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.
This is the US temperature record in F by month as it was recorded by the NCDC in November 2002.
July 1936 : 77.5F
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/national-temp.txt
Now it is 1.1F lower.
We need a new team at the NCDC, to go in and fix all the adjustments that have been done. Reverse ALL of them. US temperatures and global temperatures.
Then start over with real statisicians who know what they are doing and have no incentive to artificially increase the trend.
so, through all the comments here i come to this conclusion
based on what Zeke has said, there really is no way to compare temps in 1936 to 2012, and have it be anywhere close to accurate, so, therefore, it ‘could’ be an inaccurate statement that 2012 was in fact the “hottest year ever”, but no necessarily accurate to say that it in fact ‘was’ the hottest year ever, and furthermore, NCDC and NOAA owe the U.S public a retraction. Is this a decent summation of events here?
Joe Grappa says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
“I’d point out that Zeke has his interpretation but nowhere did I say “fraud”
Well, you did say that in the business world people go to jail for such manipulations of data, so you were implying the error, if there was one, was a lot worse than an honest mistake.
===================================================
Bernie Maddof would be proud… He just adjusted the numbers to better establish his position too..
Just Sayin…
This illustrates why previous tyrants who were taking power burned the books that did not agree with them!
It is quite obvious to anyone that the NCDC temperatures for the past are altered over time. Climate4you documents it. Here is a graph that they publish every month that shows the changes over time to two months in the database: Jan 1915 and Jan 2000. When the data were first downloaded in 2008 the difference between the temperatures was 0.39 C and in December of 2012 the difference was 0.52C with 1915 having somehow grown consistently cooler since 2008 and 2000 somehow having grown warmer. How did that happen?
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif
Why are these data changed each month? When was it “correct”? Is the quality of the database being “improved”? Or is it being manipulated to validate a desired conclusion? How can we trust them?
a man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure.
– Lee Segall
To those playing around with whether Anthony said or implied “fraud”, they are missing the point. The real implication is that nobody is investigating or charging the manipulators. Therefore they will never be charged with fraud or whatever misdeed they could be guilty of. As well too many of the manipulators are in charge or hold high offices. We can call them the silent ——-.
“there really is no way to compare temps in 1936 to 2012, and have it be anywhere close to accurate”
That’s how it looks to me. Another thing. I just read someplace that glacial periods last far longer than interglacial periods. Is this true? If so, it is clear that the forces propelling/creating glacial periods are very strong. Are we supposed to believe that man’s measly 6% contribution to greenhouse gases (that which is purportedly warming the globe catastrophically) is enough to overcome and indefinitely postpone the next glacial period?
Mosher said
“Accusing someone of manipulating data, suggesting that they should go to jail, but not uttering the word “fraud” is a trick”
No , not a trick. IF they were in business THEN they would be committing fraud as they would be doing it to receive financial benefit.
Mosher, you’ve been exposed to this reasoning over at CA so many times that for you to pull this stunt now, is easily seen to be
A TRICK
Zeke Hausfather says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Anthony,
The Monthly Weather Review for 1936 (or USHCN raw data for 1936) will give me the recorded measurements at all stations available. etc etc
Absolute nonsense excuse for changing data. If I was your boss you would be sacked on the spot. Data is data. You have no idea on how to adjust the data whether up or down or by how much. You cn give all the formulas you like but it is just guesswork looking official. We the people have zero confidence that any data could be honest and true when people like you, Mosher et al just arbitrarily make stuff up.
For the record, I received an email communication from “rankexploits” saying that they had cleared things up and that the link should now work. But I’m not in the mood to put it to a test.
Zeke Hausfather says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Anthony,
The Monthly Weather Review for 1936 (or USHCN raw data for 1936) will give me the recorded measurements at all stations available. etc etc
Absolute nonsense excuse for changing data. If I was your boss you would be sacked on the spot. Data is data. You have no idea on how to adjust the data whether up or down or by how much. You cn give all the formulas you like but it is just guesswork looking official. We the people have zero confidence that any data could be honest and true when people like you, Mosher et al just arbitrarily make stuff up and then try to baffle us with BS.
Just sayin
Nice spin game Zeke, too bad working in the defense industry as a “threat analyst” is a not a scientific position, neither is “developing 3D graphics”. Yet all his padded resume says is he “helped bring 3D graphics to market”. Sounds like he did administrative and marketing duties at Creative Labs and you are trying to give him credit for actual computer engineering and programming work. You wouldn’t be trying to to inflate his credentials now would you?
So I ask again,
I still do not understand how an English major with no scientific background got on the BEST team?
It is rather embarrassing to have someone so unqualified on the team. Was he there to spell check and fix the grammar in the papers you cannot get published in any high impact journals?
Zeke,
Can you confirm that this is Steve Mosher’s education: BA’s in English Literature and Philosophy
Could you list his scientific credentials that would make him an invaluable member of the BEST team?
I believe you are missing the point that most are trying to make. It isn’t quite so much that adjustments are being made, it’s that it never stops. Just to take one example, July 1936, if you were to sample the posted data for that date in 12 consecutive months in any year of the recent decade, you’d probably see 12 different values. There’s no telling for sure, of course, because there’s no data archive for each iteration, but the comparisons made by individuals who have posted at WUWT who have saved snapshots for one reason or another strongly suggests it’s true. One would think that all the data’s in by now, so why the constant shuffling? What’s worse, there doesn’t seem to be much communication regarding why in any specific instance we add 0.01 here and take away 0.02 there. It seems that someone in charge of the algorithm has decided to make perfect the enemy of the good. If I wanted to replicate someone’s work where said individual utilized the NCDC database (adjusted), odds are I couldn’t.
