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.
==================================================
All this hullabaloo is inflamed by ignoring two facts, one that Goddard’s claim of the necessity for a trend adjustment downwards remains unclear due to his reliance on objectively bad statistics, and second that the “Our algorithms are working as designed” is certainly true in the proper context of the Texas station that was in the news which turned out to involve a corroded wire that their algorithms prevented from adding a bias to their result, as it was reasonably designed to do.
What remains unanswered by skeptics is whether Goddard’s claims that infilling adds heating bias and his claim that the TOBS time of day adjustment is itself much greater in practice than in their claimed use of it, whether these claims are confirmed or denied. There are strong suggestions that they are indeed denied and few suggestions that any trend bias claims survives more rational analysis. If they do adjust down, skepticism is afforded a huge gold trophy, but if not, our existing claims will be further marginalized due to the our own inability to self regulate quickly enough to avoid embarrassment in the public eye as we merely provide ammo to the alarmist side.
I think we’ve got them flustered.
Keep bluffing, or show their hands ?
makes ya wonder about whether all problem responses are now channeled through the whitehouse political machine.. Evidently, that is something going on with FOIA requests now – anything that might embarass the administration.
But there would seem to be a prima facie case that NCDC has been biasing things warm somehow, given that its ordinary collection of stations is running two degrees or so (F) hotter than its gold-standard reference network.
Maybe slightly off topic; but I’m wondering whether anyone else thinks that using current land-based temperature sensors and protocols is not appropriate or optimal for gaging climate changes.
Land based “weather stations”, arguably starting with the station atop the Blue Hills in Milton MA, were designed to characterize weather for the citizenry. As Mr. Watts has demonstrated, the collection of weather stations in USHCN and other networks have demonstrated uneven and often poor quality in even characterizing weather.
So back to my question at the top of this post. If you were given a clean start with the objective to measure land climatic temperature change, how would you design your “climate station” physically, locationally, sensor-wise, data handling/management/QC, and subsequent data treatment via post-processing corrections (or not). Engineers of all stripes will likely get this; the climate hacks, maybe not.
I have my thoughts on this, but since I’m a newbie, I prefer to offer this as an open question. I can tell you that my “alternative universe” view is that it does not at all represent the view of Hansen, Menne, Mann, etc. etc. or anything present in the land temperature measurement infrastructure.
Thanks
Dan
Hmmm — AW’s idea of an “official” skeptical organization would help in this situation.
The NCDC has already, as of ten years ago, created an ideal Climate Reference network in the USA with over 100 stations. I don’t know its exact name and details, but hopefully another commenter will give details and/or a link.
I’m skeptical not just with regards to Climate but also relative to my own discipline (material science and engineering); but even more, I apply skepticism to everything I do. . . technically and otherwise. . . so I guess I’m just a boring guy. . . just ask my wife!
But where I do take exception — relative to a number of skeptical viewpoints expressed on WUWT– is my belief that we skeptics need to do more than simply dig in and strive to uncover issues with the “other side’s” technical argument. We skeptics really need to use our creative capacity to find new ways forward that are more technically sound and contribute to stronger science and engineering. . . Yeah, we need to solve problems, and not just harangue our supposed opposition. This means we (and they) need to grow up!!!!
Enough said.
Dan
Engineering, you say? I contend that the climate system is well beyond the capability of scientists. . . and that’s why it’s so mucked up! Time to bring in engineers that know how to deal with concrete criteria, uncertain, and model validation.
rogerknights says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Thanks Roger; I was probably too obtuse; but I was thinking and looking for ideas beyond the inch-bugging tweaks and corrections proposed by the climate community.
