Orland CA and the New Adjustments
In my last post, I observed that NOAA’s Talking Points applied their new “adjustments” to supposedly prove that NOAA’s negligent administration of the USHCN network did not “matter”.
In order to illustrate the effect of the new methods in this post, I’ll compare the new adjustments (post-TOBS) to the old adjustments (post-TOBS) on a “good” station – Orland CA, a prototype “good” station, discussed at the outset of surfacestations.org, discussed at WUWT here and CA here in early 2007.
The station history for Orland (at CDIAC) says that it has been in its present location for (at least) most of the 20th century and has had minimal changes during that time, other than perhaps time-of-observation (TOBS). The TOBS adjustment is carried forward into USHCN-v2. As I understand it, NOAA’s New Adjustment Method replaces station-history based adjustments for instrumentation changes and station location (the latter formerly done in FILNET).
As a benchmark, here is the difference between FILNET (adjusted) and TOBS for Orland in the “old” USHCN. Adjustments in the 20th century are negligible – in keeping with station history information that indicates no changes in location.
Figure 1. “Old” USHCN Adjustments for Station Location and Instrument Changes
Now here is the net adjustment in the “New” USHCN.
Two points jump out. Look first at the monthly adjustments at the right hand side. In the “old” method, there weren’t any adjustments to recent data – where metadata did not indicate any relevant change. In the “new” method, there are all sorts of jittery little adjustments. They seem to average out, but why introduce these jitters in the first place? It’s starting to look like a pointless Hansen-esque (ROW-style) adjustment that simply distorts the underlying data.
On a larger scale, the new adjustment noticeably increases the 20th century trend at Orland.
These graphics strongly indicate to me that the effect of the algorithm – regardless of whatever good intentions may underlie it – is that data from lower quality stations is being blended into the presently archived Orland data. I presume that something similar is happening to other “good” stations (though I’ve only examined one example so far.) (Note that Orland is a CRN3 station. However, its excellent continuity makes it a pretty attractive station for benchmarking and visually it doesn’t look a “bad” CRN3 station).
Based on this example, it looks like NOAA’s Talking Points comparison is between the overall average and 70 “adjusted” stations – AFTER the good stations have been adjusted. 
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT: The author of the EPA paper was just on Glen Beck. He is discussing AGW at this moment.
So it seems we may know why there wasn’t a signature on the rebuttal to the non-existent blog, written by the unknown meteorologist about an issue which doesn’t exist in the first place.
What makes this NOAA alchemy (as opposed to “science”) is that we have to PRESUME the reason for these changes. If it were actual science, all data, methods, code, etc., would be available and we would KNOW the reason for these changes.
Richard M (14:18:45) :
“OT: The author of the EPA paper was just on Glen Beck. He is discussing AGW at this moment.”
I saw that also. I felt sorry for Alan. He was obviously uncomfortable and not a very good guest for the kind of rapid fire snarky show Glenn puts on.
Steve wrote:
“These graphics strongly indicate to me that the effect of the algorithm – regardless of whatever good intentions may underlie it – is that data from lower quality stations is being blended into the presently archived Orland data.”
As I opined about Steig et al when RyanO made his “tiles” this sort of adjustment is much like spin art at the county fair.
http://www.funservicesinc.com/catalog/images/SpinArt.jpg
Smear stations with red and green components together and you have yellow.
Oh Anthony, moderators, Steve @ur momisugly CA, Jeffs, RyanO, anon @ur momisugly EPA, everyone… I just feel so proud of the development going on here, patiently reclaiming the foundations of Science in decent data, inch by inch, no, millimeter by millimeter…. and reclaiming the much-mourned lost art of real Peer Review…
I haven’t got the years of dedicated professional Science behind me to have the sheer grit and perseverance and attention to scientific detail that so many are showing here – but I know it’s important for humankind to bring through this deep, deep reform and reclaiming of Science through this unfolding Open Source Science, citizens’ science.
Ha! break over! back to the grindstone…
Having a bit of a heat wave here in the U.K.: we had 32oC somewhere today, the first time we’ve had >30 in 3 years. It looks like the heat wave will last until the end of the week, tailing off by sunday, when 18C and rain is forecast…
evanmjones (14:33:02) : says:
What makes this NOAA alchemy (as opposed to “science”) is that we have to PRESUME the reason for these changes. If it were actual science, all data, methods, code, etc., would be available and we would KNOW the reason for these changes.
Excellent Comment – Worth Repeating. – Over and over until someone listens.
By way of ongoing tribute, I just thought it opportune to draw your attention to a recent little blog on the Telegraph written by Daniel Hannon on ‘Cap and Trade’, (the MEP of YouTube speech fame), and in particular the comment posted by John Archer on Jun 30th, 2009 at 2:02 am, which I suggest encapsulates the debt of gratitude felt by ever-increasing numbers of scientifically literate people for Steve and colleagues tireless audit work, and their disgust at the behaviour of their most cherished scientific bodies regarding AGW. The blog is at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100001304/what-is-the-point-of-cap-and-trade/
wattsupwiththat (14:43:42) :
“Smear stations with red and green components together and you have yellow.”
The truth of my correction of the above statement is a very revealing clue to what is happening. If red and green are combined the color that results is …
brown.
