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.
NCDC has Feb 1934 in MN at 12.7F, while the chart above has 14.1F (1.4F difference). Next door in WI, they have 13.9F, while the chart above has 15.3F (1.4F difference).
4. Finally, none of the TCDD’s station-based temperature records contain adjustments for historical changes in observation time, station location, or temperature instrumentation, inhomogeneities which further bias temporal trends (Peterson et al., 1998).”
Wow. That’s an elegant solution. So many ways to adjust real data in just one sentence!.
Curious that NCDC adjustments LOWERED the SST’s. You might want to actually look at the methodologies before proffering this twaddle. Skeptics, real skeptics, can find that information here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html . Then come back and tell us why data that is known to be inaccurate is preferable to the more accurate data.
Especially for Gail: What does a cold snap in Oregon have to due with AGW? Answer: absolutely nothing. Thanks for the weather report. We’re all enthralled. JP
There’s a recorded conference presentation here on the transition from TCDD to GRDD, and its effects.
I see that ‘atarsinc’ has attempted to re-frame the discussion away from NOAA’s changing the historical land temperature record, to unrelated sea surface temperatures.
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!!
Nice try, thanx for playing, noob, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you.☺
“Golly gee, I wonder what Mosher will say about this? Will it be the standard “trust the climate scientists, they know what they’re doing”? ”
he will say exactly what Nick Stokes said.
read the whole article.
Smokey says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I see that ‘atarsinc’ has attempted to re-frame the discussion away from NOAA’s
>>>>>>>>>>>
That was his second shot at it too. Now he’s blown off both his feet, what do you think he will aim at?
Follow the Money says:
June 6, 2012 at 8:20 pm (Edit)
4. Finally, none of the TCDD’s station-based temperature records contain adjustments for historical changes in observation time, station location, or temperature instrumentation, inhomogeneities which further bias temporal trends (Peterson et al., 1998).”
Wow. That’s an elegant solution. So many ways to adjust real data in just one sentence!.
#############
1. changing the time of observation from mid day to morning or mid night to noon, WILL create a bias. Depending on the time and place that bias can be positive or negative, large or small.
Dont believe me? read skeptic John daly on the issue. Still dont believe, read the TOBS thread at climate audit. Stiil dont believe, go get 5 minute data from CRN and test for yourself. Still dont believe, ask roy spencer he ran into this problem with his latest work
2. Station location. If you move from sea level to 500m you had better account for the station
move. There are a couple ways. Roy Spencer, for example, runs a regression to empirically estimate a correction due to different altitudes between stations. Others use a standard lapse rate.
You surely recall that some people complained that higher altitude and higher latitude stations were being dropped…(Ross mckittrick) and that this change would cause a bias? so, adjusting for changes in a station altitude or latitude would seem to make sense.. If you believe ross’s complaint ( it causes a bias ) and if you read Roys work
3. Instrumentation. Yes, in the 80s there was a change to MMTS. side by side calibration studies suggested an adjustment.
when you see these changes in the methods of observing you can ignore the bias,
adjust for the bias
OR, you can just “scalpel” the stations when you have these changes ( a willis suggestion) like Berkeley does.
Ahh, yes, gridcells. Because the uninhabited areas where no one lived in the past (likely for good reason) may become uninhabitable. Just because there is one station (or three) in a gridcell standing against many others does not mean you can smear them together. Mountain regions are supposed to respond differently to AGW because of the elevation, aren’t they? What sense does it make to average them together in AZ?
Why do they use temperature anomaly as a benchmark?
The reason is because Its simple and its a double whammy.
First they select a low datum thus the anomaly is always plus/warmer.
Second the choice of word, anomaly, itself, inculcates the thought, the idea of something out of the ordinary.
Thus at a stroke, they prime the masses to their warmer and its out of the ordinary meme.
Q.E.D.
Its not science its fraud and deception
And this is why we should always keep hard copies.
So, ditch the grid (tic-tac-toe squares), ditch the state-wide averages. Link the temperatures to the locations in 3-D (within the available resolution). Let the microclimates take care of themselves as much as possible, since sufficient information is not available to make scientific adjustments (e.g. for albedo change when the weather station pavement was painted white).
NIck writes: As Phil C noted, the Jeff Masters link goes on to explain the reasons for the change. And I think they make a lot of sense. They are going to a more modern gridded system. I think this bullet point is the key: “1. …”
Generally, in such matters, the first “point” or reason forwarded is the least significant, although the proponent may or may want you to think of the “first” reason as primary. It is always the best sounding, that’s why it’s first. But it is more productive to look at what is revealed last. In newspaper lingo, “under the fold” is where the real nitty-gritty can be found. In a prospectus context, always read the footnotes first, that’s where the proponents hint at their weaknesses and try to establish plausible deniability for later proceedings wherein their lack of disclosure is contested.
This bullet point that is more likely the source of the plurality or majority of adjustments: “4”.
Steven Mosher says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm
1. changing the time of observation from mid day to morning or mid night to noon, WILL create a bias….Roy Spencer, for example, runs a regression to empirically estimate a correction …Others use a standard lapse rate….you can ignore the bias, adjust for the bias…
===============================================================
The problem is that you guys do not have reliable data to conclude anything. All these “methods” including grids, area weighting, reconstructions etc. have no basis in real science. You just do it and CALL it science.
