is why in calculating the comparison to closest neighbours (as in my third graph @311) it is important to use anomalies, as I did.  That is what I did do, although I failed to state it.  In contrast, in calculating the correlation coefficient (as in my second graph @316) it is irrelevant whether you use anomalies or (as I did) absolute temperature values.

    As I said before, I should have mentioned that I was using anomalies for the neighbour comparisons, but it is irrelevant for correlation coefficients (the point on which you raised the matter).

  22. Okay Tom, understood in the context your analysis.

  23. As someone who takes a passing interest in the climate change debate, what I would like to know is the first (i.e., earliest) year for which we have temperature data for the entire planet, data that no one disputes. My guess is that it's only fairly recently, say a date in the '50s or '60s. Does anyone know?


    [Rob P] - "year for which we have temperature data for the entire planet, data that no one disputes"

    This is an impossible standard. Some people still insist bigfoot exists, that they've been abducted by aliens, that Earth isn't warming etc. There is always going to someone who disputes the facts. 

  24. James P, the thermometer record, particularly that used by HadCRUT4 was very restricted up until 1880.  That can be seen in this graph of the percentage of the land/ocean area covered by their record:

    After 1880, although coverage was not universal it was also not significantly biased in geographical representation except for sparse coverage in the Arctic, and zero coverage in the Antarctic.  Antarctic coverage for all datasets was accomplished in approximately 1957, as part of activities related to the International Geophysical year.

    As Rob P notes, there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes, particularly in an era of pseudo-skepticism.  Those, however, are the basic facts the fake skeptics will need to studiously ignore, or distort.

    The real question is, how much difference does the lack of coverage make?  Prior to 1880, arguably it makes a very big difference because their was not only a lack of coverage, but such coverage as existed was heavilly biased towards Europe and North America, along with the North Atlantic.  That is the reason GISS and NOAA do not extend their temperature records back prior to 1880.  After 1880, however, except for Antarctica, the coverage is typically extensive and not geographically biased such that only minor distortions of the temperature record can be expected.

    That last point was ably demonstrated by Caerbannog, who randomly chose 85 rural stations with long records, such that only one station was to be found in any given 20o x 20o cell at any time, and took the simple average to determine a global temperature:

    As you can see, divergence from the GISS temperature record is minimal.  So, after 1880 coverage issues do not typically impact on estimates of global mean temperature, and to the extent that they do have only a small impact (the 0.05 C uncertainty interval, in fact).  Indeed, the improvement of the record over time has recently been illustrated by Gavin Schmidt with a plot of the PDFs of the temperature of successive record warm years in the GISS record:

  25. Rob P. (#323) writes, 'This is an impossible standard' and then goes on to trivialise my point through what is a kind of reductio ad absurdem. This conveniently ignores the fact that we need to have absolutely certain climate information and we need to know for what period absolute certainty exists before we can even begin to discuss climate change in a rational manner. I don't see why anyone would bother otherwise.


    [Rob P] - Impossible expectations are one of the 5 main characteristics of scientific denial. See this SkS post: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism. The meat and potatoes quote:

    The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists".

  26. Tom Curtis (#324) writes, 'As Rob P notes, there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes, particularly in an era of pseudo-skepticism. Those, however, are the basic facts the fake skeptics will need to studiously ignore, or distort.'

    First of all, I find myself wondering who these dreadful people are who are apparently driven by some kind of nihilistic urge to 'studiously ignore, or distort' basic facts. Do such people even really exist? What on earth is the motivation of these 'fake sceptics'?

    Second, when 'there is no such thing as data that no-one disputes,' I find myself wondering how seriously to take a scientific debate that is based on the idea that since you can't convince everyone of your 'facts' you can just insult them for not being convinced. 

    Third, the expression 'era of pseudo-skepticism' surprises me greatly. We actually live in an era of overwhelming conformity and adherence to doctrines promulgated in schools, universities, the mass media, and government propaganda. Outside that, there are just a few heretics whose only outlet for their opinions seems to be the comments sections of the precious few websites, most of which will probably only end up deleting them. 

