RSS Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values Fudged To Fit Models”!

Serious Climate Doping Suspicion Against RSS: Satellite Temperatures Raised One And Half Tenths Of A Degree
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Temperatures can be measured from the ground and from satellites. Satellite data have two versions, UAH and RSS. The version of UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) makes a solid impression. The RSS version shows larger deviations and suggests a stronger warming.

How come?

Doping the data

Both datasets surely get their data from similar satellites. The explanation lies in a “post-processing” of the measured values ​​by the RSS group. In the chart below you can see the old version in red.

Global temperature based on RSS satellite measurements. From Climate4You Newsletter June 2018.

At some point from mid 2015, the RSS people pushed the temperatures starting at  the year 2000 manually upwards. Therefore today you can find the values ​​of the blue curve in the database. As a result of this subsequent data change, additional warming was generated at a speed of one and a half tenths of a degree. It does not sound very much, but it is much if you consider that the 20th century warming was only eight-tenths of a degree.

Data on statistical steroids

It’s a little bit as like a year 2010 high jump world record of 2.40 meter later being changed to 2.45 meter by the International Athletics Federation. We could call this desktop doping, which would certainly not be a bad description for the RSS intervention.

RSS statisticians massively massaged their data under the radar, without any interest from the media. A few years later new heat records get surprisingly reported, but in many cases likely solely through the heat-promoting measures of desktop doping.

Change the data to fit the broken models

The changes happen to affect the hiatus phase, as it apparently had to do with the fear that the warming would not continue. The values ​​were simply raised. It’s a classic case where the readings did not confirm the models. But instead of improving the models, the measurement data were changed. There are hardly any other disciplines out there where things work this way.

Once again, it’s clear that we urgently need climate-related checks. The damage to the trust is already done. Now only stricter checks can help, and restricting employees in cases of suspicion – lifelong in the case of repeat-offenders.

Criminal fraud

Proposal: Anyone who fabricates or falsifies climate data, or brings these willfully into the public, should be punished with 2 years in prison.

 

40 responses to “RSS Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values Fudged To Fit Models”!”

  1. Michael Ioffe

    1. If we will look at data – blue curve is showing sharp changes every year and average tendency.
    It must create questions – what are the reason for climate change. No one explanation – carbon dioxide, solar activities, Milancovich cycles, volcanoes activities, etc – CAN’T EXPLAIN IT.
    Only properties of water – changes of evaporation of water on continents by roots of trees and other vegetation – with changing every year what we are growing on every fields – CAN EXPLAIN THESE SHARP ANNUAL CHANGING.
    2. Any measurement of NASA is showing that region of Arctic Ocean is increasing temperature 38 times bigger, than in South Hemisphere.
    It mean, that melting of snow and ice in mounts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Europe, Russia can occur as in global warming, as in global cooling condition – THAT IS A DANGER, NOT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
    WE MUST REEVALUATE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ASAP.

  2. Yonason

    Tony Heller agrees with Pierre.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJtpdTbHY30

    But is Tony right? Sure seems like it.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html

    So, it’s pretty clear from unadjusted sea level data that climate “scientists” are in the tank for global warming, in order to justify their lies about “accelerating” sea level.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/

    And who can blame some of the scientists who wouldn’t otherwise join the scam, what with the mafia style threats and intimidation brought to bear on it’s behalf by corrupt government officials!
    https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/heartland-defends-global-warming-skeptics/

    It’s bad enough being threatened with punishment if you have committed a crime, but when you haven’t, that’s got to be pretty scary.

  3. RC Saumarez

    You’ll have to build another prison!

  4. RSS Suspected Of "Serious Data Doping", German Scientists Say…"Values Fudged To Fit Models"! | Un hobby...

    […]  Dr. S. Lüning and Prof. F. Vahrenholt, August 19, 2018 in […]

  5. Bitter&twisted

    Why am I not surprised at this post-hoc fiddle by climate sciactivists?

