Zeke is upset that I made this statement in a story at Fox news:
Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment. In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.
he says:
In the spirit of civility, I would ask Anthony to retract his remarks. He may well disagree with NCDC’s approach and results, but accusing them of fraud is one step too far.
I’d point out that Zeke has his interpretation but nowhere did I say “fraud”. He’s mad, and people don’t often think clearly when they are mad. That’s OK.
Without getting into semantics, I’d like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
- What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
- What was it a year ago?
- What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
- What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43°F and 77.4°F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
The answers to these questions will be telling, and I welcome them. We don’t need broad analyses or justifications for processes, just the simple numbers in Fahrenheit will do.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Zeke Hausfather,
Kudos for coming here to comment on this in a forthright and civil manner, for what it’s worth.
tz,
Yes.
Another question for Zeke: Is arch-alarmist and $Billionaire Jeremy Grantham still funding your Yale climate blog? Just wondering…
I don’t know why they don’t just use the temperature from newspaper archives to get raw data. There are too many vested interests in Climate now to trust anyone unless it’s completely open. The secrecy/just trust us thing is not working. Mosher and Zeke used to be for openness and hopefully still are.
Steven haney:
At January 23, 2013 at 4:40 pm you ask
My answer is that there were few temperature measurement sites prior to 1850 so the methods used to compile e.g. global temperature are not applicable for then.
Which is not to say I think the methods used are applicable for times after 1850. I don’t, but I think they could be.
Richard
Zeke Hausfather,
does Berkeley try to work with and verifiy Watt’s new station classification ? I think the old one you used treats a paved footpath the same way as a parking lot or even an airport runway if it is only at the same distance.
Anthony,
The Monthly Weather Review for 1936 (or USHCN raw data for 1936) will give me the recorded measurements at all stations available. However, a simple average of these will not necessarily result in a good estimate of U.S. absolute temperatures, due to unrepresentative siting (many stations back then were fairly urban), instrumentation (CRS measures higher max temps than actually occur), and spatial coverage (there were fewer stations back then, and the elevation of stations doesn’t necessarily represent the elevation profile of the CONUS).
The way regional/national average absolute temperatures are calculated is to add anomalies to a modeled field, or to spatially interpolate between absolute readings. The use of anomalies is preferable when evaluating changes over time as it corrects for differing absolute temps and isolates changes; the absolute approach is better for current weather reports where the decadal-scale continuity of measurements is irrelevant.
Put simply, you can average all the readings from all the stations in 1936 and get a rough average of “true” U.S. temperatures, but it won’t be particularly comparable to temperatures in 2012. To create a comparable estimate you both need to use anomalies (to correct for things like elevation and to some extent urban locations) and some sort of homogenization to correct for station moves, instrument changes, and the like.
Past temperatures ‘colding’ is apparently a universal AGW phenomenon:
Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, Euro. Geophys. Res. Absts. 14: 957-961 (2012). For their global sample of 163 stations, the homogenized data showed 0.76°C while the raw data showed only a 0.42°C increase. Some of the changes are hilarious–like for Romania. Obviously, thermometers just weren’t up to the global warming job back then.
A presentation describing this study is available at itia.ntua.gr/2012EGU_homogenization_1.
A fuller discussion is contained in the ebook The Arts of Truth, chapter on AGW.
The manipulation of data is adulteration of data, however justified. And the justifications?- they boil down to this- the data is unreliable, so we are going to “fix” it.
In other words, you murder the data and at your trial you testify that the data did not deserve to live.
Someday the data murders will be examined in a new light and the murderers called to account.
It seems to 1936 is one third of the way into an atrial contraction in my analogy. Aren’t deeper (longer) data sets always preferable in science? Hoping Zeke has a meaningful answer, as I can understand his being angry upset with Anthony’s allegation, yet I, too,
am miffed by data sets changing… Can’t we go apples to apples instead of from Merlot grapes to Champaign grapes to Pinot grapes?
Its not adjustments that are the problem but the lack of good rational behind making them , the poor way these adjustments are tracked and the manner in which raw data is lost so you can’t even go back to the sources to do a real review . And its noteworthy that by ‘lucky ‘ chance these adjustments always favour ‘the cause ‘ which may have something to do with the way people like Dr Doom, who have proved themselves more advocates than scientists, are the ones making them .
Zeke Hausfather just how raw is the raw data you cite has it been partly cooked or is it straight off the bone ?
Meanwhile , whenever you hear claims of accuracy levels better than the instruments measuring them can achieve , no matter how much maths you throw at it , you have to ask yourself how much contact with reality these claims have .