  27. TYPO in #326 'a precious few' was intended not 'the precious few'

  28. James P @326:

    1)  I am a veteran of creation/evolution debates, as well as climate science debates.  On the way I have also debated a number of other kooks, including a self avowed geocentrist and a person who thinks global warming is caused by radar.  I know from long experience that we live in an era of gullibility were any well established science can be questioned by large proportions of the population on grounds that come down to mendacious rhetoric.  You want to pretend otherwise?  Then the more gullible are you.

    2)  In my post @ 324 I gave an extensive, informative answer to your question.  Your response has been to ignore that response except for a side comment that is off topic on this thread, and not relevant to your initial question.  That suggests to me your question was not asked in good faith.  That you describe your question as "your point" confirms that, ie, that you were angling for a rhetorical hook, not asking a question out of a genuine interest to learn the relevant facts.


    By conventional wisdom, "absolute certainty" is only to be had in logic and mathematics.  Emperical science must restrict itself to limiting uncertainty.  I find more interesting, however, the etymology of the term "absolute certainty".  Strictly that means "a certainty that has no solvent", ie, a certainty that cannot be dissolved by any fact or evidence.  "Absolute certainty" is actually only the realm of the dogmatists.  Your demand for "absolute certainty" from science is then a demand that science cease to be science.  Rightly, friends of science resist such demand.

  29. James P: "Given the passion generated by the subject of climate change, it is fairly obvious to the non-scientist like myself that the general atmosphere in which the discussion is unfolding is not sufficiently dispassionate to bring us anywhere near the conditions in which peer review could be carried on in an appropriate manner."

    You are confused, James.  The general atmosphere in which the debate is unfolding is the atmosphere of scientific journals.  You're probably transferring the passion seen in the internet debate to the scientific debate (e.g. Judith in publication is not Judith on the internets).  This is an error. If you stand back away from the published science and remain there, you will continue to be tempted to make the scientific debate out to be whatever you want it to be.  You've just given in to that temptation by ignoring Tom's substantial response.

  30. And James, if you have access to any absolute certainty regarding anything, please share with the world.  It's the ethical thing to do.  You might even win a Nobel, or several!  Keep in mind that an actual absolute certainty would be instantly recognizable by everyone else.

  31. James P wrote: "This conveniently ignores the fact that we need to have absolutely certain climate information and we need to know for what period absolute certainty exists before we can even begin to discuss climate change in a rational manner. I don't see why anyone would bother otherwise."

    By this 'logic' the entire history of science and technological progress would be out the window.

    Cave man learning to make fire? Why would he bother when he clearly didn't have "absolute certainty" about how fire worked? Wright brothers building an airplane? Why would they bother when they clearly didn't have "absolute certainty" about how fluid dynamics would impact the craft?

    In essence you argue that we cannot start until we have finished. If we knew everything about climate science with absolute certainty there wouldn't be any need for further research or debate... we'd be done. We'd know everything. To set that (impossible) end state as a pre-requisite for starting is just ridiculous.

    The real question is whether we know enough to make reasonable predictions... but since the answer is "yes", deniers are forced to seek a different, irrational, standard.

  32. Paul Homewood from 'notallpeopleknowthat' successfully? undermines the reliability of Temperature records.

    "Massive Tampering with Temperature Records in South America"


    He starts off with GISS Global Temperature Anomaly:

    GISS Temperature anomaly showing Global Warming



    Then proceeds to show where gaps (grey areas) in the data are totally missing using NOAA /NCDC Map:

    NOAA/NCDC Showing areas where no data is available

    (Strangely he doesn't provide a Link to this Map)

    So he has shown that the GISS Global Temperature Map is derived from data that simply does not exist.

    He then goes on to hammer home his point of temperature data being falsified by highlighting three NOAA weather stations in Paraguay. I will just do the one at Puerto Casado.

    Here is GISS graph for Temperatures taken from Puerto Casado:

    GISS Temperature graph for Puerto Casado weather station

    All good temperatures seem to be rising as expected in Global warming Earth.

    THEN he states he takes the Raw Data and without ANY manipulation of the data produces a graph from that data:

    Homewood graph from GISS raw data

    There you go, without 'adjusting' the data it actually shows COOLING not warming.

    He then goes on to present NOAA/NCDC GHCNM modelling for Peurto Casado weather station where the Quality Controlled Unadjusted Data shows COOLING and the Quality Controlled Adjusted Data shows warming.