    1. Curious George

      Exactly. Measurements are just data to be adjusted to fit our purpose.

      1. Yonason

        Post-modern science at its “best.”

  6. spike55

    Here is RSSv$ -RSSv3.3 ($ instead of 4, is intentional)

    https://s19.postimg.cc/tcd8fmb37/RSS__v4-v3.3.png

  7. Globale Abkühlung geht weiter: Schwache Sonne – kein El Niño 2018? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] […]

  8. Stuart Lynne

    Not to defend them, but effectively both UAH and RSS are models. Data fed into them from satellites massaged according to some secret formulas, and out pops your official results.

    In this case, not quite Garbage In / Garbage Out. But certainly, we need to get a much better understanding of the basis of the changes in the secret formulas to achieve these new results.

    1. Yonason

      Roy Spencer doesn’t appear to be afraid to give us at least some idea of how he collects and processes his data.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

      He also posts occasionally about how elevated CO2 poses a serious threat. No, not to the world, but to the warmist narrative.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/make-agriculture-great-again-record-corn-yield-and-soybean-production-predicted-for-2018/

      1. Sean

        Roy Spenser posted explicitly about the RSS adjustments last year: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Before they added warming, here’s how close the RSS and UAH datasets were:

          http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cooling-1998.jpg

          1. SebastianH

            Question is, why is UAH6 lower than UAH5.6? Why is UAH the only dataset that’s deviating? And why did Pierre delete my reply? Not happy with someone pointing out that he is just parroting (“translating”) industry lobbyist accusations with no substance, adding his own fraud angle to it? 😉

            Has anyone of you guys read and understood this FAQ?http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Why is UAH the only dataset that’s deviating?

            It’s not. The UAH agrees with “(a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so” compared with NOAA and RSS.

            why did Pierre delete my reply?

            He didn’t. Had to dig a reply out of spam. It’s there. Stop complaining.

            Christy et al., 2018
            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
            “[A]s new versions of the datasets are produced, trend magnitudes have changed markedly, for example the central estimate of the global trend of the mid-troposphere in Remote Sensing System’s increased 60% from +0.078 to +0.125°C decade−1, between consecutive versions 3.3 and 4.0 (Mears and Wentz 2016). … As an experiment, Mears et al. recalculated the RSS overall trend by simply truncating NOAA-14 data after 1999 (which reduced their long-term trend by 0.02 K decade−1). However, this does not address the problem that the trends of the entire NOAA-12 and −14 time series (i.e. pre-2000) are likely too positive and thus still affect the entire time series. Additionally, the evidence from the Australian and U.S. VIZ comparisons support the hypothesis that RSS contains extra warming (due to NOAA-12, −14 warming.)”

            “Overall then, this analysis suggests spurious warming in the central estimate trend of RSS of at least +0.04°C decade−1, which is consistent with results shown later based on other independent constructions for the tropical belt.”

            “When examining all of the evidence presented here, i.e. the correlations, magnitude of errors and trend comparisons, the general conclusion is that UAH data tend to agree with (a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so, than the other three [NOAA, RSS, UW]. … One key result here is that substantial evidence exists to show that the processed data from NOAA-12 and −14 (operating in the 1990s) were affected by spurious warming that impacted the four datasets, with UAH the least affected due to its unique merging process. RSS, NOAA and UW show considerably more warming in this period than UAH and more than the US VIZ and Australian radiosondes for the period in which the radiosonde instrumentation did not change. Additionally the same discrepancy was found relative to the composite of all of the radiosondes in the IGRA database, both global and low-latitude.”

            While not definitive, the evidence does support the hypothesis that the processed satellite data of NOAA-12 and −14 are characterized by spurious warming, thus introducing spuriously positive trends in the satellite records. Comparisons with other, independently-constructed datasets (radiosonde and reanalyses) support this hypothesis (Figure 10).”

