We’ve seen examples time and again of the cooling of the past via homogenization that goes on with GISS, HadCRUT, and other temperature data sets. By cooling the data from the past, the trend/slope of the temperature for the last 100 years increases.
This time, the realization comes from an unlikely source, Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground via contributor Christopher C. Burt. An excerpt of the story is below:
Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis
Jeff Masters and I recently received an interesting email from Ken Towe who has been researching the NCDC historical temperature database and came across what appeared to be some startling inconsistencies. Namely that the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past. Here is why.
An Example of the Inconsistency
Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F.
The state-by-state climate summary for the U.S. in February 1934. It may be hard to read, but the average temperature for the state of Arizona is listed as 52.0°F From Monthly Weather Review.
However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:
Here we see a screen capture of the current NCDC long-term temperature analysis for Arizona during Februaries. Note in the bar at the bottom that for 1934 they use a figure of 48.9°.
Ken looked at entire years of data from the 1920s and 1930s for numerous different states and found that this ‘cooling’ of the old data was fairly consistent across the board. In fact he produced some charts showing such. Here is an example for the entire year of 1934 for Arizona:
The chart above shows how many degrees cooler each monthly average temperature for the entire state of Arizona for each month in 1934 was compared to the current NCDC database (i.e. versus what the actual monthly temperatures were in the original Climatological Data Summaries published in 1934 by the USWB (U.S. Weather Bureau). Note, for instance, how February is 3.1°F cooler in the current database compared to the historical record. Table created by Ken Towe.
Read the entire story here: Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis
================================================================
The explanation given is that they changed from the ‘Traditional Climate Division Data Set’ (TCDD) to a new ‘Gridded Divisional Dataset’ (GrDD) that takes into account inconsistencies in the TCDD. “.
Yet as we have seen time and time again, with the exception of a -0.05°C cooling applied for UHI (which is woefully under-represented) all “adjustments, improvements, and fiddlings” to data applied by NCDC and other organizations always seem to result in an increased warming trend.
Is this purposeful mendacity, or just another example of confirmation bias at work? Either way, I don’t think private citizen observers of NOAA’s Cooperative Observer Program who gave their time and efforts every day for years really appreciate that their hard work is tossed into a climate data soup then seasoned to create a new reality that is different from the actual observations they made. In the case of Arizona and changing the CLimate Divisions, it would be the equivalent of changing state borders as saying less people lived in Arizona in 1934 because we changed the borders today. That wouldn’t fly, so why should this?
Sure there are all sorts of “justifications” for these things published by NCDC and others, but the bottom line is that they are not representative of true reality, but of a processed reality.
h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue.
UPDATE: Here’s a graph showing cumulative adjustments to the USHCN subset of the entire US COOP surface temperature network done by Zeke Hausfather and posted recently on Lucia’s Blackboard:
This is calculated by taking USHCN adjusted temperature data and subtracting USHCN raw temperature data on a yearly basis. The TOBS adjustment is the lion’s share.
“on parer are being” should be “on paper are being”
atarsinc;
You might also want to explain why the NCDC adjusted SST’s decreased the trend over the raw data. JP>>>>
Well I cannot explain it. What I do know is that calculating an anomaly from a moving base period makes about as much sense as counting the tires in a junkyard to figure out how many cars are on the road today. There is no logical explanation for doing so, and makes the anamoly data as presented useless. As for your other question, it is only your opinion that the records are more accurate. As several commenters have pointed out, the possibility of the “more accurate” methodology having a consistant effect of decreasing average temperatures in unlikely at best, a coincidence on the par with getting struck by lightning 21 times in a row and then winning the lottery with the same number twice in succession.
atarsinc says:
“It’s difficult to believe that Anthony still makes a living peddling this twaddle.”
Actually, it’s difficult to believe ‘atarsinc’ is such a dope. He needs to read the article before making such a stupid comment. One of the article’s links shows that:
“…the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past.”
NCDC is changing the historical temperature record. It has been pointed out repeatedly on this site that government agencies like NCDC, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC and others routinely fabricate the numbers in order to falsely show a rapidly warming planet.