    NCDC Unadjusted data showing cooling/adjusted data showing warming

    He does the same for two other Paraguayan weather stations, Mariscal and San Juan.

    So it is easy for Homewood to make the statement "Scientists just adjust the Temperatures to match their Global Warming agenda" Once again it is all just Scientific rubbish when you look at the 'real' data it clearly shows cooling not warming. Why do they 'adjust' the data? To ensure all the Modelling shows Global Warming not as it really is Global Cooling. For most of their so called 'modelling' they don't even have data!!!! It is just a 'best guess' scenario.

    This has gone absolutely 'viral' with all Climate Denialist websites, bloggs and Newspapers quoting Paul Homewoods 'authoritative' study.

    Responce from the Scientific community. So far none that I can find.

    As a supporter of Global Warming / Climate Change I am hammered mercilessly and shown to be a total fraud.


    [Rob P] - Yes, just the latest example of cherry picking and conspiracy ideation from climate science contrarians. SkS will have a response soon enough.

    [RH] Shortened links.

  33. MEJ - see the post about this at ATTP and note also the comments there by Victor Venema. This is just echoing junk from Booker in the Telegraph. In short, laughable nonsense from the usual sources. And just as an aside, suppose temperature record really was junk - what then the explanation for the change in the long term integrators of climate change - sealevel and glacial mass?

  34. Hi scaddenp Booker in The Telegraph is simply quoting Homewood's article on his 'notallpeopleknowthat' website as are all the usual suspects. Skeptics don't see it as junk at all. To them Homewood is the actual truth and his graphs demonstrate to them how all the Science is just fabricated rubbish. You can sit back and laugh but the Scientific community will lose the debate. Thanks for that link I just couldn't find ANY redress on the issue. If you Google to try and get a Scientific view the denialists have that absolutely locked up page after page. Science simply doesn't get a look in.

  35. Thanks 'Rob P' I have poured over these graphs to see where he has manipulated the data but with my limited understanding I just need a Scientific person to go through it for me and explain it. A couple of things make me suspicious No link on the NOAA/NCDC Global Map showing 'no data' areas and his raw data graph has a diferent ID code 30886086000(4) and he is showing graphed Temperature rather than Anomaly and comparing the two?

  36. MEJ...  I can already pick out a big mistake that Homewood makes in his first two figures. Top figure is relative to 1951-1980. Second one (of his creation through the GISS site) is relative to 1981-2010.

    Why would he use different base periods? We have two choices. 1) Stupidity, and 2) Deceipt.

    I decided to try to check which.

    When you go to the data page at the GISS website where you generate these maps you get a lot of clues. First, the default base period presented in 1951-1980. You have to change it to get a different base period.

    When you switch it back to the 1951-1980 base period you get this:

    But even when we select his exact parameters, we still don't get the same image he presents. So, I don't know where he's getting that figure.

  37. Oh! I see. He's also comparing a GISS image to a NOAA image.

    Talk about apples and oranges all around.

  38. MEJ @332:

    1)  You cannot have been shown to be a total fraud unless it has been shown that you have knowingly used false information yourself.  It may (though very doubtfully) have been shown that you also are decieved, which is an entirely different matter.  

    2)   Paul Homewood is definitely pulling a swifty when he compares with NCDC data.  The reason is that the NCDC uses a 5ox5o grid, equivalent to 555 x 555 km at the equator.  That is a much lower resolution than NASA GISS's 250 x 250 km grid shown at the same location as the normal 1200 km radius he shows above.

    Here is the NASA 250 km grid equivalent to the graph he shows:

    And here is the GISS map and NCDC map side by side, for northern South America:

    Note that for the GISS 250 km grid, every gridpoint over land has at least one temperature station in its bounds.  Yet clearly the GISS 250 km grid covers much more of northern South America than does the equivalent lower resolution, NCDC map.  It follows that GISS uses more temperature stations in South America than does the NCDC, and that using the NCDC map entirely misrepresents the basis of the GISS data.

