In a statement to Polifact today, NCDC made the following statement:
“… our algorithm is working as designed”
One wonders though, about these sorts of things that have been found wrong in their data file for USHCN, which is represented to the public as “high quality”.
Here are few other things that worked as designed:
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940):
Early NASA Rockets (1950’s-60’s):
The Titanic (1912): On 14 April, the RMS Titanic, described by its builders as practically unsinkable, sinks after hitting an iceberg.
The de Havilland Comet (1952): Twenty-one of these commercial airliners were built.The Comet was involved in 26 hull-loss accidents, including 13 fatal crashes which resulted in 426 fatalities. After the conclusive evidence revealed in the inquiry that metal fatigue concentrated at the corners of the aircraft’s windows had caused the crashes, all aircraft were redesigned with rounded windows.
Mariner 1 (1962): The first US spacecraft dispatched to Venus drifts badly off course because of an error in its guidance system. The error is a small one — a wrong punctuation character (a hyphen) in a single line of code — but the course deviation is large. Mariner 1 ends up in the Atlantic Ocean after being destroyed by a range safety officer. It has been called “The most expensive hyphen in history”
The Mars Climate Orbiter (1998)
The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the surface of the planet, because its orbit was too low.
The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground software produced results in an “English system” unit, while a second system that used those results expected them to be in metric units. Software that calculated the total impulse produced by thruster firings calculated results in pound-seconds. The trajectory calculation used these results to correct the predicted position of the spacecraft for the effects of thruster firings. This software expected its inputs to be in newton-seconds.
The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed.
The NCDC Climate at a Glance plotter for the public (2014):
While being told that “all is well” and and that “our algorithm is working as designed”, it is easy to discover that if one tries to plot the temperature data for any city in the United States like Dallas Texas for example you get plots for high temperature, low temperature, and average temperature that are identical:
Try it yourself:
Go here:
Change settings to go to a statewide time series, pick a city, and what it does is and it gives you data where the min temp, avg temp and max temp that are the same. It is unknown if it is even the right data for the city.
h/t to WUWT readers Wyo_skeptic, Gary T., and Dr. Roy Spencer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


![marsClimateOrbiter[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/marsclimateorbiter1.jpg?resize=600%2C453&quality=83)



Did anyone ask what the design goal was that these algorithms were designed to meet?
Ah, well, that certainly simplifies things.
Or maybe NOAA scientists took the song Night and Day too literally.
“…working as designed.”
Well that’s a relief.
Working exactly as designed. Designed to provide evidence that global warming was an issue of the utmost political importance.
Who gave these guys permanent glue for their models?
So my question is… can’t someone whip together a quick study cherry picking on the warmest past temperatures and coldest present. Take screen caps and download the data(since it changes near daily shouldn’t be hard to mix and match) and then patch it all together and say its the true data set. Which according to these guys it is even if the numbers change daily and then produce a study showing were all going to die from global cooling?
Since none of the adjustments are documented and since they change near daily should only take a few weeks to patch together a global cooling scare paper. How will they counter it when you produce screen caps and downloaded data…. Only way I can think of is out right admitting they change the whole temp record on a near daily basis. That type of admission is kind of hard to spin even in a short press release.
“The best way to fight the system is from inside the system” while I generally don’t believe that this does seem like a great way to rube egg on their facing using the algo’s they approve of…
Also can we now move from simple incompetence to plain old per-mediated malice.
good enough for Gubment work.
And when they get a multimillion dollar grant to “update” the algorithm it will be considered to be working even better.
Of course the upshot will be a reason to stop any attacks while the studies are underway. Check back in 2019.
If their algorithms are working as designed, I would sure like to hear their explanation for why temperature adjustments for Luling, Texas were necessary, and why their adjustments added 1.35 C to the annual temperature for 2013 compared to the actual readings for that station. If they can’t (or won’t) explain such adjustments, then there is no reason to believe or trust them ever again.
This really saddens and angers me. Sad because as someone who has respected science, I see a perversion of it. Angry because the perverts are stealing from my children’s earnings and quality of life. Dr. Curry said it best:
Well Algorithms ALWAYS work as designed.
Whether they are designed to do anything useful is a separate issue.
Anthony, call them on the max min avg mistake. They might respond since obviously and embarassingly wrong.
You just called them on much bigger climate temp issues, and were ‘blown off’. Time to escalate. And not just here. “algorithm does what we intended” is going to be one of those salient moments all round. What a lovely intent statement in any court of law able to convict.
Now that’s what I call reproducible science. 4 marks!!! For hilarity!!!!
So a plot of daily range for these cities should give a zero line ….?????
Guns always shoot where they are pointed, too.
Aw, you left out the Hubble Telescope. I think it a most appropriate example for no other reason that every single component and sub-assembly worked exactly as designed. It was only the fully assembled device that failed to work properly.
i sense the same mind numbing denial of the obvious in this case. The algorithm no doubt did work exactly as designed. That by no means proves that the design achieved an output commensurate with actual results, and, as the trends above show, it is quite possible to have an algorithm that works as designed yet, as part of a larger system, like the Hubble Telescope, produces incorrect information that is wildly and completely obviously wrong. Sadly, a quick look at the original photo from Hubble was enough to convince a rank layman that something was wrong. I don’t think a quick look by the MSM will have the same effect.
“… our algorithm is working as designed”
Indeed.
However I think it’s NCDC’s designs that are not going to work out…
Our al gore rhythm works exactly as designed, so what if the dammed thing makes things warmer that is what the political warmers want and they pay the bills, so shut up and move on! Nothing to see here………
All users want is a simple temperature series.
Here’s and old favorite of a cartoon of “What the user wanted.”
http://pages.uoregon.edu/ftepfer/SchlFacilities/TireSwingTable.html
“… our algorithm is working as designed” SNAFU! It was obviously designed to spread the message that there really was Global Warming out there, just as the Warmistas had predicted.
“When the adjustments are of the same magnitude of the trend you are trying to detect, then the structural uncertainty inspires little confidence in the trends.”…Well said, Dr. Curry.
george e. smith has a point. Saying that an algorithm works “as designed” doesn’t say anything meaningful about its accuracy or correctness. Those who designed the algorithm could have had a certain end result in mind without caring at all about it being correct.
It is certain that the algorithm is functioning as designed and is evidenced by the 3°f increase in temp since 1940. Any algorithm designed to indicate an increase in temperature that in turn does indicate said increase is obviously functioning properly
I just did the same for San Francisco, CA and got the same results: the average, max and min temperatures for the month of May are all the same (and for any other month): https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5n1byjsos070jh/NCDC%20SF-Temps.pdf
then went on to check Fresno, CA. same deal here, now for the month of February….
https://www.dropbox.com/s/338iuwiu83d3ld2/NCDC%20Fresno-Temps.pdf
very, very, very disturbing.
Question now is “what is it the algorithm designed to do?” Is it supposed to be accurate, be wrong, be false, be corrupt, be miss-informing, etc?
LOL Great work Anthony. You da man. See you in Vegas