Canada caught red-handed manipulating live weather data and make it warmer

Incidentally, just taking a day at random - 29th January - we can see that the highest hourly synop was 1.0c but the maxima that day was actually 1.2c

www.ogimet.com...

(note that all synop times are UTC)

So the argument that prior to March the highest hourly synop always matched with the maxima recorded that day, is clearly falsified.

a reply to: WaESN

The claim that the highest maxima is 1.2 warmer than the hours' reading is incompatible, in many case, with the day's warming rate. This in turn violates laws of physics.

Hang on I'm gonna pull a slide to illustrate.

Okay I'll take, as example, this slide.

Apr 13 2024. hourly data says a maximum of 5.0 at 12:00. Announced data was redacted to 6.6, or 1.6 warmer than measured.

10:00...... 3.9
11:00...... 4.4
12:00...... 5.0
13:00...... 4.8
14:00...... 3.9

Up to 13:00, the temperature was warming at a rate of what, 0.6 degree per hour? Top?

According to you, in less than half an hour, it then had a hidden maxima, a sudden heating rate of +1.6 per hour, no, less than an hour, before hen collapsing back to a cooling of -0.2, well in your case -1.8 so it could reach 4.8 by 13:00.

The more you heat a body, the more energy this body requires to be heated some more.

The warmth rate of the day does not support the "hidden heat" theory, especially not of that magnitude.

It's also contradicted by counter-examples.

Hang on, gonna pull another data slide

originally posted by: WaESN

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: WaESN

Calling everyone "stupid" on a public thread is interesting.

Your theory is fine but it's incompatible with the day's warming rate. In turn, your theory violates basic physics.

If you truly analyze the data, the day's warming/cooling rates, and if you know a minimum of physics and thermodynamics, then you'll immediately notice that your theory doesn't quite explain the whole thing.

Your theory also doesn't explain why there were no discrepancies between hourly data and daily announcement, prior to March 3, and even in several instances after Mar 3.

What theory? I was just explaining reality.

Synops send in hourly readings. Sometimes those hourly reading may also be the daily maxima, but often you'd expect the actual daily maxima to be higher because they occur between those hourly readings (likewise with minima).

Is there actual proof that all previous daily maxima matched with an hourly synop? (To be honest, I can't be arsed to go through the data to look - but I am certainly not going to take the word of a group who clearly don't understand synops). If so it simply suggests that maybe the daily maxima was not previously being submitted in any of the synops - so the highest hourly reading was used as an approximation of the daily maxima, by default.

In any case there is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that anyone is manipulating data. Just that some people don't understand it.

is this a serious post?

Okay check that one out.

Mar 27 2024.

HUGE temperature variability. Form 13:00 to 14:00 temperature warms at a considerable rate, at +1.0 degree per hour, then +0.2 from 14:00 to 15:00, then -2.4 to 16:00.

So the hourly maximum is 12.1 degree.

Despite the huge warming rate variability, the daily announced temperature announced on the day after was spot-on. It reports a maximum of 12.1. Where's the hidden heat spike of +1.2 in this example? Why does the daily temperature precisely match the hourly temperature, and there's no discrepancies at all (not even a +0.1 degree discrepancy), despite the warming variability (it was warming to the rate of +1.0 degree per hour around 14:00)?

Other counter-example for your consideration:

Apr 4 2024 - the hourly data indicates a maximum of 0.4 at 15:00 following a major warming rate of +1.1 degree per hour (from 14:00 to 15:00).

Yet once again on the day after, daily temperature was correctly reported at 0.4. Zero degrees of discrepancy.

And how do we explain the absence of any discrepancy prior to Mar 3?

You claim that temperature data is measured every minutes but provide no source for that data. Also, your "hidden warming spike" theory not only violates physics but is contradicted by the counter-examples.

My theory (data being adjusted after measurement) requires less assumptions and is more consistent with the data.

BTW I don't want you to interpret this as personal attacks. I genuinely think your theory has validity, it's just that on that particular topic it may not explain the whole picture. I'm not angry or anything

a reply to: leongrad

You're using math.

Climate zealots aren't gonna understand.

Still, excellent post.