Hmm, this also works when thought of politically too. Interesting. 8^)
REPLY: I was thinking in computer graphics/television RGB. In the case of pigment paints, yes some form of brown. – Anthony
wattsupwiththat (14:43:42) :
Yes, I was speaking “chromatically”, Anthony. Now that I see you were basing it on RGB, I understand your comment perfectly. Perhaps though, what Steve McIntyre et al is exposing here calls for a chromatic perspective and a clothespin on our noses?
Sorry, “what Steve McIntyre et al are exposing here…”
OT: Monckton agrees to debate Hansen
http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Haven-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Lord-Monckton-has-agreed-to-debate-James-Hansen?#comments
Now that’s all very interesting, except no one I know of thinks Hansen would do it. The debate is offered by Kirtland Griffin of The Examiner as a substitute for the debate proposed by Blankenship. Hansen couldn’t make that one due to a prior commitment to get arrested.
One of the commenters suggested WUWT as a forum with enough publicity to petition people to perhaps pressure Hansen into accepting such a debate. Anthony, what are your thoughts?
Exchange follows:
Kirt Griffin says:
I like the idea of a petition but it would have no legal force. I am applying pressure however by asking news media and bloggers to carry the story. If this gets enough publicity he may either be pressured to accept or look afraid to debate. My little blog, although growing, is not enough to make it happen but it’s a start. Any suggestions for places to carry this story?
Ray says:
Kirt, the idea of the global petition is exactly that, to show that they are the ones not wanting to debate the science, as science is never settled.
You could try WUWT, they have a good audience but certainly you could also try the Associated French Press since they are usually independent, as well as the Canadian Free Press.
Whenever I say the following during a debate about the temperature trend with alarmists there is a sudden end to debate and a dead silence from them. What is the problem??? 😉
1. During the early years of temperature monitoring cities and surrounding areas were covered with dense industrial smog which blocked significant sunlight, and we were still coming out of the Little Ice Age. This was the worst scenario to start measuring temperatures and use as a baseline to compare our current temperatures with.
2. In latter years most of the smog cleared up and urban areas grew. surfacestations org has surveyed many weather stations and found 9/10 skewed by the urban heat island effect.
Michael D. Smith-I hope that happens before the Senate pulls the trigger on cap and tax-and every Senator has to watch it.-As Lord Monckton was declared Anthema and
banned from the glorious presence of her Carboness Pelosi…
@ur momisugly Douglas DC (18:05:58) :
@ur momisugly Michael D. Smith
Never going to happen. I don’t think there is anyway, whatsoever, Hansen will ever debate Monckton. He just won’t do it as you all know (and Hansen knows) very well, Hansen will get his clock cleaned by Monckton hands down. As such, this is quite telling of the entire story here. If AGW was such a sound hypothesis, or even simply plausible at all, it would not be so difficult to put together a debate such as this. The fact is, the AGW proponents ALWAYS refuse or back out, ALWAYS. I cannot recall the skeptical side ever backing out of a debate, but the AGW proponents ALWAYS do. This little inconvenient truth should be glaring and obvious to everyone.
Hansen vs. Monckton – I wish, but it won’t happen….
Anthony the recent topics have shown the custodians of the
raw temperature data have “PHOTOSHOPPED” historical data to fit the “CONSENSUS” answer.
Brilliant! Those original temps went down quite a bit, huh? No wonder there is an alarming warming trend.
Seriously, this blows my mind. The adjustments increase the warming trend at this single station from a statistically irrelevant one to over 2C a century!!! Wow. Just wow.
Anthony: You might want to run a quick check on Chester, CA. 3 days in a row of records when nobody else has them. 94-96 degrees. Looked funny to me.
re. Squidly (18:43:46)
you said AGW proponents ALWAYS back out of debates.
Sorry, about a year ago there was a debate on National TV in Australia.
I think most viewers would agree the AGW proponents led by Prof David Karoly ended up in front.
When they change the data, and this is what they are starting to do, they will fail. I have been visiting this site for a year or two and each day wuwt show s me they are fixing the game . The al gores have ruled the day for several years . If they feel they need to “adjust” the data they use to prove warming the end is near for them. If the epa can do what they did and nobody gets fired how can we trust any data comming out of this government. The lies and cover ups will tear this apart because even the morons in congress will not stand for that , some of them still have to go home and deal with their districts, cold wet and snowy districts. Thank god Gore didn’t win in 2000 because he would be taking credit for the planet cooling and we could never stop this c@ur momisugly@#$. Now they are going to have to explain how th earth cooled before this cap and trade nonsence was implemented I wish them luck doing that. The truth always wins in the end, so let them lie all they want just keep exposing it daily, some day Gore will pay for this
Richard Hill (20:40:19) :
Oh, that debate. Saw the video. The audience didn’t buy it, and the moderator didn’t allow any questions other than kissing up to the AGW proponents.
It was terribly insulting to the public in general.
Let us be absolutely clear on one point. There is absolutely no way the observers of 1895-1903 were misreading the true temperature by -1.5 degrees C. That the current stewards of the data are so willing to reach back a century and second guess observations invalidates the entire series.
9/10 skewed by the urban heat island effect.
More accurately, by microsite violations.