Jonger Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I was somewhat off topic, I was referring to sea ice, not temps. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griteater Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don (or anyone else) - can you share the specific link to obtain these types of charts for various cities? Thanks. That chart appears to be inaccurate. For example, it shows 2010 to be warmer than 2011 at St. Louis. In fact, as per the NWS, 2010 had a mean temperature of 58.0° and 2011 had a mean temperature of 58.7°. For 1950-2011, the NCDC's graph for St. Louis's temperatures is below: If one is looking for the actual annual mean temperatures for St. Louis, one can find them here: http://www.crh.noaa....al_averages.xls In terms of 2012, St. Louis is running much warmer than any prior year on record: http://www1.ncdc.noa...USW00013994.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don (or anyone else) - can you share the specific link to obtain these types of charts for various cities? Thanks. The site at which you can plot these graphs for a number of cities, for the 50 states + D.C., and for regions/the U.S. as a whole is: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griteater Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The site at which you can plot these graphs for a number of cities, for the 50 states + D.C., and for regions/the U.S. as a whole is: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.../cag3/cag3.html Thanks Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Concerning spring time temps, another interesting post from Steven Goddard as he dissects the temperature manipulation. It's easy to set records when you can alter the data. LINK So I calculated the adjustments they did through 2011 vs. the raw daily data. Stunning indeed! They added about two degrees on to recent temperatures relative to 100 years ago. When you look at the raw numbers, it doesn't quite match the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 Concerning spring time temps, another interesting post from Steven Goddard as he dissects the temperature manipulation. It's easy to set records when you can alter the data. LINK When you look at the raw numbers, it doesn't quite match the hype. Steve Goddard is an unapologetic denialist who has been banned from WUWT due to his excesses. Why should anybody give credence to his blog rants? Remember, the Koch brothers provided much of the funding for the BEST project and Dr Judith Curry is a co-author of the reports so you can't claim it was driven by a pro-AGW agenda. Given a choice between the BEST project findings and Steven Goddard's numerology which do you consider most credible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It's easy to set records when you can alter the data. So, is it your contention that there is no good reason to use anything other than raw data? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Steve Goddard is an unapologetic denialist who has been banned from WUWT due to his excesses. Why should anybody give credence to his blog rants? Remember, the Koch brothers provided much of the funding for the BEST project and Dr Judith Curry is a co-author of the reports so you can't claim it was driven by a pro-AGW agenda. Given a choice between the BEST project findings and Steven Goddard's numerology which do you consider most credible? I know character assassination is one of the key rebuttal tactics for warmists but lets stay on topic. The topic isn't Goddard it is the manipulation of the temperature record. This isn't Goddard's numerology, it is data taken from the source and graphed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 I know character assassination is one of the key rebuttal tactics for warmists but lets stay on topic. The topic isn't Goddard it is the manipulation of the temperature record. This isn't Goddard's numerology, it is data taken from the source and graphed. It's not character assassination if it's true - and reminding people of Steve Goddard's trackrecord of playing fast and loose with the truth goes directly to the credibility of his charts. So, how did you verify his claim that his charts are taken directly from the source? Did you get the data from the source, plot it yourself, and get the same results? Or did you blindly accept his charts because they reinforce your biases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It's not character assassination if it's true - and reminding people of Steve Goddard's trackrecord of playing fast and loose with the truth goes directly to the credibility of his charts. So, how did you verify his claim that his charts are taken directly from the source? Did you get the data from the source, plot it yourself, and get the same results? Or did you blindly accept his charts