            “Given this result, we estimate the global TMT trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. … The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”

          3. SebastianH

            From the FAQ I linked to:

            The UAH researchers like to say that their data agree better with radiosondes. This depends on which radiosonde dataset is under consideration, and what one means by “agree better.” We did find one thing that the radiosondes datasets all agree on. During the main period of disagreement between RSS V4.0 and UAH V6.0 (i.e., ~1998-2007), a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement with RSS V4.0 than UAH V6.0.

            And then there is of course this study:
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

            No amount of quotes from John Christy will convince anyone that his work is sound. Is there any external study like the one I presented that would say that UAH is THE definitive temperature dataset of the lower troposphere?

          4. spike55

            “a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets “
            ROFLMAO,

            So once they have finished tampering with the data it shows warming.. WOW !!

            Call me UNimpressed !!

            UAH matches NOAA’s own satellites.

            https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png

            No “adjustments” needed.

          5. Yonason

            @spike

            Homogenized? They probably pasteurize it, as well – you know, HEAT IT to remove the contaminating pathogen known as “reality.”

        2. Yonason

          @Sean

          Thanks.

          I like his last few paragraphs [my additions/emphasis in brackets and added video].

          ” I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward [as Tony Heller illustrates, here]. …
          . . .
          Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

          And that is the most important point to be made.”

          The climate mafia has gotten to everyone but Spencer and Cristy. I hope they can hold out against the corrupt climate “scientists” and politicians.

  9. James Vincent Ryan

    You always have to ask the question in this situation…..were they incompetent then…or are they incompetent now?

    1. Yonason

      HAH! Indeed.

  10. Edim
    1. SebastianH
      1. Edim

        Well, it does not, obviously. Most newer versions of global temperature indices do add more warming.

        1. SebastianH

          UAH 6 made it actually cool in a period where it warmed in the previous version. How is that different? Or is adjusting one’s dataset so it shows cooler temperatures a good thing, but the other direction is wrong?

          Is that why “skeptics” consider the NOAA SST data to be wrong, too? Because they “warmed” old data which resulted in a less pronounces overall SST warming? Or was that a good thing for you guys?

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

          1. spike55

            UAH matches NOAA’s own satellite data (that NOAA won’t use because it is nowhere near the models)

            https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png

            They use “climate models” to “adjust” RSS, how much more ridiculous can you get than that. !!

            The change from UAHv5.6 to UAHv6 was because of KNOWN, MEASUREABLE satellite drift.

            Remain ignorant, seb.. its your only choice.

            Speaking of measurements and evidence…

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          2. SebastianH

            The change from UAHv5.6 to UAHv6 was because of KNOWN, MEASUREABLE satellite drift.

            This is an amazing reply when you consider what the main reason for RSS v4 was 😉

            AndyG55, you are a marvelous creature …

          3. spike55

            We know the main reason for RSSv4, a vain attempt to match the climate models, by using a climate model to do the “adjustments”

            You are so DUMB, that you probably don’t see justhow ridiculous that is.

            You really should actually do some research, seb, so your IGNORANCE doesn’t show so much.

            Noted YET AGAIN the headless-chook EVASION of those two questions, childish attempt at distraction…

            So funny to watch you just keep SQUIRMING.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            You really are a cowardly, pathetic creature.

          4. SebastianH

            You are so DUMB, that you probably don’t see justhow ridiculous that is.

            I see how ridiculous you are, so …

            You really are a cowardly, pathetic creature.

            Ouch, you really gave it to me this time. *sigh*

          5. spike55

            Seb with YET ANOTHER headless chook EVASION

            HILARIOUS 🙂

            Would be far better for you to just RUN AWAY than to give such a pathetic, cowardly EVASION of a response.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Q3. Do you REALLY think it is scientifically appropriate to use “climate models” in the calculation of temperature, like RSSv4 does?

            The depths of your NON-SCIENCE NONSENSE knows no bounds.

          6. SebastianH

            Let’s see how you evade … do you think satellites are measuring temperature? Yes or no?

