user13 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Not by much, but its funny how no one spoke about or noticed the change. “Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 They were essentially tied back when the record was initially broken (I think it was broken by like 2 tenths F at the time)...so it is not surprising that it becomes the hottest again when they do their monthly adjustments on their whole dataset. It is similar to how 2005 and 2010 often seesaw as the hottest year globally for GISS. The titles themselves are just trvial...statistically there is no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user13 Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 They were essentially tied back when the record was initially broken (I think it was broken by like 2 tenths F at the time)...so it is not surprising that it becomes the hottest again when they do their monthly adjustments on their whole dataset. It is similar to how 2005 and 2010 often seesaw as the hottest year globally for GISS. The titles themselves are just trvial...statistically there is no difference. Agreed, but its funny to point out the inconsistencies by the media. I remember them making a big deal about it that summer and everyone jumping on the wagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 This is how science works. Data is constantly analyzed and reanalyzed based on new data sources. Watts is going to make a big deal of this even though this is how it Should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 This is how science works. Data is constantly analyzed and reanalyzed based on new data sources. Watts is going to make a big deal of this even though this is how it Should work. To be fair, one thing I agree with Watts on is that the way the USHCN dataset is analyzed is a complete cluster....there's actually quite a bit of stuff that just happens to it that is either not peer reviewed or just plain impractical. Thankfully, a new dataset started in 2003, but its going to take a long time for that to be useful since 11 years isn't much of a sample. I don't think anything is majorly wrong with USHCN in the way NCDC analyzes it...the answers won't change a ton from a statistical standpoint...but the constant level of tweaking makes their press releases almost useless. 2012 was had the hottest month ever...oh wait, no it didn't...then next year, maybe it will be "oh wait, it actually did!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user13 Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 To be fair, one thing I agree with Watts on is that the way the USHCN dataset is analyzed is a complete cluster....there's actually quite a bit of stuff that just happens to it that is either not peer reviewed or just plain impractical. Thankfully, a new dataset started in 2003, but its going to take a long time for that to be useful since 11 years isn't much of a sample. I don't think anything is majorly wrong with USHCN in the way NCDC analyzes it...the answers won't change a ton from a statistical standpoint...but the constant level of tweaking makes their press releases almost useless. 2012 was had the hottest month ever...oh wait, no it didn't...then next year, maybe it will be "oh wait, it actually did!". Good Stuff ORH, what in your opinion would be a good sized data set? I think the 100 years or so of collectable data most people like reference is way to small as well (even if you just want to limit the time period to the modern Holocene epoch or the like.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I would love to see raw data for all USHCN sites, anyone have a link to this? I mentioned this before, but I have a customer that is close to 90 years old and he has recorded the daily high and low each day for the past 60 years in Midland, MI. He measures at the same times each day since he began. I would love to see his data and compare trends to the Midland station. He would be classified as a denier here, so I wonder if his data backs up his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I would love to see raw data for all USHCN sites, anyone have a link to this? I mentioned this before, but I have a customer that is close to 90 years old and he has recorded the daily high and low each day for the past 60 years in Midland, MI. He measures at the same times each day since he began. I would love to see his data and compare trends to the Midland station. He would be classified as a denier here, so I wonder if his data backs up his position. Knock yourself out....you can download raw data here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2.5_monthly/ Some more links: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Knock yourself out....you can download raw data here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2.5_monthly/ Some more links: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html Thanks... I really like that second link. Why o Why are my local temps being adjusted upward as recently as 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Thanks... I really like that second link. Why o Why are my local temps being adjusted upward as recently as 2002. they have to adjust temperature up to keep this charade going. Lots of money and careers at stake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 they have to adjust temperature up to keep this charade going. Lots of money and careers at stake Citation needed, please. There is not much difference between adjusted temperatures and the unadjusted ones. They both pretty much follow the same trajectory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Citation needed, please. There is not much difference between adjusted temperatures and the unadjusted ones. They both pretty much follow the same trajectory. That is GHCN....not USHCN...the adjustments are much higher for USHCN because of TOBS and the heterogenous nature of the temp record in the U.S. Our stations have a lot more MMTS adjustments too (switching from liquid thermometers to thermistors in smaller plastic housing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Citation needed, please. There is not much difference between adjusted temperatures and the unadjusted ones. They both pretty much follow the same trajectory. This is no citation because it would never get published. You don't even need one...just look at this 2013 Maine temperature record... 2014... Need I say more. This is just one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Citation needed, please. There is not much difference between adjusted temperatures and the unadjusted ones. They both pretty much follow the same trajectory. This is no citation because it would never get published. You don't even need one...just look at this 2013 Maine temperature record... 2014... Need I say more. This is just one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 This is no citation because it would never get published. You don't even need one...just look at this 2013 Maine temperature record... caag_maine_before.png 2014... caag_maine_after.png Need I say more. This is just one example. Come on blizzard, we've been over this countless times. Even the prominent skeptics don't question the NOAA temperature record. There are multiple peer reviewed papers on how to correct TOBS bias. Any competent weather observer can also tell you there is a difference between ASOS and manual weather stations. You can't take the raw data and use it to push an extremely misguided point. It's not a service to science. I would think a met would know better. