US temperature record tampering

[Little Fish]

"they adjusted March 2013 upwards 4.2 degrees relative to 1945. Note that the published temperature trend is almost identical to the adjustments. "

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/ncdc-sets-a-new-data-tampering-record-in-march/

this shows the adjustments only, which clearly shows the adjustments introduce an inucreasng trend. the adjustments cool the US record pre ~1980, and warm the US record post ~1980.

[Guest]

Like all good scientists, he shows his sources for his data and graphs so we can check how he arrived at his conclusion - NOT.

Goddards a bit of a joke really.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2013 by Guest

[Doug1029]

"they adjusted March 2013 upwards 4.2 degrees relative to 1945. Note that the published temperature trend is almost identical to the adjustments. "

I have the instrumental records for the Ouachita region in Arkansas/Oklahoma. As noted in previous posts, they correlate with observed global temperature anomalies. All we'd have to do is check to see whether the original data, or the adjusted data better fit the model (a nice, simple straight line). This is so easy to double-check, I'm wondering why you didn't do it. Could it be that you don't know where Goddard got his "facts"?

Of course, you might use any of the existing datasets, but that would mean you'd have to have an older version to compare it to. I just happen to have a couple of those, too.

This site links to an article entitled "Canadian Dogs are Better Behaved than American Dogs." Am I supposed to trust a dog-behaviorist on the subject of data quality? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Doug

[Guest]

It seems to be a common skeptics meme that the American data record has been fraudulantly adjusted upwards, which shows a conspiratorial intent - or a paranoid mind.

I know Goddard has cherry picked data series before to make his point regarding this, is there a comprehensive argument the skeptics are basing this on - or is it purely a matter of find the location which supports the hypothesis.

I note that the great trail blazer of this meme hasn't yet resubmitted his weather station paper - is there any other out there.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.

explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.

better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.

..and doug, read the OP again - specifically this - "US temperature record"

Edited April 17, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.

explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.

better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.

Its impossible to test whether he is right or wrong without the original source of his data to look at his analysis. Care to share it with us - the exact dataset and the exact analysis applied.

Goddard is not to be trusted, and his repeated claims that Arctic sea ice are in recovery is ample proof of that. Even Anthony Watts will have nothing more to do with his shoddy analysis - which is saying something indeed.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Just to make my position here abundantly clear;

-I would like to know what exact data he used

-I would like to know what analysis he performed to produce his graph

Only then could I be in a position to make a judgement on his assertion.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

as i said, you could always just ask him, simple.

[Guest]

You are making the point, its standard form to support your positions.

I am not going to engage with Steve Goddard.

Another question, why only analyze March, why not a whole year or every month of the year ?

Do you assume that the corrections are not evidence based, since every one of them is supported by a peer reviewed paper. The main one of course is TOB's, but that one is so logically obviously correct when you consider that the vast majority of record stations moved from evening to morning measurement.

http://www.skeptical...ias_Venema.html

I suspect he has looked at March because that is the main month when TOB's has its strongest influence.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2013 by Guest

[Doug1029]

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.

explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.

better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.

..and doug, read the OP again - specifically this - "US temperature record"

It is standard practice to identify your data sources. So standard that you won't get published without doing so.

The claim is that the adjustments are wrong. You can't actually test that without the dataset. So, Plan B: test the idea using a different dataset. I offered you a way to do that. I'll gladly send you what I have to facilitate your analysis. Without putting up a dataset, none of us have any idea whether the data were just made up or not - and that's why the dataset must be identified. If you claim that the data have been altered, put up the evidence.

I know, the deniers claim the US ground temperature data has been tampered with. Do you understand for a moment, how preposterous that is? The data were collected by several thousand volunteers over more than 114 years. I have worked with that data myself - not somebody's pre-canned set, but I have dug the daily reports out of hundred-year-old journals. And I have spent a bunch of time reading old newspapers - where do you think I got that information about the 42-degree below zero temp in Wichita (The government's datasets don't go back that far.). From the Wichita Eagle (which us still publishing). One of those weather observers was Thomas Jefferson: his is one of the weather logs we use. You just included a President of the United States in your conspiracy theory. Another one was Black Hawk of the Sans Arc Lakota in 1881. Just how did he get in on this conspiracy? I have a dataset from the Ashtabula Sentinel from 1841 to 1843 - 25 years before the "modern" temperature record even began.

