NOAA Temp Data Flaws

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Battle3, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An actual scientist points out the flaws (bias) in the NOAA temperature data base. Flaws that have been known for years, but in the obama years of global warming mania the flaws were ignored - maybe because they bias the data towards the AGW argument?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/the_noaa_database_and_global_warming.html

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) publishes a temperature database for 7280 worldwide meteorological stations. It is called the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN.) The database consists of six files, three (maximum, minimum, and average) for ‘Unadjusted’ and three for ‘Adjusted’ values. The Unadjusted was formerly called ‘Raw’ data.

    Supposedly the Unadjusted data are ‘as measured’ values, but the NOAA-NCEI advises on its GHNC web page “…it is entirely possible that the source of these data (generally National Meteorological Services) may have made adjustments to these data prior to their inclusion within the GHCNM.” NOAA-NCEI then makes its own adjustments, primarily a lowering of the temperature values of land stations in the earlier part of the temperature record. ..........Numerous scientists, engineers, and others have challenged this, asserting that NOAA-NCEI’s adjustments cause a temperature increase that is artificial.

    The first issue pertains to NOAA-NCEI’s categorization of the stations’ locations. .........NOAA-NCEI categorized 7220 of the 7280 Stations according to whether they are in Urban, Suburban, and Rural locations. The agency then further divided the stations in each of the three locations into whether or not they were at airports. The first issue is that if the longitude and latitude values attributed to each of the stations are correct, then some of the stations said to be at Rural locations are not at what should be termed “rural.”

    The second issue is more significant and pertains to stations involving airports. At least some of these stations began reporting data decades earlier, when it is highly unlikely there was an airport at that location. Thus, at dates earlier than when the V2 database was created, those stations are incorrectly biasing the data and should be in the ‘not at an airport’ category.

    Another aspect this issue is that for the Rural stations, NOAA-NCEI designates as being at airports the yearly average temperature jumps approximately 2 degrees C at about the year 1950. Some, if not all, of this discontinuity is due to the stations reporting before 1950 and those reporting after 1950 are entirely different stations at entirely different locations. This particular temperature discontinuity and the inaccurate categorization of stations at an earlier time being at airports when they were not carries over to data from all 7220 stations. The net effect is a temperature trend interpreted as an indication of a rise in global temperature, when instead the cause is documentation of station location that does not take into account when stations at airports actually began to be at airports.

    The third issue is perhaps far more significant than the first two. The durations stations report temperature varies from as little as 8 or 10 years to nearly, if not all, years for a timeframe, say 1900-2016. .........So for a particular timeframe station-reporting ‘pops in and out’ causing the averages to increase or decrease depending on the location. If a required reporting percentage of the timeframe is imposed, say 25, 50, or 75 %, then the temperature trend for the timeframe changes. ...........a larger required reporting percentage results in a smaller value temperature trend for the timeframe. So the issue is that the important ‘quality-of-data’ factor is being overlooked in NOAA’s assessment of global temperature trends.


    So there are significant issues with the NOAA temperature data, and actual scientists have been pointing out these flaws but have been ignored.

    Yet another nail in the AGW coffin.

    How are the AGW acolytes going to explain this one?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  2. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This whole house of cards is beginning to fall as facts come out.
     
  3. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True.

    Interesting how the warmists are so silent when straight facts are presented, facts which they can verify.
     
    sawyer likes this.
  4. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am skeptical that an abundance of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that the Earth is, in fact, not warming will ever exist, whether true or not.
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would you say that?

    Speaking of peer review...I intentionally avoided posting in this thread because the "study" in question 1) is itself not peer reviewed 2) makes only a single citation to a peer reviewed article and 3) is authored by a photographer and florist as best I can tell. But, you want to know the real kicker? That single peer reviewed article this "expert" references flat out supports AGW and provides evidence that is 180 degree opposite of the conclusion of the author. This "expert" totally misrepresented that cited research.

    I literally don't even know how to respond to the OP. That's why I've been so quiet. I mean, it's not like the OP (or most other pseudo-skeptics on here) will go and look this stuff up for themselves. So why should I bother discussing the details or participating in this thread at all? This thread is a house cards that has already fallen down.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
    Colonel K, Sallyally and Daniel Light like this.
  6. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amazing news! All those receding glaciers around the globe have been duped by AGW clowns! Can you believe those idiot glaciers!



    Gods. Another article by a guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
     
    Colonel K likes this.
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The article referenced by the OP was dishonest propaganda. Anyone familiar with the science knows that. Hence, almost no deniers know it.

    The so-called "bad" stations show _less_ warming than the good stations.

    The stations that were dropped showed _more_ warming, so removing them caused apparent warming to look _smaller_.

