Temperature is such a simple finite thing. It is amazing how complex people can make it.
– commenter and friend of WUWT, ossqss at Judith Curry’s blog
Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that you’ve done due diligence. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.
I’m talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is “fabricated”. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.
Dr. Judith Curry and I have been conversing a lot via email over the past two days, and she has written an illuminating essay that explores the issue raised by Goddard and the sociology going on. See her essay:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible
way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. And there’s more about this below.
Goddard early on (June 2) gave me his source code that made his graph, but I
couldn’t get it to compile and run. That’s probably more my fault than his, as I’m not an expert in C++ computer language. Had I been able to, things might have gone differently. Then there was the fact that the problem Goddard noted doesn’t show up in GHCN data and I didn’t see the problem in any of the data we had for our USHCN surface stations analysis.
But, the thing that really put up a wall for me was this moment on June 1st, shortly after getting Goddard’s first email with his finding, which I pointed out in On ‘denying’ Hockey Sticks, USHCN data, and all that – part 1.
Goddard initially claimed 40% of the STATIONS were missing, which I said right away was not possible. It raised my hackles, and prompted my “you need to do better” statement. Then he switched the text in his post from stations to data while I was away for a couple of hours at my daughter’s music recital. When I returned, I noted the change, with no note of the change on his post, and that is what really put up the wall for me. He probably looked at it like he was just fixing a typo, I looked at it like it was sweeping an important distinction under the rug.
Then there was my personal bias over previous episodes where Goddard had made what I considered grievous errors, and refused to admit to them. There was the claim of CO2 freezing out of the air in Antarctica episode, later shown to be impossible by an experiment and the GISStimating 1998 episode, and the comment where when the old data is checked and it is clear Goddard/Heller’s claim doesn’t hold up.
And then just over a month ago there was Goddard’s first hockey stick shape in the USHCN data set, which turned out to be nothing but an artifact.
All of that added up to a big heap of confirmation bias, I was so used to Goddard being wrong, I expected it again, but this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa.
But, that’s the same problem many climate scientists have, they are used to some skeptics being wrong on some issues, so they put up a wall. That is why the careful and exacting analyses we see from Steve McIntyre should be a model for us all. We have to “do better” to make sure that claims we make are credible, documented, phrased in non-inflammatory language, understandable, and most importantly, right.
Otherwise, walls go up, confirmation bias sets in.
Now that the wall is down, NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to, as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site
From:John Nielsen-Gammon Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:27 AM To: Anthony Subject: Re: USHCN station at Luling Texas
Anthony –
I just did a check of all Texas USHCN stations. Thirteen had estimates in place of apparently good data.
410174 Estimated May 2008 thru June 2009
410498 Estimated since Oct 2011
410639 Estimated since July 2012 (exc Feb-Mar 2012, Nov 2012, Mar 2013, and May 2013)
410902 Estimated since Aug 2013
411048 Estimated July 2012 thru Feb 2014
412906 Estimated since Jan 2013
413240 Estimated since March 2013
413280 Estimated since Oct 2012
415018 Estimated since April 2010, defunct since Dec 2012
415429 Estimated since May 2013
416276 Estimated since Nov 2012
417945 Estimated since May 2013
418201Estimated since April 2013 (exc Dec 2013).
What is going on is that the USHCN code is that while the RAW data file has the actual measurements, for some reason the final data they publish doesn’t get the memo that good data is actually present for these stations, so it “infills” it with estimated data using data from surrounding stations. It’s a bug, a big one. And as Zeke did a cursory analysis Thursday night, he discovered it was systemic to the entire record, and up to 10% of stations have “estimated” data spanning over a century:
And here is the real kicker, “Zombie weather stations” exist in the USHCN final data set that are still generating data, even though they have been closed.