For example, if you’re interested in climate (rather than simply weather) why not employ sensor stations with radically larger thermal mass . . . so that the sensor integrates out the weather? Then how do you deploy sensors to achieve a sensible (justifiable) distribution among topographies, biospheric environment etc. Needs some thought
But the real issue is that such a measurement system shouldn’t be relagated to “the history of weather measurements” or the happenstance of what NOAA or NASA can do. Rather a TRUE CLIMATE measurement system needs to be designed base on objectives, strategies, technical foresight, standards with oversight from the entire cognizant technical community. Nobody. . . after the fact should have to ask Menne, Nick Stokes, Steve Mosher, Hansen, or anybody why they did what they did. . . it should be plain, clear, agree upon upfront. There should no future self proclaimed keepers of the truth that we must all accept on faith.
Sorry. . . end of rant.
Dan
José Tomás says:
July 1, 2014 at 5:24 pm
“No – our algorithm is working as designed”
So, case settled.
There was some debate here about if this was a case of deliberate tampering or a bug.
One commenter said that “it was a feature until discovered, then it would become a “bug”.”
Not even that.
The deny it being a bug.
So, the other option is…
———————————
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
That was a CYA response to the question asked,….. but still an absolutely true statement.
The same as …. all computer programs that contain “bugs” resulting in mistakes, error or crashes …… “are working as coded”.
———————————–
Gotta love it! “Working as designed” is both a long standing joke in the software world, and the ultimate cop-out from incompetent development teams, stating “we didn’t make any coding mistakes so we’re in the clear.” No mention, you’ll note, of adhering to the specifications, satisfying the requirements, or solving the problem that needed to be solved.
rogerknights says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm
——————————–
“The NCDC has already, as of ten years ago…”
A slight correction. US installation was from 2009. Issues raised about the poor condition of existing stations by our host Anthony Watts were a significant factor in the decision.
I was interested in the observations from various cities of no variation in the data.
It now seems that homogenisation of the historical (hysterical?) data has now been seamlessly integrated into all records
NikFromNYC says:
July 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm
“.. but if not, our existing claims will be further marginalized due to the our own inability to self regulate quickly enough to avoid embarrassment in the public eye as we merely provide ammo to the alarmist side.”
What a great idea! Let’s self regulate to avoid embarrassment!
rogerknights says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:05 pm
“Hmmm — AW’s idea of an “official” skeptical organization would help in this situation.”
Yes, Steve Mosher thought this would be perfect too. Especially if belief in a net radiative GHE was strictly enforced.
Poptech had another great suggestion. Sceptics should stop all this pointless analysis of existing climate papers and organisations and start working on only trying to get papers through pal review. After all if it’s not pal reviewed it couldn’t possibly be scientifically valid. If sceptics wanted to be taken “seriously” they had to pass peer review by established climate scientists…
The Hoff also had a great idea to stop sceptics wasting their time. All we had to do is accept that the ERBE “proved” there was a net radiative GHE and just forget all those pesky empirical experiments…
Any guess where all these suggestions should be filed?
Everything working as designed,
And I live in a 13 room 5 bathroom home with a 4 bay garage with 2 Rolls Royces, a Hummer and a swimming pool, a tennis court and a boat on the lake, And have a butler and a full time gardener.
John M says:
July 1, 2014 at 6:41 pm
This sounds Mannian.
The algorithm is robust to the data input.
===================================
Heha. Mannian logic as opposed to Boolean logic.
Paul Homewood has busted them again
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/another-ncdc-cock-up/
Alabama temperatures have been adjusted down by 50 degrees fahrenheit. And the algorithm “is working as designed”.
Kids – you just can’t get decent programmers any more it seems…
DanMet’al says:
July 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm
“If you were given a clean start with the objective to measure land climatic temperature change, how would you design your “climate station” physically, locationally, sensor-wise, data handling/management/QC, and subsequent data treatment via post-processing corrections (or not).”
——————–
If it t’were me, ….. I would design a “round” container of one (1) gallon capacity/volume (or whatever volume was deemed optimal) and fill it with -40 degree F anti-freeze …. and then submerge two (2) calibrated thermocouples in the center of the liquid …. and then suspend said “ball” container underneath an open canopy to protect it from direct Sunlight …. but subject to the near-surface air surrounding it ….. and from direct IR radiation from the surface underneath it.
