Datagate at the Hadley Centre

Evasion and obfuscation over climate data at the Hadley Centre.

Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. Without specifically admitting he has found serious errors, they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not. Significantly, they do not disagree with any of his claims.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Datagate at the Hadley Centre

  1. NB

    “errors will be fixed”
    Elections can be fixed.
    Fixers can be found for almost anything.
    I look forward to how the figures look after they have been ‘fixed’.

  2. billie

    “errors will be fixed”

    Yes of course they will, when the “scientists” are fixed

    Sheesh!

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    They’re good at “adjustments” too.

    They were also caught red handed in the Climategate emails.

    Fire them all.

  4. And our very own BOM is no better.

  5. John Bayley

    Well according to them, there were only ‘a very few’ errors out of thousands of data sources and ‘the evidence for warming is unequivocal’ anyway!
    So there.
    Move along; nothing to see here. This circus has a long way to go yet.

  6. Tel

    I came to the conclusion a long time ago this is about politics, not science.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactly-to-their-confirmation-bias/

    That’s the one explaining it most clearly.

  7. Myrddin Seren

    £226 million institute with 2,100 employees

    And that is just one of the leech factories.

  8. .

    There is absolutely no justification for “cleaning, adjusting and homogenising” data.

    In any other discipline or money seeking endeavour, it would be considered academic misconduct and fraud.

  9. There is absolutely no justification for “cleaning, adjusting and homogenising” data.

    That does happen and can be quite valid, but what’s utterly invalid is that the raw data is not revealed, which means that the results cannot be independently analysed, tested and verified (or proven wrong).

  10. .

    The raw data is correct. It doesn’t matter if it is “pure”.

    Try submitting to the Journal of Applied Econometrics or Physics Letters A with “cleaned, adjusted and homogenised”.

    They won’t even bother reviewing it.

    You wouldn’t even pass Chem 101 with this nonsense. They’d boot you from the uni permanently.

    Please, the Angels beg that you stop thinking you understand such things, if that is your position.

    Shut up you halfwit. You’re not even statistically literate.

  11. .

    bemused
    #2840660, posted on October 16, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    There is absolutely no justification for “cleaning, adjusting and homogenising” data.

    That does happen and can be quite valid

    Give me an example that isn’t a commercial application for troubleshooting and the like or data mining – it isn’t good enough to make an academic study or public pronouncements with and generalise about a theory or the whole world.

    Some data that is “cleaned” can be treated with appropriate statistical methods.

  12. Fat Tony

    Harken Now
    #2840668, posted on October 16, 2018 at 1:40 pm

    After reading this post, I think you should report to a hospital for the insane and request voluntary admission.

    You have “divine” delusions and are probably a danger, if not to others, then to yourself.

  13. .

    it matters not whether thermometers are moved from the middle of a city to its edge; that the city around it has increased in size; the time of day when readings were taken; and what instrument was used?

    Mmmyes. Now are they cherry picking what to adjust up or down or not?

    Don’t prevaricate or lie either.

    There will be lying on this blog.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark – Many if not most terrestrial thermometers are based at airports now. That is because airports have to collect weather data for the pilots, so government gets the data for free. Governments don’t like spending money on weather stations, especially when they give the wrong answer. Consequently there’s very likely a large uncorrected UHIE signal in the terrestrial temperature datasets, since airports have more flights, more jet exhausts and more asphalt these days

    Furthermore the climatistas tend to correct for UHIE not by lowering affected present urbanised datapoints but by cooling past rural datapoints to match the trend. It’s pure fraud.

    UHIE is quite large – and is misnamed since it only takes about 65 people per sq km to add a degree to temperature due to land-use changes (see last graph in this article).

  15. Give me an example that isn’t a commercial application for troubleshooting and the like or data mining

    In the sciences you do have to be cognisant of factors that can corrupt, obscure or outlier data and be prepared to remove the ‘noise’ that affects the real data that your seeking.

    There’s nothing whatsoever wrong with removing the ‘noise’ as long as you detail what you removed, how it was removed and why it was removed. It’s the latter that isn’t being done by the climate worriers.

  16. .