            I am a bit disappointed that you used insults from before. Try to be more creative next time and come up with some new stuff. I’m really enjoying this attention thing you are providing me with. What more can someone apparently living in a basement dependent on fossil fuels want in his life than a loyal fan who comments on everything he writes?

  11. SebastianH

    RSS Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values Fudged To Fit Models”!

    German scientists? Rather German paid for by oil companies (literally) lobbyists. Especially since they didn’t employ any science in their ridiculous accusation that you just copied and pasted 😉

    The version of UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) makes a solid impression. The RSS version shows larger deviations and suggests a stronger warming.

    Oh really, when you look at different temperature datasets it really is just one set that deviates from all the others. Guess which one! And that has been especially true since version 6.0 of that deviating dataset.

    At some point from mid 2015, the RSS people pushed the temperatures starting at the year 2000 manually upwards.

    Manually? How? As Stuart Lynne correctly writes, those are models derived from satellite data. The algorithms aren’t secret. Point out where temperatures got manually shifted?

    We could call this desktop doping, which would certainly not be a bad description for the RSS intervention.

    What would you call it if it turns ouot the UAH team managed to artificially cool their temperature dataset? What happened to RSS as the poster child dataset skeptics would use to point out that there is not that much warming? Now that they corrected for satellite error/drift suddenly it’s also fraud like the rest of the datasets that don’t agree with your imagination.

    Since you are a fan of those Lüning/Vahrenholt lobbyists, do you think this will every become reality?
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_L%C3%BCning#/media/File:Comparison_real_temperature_data_vs.Vahrenholt_andL%C3%BCnings_2012_prognosis.png (their prediction of future temperatures)

    What will you do if it doesn’t just as your own prediction for 2020 temperatures? Will time alone be able to make you realize how wrong you are/were? Or will this game never end and just because this one prediction failed there would be no reason their other nonsense could be wrong too … nope, that only works as an argument for “warmists” predicting things for a very specific scenario, right? 😉

    RSS statisticians massively massaged their data under the radar, without any interest from the media.

    Under the radar? Huh? You guys are lamenting about it for years now … poster chiild dataset turned evil or something like that. And no, nobody is interested in “skeptics” calling anything a fraud. That only serves as something the rest of us can laugh about.

    The changes happen to affect the hiatus phase, as it apparently had to do with the fear that the warming would not continue. The values ​​were simply raised.

    Yeah … right, in your fantasy perhaps. Have you ever read this FAQ?
    http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/

    It’s a classic case where the readings did not confirm the models. But instead of improving the models, the measurement data were changed.

    There is no magic satellite temperature measurement happening. Those are models or rather algorithms too. They include corrections for all kind of problems that arrise with this kind of data processing.

    Once again, it’s clear that we urgently need climate-related checks. The damage to the trust is already done. Now only stricter checks can help, and restricting employees in cases of suspicion – lifelong in the case of repeat-offenders.

    So you want to suppress science that you dislike. Great! Maybe someone at UAH needs some restricting? Why is that dataset the only one deviating? Because they “tell the truth”? That seems unlikely.

    1. spike55

      “Vahrenholt lobbyists, do you think this will every become reality?”

      So funny to see you GULLIBLY eat up the use of the FARCICAL GISS fabrication in your attempt at distraction.

      Use something REAL for your temperature data, seb, not some crap deliberately fabricated to match the TOTALLY FARCICAL models.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png

      REAL temperature anomaly this year so far is 0.231C.

      Looks like Vahrenholt OVER-ESTIMATED the future temperature, doesn’t it.

      You do know that RSSv4 uses “climate models” to “adjust” to get that warming, don’t you seb

      … or are you being deliberately IGNORANT, as always.

  12. Kenneth Richard

    Why is UAH the only dataset that’s deviating?

    It’s not. The UAH agrees with “(a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so” compared with NOAA and RSS.

