NOAA Caught changing temp data...........AGAIN.

No that's not what I asked. You stated in an ideal world we use only real temperatures at static heights. You also stated we do not because of cost.

Now I point out how flawed that is and your changing your narrative to this above. It's real obvious too. You sound smart. Funny thing is your opinion is doing above what stupid leftists do when cornered. That is claim your protecting us against X by doing Y and Z meanwhile you have been doing X all along.

In this case after contradicting yourself... on why temperatures now shouldn't be taken at the same heights so its not BIASED, your narrative changed. Before it was ideal to be taken only at same heights you said.

It was the key to your argument so your opinion then now declares that NOAA scientists are not doing what's ideal or really acceptable scientifically intentionally to protect the integrity of the results.. Uh so there would be no potential for systemic bias...so we laymen get sound results. NOT

See what I did there? I can't prove NOAA is biased or fraudalent in this thread yet. But I sure did prove your opinion is both.

 

Numerical weather prediction model skill scores say you are wrong...like, by a lot.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/STATS_vsdb/

 

My apologies then. I thought you asked if taking temperature measurements at static heights would solve the altitude bias problem of moving stations. My answer is that we already have a solution to this problem. It just doesn't have much to do with surface stations. It's done using reanalysis techniques which is a completely different way of dealing with the problem. If that wasn't your question then would you mind clarifying it.

I don't think I said that. If you don't want to introduce an altitude bias you should take the temperatures at the same height. But, you have to weigh that consideration among all of the others. If I gave you the impression that I thought the sighting of surface stations should be done one way or another then I apologize. That's wasn't my intention. I just wanted to point out that the sighting has both pros and cons that must be considered. So while putting a focus on keeping surface stations as static as possible might be ideal for climate research it might be a hindrance for weather forecasting, budgeting, etc.

 

Thank you for another example how you and 97% of scientists can easily cheat believers/in the middle/disbelievers in GW/CC because none of believers/in the middle/disbelievers in GW/CC can know that they can find weather forecasts on internet and in newspapers almost since the day newspapers came around; and nowhere there will be a weather forecast for North America, because none of them will ever know that sane people have a lot of use for the weather forecasts, sane people, for instance figure out if they need an umbrella for a day getting around their travel whether to the next town or to another town across the Northern America; while insane people cannot even know what can be any use of a weather forecast .

Would you tell me please, using your model, if I will need an umbrella tomorrow in Northern America for me and my fellow traveller, an insane believer/disbeliever in GW/CC, because insane people cannot understand why would they need an umbrella less why would they need a weather forecast, but I have to help my less lucky, mentally handicapped human brothers and sisters arguing for or against Flying Spaghetti Monster, I mean GW/CC so bravely.

Please, be so kind.

 

You mean the earth actually gets warmer and colder at different times! Hoy ****, who would have thought the climate changes naturally!

We are coming out of an ice age, and the time when life was most prevalent on this planet it was far warmer than it is now.

 

Some here like to argue with that “changes naturally” part.

 

It was cold for most of the month as reported and felt by most people. You are acting like some exceptions to the rule are significant. And these exceptions occur in any cold month.

We dont have equally spaced measures covering the while earth. We have a random heterogeneous series of weather stations primarily at airports so pilots can calculate lift.

Does this look equally spaced to you?

Are you aware of the oil drop experiment? And how it took decades to get the correct value for the charge of an electron because every scientist kept falsifying their research because they didn't want to disagree with the consensus? Which was wrong because Millikan had messed up his experiment.

 

That’s gonna be hard to explain for someone who claims moving an instrument 300 feet requires manipulating the real data.

 

Its also little known that Hansen's 'I can extrapolate out to near infinity' paper which all these *******s use to justify their extrapolation has an correlation coefficient of 0.5 which is not very good for significance of what we are asked to do much less the accuracy that these hacks claim.

 

Yes,
especially in oceans where all the missing heat went into,
Yes,
considering that oceans' surface in reality is standstill,
Yes,
especially until 1956, when the first weather station was set in Antarktida,
Yes,
because it does not matter, because all the reason to input all these non existing data in any model is that CO2 absorbs more heat during the day than it emits during the night, the effect which is no more real than Flying Spaghetti Monster because it was never even attempted to be demonstrated in an experiments,
Yes,
because people are trained not to know looking at a new born baby if the baby is male or female.
LOL.

 

1. I believe he claimed that moving an instrument 300 feet from where it is really needed requires unjustified expenses if to weight them against adjusting temperature reading.
2. I completely agree with him in 1.

Correct me if I am wrong in 1. or 2. or both.