    In the sciences you do have to be cognisant of factors that can corrupt, obscure or outlier data and be prepared to remove the ‘noise’ that affects the real data that your seeking.

    What you *really* should do is “nothing”, finish the work, do it again with better experimental design and report both results.

    If I can parse my data later, can I chuck a few extra drops of reagent here and there?

  17. RobK

    Further more, thermometer charactoristics have changed such that the thermal lag of glass instruments with a slider is replaced by electronic sampling several times a minute. Methods vary by jurisdiction. Similarly sea surface temps have issues.

  18. .

    There’s nothing whatsoever wrong with removing the ‘noise’ as long as you detail what you removed, how it was removed and why it was removed. It’s the latter that isn’t being done by the climate worriers.

    That’s true of course, they’re not being upfront and like Bruce says, they are biased in what gets “cleaned, homogenised and adjusted”.

  19. .

    Total bullshit.

    You are simply prevaricating now.

  20. Tel

    Fudging measurements from an active experiment is obviously wrong: adjusting for biases for a whole series of measurement over scores of years in changing conditions is a different matter entirely.

    Cobblers. One is just as bad as another, but when it clearly links to a pay off selling snake oil to the rubes then it’s unforgivable.

    Scam, scam, eggs and scam. That’s not got too much scam in it.

  21. Tel

    We also observe that reader Tel is convinced by Tony Heller, an Obama birther whose graphing even Anthony Watts and Judith Curry have criticised for flaky analysis. Wouldst reader Tel have ever read detailed criticism of his graphs, such as can be found here?

    Couldn’t help yourself from bullshitting and playing the man, could ya?

    Tell me exactly what a “birther” is? I keep forgetting.

  22. .

    doest all readers here not think – why has the vast swathe of science types, and the minions who do data entry in their offices,

    Fraud is fraud. Nothing else matters.

    Data should not be scrubbed. At best it is a compromise.

    The gold standard of data analysis is not to scrub anything. It requires competence in more advanced methods. If you can’t do it, you probably shouldn’t do data analysis.

    Nothing can be submitted to the most esteemed physics, chemistry or economics journals with “clean” data and not without allowing the data to be reviewed by others, along with the methodology or code if you have written your own data analysis routine.

    There is a very good reason why.

    The fact is that the climate data has been manipulated, the bias is apparent from what Bruce showed.

    There is no need for internal whistleblowers, there are external ones and the U of East Anglia scandal and others has exposed this blatant fraud and very bad pseudoscience!

    for this vexes us in Heaven continually

    Oh please. You don’t have the capacity or cache to talk down to people here.

  23. Tel

    Wouldst reader Tel have ever read detailed criticism of his graphs, such as can be found here?

    This is hilarious it really gives a deep insight into the caliber of people involved in government funded climatology, here’s the complaint (just so no one is confused about what I’m responding to):

    You will notice that there is not a lot of scatter in the individual points from year to year, a necessary feature for the high correlation with CO2 given the very limited scatter found in the CO2 record (at least from Mauna Loa). That being said, the graph comes as a surprise to me, for I have typically seen a much larger year to year scatter in the graphs, such as shown here:

    The author of this second graph is in obvious, and fundamental disagreement with Tony Heller about the size and nature of the adjustments in the USHCN temperature record. Importantly, if Heller is correct, there is a significant correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature adjustments, but if the author of the second graph is correct, there is not. That is odd, because the author of the second graph is Tony Heller.

    So Heller provided a spreadsheet, with the numbers and the graphs and a reference to the source data which he got by downloading from NOAA’s ftp site. Spreadsheet is available here (the link is from Heller’s website, can be found very easily but I’ll post here)…

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xt8PPlV3HyFHTbl1fXn1my_TgsK-CxiL5GgbD9ZXOIQ/edit?usp=sharing

    On the graph there’s a note: “Five Year Mean, Measured (Blue) Adjusted (Red)”

    But what could he mean by this? Does anyone know? If only we have more government grant money to discover how to take a moving average of data.

    That really is the best thinker they could find to come up with a rebuttal. I admit I was wrong to think that Infidel Tiger was trolling us, because he would not make such a stupid mistake, even in jest. He would have come up with something amusing or entertaining at least. This is Cricket level stuff.

