I have been accused several times in the last 24 hours of data tampering and cherry picking, because I use the the entire unaltered, measured HCN data set.
Only altered, fabricated data which reverses the measured US cooling trend is considered acceptable by climate alarmists.
did you see you are on the premier location on drudge??
I just saw it a bit ago. Way to go Steve!!
Steven;
You also made this:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
How does HCN get away with this?
Thanks!
Steve, For scientific accuracy, ONLY daily tmax/tmin original data are based on thermometer. Any average over 1 year and across the globe has absolutely nothing to do with thermometer, like HCN dataset.
The GHCN HCN daily temperature tmax/tmin record is available here. That is what I normally use.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
If that’s the gold standard, how long before it either changes or disappears?
I’m a bit baffled by this business of basing temperature analysis on only tmin/tmax data measurements. Given the current state of technology, it should be simple (if not trivial) to design an instrument that records temperature as often as once per minute for years and that provides any desired statistical measure for any time period. The memory storage requirements are not great and the firmware required is not complex.
Given the current state of technology, it should be simple (if not trivial) to design an instrument that records temperature as often as once per minute for years and that provides any desired statistical measure for any time period.
That is the purpose of the “Climate Reference Network” of high-quality environment measuring stations: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Technical details: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/elements.html
A bit on the use of the data rendered by these “US CRN” sites from WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/14/the-monthly-report-noaa-never-produces-from-the-climate-reference-network/
Thanks, Jim.
As that data is gathered, it would be veddy interestin’ to compare average and T-Max and T-Min to see how badly they misrepresent true average temps. One can well imagine systematic spiking up or down which distorts that calculation.
Dr. Butina, it has become increasingly apparent that global warming has been rapidly accelerating due to the influx of government dollars to any “scientist” who will manipulate the data to show temperature increases.
Steven:
Also at; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
in case you missed it.
The appropriate approach is to provide the raw and adjusted data together so that the viewer can decide. Steve does this, NOAA does not.
Because NOAA does not show both datasets at all times in all publications, forcing people like Steve to find and graph the raw data too, it means they have chosen to hide their procedures from open scrutiny.
Any organisation which does this is immediately to be suspected of malfeasance. The onus is on the organisation to clearly show both, and the means used to get from the one to the other.
Especially when the raw data is telling quite a different story from the adjusted data. And especially when so much money and political power is riding on the interpretation as well.
NOAA never shows the raw data set as a graph. I have not found a single publication from the last 15 years where they do this. They appear to be intentionally hiding it.
I posted graphed data from Blue Hill outside of boston….It only goes back to the 1840’s…..
http://bluehill.org/observatory/2014/06/may-2014-summary-warmer-and-cloudier-than-average/ The only data I trust from Blue Hills outside of Boston, great site. This spring was right on the 120 year average. Amazing isn’t it, a 120 year average, The Freeze thaw date for Houghtons Pond data shows that there was ice on that pond later than 120 year average. I think freeze thaw data is important. There is some minor changes and how degree days are calculated over the years but most of data is pretty pure. Question of day: If a weather station keeps records for 120 years is that still weather data or is it climate data?
ed k asks: Question of day: If a weather station keeps records for 120 years is that still weather data or is it climate data?
That’s easy ed… If the data shows warming, it’s climate data…. if it shows cooling, it’s weather data.
“Who are you going to believe”, as the saying goes, “me or your lying eyes?”
I’ll take the observation of ‘ice on the pond’ as indicative of colder weather through the winter months and into spring. As to the “spring” being on the 120 year average, this would appear to be based on “air temperature”. And now I have to ask, were the figures for computing the long term average based on min/max measurements which may then be subsequently ‘adjusted’ and used to compute daily average temperatures before entering the Long Term Average arena (arena, like an area; a ‘stage’ where things are put on display)?
.
They are pretty responsive to answering questions, I detailed what I know latter in post.
The Ice on the pond is pretty reflective of the length of growing season, an important factor in the climate of an area. If there is Ice on the Pond there is probably frost still in the ground. There is also a graph on when the Blue Berries ripen. Station was established during a period when farming was important to Mass.
http://www.bluehill.org/climate/anntemp.gif
Nice data from the 1840’s to today for the boston area, showing gradual temp increase. 1940’s temp increase is quite prominent. I think, but those at weather station do not agree, that the development of the area around the weather station as well as the building Of route 128 and 95 very close to the station has had to affected the temperature readings. station is is on top of blue hill 325 feet up. Average wind speed change over the years is interesting.
The graph notes major volcanic eruptions, pretty obvious their cooling effect.
You graph indicates temperatures were ‘adjusted’ … did you see that? And that was ostensibly just to account for differences in location. Odds are, additional changes -er- ‘adjustments’ were made prior to those values appearing on the graph or chart too …
.
Oops. Make that “Your graph indicates …” on the open above.
Looking at this graph, from about 1870 to present the rate of warming is mostly unchanged. When you overlay the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for this time period, it seems to have to little effect. The CO2 concentration ramps up after 1950. The warming rate held steady from 1870 to present. If CO2 was a significant factor, then you would see a higher rate of warming from 1950 onward.