Remember Marysville, CA, the poster child for bad station siting? It was the station that gave me my “light bulb moment” on the issue of station siting. Here is a photo I took in May 2007:
![marysville_badsiting[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/marysville_badsiting1.jpg?quality=83)
It was closed just a couple of months after I introduced it to the world as the prime example of “How not to measure temperature”. The MMTS sensor was in a parking lot, with hot air from a/c units from the nearby electronics sheds for the cell phone tower:
Guess what? Like Luling, TX, which is still open, but getting estimated data in place of the actual data in the final USHCN data file, even though it was marked closed in 2007 by NOAA’s own metadata, Marysville is still producing estimated monthly data, marked with an “E” flag:
USH00045385 2006 1034E 1156h 1036g 1501h 2166i 2601E 2905E 2494E 2314E 1741E 1298E 848i 0 USH00045385 2007 797c 1151E 1575i 1701E 2159E 2418E 2628E 2620E 2197E 1711E 1408E 846E 0 USH00045385 2008 836E 1064E 1386E 1610E 2146E 2508E 2686E 2658E 2383E 1906E 1427E 750E 0 USH00045385 2009 969E 1092E 1316E 1641E 2238E 2354E 2685E 2583E 2519E 1739E 1272E 809E 0 USH00045385 2010 951E 1190E 1302E 1379E 1746E 2401E 2617E 2427E 2340E 1904E 1255E 1073E 0 USH00045385 2011 831E 991E 1228E 1565E 1792E 2223E 2558E 2536E 2511E 1853E 1161E 867E 0 USH00045385 2012 978E 1161E 1229E 1646E 2147E 2387E 2597E 2660E 2454E 1931E 1383E 928E 0 USH00045385 2013 820E 1062E 1494E 1864E 2199E 2480E 2759E 2568E 2286E 1807E 1396E 844E 0 USH00045385 2014 1188E 1247E 1553E 1777E 2245E 2526E -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999
Source: USHCN Final : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz
Compare to USHCN Raw : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
In the USHCN V2.5 folder, the readme file describes the “E” flag as:
E = a monthly value could not be computed from daily data. The value is estimated using values from surrounding stations
There are quite a few “zombie weather stations” in the USHCN final dataset, possibly up to 25% out of the 1218 that is the total number of stations. In my conversations with NCDC on Friday, I’m told these were kept in and “reporting” as a policy decision to provide a “continuity” of data for scientific purposes. While there “might” be some justification for that sort of thinking, few people know about it there’s no disclaimer or caveat in the USHCN FTP folder at NCDC or in the readme file that describes this, they “hint” at it saying:
The composition of the network remains unchanged at 1218 stations
But that really isn’t true, as some USHCN stations out of the 1218 have been closed and are no longer reporting real data, but instead are reporting estimated data.
NCDC really should make this clear, and while it “might” be OK to produce a datafile that has estimated data in it, not everyone is going to understand what that means, and that the stations that have been long dead are producing estimated data. NCDC has failed in notifying the public, and even their colleagues of this. Even the Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon didn’t know about these “zombie” stations until I showed him. If he had known, his opinion might have been different on the Goddard issue. When even professional people in your sphere of influence don’t know you are doing dead weather station data infills like this, you can be sure that your primary mission to provide useful data is FUBAR.
NCDC needs to step up and fix this along with other problems that have been identified.
And they are, I expect some sort of a statement, and possibly a correction next week. In the meantime, let’s let them do their work and go through their methodology. It will not be helpful to ANYONE if we start beating up the people at NCDC ahead of such a statement and/or correction.
I will be among the first, if not the first to know what they are doing to fix the issues, and as soon as I know, so will all of you. Patience and restraint is what we need at the moment. I believe they are making a good faith effort, but as you all know the government moves slowly, they have to get policy wonks to review documents and all that. So, we’ll likely hear something early next week.
These lapses in quality control and thinking that infilling estimated data for long dead weather stations is the sort of thing happens when the only people that you interact with are inside your sphere of influence. The “yeah that seems like a good idea” approval mumble probably resonated in that NCDC meeting, but it was a case of groupthink. Imagine The Wall Street Journal providing “estimated” stock values for long dead companies to provide “continuity” of their stock quotes page. Such a thing would boggle the mind and the SEC would have a cow, not to mention readers. Scams would erupt trying to sell stocks for these long dead companies; “It’s real, see its reporting value in the WSJ!”.
It often takes people outside of climate science to point out the problems they don’t see, and skeptics have been doing it for years. Today, we are doing it again.