Only about 20% of all existing weather data has even made it into a dataset. As the rest is added, there will be some changes. There is nothing surprising about this: somebody without a life has to go over that stuff and assemble it. And no you can't put it through one of those reader programs. I have seen what they do to ordinary text. If you want an intelligible result, it takes a human - a machine isn't up to the task.

An ongoing conspiracy between thousands of people for more than a century and all this just to produce a false conclusion that most the those involved could not hope to live to see. That is beyond paranoid.

There is a discussion in your post about why 1946 shows a higher March temperature than a more recent year. The answer: random variation. There is more than enough variation in temperature data to produce that result. You could do it with any month you choose. Whether a month in a particular year is warmer or colder than a single previous year is an irrelevant question.

You claim something nefarious is going on. You claim that climate is not warming, but you are unable to put up a dataset that would demonstrate anything else. You haven't posed a question that can be discussed.

Doug

P.S.: You keep getting the same answers because you keep making the same dumb mistakes.

Doug

Edited April 17, 2013 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

doug hasn't yet realised the post is about the adjustments, not the actual measurements taken decades ago.

what a dumb ass doug is.

[Little Fish]

cornelius refuses to go to goddards blog, and thus thinks goddard has only looked at march figures.

a simple visit to his site could have resolved this but his misplaced arrogance keeps him in the dark.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

Edited April 18, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

His argument is based on the assumption that TOB's is fraudulent. I disagree with that faith based belief.

He still hasn't shown his dataset or calculations, so we are still working in the dark.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

The premise that Steve goddard is working from is that the raw data is always better. This is despite the fact that there are known biases inherent in the raw data.

The assumption is that there is a deliberate intent to introduce a warming bias, and that the corrections are "fixed" to follow that need for a warming bias.

TOB's is a fake according to Steve Goddard. Shames that it has been shown to be significant by as much as 2F in extreme cases.

This also assumes that the Berkley Earth project was "got to" since it has confirmed the surface temperature record and reported a surface rise in temperature of 1.5C over the last 250 years.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

"His argument is based on the assumption that TOB's is fraudulent. I disagree with that faith based belief."

Your argument is based on the assumption and faith based belief that Goddard's argument is fraudulent.

the final graph shows a greater warming than can be accounted for by the Time of Observation Bias adjustment.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

"He still hasn't shown his dataset or calculations, so we are still working in the dark."

until you clarify, the rest of us will be scratching our heads wondering why you didn't read the label on the graph.

[Guest]

"His argument is based on the assumption that TOB's is fraudulent. I disagree with that faith based belief."

Your argument is based on the assumption and faith based belief that Goddard's argument is fraudulent.

the final graph shows a greater warming than can be accounted for by the Time of Observation Bias adjustment.

http://stevengoddard...g-at-ushcngiss/

"He still hasn't shown his dataset or calculations, so we are still working in the dark."

until you clarify, the rest of us will be scratching our heads wondering why you didn't read the label on the graph.

TOB's is the main adjustment, but not the only adjustment. There are adjustments for the UHI effect and other's.

You have started to refer to a different blog than the one you started this article with. However the critique is just as applicable to the new article you have now linked to.

Its his graph and there is no indication of how he arrived at it, it is produced using a spreadsheet like Excel so it is not derived from an external study - there is no link and when you click on it it doesn't take you to the orginator.

Who produced the graph and what method (calculations) did they use.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

The premise that Steve goddard is working from is that the raw data is always better. This is despite the fact that there are known biases inherent in the raw data.

The assumption is that there is a deliberate intent to introduce a warming bias, and that the corrections are "fixed" to follow that need for a warming bias. TOB's is a fake according to Steve Goddard. Shames that it has been shown to be significant by as much as 2F in extreme cases.

given you have not and refuse to talk to goddard your theorizing about what is in goddard's head isn't useful.

This also assumes that the Berkley Earth project was "got to" since it has confirmed the surface temperature record and reported a surface rise in temperature of 1.5C over the last 250 years.

goddard is looking at something different to berkley, berkley used some adjusted data, was a global project using multiple datasets. whatever the berkley study reports doesn't contradict goddards observations.

the point that is being clouded is that the adjustments (TOBS being the least of it) are becoming more severe to the upside with recent measurements.

at this rate, 100 years from now they'll be using state of the art temperature technology, then adding 10 degrees on as "adjustments".

