Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if NOAA actually disclosed what they did to make the graph. That might even be considered scientific.

It would certainly be worth determining what procedure was used.
It also seems to be the case that GISS uses a different procedure to adjust the raw data for anomalies.

The problem is they didn’t compare to 70 good stations. They compared to 70 data adjusted stations with the data strongly compromised and influenced by the surrounding network. They didn’t compare apples to apples. They compared one apple to itself.

NOAA does not own the 1228 or so surface stations or have the staff to control them and do physical upgrades and resite them to meet the ideal standards.
It appears to me that they are using software to mak
e adjustments so that temperature trends can be derived from them, even though the absolute temperatures they are measuring are affected by the equipment and the siting.

By using their procedure for handling the data, they show that they can make the average US temperature trends for all the stations equivalent to the 70 good stations, and that the problems Anthony mentioned, do not really matter for the purpose of finding US average temperature trends. The graphs appear convincing to me.

No one has presented a cogent argument that says NOAA is wrong about this important point ,as far as I can glean, but there is so much chaff on this page, I can’t be sure that I didn’t miss something.

“Anthony — The Talking Points memo at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf now (7/1) clearly lists your study, with you as author, in its references. It’s still dated 6/9, however.”

Changing information without changing the issue date or version number is standard Government policy lately. The USDA uses it on farmers all the time and then states the farmers are spreading “disinformation”

Making copies of the original memos and putting them up on blogs has become standard self defense among those of us fighting the National Animal Identification System and other USDA/FDA idiocy. Seems overworked farmers are going to be expected to record and tell the US gov’t in minute detail everything they do on their farms or face million dollar fines but the government can’t do reasonable quality control over something as simple as a thermometer despite their fancy procedures and lofty PHds!

The US govenrment and their tame puppet scientists lost all credibility with me long ago. To bad Thomas C. Peterson: NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
and other government officials are not subject to the same type of million dollar fines they are aiming at farmers. http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-solemn-walk-through-HR-8-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090314-67.html

Perhaps we should find an honest congressman to sponsor a bill that subjects government officials to the same standards and fines they wish to subject farmers to….. No wait we will never be able to find an honest Congressman so scratch that idea.

Analysis will be done using raw data (and TOBS). There are also angles that John V never considered.

Patience, please.

P.S., it is a scandal in and of itself if NOAA does not make raw data available.

“So here’s a public challenge: Does your latest data show that their is any systematic departure between the best stations (as determined by you) and the overall record?”

The talking points memo analysis appears to ignore other factors that may influence the trend comparisons, such as population, altitude, longitude and latitude of the “good” stations. A multiple regression of population, altitude, latitud, longitude and CRN (quality) rating against anomaly temperature trends for 1920-2005 showed significant trend differences in an analysis done early on (1) by Kenneth Fritsch. Similarly, an analysis of covariance “…with the variables altitude, longitude and elevation as covariates, but with CRN rating and population as categorical” done at the same time by RomanM also showed significant trend differences (2).

Unfortunately, updating of these results may be difficult because unadjusted station data is no longer available in the new USHCN data sets. In addition, the publicly available USHCN data sets apparently use information from “not good” stations to adjust the temperatures of the “good” stations, so trend information may be all mixed up (3). Although these analysis may not be definitive, I think they do show that it is important not to ignore other factors when making trend comparisons.

(1) http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-267760 and http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-268119

(2) http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-270488 and http://www.math.unb.ca/~roman/graphs/trendout.pdf

(3) see discussion at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6370

“So here’s a public challenge: Does your latest data show that their is any systematic departure between the best stations (as determined by you) and the overall record?”

A trend difference between “good” and “bad” stations has already been identified early on, as follows:

The methodology used to “compare” the “good” to the “bad” stations in the talking points memo appears to be very similar to that used by John V at climateaudit.org identified and posted at http://www.opentemp.org/_results/ very early on when there were less than 20 “good” rural stations identified at surfacestations.org (rural stations only were used in an attempt to avoid urban heat index or UHI contamination). Similarly to the claim in your comments and in the talking points memo now, the claim then was that there did not appear to be much of a difference when comparing trends between the “good” and the “bad” stations.

However, in this comment (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-267760) Kenneth Fritsch did a multiple regression of population, altitude, latitud, longitude and CRN (quality) rating against anomaly temperature trends for 1920-2005. In this comment (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-268119), he found that the trend in degrees C per Century increased significantly as the station rating declined (i.e. the trend is greatest for the lowest quality stations – see graph).

On that same thread, commenter RomanM in this comment (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-270488) did an analysis of covariance “…with the variables altitude, longitude and elevation as covariates, but with CRN rating and population as categorical” and also obtained similar results of a clear increase in trend as the quality of the station decreased. His results can be found at http://www.math.unb.ca/~roman/graphs/trendout.pdf and in the comment referenced above.

Please refer to the referenced comments for more exact language. I may have unintentionally phrased things incorrectly in trying to summarize the analysis. Updating of these results may be difficult because unadjusted station data is no longer available in the new USHCN data sets. The publicly available USHCN data sets apparently use information from “not good” stations to adjust the temperatures of the “good” stations, so trend information may be all mixed up. Unfortunately, the computer code that shows exactly how these adjustments are done has apparently not been released yet either (see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6370 for more information and more comments). In closing, RomanM says in this comment (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6370#comment-347325), that his analysis “…should not be looked at as definitive in any particular way, but rather more as an example of what should be done in assessing the effect of station quality on trends given the presence of other factors.” In short, the talking points memo analysis appears to ignore other factors that may influence the trend comparisons.

Gina Becker (04:58:10) :

I wish we could find money to run a television advertising campaign, showing the broad public…

1. Photos of all the poorly sited stations, including “rural” ones which are supposedly free from heat islands

2. Urban heat island growth around stations

3. Visuals and explanations on how the gradual MMTS changeover corresponds with temperature rise

4. And the point: this is the USA, which has the most extensive, longest, best temperature record. Think what the rest of the world relies on.

I’ll second this. Too bad such a campaign couldn’t have run prior to the passage of the Waxman – Markey bill, but perhaps it’s not too late.

It’s in preparation. Patience required. All of these issues will be directly addressed.

#B^1

#P^U

Perhaps Peterson might be more effective in advancing science if he focused on his real job instead of drafting BS memos and running throught the rain.

No, it just means they’re spreading the error around and blurring the differences.”

You must be kidding: that would only work if they used cooling and warming adjustments.