For absolute clarity, I should point out that the RAW USHCN monthly datafile is NOT being infilled with estimated data, only the FINAL USHCN monthly datafile. But that is the one that many other metrics use, including NASA GISS, and it goes into the mix for things like the NCDC monthly State of the Climate Report.
While we won’t know until all of the data is corrected and new numbers run, this may affect some of the absolute temperature claims made on SOTC reports such as “warmest month ever” and 3rd warmest, etc. The magnitude of such shifts, if any, is unknown at this point. Long term trend will probably not be affected.
It may also affect our comparisons between raw and final adjusted USHCN data we have been doing for our paper, such as this one from our draft paper:
The exception is BEST, which starts with the raw daily data, but they might be getting tripped up into creating some “zombie stations” of their own by the NCDC metadata and resolution improvements to lat/lon. The USHCN station at Luling Texas is listed as having 7 station moves by BEST (note the red diamonds):
But there really has only been two, and the station has been just like this since 1995, when it was converted to MMTS from a Stevenson Screen. Here is our survey image from 2009:
Photo by surfacestations volunteer John Warren Slayton.
NCDC’s metadata only lists two station moves:
As you can see below, some improvements in lat/lon accuracy can look like a station move:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20024457&tab=LOCATIONS
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20024457&tab=MISC
Thanks to Paul Homewood for the two images and links above. I’m sure Mr. Mosher will let us know if this issue affects BEST or not.
And there is yet another issue: The recent change of something called “climate divisions” to calculate the national and state temperatures.
Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Fellow of the AMS Joe D’Aleo writes in with this:
I had downloaded the Maine annual temperature plot from NCDC Climate at a Glance in 2013 for a talk. There was no statistically significant trend since 1895. Note the spike in 1913 following super blocking from Novarupta in Alaska (similar to the high latitude volcanoes in late 2000s which helped with the blocking and maritime influence that spiked 2010 as snow was gone by March with a steady northeast maritime Atlantic flow). 1913 was close to 46F. and the long term mean just over 41F.
Seemingly in a panic change late this frigid winter to NCDC, big changes occurred. I wanted to update the Maine plot for another talk and got this from NCDC CAAG.
Note that 1913 was cooled nearly 5 degrees F and does not stand out. There is a warming of at least 3 degrees F since 1895 (they list 0.23/decade) and the new mean is close to 40F.
Does anybody know what the REAL temperature of Maine is/was/is supposed to be? I sure as hell don’t. I don’t think NCDC really does either.
In closing…
Besides moving toward a more accurate temperature record, the best thing about all this hoopla over the USHCN data set is the Polifact story where we have all these experts lined up (including me as the token skeptic) that stated without a doubt that Goddard was wrong and rated the claim “pants of fire”.
They’ll all be eating some crow, as will I, but now that I have Gavin for dinner company, I don’t really mind at all.
When the scientific method is at work, eventually, everybody eats crow. The trick is to be able to eat it and tell people that you are honestly enjoying it, because crow is so popular, it is on the science menu daily.
Charles, as someone who has to face the facts that I am wrong in things I do, I was simply trying to say I think that we sometimes have the least compassion for those in our own camp. Perhaps its a form of self policing. And I know a man will fall on his weakest point ( Lord knows I have many time )
But I think all this arguing about global temperatures is a red herring. First of all the quantification of water vapor, the number one GHG is huge. I can show you linkage between the falling Specific humidity over the tropics since the PDO flip, the plummet of the ace and the cooling of summer temps in the arctic. That we think that a degree if warmer where the mean temp is -20 in the winter has the significance of a drop of .5 degree on average in the tropical Pacific temps, is folly to me. I think the research in climate needs to be directed at the fluctuation of the water vapor, and specifically as related to the tropical oceans. I tried to argue on Oreilly with Nye, this is a grand experiment that CAN NOT BE COMPLETED until both the Pacific and Atlantic get to finish there swings back to cold in tandem! But its not the global temperature I would measure, its what is actually going on with the water vapor. Now we have the chance to objectively measure this via satellite data since 1978. We started with what as a non satellite based temp.. but it was after a cold pdo/amo in tandem. I believe this is a start of a great climatic shift.. similar to the late 1970s warm one, but going cold. But how could anyone possibly think you could measure what was going on in previous times with the accuracy you see it today. And all this “adjustment” proves that point..just like Mann switching off from the tree rings, they are simply re-doing what does not fit and using the argument that it should be that way..