    This may be partially just ignorance from Homewood.  It is well known that NCDC uses only the GHCN for land only data, while GISS also uses the GHCN.  GISS, however, uses additional stations to those found in the GHCN (something not commonly known, but which should be known by anybody commenting on global temperatures).  However, given the existence of the GISS 250 km product, it should have been used regardless, if only so that readers knew that this was information GISS presented publicly, on a website, as easily accessible as the 1200 km version.  Homewood creates an impression that this is something GISS does not want us to know, whereas it is something they actively publish.

    2)  The use of the 1200 km version is based on known properties of temperature anomaly change over distance.  This information was published in peer reviewed papers, as was the method whereby GISS uses it in constructing their temperature data.  If Homewood wanted to make an honest critique, he would have cited those papers and stated his objections to the reasoning therein.  That he does not leaves the impression he has not even thought about the topic, let alone considered the relevant empirical data.  Indeed, as a mater of scientific reasoning, as he does not discuss, that must be our presumption.  So, we have from GISS cogent, evidence based reasons for their methods - and from Homewood, an argument from personal incredulity, and nothing else.

    3)  The reasons for, and method of adjustment of temperatures are also heavilly discusses in the scientific literature, and based on detailed examination of evidence, including direct comparison between temperature readings for different thermometer types, thermometers at different altitudes etc.  Again, in response to that literature, Homewood argues by, first, ignoring it so that he readers do not know that there is an objective basis for the adjustments; and second presenting an argument from personal incredulity and nothing else.

    As it happens, I have seen similar arguments presented regarding data from New Zealand and Australian stations.  These arguments have been much better presented, actually relying on more than personal incredulity.  On examination, however, in every case that I have examined, they have been wrong.  In most cases it has been trivial to show that they are wrong.

    I do not have the ready access to the relevant data in South America that I have in Australia and New Zealand, so I will not repeat the excercise.  I know from that prior experience, however, that Homewood's argument from personal incredulity is almost certainly wrong.  I will go one step further than that.  The Berkeley Earth project (BEST) uses an even larger data base than GISS, an entirely different method and does not adjust the raw data.  Rather, where there is a clear break in the temperature record for a particular station, they treat it as a separate station and let things fall were they will.  That method is well justified in that "stations" are often composites of records from differnt instruments, locations and site conditions which vary over time.  In one case from NZ, the site moved to several different places in the city, from buildings to garden settings, with changes in altitude in 10s (and in one case I remember which may not be the same city, 100s of meters), and in one mover from an east facing coast (with typically warm offshore waters) to a west facing coast (with typically cool offshore waters).  Every such move would have changed the temperatures read, and treating it all as just one continuous record without adjustment would be a farce.

    In any event, here is BEST's temperature record for Paraguay:


    So, overall Homewood makes his case, for the most part, by simply not addressing the relevant evidence.  Indeed, some of the crucial evidence he keeps carefully out of sight.  As is standard for "skeptics", he is very careful to make his arguments to the uninformed who will not be able to pick up the flaws in the argument, rather than submitting it to peer review by experts who will be able to pick out those flaws.  I think, in so doing, he fairly judges the quality of his argument.

  39. MEJ @332, in addition to my prior comment, ATTP shows the BEST unadjusted record for Puerto Casado, with dubious data noted, and break points shown:

    You will note that the break points coincide with known station moves.  As they are known station moves, Homewood is arguing without evidence that those station moves had no effect on the temperature, whereas comparing the station temperature record with the regional average clearly shows that there were effects (as we would expect).

    We can also see the break point adjusted data:

    Steve Mosher, one of the BEST team comments:

    "The first step we take is to find all those stations that are duplicates. And the duplicate test involves fuzzy logic. So you look at the locations and see how close they are, you look at the name and see how close they are.. and then we look at the first differences in data to see. how close they are.

    There is second pass that looks for data similarily first, cause sometimes you get stations that have exactly the same data, but due to metadata issue the metadata is way wrong. These are really rare. I can’t recall one off the top of my head.

    This particular record has multiple sources and multiple locations that differ very slightly.  When the location differs we ‘slice’ the record. In other words the record is NOT adjusted for a station move, rather its computed as three different stations.