    And that wrecks that particle fundamental denier paranoid conspiracy theory.

    That's been known for many years. If Edward R. Long claims to be an expert, he should have known such basics, therefore he's responsible for the denier fraud that he's pushing.
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, on the east slope of the Rockies the cooler outlier stations are adjusted to the warmer more questionable stations in the urban areas.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't contend that the planet is warming. I have very serious doubts about the direct role of humans and any proposed fix.

    Can someone tell me why temp data has to be adjusted? Seems to me that a properly calibrated thermostat is all that's needed for an accurate temperature reading.
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that is the issue with surface temperatures over the years. It all has to be adjusted if you want to get the 'one world temperature' reading which in and of itself is a bit bogus. Old stations are retired, new stations pop up, the number of stations change, the time of day the readings are taken are different for different periods. The old thermometer readings were accurate to only a degree since they did not take tenths of a degree. Add the ocean temperatures where the number of readings throughout the years increased, changed from bucket readings to ship engine intake readings then the new actual scientific buoys were deployed relatively recently and those increased in number over the years. Much of the world is not covered by actual readings so those have to be guessed by inference to other readings up to 1200 km in radius.

    You get the picture, nothing is set in stone and the one reason the historical readings change every time an update is made because the algorithms used change along the way. Needless to say the 'one world temperature' has changed every time a change is made.

    One would think the satellite readings would be superior since they cover so much more of the globe but the NOAA and others rely on the surface readings and it makes sense if you can adjust it to reflect what is wanted like the recent hiatus buster adjustment by incorporating the Karl Et. Al. adjustment, adjusting the scientific buoys up to more reflect the probematic ship engine intake readings.
     
  11. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand the quality of readings changes and possibly adding some type of adjustments to historical stat, but why change current data?
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because it is all based on modelling. When the model algorithms change, the output changes.

    People mistakenly think what is presented is reality when in fact it is not actual readings.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    Ddyad likes this.
  13. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what I'm getting at. We should be looking st actual readings for the current and prior years and only modeling for the future.
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Suuuuuuuure they are.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very hard to do with the surface readings over time. For instance, a station is moved, the end point before the move may be one degree lower or higher than the start point after the move.
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science, not your thing?
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If we do that, the observed warming looks bigger.

    That is, the scientists are adding corrections that make the warming look _smaller_.
     
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I note you haven't backed up your crazy claim, and deflected instead.

    And you won't back it up. If you attempt to do so, it will be the first time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Must be why every iteration of change makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
     
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's one of your cult's religious beliefs, one contradicted by reality. Thus, you'll now do what you always do, and declare that reality is a liberal plot.

    For those of a more rational bent, I'll point out that it's an indisputable fact that the corrections to the temperature record have made the past look much warmer, which makes the present warming look much _smaller_. Thus your conspiracy theory is shown to be paranoid nonsense.

    http://variable-variability.blogspo...zation-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The error in your assumption is that the 'raw data' isn't adjusted to begin with. Another is you do not show the changes throughout the yearly adjustments plus approximately 66% of temperature data consists of estimated values.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  22. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's not an error, that's consistency and common sense. I don't auto-assume any data is fraudulent, even if that data is inconvenient to my politics. Of course, I see no data that's inconvenient to my politics, because if I see such data, I change my politics to match the data.

    And if you add thousands more measurements, the output doesn't change in any significant way. That shows how the data set is quite sufficient for the task, that the estimations are very accurate, and that your claim how it's a problem is wrong.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not surprised you equate science with politics. One of the problems.

    Now, since we had approximately 500 stations in 1880 that increased to almost 6,000 by 1970 and now we have fewer than half of that. What good is surface raw data in the first place, especially when most of the earth has no actual readings?

    So you think you can estimate the temperature 1,200 km away accurately? LOL
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know for a fact we can because it's done multiple times per day by multiple institutions working independently using different techniques and different inputs that all arrive at basically the same result. Look up 3DVAR and 4DVAR assimilation techniques and how they are used for realtime analysis and reanalysis. It will blow your mind when you realize what we can do and how accurate the result ends up being. It's not perfect, but it's really good and getting better every year. Estimating the temperature 1200 km away accurately is just the tip of the iceberg. Hell, we can estimate the temperature of every point Earth without using any real temperature inputs at all. And the final temperature field is still accurate enough that it can be used as an initial state to produce a reliable weather forecast. Think about that for a minute. Not only can we estimate the temperature of a location 1200 km away with incomplete temperature information. We can do it with no temperature information whatsoever! It's pretty cool stuff.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suggest you do some reading. Are you aware how modeling in weather is actually used? The smaller the observational sample the less accurate those systems are and they cannot replace actual observations.
     

Share This Page