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.
@Mr. Lynn (05:07:07) :
DISCLAIMER: Nothing written below is intended to be, nor is it to be construed as, legal advice. Anyone seeking legal advice on a specific matter should consult an attorney. Nor does anything written below constitute formation of an attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Lynn, all I may do as an attorney, writing on a public forum such as WUWT, is offer very general comments, as ethical rules constrain what attorneys can write in their professional capacity. That is one reason I have not responded earlier on the many comments I have seen on this subject (FOIA) and lawsuits regarding fraud. But, since you have posed the question directly to me, I am allowed to answer as follows:
The Freedom of Information Act is a means that is available to private parties to obtain some types of data or information from the government, barring certain statutory exceptions. An FOIA request can be made with or without an attorney, but for complex requests retaining an attorney is advisable. If the government denies a valid FOIA request, then a lawsuit can be filed to compel the government to produce the data, and having an attorney is certainly advisable at that point.
One positive change from the Obama administration is the President’s directive to interpret FOIA requests liberally or more broadly, meaning fewer should be denied.
Suing in fraud or misrepresentation has many complex aspects, and the likelihood of success depends on what deliberate or negligent actions occurred, and with what level of intent, the potential evidence that may be obtained, and who was harmed and to what extent.
Fraud is generally difficult to prove. Where fraud fails, one may usually sue for intentional misrepresentation, and sometimes for negligent misrepresentation. There may exist many other legal issues, which the attorney will identify, depending on the specific facts of what did or did not occur.
For any further information and my qualifications, anyone can reach me at my website by clicking on my name, and sending an email.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Climate Change Attorney
Marina del Rey, California
Can anyone point me to a reference for long term temperature records based on rural areas only where there is no UHI effect and presumably no need for for adjustment to the data?
Dear Malcolm,
Rural stations are generally right next to the BBQ so we can talk about the weather, have a beer, and keep an eye on the meat without having to rise out of our white plastic chairs. At least that is the general arrangement of my little piece of heaven. And then there is the silver bottom boat nearby. Gotta keep the important stuff handy.
The adjustments are continuous and increasing over about 30 years. It’s hard to see how issues such as TOBS can explain that. Also, wind chill as in one suggestion. A continuous increase for 30 years?
Time of Observation Bias has been mentioned. Could this lead to a consistent positive trend over decades?
It can and this appears to have been the case. I looked into ToB in detail and if my memory serves me correctly, the NOAA ToB adjustment would require approx 30% of observers to make a one time shift from evening to early morning observation, spaced regularly over 30 years. And then of course continue with morning observation.
The paper linked below describes the ToB estimation method I believe (in fact I’m quite sure) is used. Although with the caveat that in the opaque world of climate science methods, it’s hard to be certain of anything.
As I mentioned above, the main issue is why use an estimating method at all when the raw ToB data is available (although of unknown accuracy) and a more accurate determination could be made.
Bottom line is the ToB adjustment is in the right ballpark, but contains an unknown error that is likely around 5% to perhaps10% of the claimed 20th C warming. And of course that error then gets magnified by the climate models out into the future.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986JApMe..25..145K
Note ToB is only an issue with a single daily observation of min/max temps. It does not occur with hourly or continous measurement.
Can anyone point me to a reference for long term temperature records based on rural areas only where there is no UHI effect
Rural areas are subject to effects from land use changes and irrigation. The only long term records I would trust to be without significant anthropogenic influences are from remote islands, undisturbed natural environments and special sites such as the Armagh Observatory.
Thanks for the response. I was not suggesting that you compromise ethical rules by offering legal advice on a public forum, but rather that if any climatologists on this or similar forums wanted to pursue a FOIA request for the raw data that may be withheld, interested attorneys might be willing to lend their services. The climatologists would be your clients, not the readership of WUWT.
You can be sure that if NOAA or other agencies denied such a request, forcing petitioners to sue, the agency(ies) would have plenty of government legal help. That would make it imperative to have lawyers involved, to have any hope of succeeding.
Unless the raw data could first be obtained, there would be no point in claiming fraud. If the evidence pointed in that direction, that would be quite a development, one the news media could scarcely ignore. But first we’d need the data, and even then, as you say, any claim of malfeasance would be a difficult row to hoe. The FOIA comes first.
