From Tom Nelson
Email 600, Sept 2007: Watts expose makes NOAA want to change entire USA method
[Tom Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data Center] We are getting blogged all over for a cover-up of poor global station and US stations we use. They claim NCDC is in a scandal by not providing observer’s addresses. In any case Anthony Watts has photographed about 350 stations and finds using our criteria that about 15% are acceptable. I am trying to get some our folks to develop a method to switchover to using the CRN sites, at least in the USA.
Hat tip: AJ
===============================================================
Note this email, because it will be something I reference in the future. – Anthony
Related articles
- Widespread Flaws in Weather Stations Networks Used to Track National Temperature Trends, Says New Study (prweb.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
hehe
Drop as many as can be dropped then extrapolate. No one will notice.
Someone correct me if my recollection was wrong, but wasn’t the actual scandal at the time the fact that the NOAA and the “climatology mafia” didn’t check this *themselves*, and that their reaction in the moment was to argue and minimize instead of revisiting the data?
REPLY: Yes, but Mr. Karl obviously misses what is obvious to everyone else. – Anthony
Wow. Mr. NCDC(former AMS Pres) admitting(privately) that the USHCN is not worth a flip!!!
A lot of hard yukka on your part pays off. Well done, Mr. Watts.
High Five.
bwahahaha….
Wow.
Yet he does not seem to have switched over to CRN.
At this date we have surveyed well over a thousand stations (I, myself, have over 200 kills, a dozen f-t-f, the rest “virtual” and/or by direct interview). Most of the remaining USHCN1 stations are long closed, and some sites are known only after recent station relocations).
The recent switchover to USHCN2, substituting ~50 stations, does not, to my recollection, show a switchover to CRN stations — but I will give it a look-see and report back.
Also, UHCN1 showed a +0.6°C/century trend, while USHCN2 shows +0.72. But that’s adjusted data, of course. As NOAA has refused to release its adjustment code, we cannot reproduce the adjusted data, and therefore, of course, any results are Scientifically Insignificant.)
Brilliant! I bet reading that for the first time felt a bit like pay day!
Off topic, but here in the UK we’re experiencing heavy snowfall up and down the country.
Here from the Press Association:
“Forecaster Paul Mott, of Meteo Group, the weather division of the Press Association, said the deep freeze was likely to continue into next week meaning the snow is likely to settle and much of Britain will remain carpeted in white.”
Until just a few hours ago, the Met (as reported by the BBC) was predicting “light snow” for tonight. Double “Heh!”
Is NOAA trying to lessen the number of observation stations? When I worked in the 1970’s with air pollution monitoring stations, EPA decided to eliminate the number of sites reporting. Much of this was suppose to cut back the cost to EPA. But the air monitoring sites I worked with was financed by our local county agency–not EPA. I was working for a local county government environmental agency. It would not surprise me if they were to eliminate the number of meteorological stations. One needs more stations/data not less for more accurate data.
Congratulations, Anthony!
On a related theme (good vs bad measurement locations), are there no sites that could be considered “pristine” and long-term? If any such sites exist, would it not be better to use the trends from a few good data points rather than attempt to adjust hundreds of not-so-good ones?
I’m thinking that National Parks would be good candidates, as real estate development, or land use changes, are generally not found in them. Perhaps this has been discussed already?
Bazinga!
Anthony’s data has been a black eye on the ruling regime for years. Just cannot wait to see the spin on this one from the Warmists. It will be based on magical statistics that can “disappear” any and all offending empirical observations. If they were genuine scientists they would learn.
Tee-double-hee!
1.) The new USHCN2 sites are all COOP, not a CRN site among them. That leads to the question of what the raw CRN data is (gridded and ungridded) and why the suggestion to convert to CRN readings was not implemented.
2.) After the substitution, there are 2218 USHCN2 sites as compared with 1221 USHCN1 sites. By my count, 50 have been added, 53 discontinued. This has had the effect of somewhat increasing the adjusted historical trend by ~0.12C/century. This increase may be due to the change in stations, a change in adjustment, both (or perhaps some other factor entirely).
No… that isn’t the half of it…
I speculate that while they were privately wringing their hands about the station data, they were publicly dismissing Andy Watts as that pesky, tedious, obsessed weather station dork…
I just hate NOAA bravado and arrogance.
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell
Siting is only part of the problem. The type and style of instrumentation changed several times over the period of interest, and corrections to the data are then made because the data produced is discontinuous. In principle this should not be necessary, but it is, and typically the corrections are poorly applied. Anthony has meade several postings comparing various generations of instruments, and the differeces in them.
George M.
Cortland
Cooperstown
Bedford
Belvidere
Mohonk
Maryland
New York
Norwich
‘Lantic City
Stroudsburg
Blue Hill
Morrisville
I been everywhere, man, I been everywhere.
Just goes to show how threatened these people feel. Call me suspicious, but if they had nothing to hide I would have expected more than just this frightened capitulation.
Anthony, this is a BIG win for you and your team. Thanks again for all the hard work put in.
Guys, guys, guys! These stations were clearly taken out of context!
Hmm… but where are the defenders of the sacred ‘data’ – the warmista based trolls? Surely, one of them must be along soon to post some c*ck and bull story about how the data was accidentally fecked up but suddenly became ‘good’ again, once they had found it hiding under their discarded grant funding and pay slips!
A round of applause for Mr. Watts please.
Thanks to Anthony and Climategate 1 & 2 the intransigent people (warmer’s) have sat up and noticed, they circled the wagons to no avail, in military terms they have been fighting a classic rearguard action with a steady but quickening retreat. These email or the poor ground station sitings are nothing new to readers at WUWT, but a sad commentary on the sordid state of so called climate science and the political crass class. How can any disciple of the church of global warming defend the indefensible is a mystery to me!
Thanks again Anthony for you tireless battle to expose these charlatans.
Funny. On the one hand, the Team was insisting that CO2 was the great driver of change while, on the other hand, they were insisting that what was doing Anthony wasn’t. As it turns out…
Meanwhile, yesterday’s employment statistics confirm that it is Green Shoots all the way for the USA now… so vote for Obama!
One can only imagine how those employment stats were created…
A round of applause for Mr. Watts please.
Nobody Beats the Rev!