Fabricating the temperature record is dishonest. But people like ‘atarsinc’ refuse to believe their lying eyes, because their belief is based on religion, and thus is impervious to reason and facts. Amazing but true.
Take 100 seed plots of a variety being tested for rust (yes, plants can get rusted). Remove more than half of them in a systematic (not random) way. Take what is left and bury some of the cans further into the ground and raise some of the other cans up a bit. Now take measurements of plant growth and declare the variety hardy against rust. Sounds like snake oil research doesn’t it. But this seems to be ok to do these days. Why not? Opening the door to shady research and data fudge seems to be the way our current governers and White House administration want it done.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Do NOT vote for anyone on the watermellon ticket. In Oregon, we DEPEND on agriculture jobs. Without farmers and ranchers we will go the way of nutty California. If the NOAA has been fooling with the data, making today warmer than in the past, that will not set well with farmers who depend on accurate information, not adjusted information.
Hope all is well down in Central and South Central Oregon. They had a freeze warning early this morning. Temps dipped low enough to kill entire crops. That would be temps in the 20’s folks. But it is a warm freeze.
atarsinc says:
June 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm
It’s difficult to believe that Anthony still makes a living peddling this twaddle. Go to the NCDC here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html, and you will see the adjusted temps, the raw data and the complete methodology for insuring the most accurate records. After which, come back here and explain why the less accurate data is preferrable. You might also want to explain why the NCDC adjusted SST’s decreased the trend over the raw data. JP
——————
Explain why the less accurate data is preferable? We could start with the fact that the thermometers are not as accurate as the data. That does present credibility issues for the *ahem* “more” accurate data.
atarsinc says:
June 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm
It’s difficult to believe that Anthony still makes a living peddling this twaddle.
=================
Yet, you still read it.
So quit yer bitchin’, and your attempts to muddy the waters.
Go spread your knowledge elsewhere.
The polls say the “faithful” are losing faith.
Good luck.
Gotta love the tribute to the data and archiving our granparents set up. That for me makes this willy nilly ‘processing’ going on a huge letdown. It’s gotten to the point where there is no OFFICIAL record. HadC, GISS, NOAA, BEST … Now we are distracted about who did what, when and why to some data set. Revision 1, 2, 3, or however many it takes to produce the correct graph.
This is a joke, a sad, sad result of Billions of dollars spent, wonderful talents wasted and the potential demise of the trust the public in the scientific method.
I demand that Dr. Peter Gleick do an ethics investigation of the people maintaining these records. We need to get to the bottom of the matter regardless of how we prove it!
“… Put simply, it’s not about weather, it’s about power. The movement is everything, the goal is nothing. It’s not about curbing CO2 emissions; it’s about creating a mob—a mass cult whose legions empower its shamans, and whose systematic anti-human ideology serves as a basis for reorganizing society along totalitarian lines. ”
— Robert Zubrin, Merchants of Despair
It’s curious that the only people who don’t ever seem to be aware of the problems of researcher bias are the researchers themselves.
From atarsinc on June 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm:
Could be because the name would be Joe Romm, not Anthony Watts. Anthony makes his living from the full-time job of running his business (at least one, there’s The Weathershop and he’s mentioned building computer systems for clients), plus he earlier reported doing weather reports for radio.
From this site, hosted free on WordPress which receives the ad revenue, Anthony would be lucky to get beer money. Donations are accepted but that’s earmarked for the Surfacestations project.
Sheesh, you can’t even get the name of the blogger right and you expect to be taken seriously on this site? Try harder.
atarsinc says (June 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm): “It’s difficult to believe that Anthony still makes a living peddling this twaddle.”