As far as Goddard. I have argued with him, But I marvel at all the things he digs up, articles, etc.
Perhaps someone says, well anyone can do that. Well as someone who analogs weather patterns and spends hours looking at “threads” of sequences to see where it takes me, doing things like that takes an obsession. I couldnt do what he does, go into all those archives, so if someone does what I cant do, and makes something easier for me, then I respect that. So I say, wow, what a source. But as I tell people, dont trust me , go look for yourself. If you find Goddard wrong, you challenge that but take it an issue at a time, At least that is what I try to do. And this blog, WUWT is amazing. In fact all you guys out there, you cant imagine how much I sit in awe of you. I guess I am getting old, but I enjoy looking at light and there is alot out there, with guys who have nothing to gain in this fight but knowing they pursued the truth where ever it would take them
So when I look at everyone here is my conclusion. The team I am on in this situation, if we were sure our pursuit of the answer made us conclude they were right, we would act accordingly and say it. I do not believe that about the other side. I believe because they have never understood what is like to fight a relentless opponent ( the weather) every day and take the shots, they have no idea how to get up if beaten. So they simply ignore facts and will not admit they are wrong. That is a another big difference. After all, if they are forced to admit what they have gained famed and fortune on is wrong, that hurts worse. If the goal is your God, what if the goal is taken away from you?
I have always loved the weather, and I see the good lords majesty in it every day. And I see good men in this situation fighting for the truth. In the end, after its all over, to me , that may be the value that is taken out of this.
what a mess this is becomming
Joseph Bastardi says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:41 pm
I second you on all points.
Although “adjustments” & bad data sets have been conspiratorially contrived to get rid of inconvenient climate truths, the fact is that the satellite era from 1979 roughly coincides with the PDO/AMO flip in 1977. For about the next 30 years, surface temperature appears to have warmed. The amount that it cooled in the previous 30 years of course has been made largely to disappear by sleight of hand, & how warm it was in the 30 years before that.
As I’ve commented previously, this is a water planet, so if it’s not all about the water in the air & seas & on the land, in all physical states, at least understanding that has to come first. There can be no CACA without the potent positive water vapor feedback from a modest CO2 rise, which to say the least is not in evidence, but has nevertheless been assumed in the GCMs. That’s just one reason why the GIGO models have failed so miserably to predict GASTA since c. 1996, depending upon data set.
So, it has been settled that the unsettlement’s rhetoric will be taken down a notch ?
Onward !!
Nick Stokes says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm “…cables are supposed to have near zero resistance. Positive resistance will reduce the voltage. Negative will increase it. But they don’t do negative.”
Not sure what you are trying to say but don’t think you said it. No cable has zero (or near zero) resistance at ambient temperature. The cable (usually copper) resistance that does exist is compensated at some standard temperature. The 0.0393%/C temperature coefficient of copper at std temp is horrible and non-linear. The resistance can go positive or negative relative to the resistance at the compensated temperature. Don’t know if this changes your point, but unless I misunderstood the example, it doesn’t seem to support it.
Question for Anthony, Nick Stokes, or others understanding how these NOAA/NASA changes work:
NASA’s Figure D provides annual average 48-state US estimated temperatures from 1880 to the present.
Looking at the shape of the Figure D changes between 2000 and 2014 for the period between 1880 and 2000, it is a very regular upward-facing parabola. Temperatures from 1880 to roughly 1912 are raised, then those from about 1912 to 1968 are lowered, then after 1968 they are raised again.
This is such a regular phenomenon, there must be a reasonable explanation for this behavior. What is it? Squinting, one can almost see a 60-year period.
The curve is shown here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/NASA%20FIG%20D%20CHANGE%202000-2014.pdf
The Excel file is here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/NASA%20Fig%20D%201880-1998.xlsx
Data from a comment by Dave Burton on an earlier thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/26/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-2/ Burton has been archiving the changes in Figure D since 1999
Outstanding, Anthony, science at its finest. I have often said that I have credibility in part because I admit when I’m wrong. To me, that’s just part of science—you don’t always get it right.