    Slicing has ZERO effect if there was in fact
    A) no real station move
    B) a station move that doesnt result in a change in temp

    That is something most people dont get. That is, if you “over slice” or split a record that should not be split the effect is zero. In this case we have three difference locations given for a station with the same name. So we treat it (mathematically) as if it is three different stations. If there was a move and the move had an effect on temperature, then splitting the record will allow us to fit the final surface treating those segments as independent. Again, if the metadata was wrong and there was no move or a move that didnt effect things, then there is no adjustment to make."

    Richard Betts also comments:

    "Actually one of the largest adjustments is the ‘bucket correction’, which aims to remove a systematic cold bias earlier in the SST record which arose from sea temperatures being measured in buckets hauled up to the deck, rather than at engine intakes as more recent measurements are. The bucket correction reduces the apparent warming over the 20th Century – it’s very well-known, but Mr Booker seems to have either not heard of it, or somehow forgot to mention it….!"

    (As fair notice, I disagree with Betts and Mosher on a number of topics.  On the area of temperature records, however, they are undoubted experts and I would not disagree with them on that record unless I was aware of other similar experts with whom I not only agreed, but agreed for the same reasons those experts give for their views.  Recognition of their expertise does not, however, mean I agree that they are right, or even sensible in some cases, in other topics outside of that expertise.)

  40. Thanks 'RH' I will shorten the links next time (A noob mistake)

    Thanks so much scaddenp, Rob and Tom. Tonnes of info there for me to study up on. You have me going in the right direction now. Like most folk I don't have the depth of knowledge many of you people do so it is pretty easy for a seasoned campainer like Homeswood to 'punk' me.

    So glad I have SkS as backup.

  41. MEJ, a new resource on the Paraguay data is now available. It really makes Booker (who it directly addresses), and by extension Homewood, look like fools.  The video is by SkS's Kevin Cowtan (another expert on global tempertues, but one I rarely disagree with in other areas).  

    (H/t to Victor Venema)

  42. Thanks Tom a very informative video from Kevin Cowtan. That software he is using is pretty cool. VERY clever. Good of Kevin to take the time. Could I just mention something. KC makes reference to 1970 & 2005 'temperature drop' doesn't Berkeley Earth flag those two periods as 'station moves'? I noticed that in the ATTP link 'scaddenp' posted #333

  43. The bottom line, trump, checkmate, is Zeke Housefather's plot showing that overall, the raw data has a HIGHER trend than the global adjusted data. That's right, the adjusted data shows LESS warming than the raw data. So much for a conspiracy to make a hoax.


    [PS] Fixed link

  44. Zeke's work should be the lead-off for this 'Temperature Records" article.

    Since the raw data has been adjusted to show LESS warming than the raw data, the issue is resolved. No need to explain the science of the "adjustments".  End of story, no Hoax.

  45. No one doubts that we have been recovering fro the LIA for the last 160 years without the help of CO2 for at least the first 100.


    [TD] You are mistaken. Please read the post What Ended the Little Ice Age?--the Basic, then Intermediate, then Advanced tabbed panes. If you have further comments after reading those, comment on that thread, not this one.

  46. An increase in temperature over the last 70 years may be due to urbanizaton around the increasingly urban sites.


    [TD] A more appropriate thread for that particular narrow topic is the Urban Heat Island. Note there are both Basic and Intermediate tabbed panes.

    [PS] Please take the time to look at the "arguments" button, and then perhaps under taxonomy for such well-worn myths. Repeating such tired slogans without any data or published literature in support of your argument is simply sloganeering and will be summarily deleted.

  47. a[very small]rationofreason's two most recent posts fit exactly to the definition of sloganeering, and so are in direct violation of the comment's policy.  I quote:

    "Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted."

    (My emphasis)

    Not only that, by avoiding the giving of evidence; his or her comments rather contradict his or hers self flattering nom de net.  As such, even my ammendation, while reducing the accuracy of the appelation, is still flatering to them, based on observed behaviour.   


    [PS] Agreed. Further sloganeering will be deleted. However, please also note the comment policy prohibition on inflammatory remarks.

  48. I have rebutted arationofreason's sloganeering on the UHI effect, here.

  49. I have an actual rebutal of the empty slogan @345 here.

  50. Even though temperature measurements may not be considered reliable, we're still experiencing more natural disasters than before.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us