Not too long ago I read a news report about a guy who observed a glacier in the Andes that was obviously receding. He also reported that near it was another glacier that was “inexplicably” growing. Since that time I have grown to be skeptical of any news reports. Many have an agenda and make a living by lying.
The methodology I think has changed over the years so that they went back and made it consistant. I think there are details of that somewhere on site. I know that to determine Degree Days they take the average of 4 temperatures during 24 hours 6 hours apart average them and then determine degree days. I prefer have degree days determined by the mean temperature of each hour and then average that off to get Degree Days.
“The methodology I think has changed over the years so that they went back and made it consistant.”
That’s their official explanation, but it’s pretty clear what actually happened is they went looking for any and all remotely plausible ways to put more warming in the record, while ignoring spurious warming from UHI and other sources.
For an example of how ridiculous this becomes, they claim this year so far is around the 3rd-warmest year the US has ever seen… but we had record late ice coverage on the Great Lakes. Not believable. Steve has repeatedly posted the number of 100 and 90 degree max daily temps peaked in the 1930s, which are now some of the coldest years on record. Not believable. SurfaceStations has repeatedly identified clear UHI effects on individual stations, and Climate Audit found a clear signal simply by looking at cities with major sports franchises. http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/04/1859/
So they ignore UHI on the basis of a bogus study, and grasp at any straw to make the problem looks worse than it is. And why not? A nonproblem get nonfunding. A nonproblem gets nonvotes. A nonproblem is a noncareer.
So there must be a problem. A really, really big and bad problem from which only our heroic yet tragically underfunded climate scientists can rescue the Earth. And it doesn’t matter if all the evidence of the problem was tendentiously manufactured after 1995.
talldave2, what a great comment! How can any CAGW alarmist not understand your points? Officially, this was the 3rd warmest year — and yet (also officially, just from different officials) the economy refused to grow because the weather was so cold this winter. And still — the CAGW cultists will refuse to see the facts…
And when they talk about “3rd warmest (or coldest) year, that “record” only goes back to the 1880’s or so. Doesn’t seem like that whatever has happened in 135 years makes any kind of a trend, especially when the whole ball game is over 4 billion years.
Keep nailing those envirowhackjobs, dude!
They hide their data because statistically it doesn’t trend…
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~ George Orwell
There was a time that Orwell seemed like far-fetched science fiction…
Obviously you have them rattled, Steve, if you got that sort of response. Keep up the great work!!
Shoot. It looks like this “8.0” earthquake in Alaska has knocked the “fiddled global warming data” story off the headline on Drudge. Instead we have “Tsunami warming.” Right. Like that’s going to happen. Bring back the “fiddled data” headline!
Because if there really was any chance of a Tsunami of any significance happening, then Google would have the warming right on their home page, like they did after the Japanese 9.0+ earthquake. Well, right now Google just has more of those obnoxious moving soccer balls or whatever. I wish Google would tone it down with their extra-curricular graphics, and stick to the standard logo, or I hope otherwise that I can find an alternative search engine instead of having to deal with the constant Google “logo” annoyances (often with leftist inspired images also).
Look on the upside: It took a magnitude 8 quake to get the story off “page 1” … things don’t get much ‘bigger’ than that; A quake brooms everything …
I think it is pretty clear that global “climate disruption” is also having tectonic plate effects. (sarc off).
I see, it’s Gaia getting back at Goddard through a global warming caused earthquake that takes the data fiddling story off of Drudge’s headlines. Now that makes sense.
The $64,000,000,000,000 question is: “Why are they just now noticing and reporting about this?”
Steve’s been publishing these graphs, showing NOAA’s
adjustmentsmassive data manipulation, for quite some time.Maybe it was that some sort of critical mass was reached. First off, I think this is due entirely to Steven, as far as I can see. And though it’s true that Steven has been hashing this out for some time, it’s only recently that his popularity has reached skyhigh levels, and that Drudge got used to linking to this site. So, somehow the Telegraph decided to make a story out of it, and when Drudge headlined that, the story exploded. Unfortunately, the damn
8.07.77.1 magnitude quake in the middle of nowhere caused Drudge to pull the plug after the story had been headlining for less than day. Oh well. Could Drudge put it back up once he realizes this quake is not even worth a moments notice?The main thing is not the reason for why it took so long but that this story continues to gain attention and weight. Drudge hopefully goes back to this story soon. It is huge, in that it can seriously defuse the warmist menace. And I hope that Steven does write a book on this data fiddling, because that too will help give legs to the story.
All of what you say is true, but it’s really pretty frustrating that the other Big Dawgz of the Skeptoshpere haven’t been spreading the word, far and wide, ever since Steve discovered and started reporting on the massive amount of malfeasance, manipulation and fraud being perpetrated by so-called “public servants” with our tax dollars. The graphs that he’s produced should be put billboard-sized posters and shown in every Glow Bull Worming hearing in D.C. The Whores of the Potomac won’t be able to weasel-talk their way around the truth being shoved deeply up their asses in Ultra-Hi-Definition Colon-o-Scope-o-Vision.