  24. RobK

    us in Heaven

    This is where the bollocks starts and doesn’t look back.
    This angel has a tail and trident.

  25. Bruce of Newcastle

    I love how Hark has ignored the data and analysis I provided.
    Ante up son.
    If you do so I’ll show you the other reason why HadCRUT and GISStemp are garbage.

  26. Tel

    Hark, Tel: Ye be convinced by Tony Heller? He who has been scorned even by Anthony Watts and Judith Curry for flaky analysis and graph wrangling?

    This gets sillier and sillier. Here’s Anthony Watts admitting that although he refused to believe it at first, Heller was actually right after all.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

    Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible

    way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. And there’s more about this below.

    That was FOUR YEARS AGO!

  27. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’ve even taken 20 minutes to do up some graphs, which are posted on line ready…

  28. egg_

    Hark! Point: so, it matters not whether thermometers are moved from the middle of a city to its edge; that the city around it has increased in size; the time of day when readings were taken; and what instrument was used?

    Too bad that satellite telemetry is ruining the racket, eh?

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    LOL. I’ve been a scientist in R&D since the early eighties.

    Here you go, this pic is of two graphs.

    The top one is snow cover anomaly, from here. I’ve added a trendline since 1994, which is nearly a quarter century ago. The bottom is the least hysterical global temperature dataset: UAH. I’ve graphed it upsidedown so you can more easily line up the peaks with the snow cover graph.

    Snow doesn’t give a crap about adjustments, it melts at 0 C. So snow cover extent anomaly shows the geographic isotherm of 0 C relative to the average.

    No change in nearly a quarter century.

    Global warming isn’t occurring in the real world. Humans may lie, but snow doesn’t.

  30. Leo G

    LOL. I’ve been a scientist in R&D since the early eighties.

    You only profess to be a messenger of Robert Boyle, I understand. But Harken Now professes to be a messenger of God. He suggests that we burn in hellfires unless we heed his message.
    Why argue with a habitual liar?

  31. .

    produced by Men in their tool sheds proving what the Science Academies cannot see.

    Yet, the academy is blinded by its own corruption and greed.

  32. RobK

    Clearly Hark didn’t read or understand John Reid’s paper I linked. Nor did he get past the intro of the french mathmaticians paper. The IPCC has only one mandate, which is to reinforce the conjecture that anthropogenic co2 influences climate. Any dissent is rejected.

  33. .

    Tamino is an idiot who doesn’t understand cointegration.

    What a liar and an idiot. Global warming doesn’t show signs of cointegration…

    Except for every study that does, like Beenstock, Polder and Reigenwertz.

  34. RobK

    Harken if you cannot grasp the known facts of the co2 cycle then you should stick to decorating christmas cards.

  35. RobK

    Harken,
    more heat = more humidity = potentially more snow in some parts
    Well done, you have described the feed back that ensures any excess heat tends to be convected to the upper atmosphere, then radiated to space. Water is a massive heat pump dwarfing any CO2 concerns. They even have over lapping emmission spectra. BoNs argument holds good.

  36. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark! Bruce: for Boss’s sake – does not a moment’s thought reveal that the relationship between snow and climate change is not simplesimple – heat the place up high enough and no snow nearly anywhere; but on the way to Planet Oven, more heat = more humidity = potentially more snow in some parts, or at least heavier snow dumps; in other places, warmth makes what would have been snow into rain, and shorter snow seasons.

    Hark – I gave a graph of the geographical extent of snow cover, not the amount of snow.

    This is a measure of the area of the northern hemisphere at or below 0 C. Thus is it a primary proxy for temperature. If the area at or below 0 C is not getting smaller it means the world is not warming.

    As to inverting UAH I did that for a reason. It is so that you can line up the peaks in snow cover with inverted peaks (ie valleys) in UAH temperature. Peaks in the bottom graph line up perfectly with peaks in the top graph – there is no time shifting at all. This demonstrates that when temperature is low snow extent is high. Thus if snow cover extent is not rising UAH should not be rising. Because it is rising, albeit slightly, it means Christy and co haven’t correctly adjusted their AMSU data.

    As I said snow cover is easy to measure by satellite. Temperature is harder.