The thermocouples would be connected to auto-recording equipment which would also monitor the output of both thermocouples to insure their “calibration” remained true and accurate. The auto-recording equipment could be preset to record the temperature of the anti-freeze at whatever hour of the day that one desired and/or transmit said temperature to a processing center.
Said recorded temperature would be the “true n’ accurate” Average Air Temperature for that specific Surface Station because the liquid anti-freeze would “filter out” all spurious, random and/or short duration environmental effects that normally cause increased/decreased temperature “spikes”. Note: the volume of the liquid anti-freeze would determine the “filter time”.
Thus, the data is the data …. and no pre or post processing of the data for “error correction” is necessary or required …. except for when a thermocouple “error” is detected which is an SS maintenance problem.
Also note: said “round” container might have to be connected via a small diameter tube to a small “overflow” container to account for expansion and contraction … just like an automobile radiator is. Or an open “stand-pipe” on top of the “ball” might suffice.
Whatta ya think, …….. feasable, doable?
NikFromNYC says:
July 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Nik, I’ve been trying to avoid embarrassment since I was a child. It didn’t work.
What are your results?
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 3, 2014 at 6:32 am
Thanks for reading my question and providing a thoughtful response. As I indicated initially, I had my own thoughts and interestingly there’s a good bit of correspondence between your design and mine. But I must admit that I hadn’t considered using a “liquid” such as anti-freeze (ethylene glycol) as the climate station thermal mass. It does have the issues you raised (expansion) and potential wild-life health risks; but I like that a liquid thermal buffer would eliminate some of the thermal lag (presuming that natural convection were not hindered by internal baffles etc.).
I had been thinking about a fully solid and more massive climate station; and I was worried about snow cover and freezing rain (a given where I live). . . so I was actually thinking about an upwards pointing cone with a sharp enough apex angle to shed most snow. I then was thinking about doing some FEM thermal analysis to test out some design alternatives . . . but decided, what the heck, there’s a lot of smart people on WUWT. . . maybe they might have some good ideas. So I thank you for your thoughtful and useful thoughts. . . I just wish others had an interest and additional feedback.
Just one further comment: I started thinking about this following a conversation with a friend who buys into the global warming perspective. . . in which I challenged him as to whether either of us could determine the average temperature of my 1/2 acre yard. Well, of course nothing happened, so now that I’m retire, I intend to build my climate station and several other T reading stations. I’ve got a digital data logger, thermistors, calibrated Omega thermocouples, and some micro controllers ready for the soldering gun.
Anyway Sam, thanks for your input. . . maybe we can talk about this at some future time.
Best Regards
Dan
DanMet’al says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:19 pm
And I thank you, Dan, for your response to my proposed design.
The thermal expansion is really not a problem, I only included it to fend off the “naysayers”. With a temperature range between -40F and 110F there would be very little volume change in 1 gallon of ethylene glycol, thus a small “stand-pipe” or even an “air pocket” at the top of the liquid in the “ball” should suffice. And ps, the primary purpose of the liquid “buffer” is to guarantee a “thermal lag” ….. and not to eliminate one. If a “thermal lag” is incorporated in the design then one doesn’t have “massage” the recorded temperature data “after-the-fact” to adjust or eliminate potential “outliers”.
My idea for a Surface Station would be four (4) sturdy posts with an attached louvered roof and the “ball” container suspended underneath with unencumbered “air flow” all around it. Those square “boxes” with louvered enclosures will disrupt the air flow depending on the direction from which it is flowing.
And Dan, with your 1/2 acre yard and equipment, you could prove whether or not that 400 ppm of CO2 contributes to or causes any measurable “warming” of the near-surface air. And you could do that by performing an “experiment” that I devised 4 or 5 years ago.
So, until we talk again, …. Cheers
Konrad why are you lying about things I never said? My only recent discussions on pal-review relate to PRP. And yes skeptics get taken seriously when they get legitimately peer-reviewed and this is not as hard to do as you would think but I am not about to explain it here.