Of course, if it were denied, that would be prima facie evidence that the agency(ies) had something to hide. It wouldn’t necessarily justify a lawsuit, but it might titillate the media. . . 😉
/Mr Lynn
Considering the four major estimates of GMT, it would not be surprising for GISS to move roughly in same direction and similar amounts as RSS and UAH. Since GISS now uses satellite data for ocean “surface” temperatures, and since oceans comprise 70% of earth’s surface, we would expect the ocean temperatures to largely swamp deviations on land. Meanwhile, RSS and UAH seem to have a collegial relationship, helping each other with analysis and oversights whenever divergence occurs. (One should not underestimate the difficulties and assumptions in measuring temperatures via satellite.) HadCru’s trend apparently is not similarly forced to be close to the other three, so its similarity seems to be noteworthy.
I will not address the issue of anticipated tropospheric trends measured via satellite versus anticipated surface trends measured via stations and ships. However, I will note that my major concern with GISS is its adjustments of pre-satellite data, and one aspect of that concern is how its choice of hinge points has a significant (and convenient) impact on historical records.
Adam Soereg (15:25:25) :
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
====
Expanding on your quote – while being reminded all the time only “scientifically-chosen peer-revenued” papers can be accepted –
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the presents (cash) and presence (papers) controls the presence of the past.”
My congressman has asked for my recommendation on how he should proceed with this information: What do I tell him to ask for from NOAA (and GISS ??) and to whom should he address his (formal) request for an explanation and (informal WTF) followup?
If NOAA/GISS were required to provide ALL of the original information to the public for review, what format should it be in and where should it be listed?
What does the raw data indicate?
Look at the map links I posted earlier in this thread for US raw vs. adjusted.
It will make you shriek incoherently, I promise.
Here’s a graph that compares all the temp sets (shifted to a common baseline) back to 1979:
The fact they match means they don’t match. UAH and RSS are Lower trop and therefore supposed to be warming c. 30% faster than surface stations. (And the surface comes in higher, anyway, esp very recently.)
It shows GISTEMP generally in lockstep with the others, thereby confirming that whatever adjustments they make seem to generate reasonable results.
Squeezing them narrower like in that graph masks the differences. Look at the earlier 4-way comparison.
Also, see above. If GISS and HadCRUT “match” the satellite data, it means it doesn’t match. And it’s actually higher, anyway (instead of 30% lower trend, as it should be).
I teach Sociology….. but you’ll note I don’t dispute the charge
My field is history, so I’m even worse off than you are.
Re FOIA and related:
This is a swamp of issues that includes foreign sources of climate data claiming their data is proprietary. Someone without deep knowledge of the subject is unlikely to get very far.
Climate Audit has been down this road and the general conclusion seems to be an impartial audit of both data and processing methods is the best way to expose the truth.
I’d add that no one would spend the sums being spent on ‘climate action’ without thorough auditing of how the money is spent, and a similar level of audit is justified for the data being used to justify spending the money.
Can anyone point me to a reference for long term temperature records based on rural areas only where there is no UHI effect and presumably no need for for adjustment to the data?
Microsite violations have eaten up the rural stations. It’s even possible they may have been more affected than the urban stations, whose site violations may have been partially masked by UHI.
evanmjones (21:53:07)
“The fact they match means they don’t match. UAH and RSS are Lower trop and therefore supposed to be warming c. 30% faster than surface stations. (And the surface comes in higher, anyway, esp very recently.)”.
——————————————————–
as the ocean data should not differ, this means, that the trend “measured” on land is rougly by a factor 2 too high.
this agrees well with Ross R. and Patrick J. Michaels (2007) “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data.”
http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html
Mr Lynne,
Let me save you some lawyers’s fees… the raw data is ‘hidden in plain view’ in the NOAA page linked to in the article above. Its the Areal Edited file. This is the data after any obvious outliers have been trimmed out …
No need for a FOI request then …
“Can anyone point me to a reference for long term temperature records based on rural areas only where there is no UHI effect and presumably no need for for adjustment to the data?”
————–
Here is comparison between the Bratislava airport measurement on the city outskirts (550,000 inhabitants) vs Lomnicky Peak in the High Tatras (star observatory on the peak, definitely rural): http://www.letka13.sk/~jurinko/Slovakia_UHI.pdf. Distance between Bratislava and Lomnicky Peak is 244km.