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#COMPARE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Come on blizzard, we've been over this countless times. Even the prominent skeptics don't question the NOAA temperature record. There are countless peer reviewed papers on how to correct TOBS bias. Any competent weather observer can also tell you the difference between ASOS and manual weather stations. You can't take the raw data and use it to push an extremely misguided point. It's not a service to science. I would think a met would know better. He's actually posting two different datasets...NCDC swtiched to a different dataset on those graphs...the newer version is called "nClimDiv" and the older version is called "Drd964x"...the older Drd964x was used only for state data and NCDC never used it for the national U.S. temp average...they adjusted the national average. The state data on Drd964x wasn't adjusted for TOBs or UHI or any other typical biases...it was just QC'd for outliers and I believe it had minor adjustments for station changes...so while it wasn't pure raw data, it wasn't that far off from it. So much of the state data had a flatter trend and many had a cooling trend because of a lack of TOBs adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere. Well any good scientist is "skeptical"...but it depends on what you mean by the word. The temperature data is pretty reliable IMHO if that is what is being discussed in this case...you can make an argument that some of the adjustments are becoming a bit ad-hoc and based on outdated papers...but even if you corrected this, it is unlikely there would be a huge change to the dataset trendline. We're probably talking something like 10-20% at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 they have to adjust temperature up to keep this charade going. Lots of money and careers at stake This is no citation because it would never get published. You don't even need one So you can't show evidence that there is actually a "charade" because the people perpetrating the charade would prevent any evidence from being produced? Sounds like you got a start on a great conspiracy theory. Perhaps if you weave in some JFK assisination angles and some aliens you can have a real winner among the tin foil hat crowd. ...just look at this 2013 Maine temperature record... caag_maine_before.png 2014... caag_maine_after.png Need I say more. This is just one example. Wait... didn't you just say they wouldn't publish any evidence? Sounds like your consipiracy theory already has holes in it. Perhaps you could spend a little time researching what the changes that were made are, and why they were done. ORH_wxman has given you a couple places to start. Here's another place to look: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ Where in that procedure do you think they made a mistake? Why? What would you have done differently? How would you account for changes to the test equipment over time? How would you adjust from Time of Observation changes? How would you account for human error? Or does none of that actually affect the raw data? If you're really skeptical, and not just being contrarian for the sake of it, then you will research these questions and come to your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 That is GHCN....not USHCN...the adjustments are much higher for USHCN because of TOBS and the heterogenous nature of the temp record in the U.S. Our stations have a lot more MMTS adjustments too (switching from liquid thermometers to thermistors in smaller plastic housing). Whoops. Yep, looking at the wrong data set. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 they have to adjust temperature up to keep this charade going. Lots of money and careers at stake Farmers in N. Dakota are in on it too. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/climate-change-agriculture-crops/2784561/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Farmers in N. Dakota are in on it too. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/climate-change-agriculture-crops/2784561/ GMO has more to do with corn yield than climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokolow Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere.I'm most definitely not a met but following a ridiculous and protracted controversy in my own field I was browsing around looking at the roles played by professional association position statements. http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html Final remarks There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life. [This statement is considered in force until August 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Thanks... I really like that second link. Why o Why are my local temps being adjusted upward as recently as 2002. You know that you and I have discussed many times before how our winters are getting harsher, and admittedly that is my main focus when discussing how, if any, our local climate is changing. I dont usually focus on heat. But it needs to be mentioned, and theres no better time than to do so in July. The bottom line is this. Xmacis will give you the raw numbers of any of the official stations. You can set any thresholds you want. You can see how many days were AOA 87F if you want. With the exception of the trio of hot summers of 2010-2012, hot days are trending downward since 2000. Its actually laughable when comparing recent history to the scorching 1930s-1950s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere. The complexity of the atmosphere isn't a factor because of basic thermodynamics. Unless of course the complexity of the atmosphere can somehow overcome an energy imbalance in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 they have to adjust temperature up to keep this charade going. Lots of money and careers at stake I could have sworn all the money was in fossil fuels and traditional energy sources. Remind me not to let you manage my portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 You know that you and I have discussed many times before how our winters are getting harsher, and admittedly that is my main focus when discussing how, if any, our local climate is changing. I dont usually focus on heat. But it needs to be mentioned, and theres no better time than to do so in July. The bottom line is this. Xmacis will give you the raw numbers of any of the official stations. You can set any thresholds you want. You can see how many days were AOA 87F if you want. With the exception of the trio of hot summers of 2010-2012, hot days are trending downward since 2000. Its actually laughable when comparing recent history to the scorching 1930s-1950s. There will always be anomalies in the positive and negative direction. However, positive anomalies on a global scale are outnumbering negative anomalies by a massive margin. I don't doubt you have seen a reduction in heat because there's nothing in AGW that says that can't happen. Do you think maybe the heat of the 30s in combination with the poorer farming practices at the time allowed for a greater rate of heat intrusion into your area? I don't know much about upper Midwest climate, I'm just wondering what could have been the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Most METs are very skeptical because we know how complicated the real atmosphere is as we are tasked with short term predictions. If you are a MET and not skeptical I question your understanding of the atmosphere. You're a meteorologist, not a climatologist, remember that. There's a difference. You wouldn't go to a gynecologist if you were giving birth, you'd go to an obstetrician. Just because they both deal with a woman's reproductive system doesn't make them the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Well any good scientist is "skeptical"...but it depends on what you mean by the word. The temperature data is pretty reliable IMHO if that is what is being discussed in this case...you can make an argument that some of the adjustments are becoming a bit ad-hoc and based on outdated papers...but even if you corrected this, it is unlikely there would be a huge change to the dataset trendline. We're probably talking something like 10-20% at most. Thanks for keeping a level head, Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.