A Look at Homogenization

CSS-13 I took at a bit of a break to take care of some personal issues, travel a little, live life and do a little research. Hopefully, everyone’s lives are headed or at least starting to head in the right direction. This Climate Short Story provides a look at the homogenization process. Reviewing this subject is not technically challenging but the sheer volume of the data makes the task rather daunting and long. The review does not cover the entire globe, but gives a representative look at Antarctica, Australia and the United States (through Tony Heller’s work). I also look at Calgary (a hometown prerogative) and I provide a reference that looks at Ireland and Greece.

What are the takeaways? There definitely appears to be a bias built into the “homogenization” process. In Australia, 41 of the 48 long-term stations (85%) have had their temperature trends increased by an average of +0.58 °C/century. 7 of the 48 stations (15%) had their temperature trends decreased by -0.27 °C/century. Antarctica had very little homogenization applied. A review of the temperatures did show that Antarctic temperatures have been declining for the last 40 years as laid out by Zhu et al in their February 2021 paper. The Zhu et al paper is the more rigorous review and has the more accurate numbers.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The US review focused on Tony Heller’s early September 2021 “Erasing the Dust Bowl” video. The video clearly shows many of the issues associated with the homogenization process. Homogenization routinely reduces the late 1800 and early 1900 US temperatures by over 1 °F and adds up to 0.5 °F to the more recent temperatures. A great way to definitively show that temperatures are rising as the CAGW alarmist narrative demands. The temperature changes also conveniently correlate closely to rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. That result is not surprising, since the homogenization process appears to be designed to manipulate the temperatures, so they remain consistent with the “narrative”. This is in direct contradiction with the Scientific Method. When a theory/hypothesis is put forward, that theory/hypothesis needs to be compared to the available data. If the theory/hypothesis does not fit the data, the theory/hypothesis must be adjusted. In the CAGW alarmist world, the narrative never changes, the data is just manipulated (i.e.: homogenized) to fit the “narrative”. Given that the real temperatures have been trending down since 2016, the homogenization “experts” have had to get very aggressive to keep their narrative going.

Another issue with the homogenization process is the use of phantom stations. In the 1800s, stations were few and far between. In 1895, 63% of the US temperatures were estimated because measured temperatures were not available. By 1960, only 8% of the US required estimates. Unfortunately, that has not lasted and close to 60% of the US is once again subject to estimated temperatures. That leaves a lot of room for fraudulent biases to creep in.

Climate Scientists already have access to accurate global temperatures through the satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data sets. So, why do they insist on using and just reporting the “homogenized” surface data? The answer is simple, the satellite/radiosonde data is harder to manipulate and does not fit the “narrative”. To summarize, the CAGW alarmist crowd will continue to use the grossly over-homogenized surface data. They have no choice. They are locked into their narrative.