Like my mom used to say, “It’s not whether you spill the milk … it’s whether you clean it up”. We all spill the milk sometimes. You’ve done an outstanding scientific job on the cleanup of your error. It’s one of the reasons I write for WUWT. You’ve kept it as a beacon of honesty in science since day one.
So strange as it may sound … my congratulations on your error. Very well done.
w.
Anthony,
Look on the web. There was the British news article. Some subsequent take up.
Then there was you.
Politifact Article….
And you were wrong. Anthony I am the aging son of a corporate pilot from the 50’s…
Weathermen were held in low regard…Wrong more than right.
I touch into your site daily. You have done yeoman’s work… You exposed the stunning lack of any coherence..as to the siting of weather stations.. You have called the entire land based measuring system into question.
You have done beautiful work.
I also always touch into RealScience. Because Steve/Tony may not have all the ducks in a row…he is following data…and he is poking at it…and he is more often than not…hitting the points that don’t add up.
Just like you…You know weather site sighting…He knows computers, and computer analysis…
You got this wrong…but more important than that…You did not go to Goddard and drive the questions to ground. I work in IT. Before you make any statement…You go to the software in play…you go to the people in play and you get to root cause…You understand the actual error/question in play before you touch the wider world. If you don’t…facts will make a fool of you.
That is where you stand.
The story of tampered data is no longer in play to the wider field. You have turned an important question that had some resonance into the saddest instance of inside baseball.
I can not express how sad I am at the fact that two of the important voices in the climate debate have been turned into slap fighting school girls. And I don’t mean that as an insult to slap fighting school girls.
I expect better.
An interesting post at sunshine hours.
USHCN 2.5 – OMG … The Old Data Changes Every Day (Mapped)
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/ushcn-2-5-omg-the-old-data-changes-every-day-2/
They have maps where you can see the raw and final (some don’t have raw data of course) over a couple of states. Interesting.
Lance Wallace says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm
The 60-year periodicity is even more evident when you use actual observations rather than the bent, folded, spindled, mutilated, stepped all over & generally adjusted out of all recognition so that its mother wouldn’t know it “data” sets of government gatekeeping, trough-feeding bureaucrats mascaraing as scientists. Such as those from before the time when Jim, Gavin & Phil got their hands on the numbers.
Anthony, all you’re doing at this point is arguing about the way in which you’re wrong. You’ve never denied the basic point at issue, that nothing has been done to show this bug caused the differences in the two graphs Steven Goddard posted. If this post claims the bug does, it’s wrong for offering no support for the claim. If this post doesn’t claim the bug does, then it is wrong in calling the Polifact story wrong.
I’ll make this simple. What did Goddard say that was right? What did Zeke say that was wrong?
REPLY: Your thinking eludes me. I’m not arguing about anything Zeke said.
Goddard initially said that in comparing the USHCN raw versus the final data set, that 40% of the STATIONS were missing, and that is clearly wrong, he later changed that to say DATA. I couldn’t replicate it with his code, and I didn’t see it in the data. Later, with the help of Paul Homewood I was able to see the problem.
The Polifact story used my quote related to my objections to Goddards initial claim, it also linked back to Zeke’s post about Goddard’s initial claim. They asked Curry about Goddard’s initial claim and Curry referred them to Zeka and I. So there’s elements of that claim in their story. They also added an element of Goddard’s later claim about adjustments of temperatures post 2000. They used my quote to rebut the first claim, not the second. They don’t make it clear which person is rebutting which claim, though it seems clear there is a mix of rebuttals. I can’t help it if they didn’t keep the two stories straight there.
You’ve already admitted to being confused, and I’m just as confused by your continued objections after that. – Anthony
I have been watching this disagreement between you and “steve goddard” for a while and it is honestly the most serious “debate” in climate science i have ever seen(sad I know). This was a great post, and i hope this starts picking up steam.
Does this improved debugging by Homewood support Goddard’s strong claim that the result hikes the recent temperature up? A sloppy system that gives the same answer only helps support climate alarm more if it is freely debugged by skeptics. The “Steve was right” narrative suggests that this odd software issue is *indeed* ramping up recent warming unfairly. It would indeed be a blow for alarmism were this so, but otherwise it merely confirms the validity of their sloppy system.