Manfred,
Anthony has not released the new station ratings for independent groups to work with. I’m sure myself (and possibly Berkeley, though I can’t speak on behalf of the group) would be happy to try and replicate his results when he is ready.
Knr,
For the U.S. at least, I’m pretty sure it is exactly as it appears in the log books. For worldwide data there may be some undocumented adjustments in the early part of the record for some countries (e.g. TOBs changes, for example), but whenever it exists the USHCN and GHCN raw (or QCU) files include the raw data.
steven haney,
In my post at the Blackboard I go into some depth about the adjustments that are done, the reasons why they are done, and attempts to evaluate if they are proper or not.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/a-defense-of-the-ncdc-and-of-basic-civility/
Zeke Hausfather says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Anthony,
There is a good reason why all the major groups (NCDC, GISS, UAH, RSS, Hadley) primarily report anomalies. Absolute temperatures are tricky things, at least when you aren’t able to sample the full field.
I cannot remember seeing this qualification in the press releases about 2012 was the hottest year ever.
Zeke can you give a good reason why here you describe uncertainty and not really knowing what the 1936 temperatures were. Yet are happy to announce to the world and the politicians making decisions on our reports – absolute certainty that 1936 (whose temperatures you don’t know but model in various ways) was cooler than 2012 (if you use the old weather station network not your new one – again not mentioned). I am sure you will admit that this is not really the way a scientist would be expected to report information; was the report reworded for you by a PR group perhaps?
I still do not understand how an English major with no scientific background got on the BEST team? Maybe Mosher could fill us in.
Look folks. You need to just get over it. AGW is very, very real.
All you need to do to prove this is see all of the adjustments Homo sapiens has done to the 4 major data sets to see with your own eyes that humans nave indeed warmed them.
Mr Watts, You may want to remove that link you have under “is upset” because Mr Hausfather has redirected it to some obnoxious page. This has me a little “mad” myself.
REPLY: it works OK for me and goes here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/a-defense-of-the-ncdc-and-of-basic-civility/
You may have a virus/malware doing that interception. I doubt that Zeke would ever do such a thing – Anthony
Ian W,
In order to compare 2012 to other years, you only need anomalies, not absolute temperatures.
Poptech,
I don’t understand how an English major with no scientific background could work for the defense industry or develop 3D graphics. Maybe people can become versed an in area without formal schooling if they spend the time and effort to learn. Just a thought.
richardscourtney says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Thanks for that link Richard – as you say, a thousand words painted.
Zeke Hausfather says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Anthony,
There is a good reason why all the major groups (NCDC, GISS, UAH, RSS, Hadley) primarily report anomalies. Absolute temperatures are tricky things, at least when you aren’t able to sample the full field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So Zeke, perhaps you could explain something to me. Let;s consider three baseline temperatures each with an anomaly of +1:
[-41] => [-40]
0 => 1
+40 => 41
Each of these represents an anomaly of +1. Let us now convert each of these into w/m2 anomaly via Stefan Boltzmann Law:
-41 => -40 => 2.89 w/m2
0 => 1 => 4.64 w/m2
+40 => 41 => 6.99 w.m2
Could you please explain to me how it makes sense to average anomalies when they represent completely different changes in energy flux? Why does a change in energy balance of, for example, 6 w/m2 equate to an anomaly of over two degrees in winter in the arctic, but less than one degree in the desert at the equator? If we are trying to detect a supposed change in energy balance that is in theory 3.7 w/m2 per doubling of CO2, what possible value is there in averaging anomalies that come from different temperature regimes and have no direct relationship to energy balance as an average?
Thanks in advance,
dmh
[Please confirm the -41 to -40 change is correct. Mod]
yes anthony i can answer the questions
Mr Watts, Doubt all you want, I now get “Access Denied The owner of this website (rankexploits.com) has banned your IP address (207.200.116.13). (Ref. 1006)”
This is the result of the previous “obnoxious” page.
Zeke Hausfather:
It is now nearing 2 am here so I am about to retire. I stayed up in case you chose to answer my question which I first posed to you at January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm and expanded for clarification at January 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm.
It now seems clear that you have chosen to not answer my question.
OK. That is your rightful choice.
However, if you do decide to answer it then I hope you will understand my failure to acknowledge that kindness for some hours is because I am in bed.
Richard
If the 1936 temperature were a little too low rather than a little too high, would people be going through such gyrations to … er, “fix” it?