Anthony makes a living from WUWT???? The coal company “incentive” money finally came? Dang, where’s MY check? True, I don’t have an official “Planet Wrecker” certificate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/04/quote-of-the-week-i-get-an-endorsment-by-bill-mckibben-plus-a-certificate-in-certified-planet-wrecking/
like Anthony, but I try to do my part. If only I were certifiable…
/sarc (for the really, really humor-impaired)
This part of NOAA should be defunded or moved. NOAA should only be responsible for reading the thermometers and someone else can adjust them. To put the responsibility for the raw data in the same hands as the adjusted data is open to fraud. No adjustments should EVER be made to raw data records, the adjustment process should be applied downstream – in the models so we can see the adjustment in the process. This avoids tampering and ensures we know the sources of error. In the case of say satellite data, as well as the raw data – if instrumentation biases are known to exist then NOAA should publish the details of the disovered bias and the algorithm for adjustment of the RAW data – they should not supply preadjusted data sets. Preadjusting data is in my opinion professional fraud.
Readers in the united states should contact their representatives and insist that the keepers of raw data keep that record pristine, even if there is the BEST reason to adjust it up (or down), this should clearly be done only in an adjusted data set kept entirely separate from the raw data preferably managed by a different organisation.
As I see it the whole scientific debate is being clouded by the availability of pre-adjusted data sets.
What they are saying is that what scientists thought the temperature was back then doesn’t really matter. It’s the interpretation of scientists now of the temperature then that matters. It’s like re-writing history to suit present day biases. In the field of history, those with a true understanding of their subject call it “historical presentism,” which is essentially judging the behavior of historical actors by present day standards, which are, of course, always shifting.
The data must conform to the narrrative!
Same old story, if the data doesn’t fit the models, then change the data,
Climate Change 101.
tallbloke says:
June 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I hope these data vandals are keeping a careful record of their ‘adjustments’ so the records can be un-bent later.
…………………………………………………………………
I seem to recall a recent event where some British chaps rewrote the temps and then dumped the original data…. OOOPS….
Climategate Continues unabated…. and James Hansen seems to be right in the middle of this adjustment… when you loose the argument because mother nature proves you a fool, his answer is to change history…. DeJaVu… here we go again..
They adjusted the temperature down 3 deg? On avg? For the whole state? Month after month? Wow. That’s a really large adjustment.
This might be an adjustment for “time of observation” bias.
Phil C says:
June 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
And you didn’t read what I said about them. They make no sense to me.
I did read what you said and what the GrDD authors write makes sense to me. Here’s a simplied description of what they’ve done:
1. draw a tic-tac-toe grid (3 x 3 square)
2. fill in all 9 squares with a temperature reading.
3. fill in the 3 top squares again with an additional temperature reading.
4. You’ve now got 12 readings: average them. That’s the old method (TCDD).
Is that the average for the entire area? Of course it isn’t. You’re taking too many readings in the top row. To correct for the bias in the top row, you should first average the two numbers in each square of the top row, and then use those three readings with the remaining six to find your average over the entire area.
=======================
No reason for the past to always go down, it should balance out.
Pamela Gray says: @ur momisugly June 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm
….. If the NOAA has been fooling with the data, making today warmer than in the past, that will not set well with farmers who depend on accurate information, not adjusted information.
Hope all is well down in Central and South Central Oregon. They had a freeze warning early this morning. Temps dipped low enough to kill entire crops. That would be temps in the 20′s folks. But it is a warm freeze.
_________________________________
It is not exactly warm here on the east coast either. It is 64F at 10:00 pm and was 53F this morning. Usually it is in the mid eighties or higher.
At the rate the US temperature data is changing the records we will have a mile of ice sitting on New York City and the data will still be showing a warming trend.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
I found a paper by David Head from 1985 on the need for time of observation bias adjustments. Good laymen read.
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-81.pdf
Karl et. al. paper from 1986
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281986%29025%3C0145%3AAMTETT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Vose et. al. paper from 2003
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98268909/An-evaluation-of-the-time-of-observation-bias-adjustment-in-the-
When all else fails, manipulate the data….
It takes a finely tuned supercomputer to turn out sophisticated results like those!
Steven Goddard made an interesting comment back in Aug of last year on his blog concerning this adjustment. As a kid, he used to reset the markers on the max-min thermometers at bedtime because he was fully aware of the problem TOBS is adjusting for. How many other observers did this?
But there seems to be more cooling that has been done to the past even after this was put into the data set. At least it seems that way to me.
A bunch of crooks cooling the data – they will never stop till the grant money runs out!