    That UAH is the best of the temperature datasets just shows how bad the others like HadCRUT and GISStemp are.

  37. Bruce of Newcastle

    Thus if snow cover extent is not rising UAH should not be rising.

    Oops, mistake. Meant to say “Thus if snow cover extent is not falling UAH should not be rising.”
    It’s a tight anticorrelation.

  38. BoN;

    Global warming isn’t occurring in the real world. Humans may lie, but snow doesn’t.

    BoN – you are quite wrong.
    Snowflakes lie like a pig in shit.

  39. .

    The thing is even if there is enough warming to worry about, it never passes a costs-benefits test to mitigate.

    The Stern report was an absolute shitshow. It saw the selective and double discounting of costs and benefits.

    Frontier Economics released a report on the Gillard scheme, which turned out to be horribly expensive and inefficient.

    If that tax/ETS system was applied globally to mitigate all carbon emissions, global GDP would fall to subsistence levels.

  40. .

    The data from 1890 to now (unadjusted) shows a cooling trend in many places.

    There is no problem and even if it cherry pick the data to show a warming trend, it is of insignificant consequence, whilst even gloomier modelling never passes a CBA.

  41. RobK

    I believe thermometers; it’s how you use them that counts.
    The voice from the heavens purporting scientific authority is endeavoring to tame chaos by sampling, modelling and projecting what cannot be sampled, modelled and projected with sufficient accuracy or precision to form the basis of rational political decisions. The IPCC is a political body not a scientific one. It refuses any dissent, much like a religion.

  42. Bruce of Newcastle

    Still seems to this Angel that your graphing hides finer details that are important, such as seasonal changes in extent, since not all extents are of the same importance (just like polar ice, where a larger winter extent matters little if the next summer still has a small, sun soaking minimum).

    As I said it is snow cover anomaly. The UAH graph is temperature anomaly. You do understand such things don’t you?

    I see that Rutgers itself says that 2017 was above the 48 year snow cover average, yet temperature average across the year was up near the top too.

    Was it? Really? That is my point exactly. And the point of this thread.

    Why trust a thermometer when you can rely on a satellite and the umpteenth adjustments and fiddles necessary to derive temperature from its indirect readings, eh?

    Indeed. Which is why in the lab I’d routinely grab a bunch of alcohol thermometers out of the draw and put them in boiling water. Then fish out the one that read closest to 100 C and use that one in my rig. Typically the thermometers would read ±2 C. (I can’t use electric thermometers as the probes dissolve.)

    The melting point of pure water however isn’t subject to the vagaries of experimental apparatus. Which again is my point.

    Nor is snow affected by loss of budget or upcoming mortgage payments.

    Why bother thinking about how much heat is going in the oceans?

    That one is dead easy to disprove. The AMO has a ~60 year cycle. As does the PDO. If the lag was long as the climatistas like to claim then the signal would be damped.

    The heat is not hiding in the oceans, it has gone out to space.

  43. Arnost

    The heat is not hiding in the oceans, it has gone out to space

    The Warmies still claim that – given the atmosphere (except by now wildly exaggerated adjustments) does not show the predicted warming – the heat is hiding in the oceans.

    That is actually a really interesting claim as there is no easy physical explanation of how down welling IR can heat the oceans. [Water completely reflects IR, so it can’t be the greenhouse effect that heats the oceans!]

    So IF the oceans are heating it has to be either geo-thermal (volcanic) or solar (wavelength in the <micrometer range) … and both are really problematic to the warmies ocean: increasing CO2 (acidity); and Greenhouse caused warming, arguments.

  44. Tel

    Well done, you have described the feed back that ensures any excess heat tends to be convected to the upper atmosphere, then radiated to space. Water is a massive heat pump dwarfing any CO2 concerns.

    The warmists know about that, and then when convenient they forget about it again and hope no one asks any obvious questions… then later they bring it back when they need to explain something away.

    Same as what they do with weather and climate… it’s called “weather” and should be ignored if there’s some short term cool days, but it’s called “climate” and very very important, must be in every newspaper, if there’s some short term heat wave. The double standard is incredibly obvious, gets pointed out, and every time they just keep doing it, endless hammering repetition, never address the issue.

Comments are closed.