 

Notice the great station die off in the early 90s. The Alarmists say that this is because of the fall of the Soviet Union but the Russians say nyet. They say that most of those stations are still up and operating. They say that the alarmists took advantage of the coincidence of the fall of the soviet union with teh take of of AGW hysteria to cover up that they deleted inconvenient stations around the world.

 

January was below normal for the NE. But, nothing suggests that the monthly mean was even close to being exceptional. You are in denial here.

You're comment here doesn't even makes sense in the context of reanalysis. Google for 3DVAR and 4DVAR data assimilation and how it's used in reanalysis. It would be helpful if you researched all of the different data collection system in place. Surface stations represent an insignificant percentage that atmospheric scientists have available to them. I encourage you to learn as much as possible that way you can participate in the discussion productively. And I mean that with all due respect.

No, I wasn't, but I'll look it up.

 

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8C/km which is 0.3C per 100 ft. A difference of 300 ft in altitude could mean an error of 0.9C (or higher if the PBL goes superadiabatic which often happens in the summer in dry climates). Are you ok with this?

 

Surface stations are insignificant in reanalysis. In fact, you could entirely deny the reanalysis all surface station data and it wouldn't make any difference. Also, in the 90's we were assimilating 1-10 million observations per day if you include ALL of the atmospheric data collection systems. Today we assimilate over 100 million observations per day. Surface station data accounts for maybe like a few thousand observations at most which is less than 0.01% of the total and I'm being very generous here. You're presenting a false narrative that our data pool as decreased when, in fact, it has gone up by almost 2 orders of magnitude.

 

You won't get an argument from me on that. What I will argue with you on is if you claim that only nature can influence the climate.

 

I am not aware of any coverage of ocean by weather stations in 1880s or 1890s or 1910s but I like your prononciation of nyet. Sounds very French.

 

For instance you are trying to say that its a small % of the observations. True we record rain, wind, humidity, lots and lots of measurements. But for the purpose of global temperature we still use surface stations in most reconstructions. What NOAA is doing is not a "reanalysis" no matter how much you keep misusing the term. A reanalysis is a model run initialized by real data. I dont know where you first heard the term when you decided to start using it in your jargon debating style but nice ****ing try. And reanalysis are not gods gift to science they are just glorified model runs that dishonest pieces of **** have tried to sell off as real data. Kids playing with toys basically. But they make nice visuals.

Your little graph being form December 29th may claim to have all these possible sources but there is a problem. The two main sources for arctic data are weather stations and satellites. Temperature satellites dont cover the arctic in the winter since they dont work well when solar radiation is absent.

 

Like I said earlier, he is just regurgitating talking points from the Cult.

 

Do you have a credible source for this claim?

 

Do you know how temperature satellites work? With all the debating on this subject you haven't noticed that there is no polar data in the winter months? Have you never asked yourself why?

 

I'm only aware of GISS, NOAAGlobalTemp, HadCRUT, and Berkeley as the primary proxy datasets that only use surface stations (land, ship, buoy, etc.). There are more than a dozen reanalysis datasets in common use today.

NOAA manages several reanalysis datasets. There is the NCEP/NCAR, 20th Century Reanalysis, CFSR, etc.

I intentionally lace my with posts with technical jargon so that everyone can google for these terms and look up this information on their own. I know that almost no one does this, but I still do it anyway. Honestly, I'm not sure why I bother sometimes. I guess I'm holding out hope that there will be someone in this group who is motivated enough to learn what really goes on instead of spouting off untrue one liners.

Maybe this paper would be a good start. It is an introduction to the reanalysis intercomparison project. If you're truly interested in learning more about the topic I suggest you start here.

You're right. They aren't "god's gift to science". They don't and never will yield perfect results. They aren't infallible. However, they are useful. More useful, in fact, than proxy datasets like GISS.

Are you really so arrogant to think you know more than the experts? What would your reaction be to someone who consistently belittled your knowledge and called it fraudulent in your field of expertise?

It doesn't include all of the sources. It just includes a lot more than what proxy datasets use.

Huh? Do you have a cite that can back this claim up?

Polar orbiting satellites do not get turned off in the winter. They do not require "solar radiation" to operate. Also, proxy datasets like GISS do not incorporate satellite data so that's a moot point anyway. Reanalysis does use satellite data. Visible light spectrum emissions might be reduced, but they aren't that useful anyway.

You are right about one thing though. Many proxy datasets (especially HadCRUT) are very sparse on polar inputs.

 

If by "Cult" you mean real scientists who do real research and by "talking points" you mean real concepts, techniques, system, etc. then yes. I am regurgitating talking points from the Cult. Guilty as charged.

 

So no, you don't have a credible source for that claim?

I will address the claim if you back it up.

 

Nope. Not what I mean at all.

Try again.