In my post on the Mohonk Weather Station, the question came up about “raw” temperature data. Tom in Texas complained that he’d looked at data from the observer B91 forms and that it didn’t match what was posted in published data sets.
Neither NOAA nor NASA serve weather station data “raw”.
We’ve all seen examples posted here of how GISS adjusts data. But, it is not only NASA GISS that does this practice, in fact, NOAA adjusts temperature data also, and it is by their own admission. For example here is a NOAA provided graphs showing the trend over time of all the adjustments they apply to the entire USHCN dataset.
As illustrated in the graphs above, in simplest terms NOAA adds a positive bias to the raw data reported by weather station observers with their own “adjustment” methodology.
It is important to note that the graph on the bottom shows a positive adjustment of 0.5°F spanning from 1940 to 1999. The agreed upon “global warming signal” is said to be 1.3°F (.74C) over the last century.
The NOAA source for these graphs is: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Abbott,
Is this the graph you’re looking for? click
Or maybe this one: click
What’s getting lost in this discussion (except for John Philip at 01:25:12) is that regardless of the seemingly biased USHCN adjustments, the end result is a dataset that tracks fairly well with the other metrics.
HadCRUT adjusts (wish we knew how).
UAH and RSS measure lower troposphere, not surface temperatures. They are supposed to increase 20% to 40% faster in a warming trend.
Unless I am wrong (and I may be; please correct me if I am missing something here) . . .
Yes when the Japanese science advisers to their governmment described the climate modelling an recommendations of climatology’s UNIPCC, as “ancient astrology”; they were surely being unfair to ancient astrology.
True. At least astrologists know what signs are coming up and when. The IPCC has a zero percent track record of making correct predictions.
A Climate Audit look at adjustments, 20th Century, US:
(Better sit down before looking.)
Raw NOAA
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/usgrid79.gif
Adjusted (USHCN1)
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/usgrid81.gif
USHCN2 is worse. (The graphs you see in the article are from USHCN1.)
Come to think of it, this implies that the raw data must be available somewhere (or at least it was a year and a half ago).
Roger Sowell’s comment of above reminds me of an interesting point. Supposedly in USSR the weather station keepers would report lower temperatures than actual, in order to get more provisions. Now what do you think happened when the Soviet Union collapsed? You guessed it, they reported the real temperatures again-or so the story goes. Warm bias eh wot?
The use of the ‘adjusted’ data assumes that the raw data actually means anything. How a single weather station data point can be extrapolated to represent the infinite geographic variations, anthropogenic influences, and biological variations in perhaps tens, hundreds or thousands of square miles of territory that surrounds it is questionable to begin with.
It’s not surprising that the local weather forecast can be off by several orders of magnitude; the forecasters may be in a whole different environment than you are.
So some think we should use the satellite temp data. Unfortunately, there weren’t any before 1979, and, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements :
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states:
“Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”
In other words, the satellite data has also been ‘adjusted’ to match the surface temperature measurements.
Draw your own conclusion.
RJ Hendrickson, there were real problems with the data which were sorted out. See:
http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
They weren’t adjusted to the surface records-they ~still~ show less warming (which makes the wiki statement *very* misleading-not surprising though).
If the data is not raw does that mean it’s cooked?
How much of an effect does TOBS have? If Tmax usually ocurs in the early afternoon, and Tmin a bit after midnight and you don’t look at the thermometers anywhere close to those points, what difference does it make? After all, the thermometers remember the max and min until you reset them.
And why in H*** do we need an UPWARD adjustment of the raw data?
(mercury leaking out of thermometers, perhaps?)
RJ Hendrickson (10:21:58) : “In other words, the satellite data has also been ‘adjusted’ to match the surface temperature measurements.”
There must be other sources/satellites apart of those conveniently “adjusted”. I mean russian, japanese or whatever not related or implicated in the global warming or climate change agenda. Where can we find them?
Anyone know if satellite data is available for localized areas, or just NH, SH, and global?
FYI.
“”ROCKVILLE, MD–(MARKET WIRE)–Mar 23, 2009 —
MarketResearch.com has announced the addition of Unit Economics’ new report “The New Global Ice Age,” to their collection of Energy/Environment market reports. For more information, visit http://www.marketresearch.com/redirect.asp?progid=67618&productid=2069052.
