The NCDC press office sent an official response to Politifact, which is below.
The NCDC has not responded to me personally, I only got this by asking around.
I’ve provided it without comment.
=====================================================
Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?
No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.
Watts wrote that NCDC and USHCN are looking into this and will issue some sort of statement. Is that accurate?
Although all estimated values are identified in the USHCN dataset, NCDC’s intent was to use a flagging system that distinguishes between the two types of estimates mentioned above. NCDC intends to fix this issue in the near future.
Did the point Heller raised, and the examples provided for Texas and Kansas, suggest that the problems are larger than government scientists expected?
No, refer to question 1.
==================================================
As I mentioned before they will do NOTHING. That is why the time is past talking.They have an agenda AGW.. As an aside this is what we shouid worryibg about; Note the definite almost circular shape Antarctica is beginning to form with the extraordinary ice expansion (ABOVE ANOMALY)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png
Was their algorithm deliberately designed to adjust the temperatures according to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere then (this to me is the final straw that should break their credibility entirely, showing them as deliberate fraudsters)?:
“US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”
Does that mean:
“No, our algorithm is working as designed.”
or
“No, our algorithm is working as [re] designed [yesterday in a hurry]”
Crap on a Cracker! Hot Dog venders on a street, Clowns, Magicians & Kids Entertainers are licensed, regulated, held to a higher standard and much more respected than what we are seeing bilging from Climate ‘science’ these days. It is astonishing.
As a practical matter they have no choice but to defend their process. They will surely lose their jobs if they allow a change that damages the political narrative because that data infects many of the analyses the administration is using to push their agenda.
I am altering the data. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
What The F**k? Designing Temperature? Who do they think they are, GOD?
The IRS gal pleads the fifth, because her answers may incriminate her.
“Our algorithm is working as designed”
Rather incriminating.
You should’ve plead the fifth, son.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
Looks like an outright, on-the-record admission of fraud to me…
NCDC National Cruddy Data Commission
Apparently they only supply missing data when required by other programs. Might I suggest modifying those other programs, rather than inventing data? You can never increase acccuracy by guessing, nor can knowledge be increased simply by multiplying your current information.
Trust but verify.
I’m done trusting.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed.”
I am sure it is. I just wonder what the algorithms design criteria was!
And this ship is the best ever built…it’s totally unsinkable!
“No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.”
I believe the ‘and’ should be an ‘or’.
It needs to be brought to the attention of Mainstream media. This is probably the single most importantpoint about all this. Most have not even heard of this.It is quite a story.
The Titanic worked as designed.
The Hindenburg worked as designed.
The Treaty of Versailles worked as designed.
The attack on Peal Harbor worked as designed.
Federal funding of climate research works as designed.
Peer review works as designed.
The IPCC works as designed.
Climate models work as designed.
It’s what you didn’t design that you have to watch out for.
“No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.”
Ah, notice the don’t say “…in applications that require an accurate complete set of data values.”
Very tricksey, these NCDC hobbits.
It’s just their press office…….The NCDC press office
I hear the sound of a broom and a lifted rug somewhere. Beyond belief, even for a Bureaucracy trying to protect itself. It sounds exactly like what I would expect the ‘higher ups’ at an Agency to respond when their ‘technical experts’ show them a MASSIVE problem that would prove embarrassing to the agency. Exactly. I suspect that the ‘experts’, in their heart of hearts, know there is something rotten in Denmark, but, they have kids to feed.
I don’t see how they can make the claim that ‘the algorithm is working as designed’ when there are admitted problems of the scale that have been shown to exist in Texas and Kansas data. Are those States accorded unique treatment in the ‘algorithm design’ such that the issues raised are unique to those two States? What kind of an ‘algorithm design’ does that?
They are hoping that we just all go away and the American public accepts the constant drum of ‘denier, denier, denier, flat earther’ by way of explanation. Lots of ‘LA, LA, LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!! going on. I for one am growing tired of the expectation that personal insults suffice for intellectual argument.
I think we need to stop being passive and pursue this in whatever manner we can to expose the truth. If it is that the ‘algorithm’ is working ‘as designed’, then so be it, but, somehow, I suspect that this is not the case. We’re going to have to expose it for them.
Mike Fayette says: July 1, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“So does this mean that their future data tables will distinguish between:
A: Raw Data as originally reported with no adjustments
B: Estimated Data based on surrounding stations since the data is missing
C: Adjusted Data (using a Blackbox Algorithm) because we don’t like the original data
If they do that, wouldn’t that be helpful to all?”
That’s what USHCN does now. They provide a raw data file, and an adjusted file (F52), and there they mark (with an E) estimated data. They also provide a file with TOBS adjustment only.
REPLY: it is important to note that the issue here has to do with errors in the X and E flags in reporting on data. More on that here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/readme.txt
The problem is that they have GODD DATA IN HAND in the raw data file, but instead of using it in the F52 (final) data file, they are throwing in way too many estimates. Along with “estimated” data for a bunch of closed/zombie weather stations that shouldn’t be reporting at all, and have no data in the raw data file.
Nick and others want to argue like the town crier “All is well!”, but in reality, the USHCN is not only a train wreck from a raw data file standpoint due to all the inhomgenieity, its a bigger train wreck after NCDC inserts “estimated” and “zombie” data that should not be there, except that in their world “all is well”.
I had a couple of people call me today that might very well be able to get an independent investigation done, I said let’s wait and then we’ll see how NCDC handles the rest of this. Hopefully they won’t say “All is well!”.
-Anthony
Eliza says:
July 1, 2014 at 6:19 pm
It needs to be brought to the attention of Mainstream media. This is probably the single most importantpoint about all this. Most have not even heard of this.It is quite a story.
======================
IF you think this, you haven’t been paying attention. The ‘mainstream’ media loves nothing better than a ‘we’re all gonna die’ story, which is what they get from the current Admin and the IPCC. That sells newspapers.
Doug Badgero says:
July 1, 2014 at 6:17 pm
“No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.”
I believe the ‘and’ should be an ‘or’.
Hey, it is their algorithm, and maybe it was designed to not recognize the difference between “and” and “or”.
But then, notice the “too short to reliably correct” phrase. Since it can’t be reliably corrected, they estimate and/or randomly generate data that is probably, mostly, not reliably correct.
/grin
One unfortunate consequence of filling in missing data is that it masks outlying readings. Instead of seeing a spurious result surrounded by dissimilar datums you now have averaging creating less of a clear difference.
This sounds Mannian.
The algorithm is robust to the data input.