Stephen Rasey says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:32 pm
> This post definitely earns a Watts’ Best tag in my library.
> Well done and well worth remembering.
Not yet. maybe a followup post when we get some responses from the NCDC or they come up with a fix for their bug that provides estimates instead of real temperatures. That post will have a link back here.
It’s certainly going to be a post referenced for years….
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Chris Beal (@NJSnowFan) says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:03 pm
——————————————–
July 1936 is back to being to the highest month on record again in the US. It took two years for this to be fixed.
Average mean temp July 1936 – 76.80F; July 2012 – 76.77F.
Well this is a fine mess.
Just when some were trying to abandon SSTs as a measure of AGW, the corrupt surface station data gets blown out of the water.
They could run back to ARGO, but that’s had 3 warming adjustments already. Another adjustment? ”She won’t take it captain! She’ll break up!”
Bill Illis says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:29 pm
A step in the right direction. It should not have to be like pulling teeth.
Flat Earth Society – 1
Team Settled Science – 0
Hopefully someone at NCDC will let Obama, Hillary, Kerry and Co. that it’s time to tone down the rhetoric a bit.
And kudos to Anthony for this post – the vast majority of people are incapable of even considering they’re wrong, let alone writing a post about a mistake on a blog with the circulation of WUWT.
And I second the thought that hitting Goddard’s tip jar wouldn’t be a bad idea.
jimash1 says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm
———————————–
“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
Both.
It’s a “feature” until it’s discovered. Then it’s just a “bug” 😉
Joseph Bastardi says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:31 pm: “…we have to stop circular firing squads….” Amen, Joe. On the “skeptic” side, the upholders of truth and sanctity kick the crap out of anyone who errs or gets a bit out on a limb, while the “warmists” stand right there in their faces and spout lie after bald faced lie, or simple bullshit. One could have gone after Goddard by simply saying “I dispute your analysis, and here’s why” but instead we roar out that he is a wing nut who should be run off the reservation because he “gives the climate scientists ammunition to deride our case” which they would do if the Archangel Michael appeared in Times Square and announced that the IPCC and CO2-based catastrophe was Satan’s work.
This temperature stuff is a killer. The true believers, supine followers, slugs or whatever (why haven’t NCDC, entrusted to work with this data (and incidentally paid big bucks and laden with perks no working stiff in the real economy ever gets a whiff of), found and corrected and documented this issue? What do they do all day?
Let’s see what they do with this. They all seem to be fine fellows, really concerned about the issue. Why (gasp) it might even be true (in some very limited way, which we shall find a way to correct and bring it all back to the good!). Let me know when they ACTUALLY do something that is more than putting pasties on the exposed nipples.
Get rid of the system for any purposes other than local use (preferably paid for by local users), airport purposes (paid for by you know who), and so forth. A representation of the Earth’s AVERAGE REGIONAL TEMPERATURE it isn’t – and it’s misuse is far more damaging to skeptical science than Steven Goddard on a caffeine overdose.
“It’s a bug, a big one … it was systemic to the entire record, and up to 10% of stations have “estimated” data spanning over a century:”
After working on and programming systems the thought of a “big” bug is scary. Something like this is usually caused by a person with a hug ego who fails to test a patch. In a commercial environment this person could be dismissed. What I question now is the pre-1940 data. Did this “bug” cause the decrease in temprature? The statement, “10% of the stations … over a century” is pretty scary. What is the reason for the temperature change during that time span? Has a FOIA request been put in for why the data changed for the early part of the 20th century? The IRS and EPA actions are making me paranoid!
Dear Dana Nuccitelli,
your recent piece in that flagship of truth and probity, the Guardian newspaper, had a title that included a most beautifully balanced phrase, to wit ‘Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/25/global-warming-zombies-devour-telegraph-fox-news-brains
Little did I, or anyone else, think that you were seeding the ground for this bombshell episode of why the sceptics were right all along and that the science was, by no means, settled.
Bigger than Climategate, bigger even than your ego, welcome to Zombiegate.
Thank you Dana, you really had me fooled.
Yours
An admirer.
Darn it! “it’s” in the last paragraph of my rant above should, of course, be “its”. English is tough.
Dead Souls.
H/t Gogol. No, not google.
=========