Abstract of Unit Economics’ Report: “New Global Ice Age”
“At first glance, a research piece predicting significantly colder weather seems rather bold. In reality, we’re very confident about this report. That’s because we are not so much predicting colder weather, but are instead observing it. More important, we’re attempting to coax our readers to view recent weather data and trends with a neutral perspective — unbiased by the constant barrage of misinformation about global warming. We assure you, based on the accuracy of climatologists’ long-term (and short-term!) forecasts, you would not even hire them!
“For example, in 1923 a Chicago Tribune headline proclaimed: ‘Scientist says arctic ice will wipe out Canada.’ By 1952, the New York Times declared ‘Melting glaciers are the trump card of global warming.’ In 1974, Time Magazine ran a feature article predicting ‘Another Ice Age,’ echoed in a Newsweek article the following year. Clearly, the recent history of climate prediction inspires little confidence — despite its shrillness. Why, then, accept the global warming thesis at face value? Merely because it is so pervasive?
“Unfettered by the Gore-Tex straitjacket of global warming dogma, one might ask some obvious questions. Why, in 2008, did Toronto, the Midwest United States, India, China, the United Kingdom and several areas of Europe all break summer rainfall records? Why was South Africa converted into a ‘winter wonderland’ this past September? Why did Alaska record its coldest summer this year — cold enough for ice packs and glaciers to grow for the first time in measured history? Why has sea ice achieved..”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212820/posts
timetochooseagain
Ok, I see my error. Satellite temps were matched to radiosonde measurements. Which brings up the question of the reliability of the radiosonde measurements. Reading the material at http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News12/Radiosondes.html headed “Sources of error in radiosonde temperature data” , it seems there are problems with the radiosonde data as well. Again, it needs ‘adjustment’. Adjustments on top of adjustments. It all looks like wild guessing, from my point of view.
To my best guess, the only reason I see as valid, anyway, the upwards adjustment would account for wind chill. Does not, however, excuse the fact that upward adjustments plotted out like that suspiciously match the rise in temp. What does the raw data indicate?
@Tom in texas:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
“…The real issue is modifying the data supporting an hypothesis (model) using the hypothesis itself as part of the adjustment criteria. That’s self defeating.”
No, it’s truth defeating.
Smokey (09:45:06) :
Mike Abbott,
Is this the graph you’re looking for? click Or maybe this one: click
=======
Thanks! Those graphs (comparing the 4 temperature metrics) are very close to what I was looking for, especially the second one. However, it only goes back to 1997. I don’t think it proves or disproves the point I was making at 09:36:00, i.e., that the USHCN adjustments may be reasonable because the final dataset tracks well with the other metrics. I think a comparison to the full satellite record going back to 1978 is needed. In any case, I’ll leave further comments to others; I’m already getting in over my head…
Very interesting. This outfit is offering this report for $1,295, so they must think it sufficiently credible and important enough for businesses to buy it. Here’s the Table of Contents:
Any idea who wrote it? Now if someone would leak it to Drudge. . .
/Mr Lynn
Thanks Juraj V. (12:44:48)
Lots of info at that link.
HadCRUG NA data (lat 30 to 50) at:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NAmerica30-50an.html
starts at 1870. I’ll have to dig around to find out how that’s derived.
Isn’t the truly amazing thing with all the
fudgesadjustments, it still comes out to within 0.1 C of what is needed to prolong the hoax. Simply amazing.“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
Mike Abbott (12:50:19) :
Here’s a graph that compares all the temp sets (shifted to a common baseline) back to 1979:
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
You can make graphs like this yourself over at woodfortrees.org.
Chris V. (15:57:52) :
Here’s a graph that compares all the temp sets (shifted to a common baseline) back to 1979:
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
======
Thanks, that’s the one. It shows GISTEMP generally in lockstep with the others, thereby confirming that whatever adjustments they make seem to generate reasonable results.
Anyone interested in REALLY OLD data?
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1950-03.pdf
start at page 148, which is about half way down the document.
And does anyone KNOW where I can find figures for reported malaria cases broken down by country and year gong back to, say, 1900? The WHO pages only seem to go back to 1989.
evanmjones (09:42:11) :
Ouch! That was cruel. I teach Sociology….. but you’ll note I don’t dispute the charge…. I’m just acknowledging the pain.