You claim that LIG thermometers record too high on max temps vs electronic. I couldn’t find any study to that effect with a quick Google search. Do you have a citation?
Your note regarding early locations of thermometers was especially amusing. No doubt Logan airport today is much cooler than Boston Commons was in 1910 (/sarc, in case it wasn’t clear). No doubt creeping urbanization has also had a negligible effect (/sarc again). But in any event, why are modern (>1980) temperatures adjusted UP??? With modern electronic devices comprising about 80% of the COOP network, what possible reason could there be? Inquiring minds want to know.
davidmhoffer says:
January 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Like richardscourtney I must retire for the evening, my question to Zeke Hausfather thus far not answered. I shall check back in the morning for an answer. My expectation however is that Hausfather will join a long list of other noted scientists who also cannot justify averaging anomaly data because there simply is no math or physics that shows doing so to be relevant. It is averaging of apples and pears to arrive at the weight of pumpkins.
I’ve challenged several scientists to take their precious temperature data, convert it to w/m2, THEN average it and THEN trend it. If we;re trying to detect a change in w/m2 at surface due to increases in CO2, then why the BLEEP are we not measuring changes in w/m2 at surface?
What could possibly be a simpler concept? If CO2 changes the w/m2 at the surface, then why aren’t we measuring and trending w/m2 at the surface?
LMAO!!! What some commentators are saying, in essence and really, as a matter of FACT, is that because the data of the past changes constantly, there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as WARMEST EVER. Moreover, all comparisons of present and past temps anywhere and everywhere are meaningless because without the existence of a data set that does NOT change, nothing can be rationally compared anyway… And what use is a data set of THE PAST changing constantly NOW? Is it even proper to call it data?
In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.
Unless you redefine “such”, that is an accusation of fraud.
Well, unless you are instead claiming unjust imprisonment.
It occurs to me that there may be a problem with the way Anthony worded his four questions to Zeke. Anthony asked:
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?
The way I read it, Anthony was asking what the CONUS average temperature was for July 1936 AS REPORTED BY NCDC in the present (today), last year (a year ago), ten years ago, twenty years ago, and in late 1936. In other words, what did NCDC claim the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 was in those five points in time. It seems that Zeke is focused on what the CONUS average temperature was in the present (today), a year ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago and in late 1936. I don’t think that Anthony was asking about CONUS average temperature for July in 1936, 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2013.
Perhaps the four questions would be better worded this way:
What does NCDC claim that the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 is now?
One year ago, what did NCDC claim that the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 was?
Ten years ago, what did NCDC claim that the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 was?
Twenty years ago, what did NCDC claim that the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 was?
In late 1936, when all the data had first been compiled, what did NCDC (or its predecessor(s)) claim that the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 was? (Before the raw temperature data had any adjustments applied to it.)
But in any case Zeke has only answered two of Anthony’s questions. All the rest of his responses are just obfuscation.
D.J. what I found was Quayle et. al. (1991), which says,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281991%29072%3C1718%3AEORTCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“…it is beyond the scope of this study to conduct the field tests and research necessary to answer these questions definitively.”
davidmhoffer;
-40 => 41
0 => 1
+40 => 41
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course in my haste due to being late for something, I should have written
-40 => -39
But the math is otherwise correct, and let me make the point yet again another way.
In the event we had only two baselines, one at -40 and one at plus 40, we could have anomalies of +2 and -1 respectively. This would result in an average anomaly of +0.5 and a change in w/m2 of -2.6 w.m2.
Of what value Zeke, is averaging anomalies when doing so can result in a positive temperature anomaly due to a negative change in energy balance?
[fixed, Mod]
My lack of formal qualification in my field of work (there being nowhere to study it) has forced me to hide under a cloak of competence, precision and replicability. All lab results are, as a result, provided with raw and adjusted data, full copies of formulae and detailed version control of the protocols. I should also mention independent review by other labs not of my choosing for method and precision. Call me old fashioned but it is how I read it should be done. Thank heavens I never learned from a climate scientist.
Bah, give Zeke a break. He’s one of the good eggs.
NOAA’s NCDC, Berkeley Earth, NASA’s GISS, and Hadley CRU all have had intense critical focus on their history of industrial era data manipulation changes; for some of them their
manipulation changes occured over the last two decades. The intense critical focus came from outside of those organizations. It is not uncivil to paint a full range of possible scenarios that bracket the simple honest question. Why? Some scenarios must necessarily disturb those orgs, even when stated diplomatically; those disturbing scenarios are not personal per se so they are not uncivil pet se.
A full investigation of all those orgs is scientifically prudent and should be done from within the scientific community with the caveat of the investigation process having no secret forums and aliases. And another caveat is real time openness and transparency, not post hoc openess and transparency.
John
Scott Basinger,
Zeke will get a break when he starts answering questions instead of obfuscating, dodging, and ignoring questions. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question, others’ questions are ignored, and Anthony’s questions have not been properly answered.