Climate Change Fraud

There appear to be 17 meteorological stations in Angola, with differing record lengths, used for GHCN

Angola : Climate Data : GHCNv2 Temperatures : Unur.com

This is few for such a large country, and with regionally varying climate. I find it hard to believe that mojo really wants to determine whether the hottest (in record) August has just occurred. But absence of such would be an element to prove fraud.

There are the records. Just presented graphically. Other ways to obtain Angola data probably exist; this one might help:

Historical Weather For The Last Twelve Months in Luanda, Angola - WeatherSpark

Obviously effort is involved to set about proving this fraud, but maybe he'll surprise me (us) and dig in.

+++

Proving no fraud seems...peculiar. Like somebody accuses me of committing a crime, and it is my job to prove I did not. Perhaps I am misinterpreting.

 

We have previously discussed differences between surface T and microwave satellite processed signals. That they may differ in timing of their maxima does not suggest fraud by either one.

Your source folks are unaware of surface T measurements in Angola? Sounds pretty willful to me.

 

I am trying to understand this discussion. The argument is whether or not Angola had it's warmest year in history? Really? It's not that a blog called "The Deplorable Climate Science" blog is not an unbiased and expert source....

Here is a link to the WP that, unfortunately, does not specifically mention Angola:

Earth posts hottest August on record and 16th straight month of unsurpassed heat - The Washington Post

I think the link is longer than the article.

 

As usual there are potentially worthwhile questions within the static.

Are surface-T data (ever) inappropriately unused? Or inappropriately homogenized or extrapolated? As we have discussed before, original data are ultimately accessible, and the way is clear for anyone to prepare an independent production. It would be a substantial task. Failing that, we have the claim that all of the several organizations doing so are misleading. Possibly fraudulently so. It has always struck me as a weak (almost magical) hypothesis. Calling out fraud is easy. Actually demonstrating it, through data and analysis is something that the 'callers' have shown no interest in.

Surface T and microwave radiometry show different patterns. To me, claiming the latter disprove (anything) about surface T is misuse and frankly an underuse. Differences of mid-atmoshpere T retrievals should teach us something. About how heat redistributes in the atmosphere; different times, places and circumstances. Important, useful insights could arise. Microwave radiometry is done by by RSS and UAH. Their differing results have converged a lot as analytical procedures have been modified. It is It is disappointing that
the only use we are making of all that work is 'these two (different) things are different, so the first one must be wrong'. The question instead should be 'what can we learn from these differences?'.

Attempts to 'score points' with the least possible effort appeal to many. But not, I believe, to all.

 

Global anomaly maps for August 2016 by GHCN and RSS are available online. They show concordant patterns over much of the world, but different over the whole of Africa. I looked and that's what I saw. As so often, I would not have looked without mojo's nudge.

Entirely possible that something worthwhile could be learned from that difference. Something even more worthwhile than low-effort, sparkly accusations.

 

Ah! Well The Congo and Namibia. Why didn't you say so. Maybe your website should explain why NOAA is committing fraud. I can't believe I am having this conversation....Dumb and Dumber indeed.

 

If there is solid contrarian data, let it be presented. Science, theory, and modeling are malleable as data sets grow and present themselves. Adjusting models to incorporate new findings is most welcome.

Few robust models and theories are with data points that fall perfectly into line. Entire data sets and various measurement approaches must be considered.

It would be statistically unusual if we saw evidence of warming at every point and measure on earth every year. We don't. We are not often measuring precisely the same thing. That's ok. It's the collective vector of such data that is important to make sense of our world.

 

This is not, for us, a new topic. What mojo may have forgotten is that neither publication about it:

Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams Jr., and M. A. Palecki (2010), On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, doi:10.1029/2009JD013094.

Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen‐Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. R. Christy, and R. A. Pielke Sr. (2011), Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

supports the idea that US temperature trends are driven by station siting problems.

But now we are off to Africa where such studies have not been done. Or if so, not known to me. Ought to be on someone's to-do list.

Luanda, Angola station is at the airport and has been since 1948. do not know how the airport itself may have changed. Link above, so flail away.

 

The energy situation in Africa is far from ideal:

Energy in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But one would hope that improvements are not only made by burning more coal.

 

that's a shame.