Big Science At NOAA

12 Responses to Big Science At NOAA

1. slp says:

   May 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm

   Well, if you do not round your normal average the same as your observed average, what would you expect?

   Reply
2. Stark Dickflüssig says:

   May 14, 2012 at 7:44 pm

   Far more importantly, what is the average year?

   Reply
   • gator69 says:

     May 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm

     Or the average phone number…

     Reply
3. omnologos says:

   May 14, 2012 at 7:51 pm

   Then they proceed to compute the planet’s temp to the thousandth of degree…

   Reply
   • Stark Dickflüssig says:

     May 14, 2012 at 8:05 pm

     As above, if you have the year to four digits, I’m sure everything is four digits (or more, if you have enough years). Given that they have more than 100 years, they should be able to calculate the temperature to five decimal places.

     Let’s look at it this way: my grandfather owned 25 cars between 1930 & 1998. That means that he owned an average of 0.36231884 cars per year. Since you only know the years to four digits, that’s 0.3623 cars per year, still not enough to drive. Therefore, as a climate scientist I can accurately predict that my grandfather will begin driving when he can average one or more cars per year: 2040. The fact that he’s dead has no appreciable effect on that (or his voting record).

     Reply
4. dcb283 says:

   May 14, 2012 at 9:14 pm

   I think everyone is looking at this wrong. If you look at the observed value average it is 57. The normal value average is also 57. So the change (the departure from normal) is zero. You need to read across, not down.

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     May 14, 2012 at 9:20 pm

     They rounded the actual up, and the climatology down. That makes the departure consistently too high.

     Reply
     • Will Nitschke says:

       May 14, 2012 at 10:38 pm

       The maths is actually OK.
       67 – 68 = -1
       46 – 47 = -1
       The problem is the lay-out. They put the anomalies under “Departure From Normal” which suggests that the final number is the sum of the rounded anomalies, when in fact the calculation appears to be Observed Value – Normal Value. Confusing and misleading, that is all.

       Reply
     • stevengoddard says:

       May 14, 2012 at 10:42 pm

       The math is definitely not OK.
       http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/noaa-chicago-temperature-records-are-corrupted-upwards/

       Reply
     • Will Nitschke says:

       May 14, 2012 at 11:04 pm

       I take your point. Dcb283’s ‘defence’ was a bit of a red herring.

       Reply
5. Latitude says:

   May 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm

   observed temp
   67 + 46 = 113
   113/2 = 56.5……….but counted as average 57…….rounded up

   normal value
   68 + 47 = 115
   115/2 = 57.5………but counted as 57……rounded down!

   max -1
   min =1
   avg 0 ????????

   Reply
   • Latitude says:

     May 14, 2012 at 9:36 pm

     good grief…are we back under moderation again! LOL
     I have one in the trash bin……………

     Reply