Is that Areal Edited file adequate to satisfy demands in this thread for ‘the raw data’? E.g.,
Here is how the paper cited in Anthony’s post defines the Areal Edited data set:
If the ‘Areal Edited (Raw)’ data set, minus ‘suspects’ and ‘outliers’ as defined above satisfies the needs of the experts here and elsewhere for ‘raw’ data, then John Philip is right, and the data can be obtained here:
If not, then please explain to John Philip (and me) why not.
/Mr Lynn
Philip_B (17:32:29) :
Time of Observation Bias has been mentioned. Could this lead to a consistent positive trend over decades?
It can and this appears to have been the case.
The reference you cite is to the development of an empirical model of the effects of TOB (as far as I can see – only the abstract is provided).
That’s the easy part!
The hard part is NOAA’s modeling the changes of measurement behavior worldwide over a 40 year period to derive the linear 0.5 degree inflation.
You imply elsewhere in your comment that this work was done. can you provide a reference?
(sorry, missed out a in last post
Philip_B (17:32:29) :
Time of Observation Bias has been mentioned. Could this lead to a consistent positive trend over decades?
It can and this appears to have been the case.
The reference you cite is to the development of an empirical model of the effects of TOB (as far as I can see – only the abstract is provided).
That’s the easy part!
The hard part is NOAA’s modeling the changes of measurement behavior worldwide over a 40 year period to derive the linear 0.5 degree inflation.
You imply elsewhere in your comment that this work was done. can you provide a reference?
Thanks John Philip.
I hadn’t noticed the one chart up to 1999 they present showing the Raw versus Adjusted data. [I wonder why they always stop in 1999 when the paper was produced in May 2008 – see below.]
The solid block markers are the Raw data and one can see that 1934 and 1921 were the warmest years in the Raw data. 1998 was third.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif
Now the chart only goes out to 1999. Since 1999, US temperatures have fallen by 1.75F.
So the chart would now be very close to 0.0 anomaly.
– I would be interested in knowing the origin of the idea that the lower troposphere should be warming at 30% above the surface rate. The models predict a higher rate, but over the tropics and at about 12km up. This is not the lower troposphere. Santer et al found that the actual and modelled trends in the tropical mid-troposhere are consistent.
– Anyone looking for a non-urban trend need look no further than GISS
in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped
– The Hadley sea surface temperature data is derived from bouys and shipborne measurements, GISS uses satellite derived data. The fact that trends in both agree well gives us confidence that they are measuring a real phenomenon.
– The USHCN adjustments apply to the US surface stations. These cover about 2% of the surface area of the globe with a corresponding contribution to the global mean estimates. The Michaels and McKitrick paper (controversially) found that the actual climatic warming trend over land is about 50% below the estimates due to the effects of economic activity being understated. Even if they are correct it is not legitimate to extrapolate this to the whole globe, (as Viscount Monckton did in his APS article).
Put simply TObs adjusts for the fact that many observations are not taken for the standard reference period of midnight to midnight. Understandably, volunteers tend to prefer observations at a more convenient time, this introduces a bias which must be corrected for. Imagine I take the time once a day by looking at 100 clocks and taking the average. Further imagine that I know one clock stopped for an hour then restarted and is now reading one hour slow. I must correct for this in my averaging, and apply the same adjustment every day unless the clock is put right. Now imagine more clocks go wrong, most in the same direction – the size of the adjustment will increase over time. An imperfect analogy but you get the idea.
– One of these global mean temperature time series contains surface station adjustments, the other does not. Can you tell which is which ? 😉
REPLY: John you have no idea what you are talking about. GHCN also goes through TOBS and FILNET adjustments, just like USHCN. – Anthony
Anthony – I never said or implied otherwise. The graphs of adjustments in the lead article show the difference between raw and adjusted data for the USHCN, still you invited comparison with the global warming signal, I have no idea if the TObs adjustment magnitude is the same for rest of the global surface station data – but my point was the danger of extrapolating from the adjustments for one country – with a high density of stations – to the rest of the globe.
John Philip (01:25:12) :
Legitimate or not you will find all the surface data trends higher than even RSS.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/WTFIT.jpg