    Christy et al., 2018
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
    “[A]s new versions of the datasets are produced, trend magnitudes have changed markedly, for example the central estimate of the global trend of the mid-troposphere in Remote Sensing System’s increased 60% from +0.078 to +0.125°C decade−1, between consecutive versions 3.3 and 4.0 (Mears and Wentz 2016). … As an experiment, Mears et al. recalculated the RSS overall trend by simply truncating NOAA-14 data after 1999 (which reduced their long-term trend by 0.02 K decade−1). However, this does not address the problem that the trends of the entire NOAA-12 and −14 time series (i.e. pre-2000) are likely too positive and thus still affect the entire time series. Additionally, the evidence from the Australian and U.S. VIZ comparisons support the hypothesis that RSS contains extra warming (due to NOAA-12, −14 warming.)”

    “Overall then, this analysis suggests spurious warming in the central estimate trend of RSS of at least +0.04°C decade−1, which is consistent with results shown later based on other independent constructions for the tropical belt.”

    “When examining all of the evidence presented here, i.e. the correlations, magnitude of errors and trend comparisons, the general conclusion is that UAH data tend to agree with (a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so, than the other three [NOAA, RSS, UW]. … One key result here is that substantial evidence exists to show that the processed data from NOAA-12 and −14 (operating in the 1990s) were affected by spurious warming that impacted the four datasets, with UAH the least affected due to its unique merging process. RSS, NOAA and UW show considerably more warming in this period than UAH and more than the US VIZ and Australian radiosondes for the period in which the radiosonde instrumentation did not change. Additionally the same discrepancy was found relative to the composite of all of the radiosondes in the IGRA database, both global and low-latitude.”

    While not definitive, the evidence does support the hypothesis that the processed satellite data of NOAA-12 and −14 are characterized by spurious warming, thus introducing spuriously positive trends in the satellite records. Comparisons with other, independently-constructed datasets (radiosonde and reanalyses) support this hypothesis (Figure 10).”

    “Given this result, we estimate the global TMT trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. … The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”

    1. SebastianH

      It’s not. The UAH agrees with “(a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so” compared with NOAA and RSS.

      From the RSS FAQ:

      The UAH researchers like to say that their data agree better with radiosondes. This depends on which radiosonde dataset is under consideration, and what one means by “agree better.” We did find one thing that the radiosondes datasets all agree on. During the main period of disagreement between RSS V4.0 and UAH V6.0 (i.e., ~1998-2007), a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement with RSS V4.0 than UAH V6.0.

      1. spike55

        “a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement “

        That’s HILARIOUS, seb.

        So once “they” finish “homogenising/adjusting” the data, it shows more warming, like RSSv$ with its climate model “adjustments”.

        You have to realise that RSS are actually rabid AGW cultists. They held onto their scientific integrity for quite a while, but they were always going to become “non-credible” at some stage.

        Oddly, the “homogenisation” routine nearly ALWAYS seems to add a warming trend, especially to raw data that was cooling. 😉

        Its a tool.. sadly abused.

        UAH v6 matches NOAA’s own satellite data, WITHOUT any collusion required.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png

  13. Derek Colman

    Roy Spencer of UAH actually predicted this would happen to RSS data a few months before it happened. He must have heard something on the grapevine. RSS was got at, and Roy believes UAH has been left alone because they can be portrayed as an outlier.

    1. Yonason

      @Derek Colman

      See last 3 paragraphs of the link Sean posted in his comment above.
      http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/19/rss-suspected-of-serious-data-doping-german-scientists-say-values-fudged-to-fit-models/comment-page-1/#comment-1271265

      I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the only reference Spencer made to it, either.

  14. RSS Atmospheric Temperature Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values Fudged To Fit Models”! – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

    […] No Tricks Zone – RSS Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values… […]

  15. URL

    … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: notrickszone.com/2018/08/19/rss-suspected-of-serious-data-doping-german-scientists-say-values-fudged-to-fit-models/ […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close