[Guest]

given you have not and refuse to talk to goddard your theorizing about what is in goddard's head isn't useful.

goddard is looking at something different to berkley, berkley used some adjusted data, was a global project using multiple datasets. whatever the berkley study reports doesn't contradict goddards observations.

the point that is being clouded is that the adjustments (TOBS being the least of it) are becoming more severe to the upside with recent measurements.

at this rate, 100 years from now they'll be using state of the art temperature technology, then adding 10 degrees on as "adjustments".

What is the exact issue with the adjustments applied - how are they invalid ?

Goddard never addresses the reason why he considers the adjustments invalid. Whats the problem ?

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

What is the exact issue with the adjustments applied - how are they invalid ?

Goddard never addresses the reason why he considers the adjustments invalid. Whats the problem ?

did you read the link in the OP?

"March was a very cold month in the US, the coldest March since 1995. But NCDC did their best hide the decline by adjusting March temperatures upwards by a record 1.25F relative to the raw HCN data which it is based on....."

[Guest]

did you read the link in the OP?

"March was a very cold month in the US, the coldest March since 1995. But NCDC did their best hide the decline by adjusting March temperatures upwards by a record 1.25F relative to the raw HCN data which it is based on....."

Not an answer to my question. In what specific ways is the adjustment invalid ?

Is TOB's for one an appropriate adjustment ?

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Not an answer to my question. In what specific ways is the adjustment invalid ?

Is TOB's for one an appropriate adjustment ?

Br Cornelius

we could just both continue asking each other questions shifting burden of proof to the other, it won't get anywhere.

is there proof it is valid? is there proof it is invalid?

we both don't know.

the observation is that last months data was adjusted upwards much higher than other previous march data, at a time when march has been the coldest on record for a long time.

also, when you look at the other adjustments, there is a clear pattern that adjusts the data to give it a warming trend.

what explanation could there be that all the adjustments always significantly net warm the data rather than cool it. are they taking the readings earlier and earlier all the time.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

we could just both continue asking each other questions shifting burden of proof to the other, it won't get anywhere.

is there proof it is valid? is there proof it is invalid?

we both don't know.

It is the responsibility of each party to present the evidence, regardless of which side it supports. It is especially incumbent on the person who makes a statement to present evidence and reasoning that supports it.

But, if we do that, UM will go out of business for lack of participation.

the observation is that last months data was adjusted upwards much higher than other previous march data, at a time when march has been the coldest on record for a long time.

also, when you look at the other adjustments, there is a clear pattern that adjusts the data to give it a warming trend.

what explanation could there be that all the adjustments always significantly net warm the data rather than cool it. are they taking the readings earlier and earlier all the time.

The question is not whether the observations have been corrected, it is whether there is a warming trend or not. One does not need recent instrumental records to determine that. It can be done with tree rings and with sediment and ice cores. It can be done by counting stoma in the leaves of museum collections. There are lots of ways to determine whether we are in a warming trend.

We are left with the choice between accepting the general direction in which the studies point, or throwing them out and concluding that all scientists are liars and don't know what they're talking about.

A question for Little Fish: have any of your sources actually checked to see exactly what changes were made and why? It would be helpful if you could provide a reference.

Doug

Edited April 18, 2013 by Doug1029

[Guest]

All I have asked for is an explanation of how that graph was arrived at - so I can verify its validity. Until that is provided there is nothing of substance to discuss since I do not implicitly trust Steve Goddard enough to accept a graph without an explanation of how it was arrived at. SIMPLE.

And the Berkley Earth project was exactly designed to test the validity of such adjustments to the dataset - it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest

[Doug1029]

And the Berkley Earth project was exactly designed to test the validity of such adjustments to the dataset - it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

Pardon my ignorance here, but could you elaborate on the Berkley Earth Project and provide a reference?

Doug

[Guest]

It basically applied a new method of analysis to side step the issues which skeptics were raising about adjustments to the raw data. It particularly wanted to see if the UHI was significant.

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

http://berkeleyearth...esults-summary/

Br Cornelius

Edited April 18, 2013 by Guest