Steven Mosher says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm
“he will say exactly what Nick Stokes said.”
You think it likely that Feb 1934 Arizona average was too high due to underrepresentation of mountainous regions? And it isn’t clear to you what effect the methodology of “adjusting” that monthly temp would have on a trend?
The Time of Observation Bias was known about long, long ago.
The weather bureau was already directing its weather bureau sites to use regular times so that the effect could be adjusted for in the early 1900s.
There is first the “Report on the temperatures and vapor tensions of the United States reduced to a homogeneous system of 24 hourly observations for the 33-year interval, 1873-1905″ Bigelow 1909.
Then “Effect of Observation Time of mean temperature estimation” Rumbaugh 1934.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-10-0375.pdf
Then there is “Effect of changing observation time on mean temperature” Mitchell 1958
Then there is “Temperature adjustments for discrepancies due to time of observation” directive to the director of the NCDC – Weaver, Miller 1970
Then Karl 1987, then Vose, Williams, Peterson, Menne, Quinlin, Easterling, Jones, Thorne every few years.
All these adjustments are a scam they bring out every few years and we should all know that. NCDC just did it all over again with the GHCN-M version 3.1.0 implemented late last year. This added another 0.2C to the US temperature trend, its just that these latest changes have not been picked up yet by Mosher and Zeke. Take Zeke’s chart above – and add another 0.2C in adjustments to it.
What can we do about it? Nothing. They are brave enough to even adjust the ENSO now. We need some from-the-top house-cleaning or the historic temperature record will just continually be adjusted higher and higher. They’ve got away with it so far and have received more funding for the effort. Why would they stop now.
Any reason to rewrite the past is a good reason for NOAA as long as it makes the past cooler. Defund NOAA; you won’t get any worthwhile information from them anyway.
Steven Mosher says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm
1. I completely agree… so why change it…. o right changing it means you can make adjustment that fit into the researchers biases and lets you paint the picture that you want…
2. Part A Station location.
If there is no choice in moving the for whatever reason then adjusting it based on well documented meta-data is fine. One must also include a very detailed but yet very simple display of all this information when one accesses the that station/s data. Which clearly is not done and in many cases is purposely hidden/thrown away.
Part B Dropping stations”. Their is no excuse to drop and station unless you have no other choice. The vast majority of stations have have been dropped still exist and produce data. This “dropping” is clearly done to make the “need” for adjustments allowing bias researchers to adjust in their own personal biases.
3. When ever you make adjustment expect to be challenged on them because often the adjustments maybe unneeded, wrong, fake or any of a host of other events. The fact that it seems multiple adjustments are made on top of each other often without the next person nothing or understanding past adjustments results in over and under adjustment… normally with the outcome favoring the bias of the researchers.
So, if NOAA is cooking the books, why did they adjust the SST trend lower? If anyone has a reasoned explanation for a flawed methodology, present it. If you simply want to speculate about imagined cabals, you’re at the right site. JP
“1. changing the time of observation from mid day to morning or mid night to noon, WILL create a bias. Depending on the time and place that bias can be positive or negative, large or small.”
I’ll agree with this (after a good scouring of the internet.)
However, it bugs me that I can’t find any records or evidence showing the actual time of day used for early 20th century station temperature recordings. NOAA would need this in order to compute TOBS. Did they record the time of day back in 1895, or perhaps it wasn’t important to them? Is NOAA making general assumptions for that? Maybe not, maybe so. I can’t find any proof.
I have a real dumb question concerning “time of observation”.
Are not a large segment of the temperature readings made with min-max thermometers? The recorder reads the record late morning or early evening and the minimum and maximum temperatures for the previous 24 hrs are then recorded. What has time of observation have to do with anything with a min-max thermometer?
If it isn’t a min-max, then how is a min and max determined at a rural station in 1934? Some thousands of people are reading a thermometer every hour on the hour?
If the time of day the data is recorded is necessary, what is the likelihood that metadata is available, much less reliable?
Under what 1934 real world circumstances is a time of observation correction NOT a correction without calibration?
Ian W says:
June 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm
It is a relatively simple choice – mendacity or incompetence – in either case they should not be funded and allowed to continue.
Mendacity wins. The only incompetence they’ve displayed is in not destroying all the archived data.
atarsinc says:
June 6, 2012 at 10:17 pm
So, if NOAA is cooking the books, why did they adjust the SST trend lower? If anyone has a reasoned explanation for a flawed methodology, present it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance. For both cases. As for NOAA’s SST trends in particular, they now use a sliding base period which totaly and completely defeats the purpose of anomaly data in the first place. But if you are stating for the record that you think their method is credible, then I assume also that you conclude, given that about 3/4 of the earth is covered by water, that 3/4 of the earth has been cooling, not warming, and there is no cause for alarm in regard to CAGW?
Just Some Guy, kudos for actually looking for the reasoning behind the adjustments rather than just assuming some nefarious intent by the NOAA scientists. You can find the answers you seek here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html. JP
Here’s a chart of the adjusted data: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temperature-monitoring/image003.jpg
Here’s the same with the “raw” data: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temperature-monitoring/image004.jpg
This is what has Anthony wrapped around his axle? JP
REPLY: That’s GHCN data, not USHCN – we are discussing the US record in this thread, not the global record – wrong comparison on your part. – Anthony