Heh.

From Tom Nelson

Email 600, Sept 2007: Watts expose makes NOAA want to change entire USA method

Email 600

[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
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
DSW

hehe

trbixler

Drop as many as can be dropped then extrapolate. No one will notice.

Merovign

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

Rob

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.

John in NZ

High Five.

ScuzzaMan

bwahahaha….

Evan Jones

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.)

David, UK

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!”

geography lady

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?

Gary Hladik

Bazinga!

Theo Goodwin

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.

Viv Evans

Tee-double-hee!

Evan Jones

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).

Paul Westhaver

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.

George Munsch

@ 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.

Evan Jones

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!

Kev-in-UK

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!

Ken Harvey

A round of applause for Mr. Watts please.

DaveG

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.

Al Gored

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…

Evan Jones

A round of applause for Mr. Watts please.
Nobody Beats the Rev!

oeman50

I have surveyed (and submitted) one hard-to-reach weather station. I would not have known what to look for without the information in this blog over the past years. The problems I saw that can influence the measurements from just this one site made concrete what has been said here. How can anyone grounded in the scientific method believe that the world’s temperature has increased by 0.1 C (or whatever) due to readings from these places? Thanks Anthony and Evan!

Steve

The feeling has got to be like watching your child take their first steps!
Congrats.

Beth Cooper

Great to see Anthony, Evan and the rest of Anthony’s citizen army vindicated. A step forward for transparency and empiric investigation…. ‘Just the facts, ma’am.’

WLF15Y

Maybe I missed something along the way, but in the email he admits to only 15% that are “unacceptable”. Is this % purely due to the time frame in which the email was sent?

evanmjones says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm

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.

Perhaps people thought about what a data break it would be in the USHCN data and that there would be no long continuous records in the years after the break.
We’ve heard very little about the CRN site data. Perhaps people are waiting for some sizable fraction of the blessed 30 year climate period before trying to embrace the CRN data.
Or perhaps they’ve found the CRN data isn’t tracking the airport station data very well.
It would be a good amateur project to collect monthly CRN averages and post summaries and graphs ala GISS, UAH, etc. and produce data suitable for inclusion at Wood-for-Trees.
I’d be interested if I didn’t have this pesky job that keeps me busy. And fed. Fed is good.

Joseph Thoma

Theo Goodwin
February 4, 2012 at 1:09pm
Theo, if I remmember right, Anthony’s project and data came under an attack not only by the alarmists, but also by many luke-warmers, and I could never understand why? What did luke-warmers hope to gain by downgrading Anthony’ project, beats me.
Taras

pat

Of course the instrument sites are unacceptable. I have heard the meteorologists in charge of these stations say as much.

Owen

One man can make a difference. You’re the man Anthony. Thanks for all you do !

SidViscous

WLF15Y
Go back and re-read. He says only 15% are acceptable.

tkonerman

evanmjones says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Cortland
Cooperstown
Bedford
Belvidere
Mohonk
Maryland
New York
Norwich
‘Lantic City
Stroudsburg
Blue Hill
Morrisville
I been everywhere, man, I been everywhere.

R de Haan

Not only is this the best climate blog on the planet, it’s also the most effective considering what came crawling out of the woodworks of the CAGW movement.
This isn’t a small achievement.
Great work from Tom Nelson who’s sinked his teeth into the ClimateGate e-mails and simply can’t let go.
Great job.

About 6 inches of snow at the moment here in Cambridge, England… so I guess our weather stations will be ignored for a while huh? 😉

Mike McMillan

evanmjones says: February 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Cortland, Cooperstown, Bedford, Belvidere, Mohonk, Maryland, New York, Norwich, ‘Lantic City. Stroudsburg, Blue Hill. Morrisville
I been everywhere, man, I been everywhere.

Darn near, but not Belle Plaine, Toledo, Clinton, Galva, or Aledo. 🙂
Nice to see your hard work pay off, Evan.
Mike

Jessie

Bravo for your hard work Anthony and also Tim for reading each and every one of the ClimateGate2 emails
The email600 also includes:
.. IDAG is meeting Jan 28-30 in Boulder. You couldn’t make the
last one at Duke. Have told Ferris about IDAG, as I thought DAARWG
might be meeting in Boulder. Jan 31-Feb1 would be very convenient
for me – one transatlantic flight, I would feel good about my carbon
bootprint and I would save the planet!

Cheers Phil’

(bold inserted)
The acronyms are enough to bamboozle anyone. Or at least keep them on the outer.

Jessie

Apologies, meant Tom in previous post.

R. Shearer

Karl’s behind must be jealous because of all the crap that comes from his keyboard.

Jessie

email600
DAAWRG!
Data Archiving & Access Requirements Working Group
for eg http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/2011/march/SAB_Mtg_Pres_Mar11_Webster_FINALv3_03-09-11.pdf

Barclay E MacDonald

Anthony your effort and tenacity are nothing short of amazing. This was your project from the very beginning. Beautiful work!

LazyTeenager

So we now have evidence that they acknowledge the existing meteorology less than ideal for climate change monitoring and are motivated to improve it.
Ooops. Seems to contradict notions of nefarious behavior. If they wanted to produce fake data to support some climate conspiracy they would not bother to try to improve the network now would they.

Robin Hewitt

The weatherman said, “minus 5 in the cities tonight, minus 10 in the countyside”.
So they do believe in the urban heat island and station siting must be important.
Who’d have thunk it.

LazyTeenager

evanmjones says
As NOAA has refused to release its adjustment code, we cannot reproduce the adjusted data, and therefore, of course, any results are Scientifically Insignificant.)
———-
I was under the impression that it’s relatively easy to code your own adjustment code and that it has been done multiple times. And they all come much the same conclusions about the temperature trends.
So doesn’t that make access to the NOAA code kind of irrelevant since the actual principles involved are well known.

LazyTeenager

Paul Westaver says
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.
———–
That’s weird. You just make up a story, and then you claim this is a valid justification of you contempt.

Funnily enough this is the concrete foundation upon which my admiration for WUWT is based.

KV

Roger Sowell says: February 4, 2012 at 12:53 pm
“On a related theme (good vs bad measurement locations), are there no sites that could be considered “pristine” and long-term?”
Roger: In his article “What’s Wrong With the Surface record” John L Daly listed the following U.S sites as some in that category.
Ashton, Idaho: Basin, Wyoming; Cedar Lake, WA; Cold Bay, Alaska; Davenport, Wa; Eagle Pass, Texas; Lamar, Colorado; Lander, Wyoming; Lampasas, Texas; Nome, Alaska; Spickard, Missouri;
Tombstone, Arizona; Yellowstone National Park;; Yosemite National Park HQ, California.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
It would be interesting for those with the expertise to do a comparison with the graphs John lists and those now listed at Hansen’s Gistemp.
I do note that even using Hansen’s data “after removing suspicious records” that in almost all cases the places above not only still showed no “unprecedented warming” but 1934 was still clearly the hottest year in the USA in the time frame covered.
A big tick to Anthony and all his volunteers.

juanslayton

evanmjones: I been everywhere, man, I been everywhere.
Well, I been to Steheken. And seen the elephant. (That’s a Oregon Trail joke, boy.)