because they reinforce your biases? Did you look at the source data before making the assumption that I blindly accepted his charts? It's not hard to verify that his results are at least in the ballpark. It's not a state secret that the temperature record has been manipulated to cool the past and warm the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 Did you look at the source data before making the assumption that I blindly accepted his charts? It's not hard to verify that his results are at least in the ballpark. It's not a state secret that the temperature record has been manipulated to cool the past and warm the present. Steve Goddard has been caught lying so many times he has zero credibility - and therefore anything he posts isn't worth ten seconds of consideration. Anybody who is an honest skeptic marked Goddard off their source list years ago. The fact that you still believe in him - to the point of aggressively defending him - speaks volumes about you, your biases, and your lack of critical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It's easy to set records when you can alter the data. So, is it your contention that there is no good reason to use anything other than raw data? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. I really am interested in the answer to this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Steve Goddard has been caught lying so many times he has zero credibility - and therefore anything he posts isn't worth ten seconds of consideration. Anybody who is an honest skeptic marked Goddard off their source list years ago. The fact that you still believe in him - to the point of aggressively defending him - speaks volumes about you, your biases, and your lack of critical thinking. Where did I defend Goddard? Where are the inaccuracies? Again, it's not a new found piece of evidence that the past has been cooled and the present warmed. He just shows it in an easy way to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 He just shows it in an easy way to see. His charts lack context. He fails to explain: 1) The methodology used to make the adjustments 2) The need for adjustments if one is to have an accurate climate time series Instead, by consistently failing to provide context, he creates the incorrect perception that the data is being adjusted to serve a particular end (show warming). The adjustments have nothing to do with any such goal. The adjustments are solely about making the climate record as accurate as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The adjustments have nothing to do with any such goal. The adjustments are solely about making the climate record as accurate as possible. I think you are being naive. Why were 20 of 23 stations in the Arctic adjusted in the same fashion? Since you like to calculate probabilities, what is the probability that 20 out of 23 stations would need to be adjusted in the same fashion? What impact does adjusting those 20 out of 23 stations have on the temperature record as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I think you are being naive. Why were 20 of 23 stations in the Arctic adjusted in the same fashion? Since you like to calculate probabilities, what is the probability that 20 out of 23 stations would need to be adjusted in the same fashion? What impact does adjusting those 20 out of 23 stations have on the temperature record as a whole? I don't have all the data that those reviewing and revising the temperature record had access to, so I can't comment on the 20 stations. What I can say is that BEST reviewed the methodology and the methodology is rigorous. Hansen's paper is online. Moreover, the dramatic reduction in summer sea ice and ice volume minima during the summer provide a powerful indication that the Arctic region as a whole has, in fact, undergone a rapid warming with readings reaching levels that very likely exceed those of any other recent warm period and possibly any warm period during the instrument record. In contrast to the current GISS data, if the dataset showed little change in Arctic region readings or little difference from earlier warm periods, those findings would be suspect given ice and glacial data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DENVER/BOULDER CO 355 PM MDT TUE JUL 31 2012 ...AN INTERESTING FACT CONCERNING DENVER`S RECORD HEAT... AS JULY DRAWS TO A CLOSE...THE MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WILL BE 78.9 DEGREES...A NEW RECORD FOR THE WARMEST MONTH IN DENVER`S WEATHER HISTORY. THIS IS THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE MONTH OF RECORD WARMTH IN DENVER. THE MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2012 WAS 75.0 DEGREES...THE WARMEST JUNE IN DENVER`S HISTORY. ONE MAY WONDER IF DENVER HAS HAD CONSECUTIVE RECORD WARM MONTHS BEFORE. THE ANSWER IS YES...BUT NEVER DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS. ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS THE DENVER STATION HAS RECORDED CONSECUTIVE RECORD WARM MONTHS. THE FIRST TIME WAS IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1907 WITH MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OF 40.3 DEGREES AND 47.2 DEGREES. THE MONTHLY RECORD FOR FEBRUARY HAS BEEN BROKEN THREE TIMES SINCE THEN. THE MONTHLY RECORD FOR MARCH WAS BROKEN IN 1910...BUT THAT RECORD STILL STANDS. IN 1907...DENVER`S WEATHER HISTORY ONLY INCLUDED ABOUT 35 YEARS OF DATA MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OF RECORD WARMTH COULD BE OBSERVED. THE OTHER PERIOD OF EXTENDED RECORD WARMTH IN DENVER WAS THE WINTER OF 1933-34. OCTOBER 1933 SET A RECORD WITH A VALUE OF 57.4 DEGREES WHILE NOVEMBER 1933 TIED THE RECORD FOR NOVEMBERS WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE OF 46.2 DEGREES. THEN...DECEMBER 1933 AND JANUARY 1934 SET RECORDS WITH AVERAGES OF 43.8 AND 40.0. THE DECEMBER 1933 RECORD STILL STANDS AS THE WARMEST DECEMBER IN DENVER`S HISTORY. JANUARY`S RECORD STOOD UNTIL 1986 WHEN IT WAS RAISED TO 40.3 DEGREES. DURING THE 16 MONTHS FROM JUNE 1933 TO OCTOBER 1934...THE HEIGHT OF THE GREAT PLAINS DUST BOWL YEARS...THE WEATHER STATION AT DENVER BROKE OR TIED THE MONTHLY RECORD AN ASTOUNDING 8 TIMES. THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FOR JUNE 2012 WAS 75.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS 1.5 DEGREES WARMER THAN THE PREVIOUS RECORD...SET IN 1994. JULY 2012 WILL GO DOWN IN THE RECORD BOOKS WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE OF 78.9 DEGREES...1.1 DEGREE WARMER THAN JULY 1934. IF AUGUST IS GOING TO CONTINUE THE STREAK OF RECORD WARM MONTHS... IT WILL NEED TO BE WARMER THAN THE CURRENT RECORD OF 77.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS SET JUST LAST YEAR. DANKERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=ind&storyid=85936&source=0 The hot, record breaking summer continued into July across central Indiana as an upper level ridge dominated much of the central US and the Ohio Valley for large stretches of the month. The worsening drought conditions across Indiana further contributed to warmer temperatures that exceeded 90 degrees on 28 days during the month at Indianapolis, and 95 degrees a whopping 19 times. Even more impressive was that the mercury reached 100 degrees on seven days at Indianapolis. This led to not only the warmest July on record, but the hottest month in recorded history at Indianapolis with an average temperature of a whopping 84.0 degrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 His charts lack context. He fails to explain: 1) The methodology used to make the adjustments 2) The need for adjustments if one is to have an accurate climate time series Instead, by consistently failing to provide context, he creates the incorrect perception that the data is being adjusted to serve a particular end (show warming). The adjustments have nothing to do with any such goal. The adjustments are solely about making the climate record as accurate as possible. It's also not true. I believe the apparent large negative adjustments he finds in the early years are because he simply averages all of the data without correcting for geographic location of the sites. Since the number of sites (and their predominant location) has changed, this approach would introduce large non-climatic biases. Source: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa...ushcn.html#QUAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's also not true. I believe the apparent large negative adjustments he finds in the early years are because he simply averages all of the data without correcting for geographic location of the sites. Source: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa...ushcn.html#QUAL I agree. As far as I can tell, he only uses the raw data. That's really a misuse of the data, as it creates an incorrect picture of what is actually happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DENVER/BOULDER CO 355 PM MDT TUE JUL 31 2012 ...AN INTERESTING FACT CONCERNING DENVER`S RECORD HEAT... AS JULY DRAWS TO A CLOSE...THE MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WILL BE 78.9 DEGREES...A NEW RECORD FOR THE WARMEST MONTH IN DENVER`S WEATHER HISTORY. THIS IS THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE MONTH OF RECORD WARMTH IN DENVER. THE MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2012 WAS 75.0 DEGREES...THE WARMEST JUNE IN DENVER`S HISTORY. ONE MAY WONDER IF DENVER HAS HAD CONSECUTIVE RECORD WARM MONTHS BEFORE. THE ANSWER IS YES...BUT NEVER DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS. ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS THE DENVER STATION HAS RECORDED CONSECUTIVE RECORD WARM MONTHS. THE FIRST TIME WAS IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1907 WITH MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OF 40.3 DEGREES AND 47.2 DEGREES. THE MONTHLY RECORD FOR FEBRUARY HAS BEEN BROKEN THREE TIMES SINCE THEN. THE MONTHLY RECORD FOR MARCH WAS BROKEN IN 1910...BUT THAT RECORD STILL STANDS. IN 1907...DENVER`S WEATHER HISTORY ONLY INCLUDED ABOUT 35 YEARS OF DATA MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OF RECORD WARMTH COULD BE OBSERVED. THE OTHER PERIOD OF EXTENDED RECORD WARMTH IN DENVER WAS THE WINTER OF 1933-34. OCTOBER 1933 SET A RECORD WITH A VALUE OF 57.4 DEGREES WHILE NOVEMBER 1933 TIED THE RECORD FOR NOVEMBERS WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE OF 46.2 DEGREES. THEN...DECEMBER 1933 AND JANUARY 1934 SET RECORDS WITH AVERAGES OF 43.8 AND 40.0. THE DECEMBER 1933 RECORD STILL STANDS AS THE WARMEST DECEMBER IN DENVER`S HISTORY. JANUARY`S RECORD STOOD UNTIL 1986 WHEN IT WAS RAISED TO 40.3 DEGREES. DURING THE 16 MONTHS FROM JUNE 1933 TO OCTOBER 1934...THE HEIGHT OF THE GREAT PLAINS DUST BOWL YEARS...THE WEATHER STATION AT DENVER BROKE OR TIED THE MONTHLY RECORD AN ASTOUNDING 8 TIMES. THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FOR JUNE 2012 WAS 75.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS 1.5 DEGREES WARMER THAN THE PREVIOUS RECORD...SET IN 1994. JULY 2012 WILL GO DOWN IN THE RECORD BOOKS WITH A MONTHLY AVERAGE OF 78.9 DEGREES...1.1 DEGREE WARMER THAN JULY 1934. IF AUGUST IS GOING TO CONTINUE THE STREAK OF RECORD WARM MONTHS... IT WILL NEED TO BE WARMER THAN THE CURRENT RECORD OF 77.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS SET JUST LAST YEAR. DANKERS I just got done reading about the screams of record breaking heat from Goddard's blog. 1.1 degrees warmer than July 1934? Not hard to do when you manipulate the data to give you the result you want. When NCDC makes their fraudulent claim in the next couple of days that July 2012 was the hottest on record in the US, here is the formula for correcting their data back to the actual temperature. Recent July data tampering has been pushing the temperatures up by about 0.7F. They also have been knocking about 0.4F off of 1930s temperatures. The formulas are : Actual July 2012 temperature = NCDC 2012 July temperature – 0.7F Actual July 1936 temperature = NCDC 1936 July temperature + 0.4F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I agree. As far as I can tell, he only uses the raw data. That's really a misuse of the data, as it creates an incorrect picture of what is actually happening. It's not only Goddard who is finding this. Spencer has found this as well. Now you can also add Christie and Watts to the mix. What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven and has nothing to do with trying to be accurate. Same with Mann and his hockey stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's not only Goddard who is finding this. Spencer has found this as well. Now you can also add Christie and Watts to the mix. What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven and has nothing to do with trying to be accurate. Same with Mann and his hockey stick. Ah, the smell of conspiracy theories in the morning. Smells like desperation, frustration . . . and a dash of cheetos-stained fingers pounding on keyboards. But there's not even a hint of actual data - interesting. Here is a link to a very informative lecture on the temperature record and the adjustments. The speaker is Dr Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA's NCDC. I learned a lot from it and I suspect that many others would too. Since Dr Karl knows about the adjustments he must be part of the conspiracy, too, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Since Dr Karl knows about the adjustments he must be part of the conspiracy, too, right? What is the conspiracy you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven... Do you have some credible and concrete evidence to support this allegation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 What is the conspiracy you speak of? I was referring to your post above where you wrote "What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven and has nothing to do with trying to be accurate. Same with Mann and his hockey stick." That is a blatant assertion on your part that there is a conspiracy within the NCDC to undermine the accuracy of the temperature record. Are you going to stand behind your words - or are you willing to retract them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I was referring to your post above where you wrote "What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven and has nothing to do with trying to be accurate. Same with Mann and his hockey stick." That is a blatant assertion on your part that there is a conspiracy within the NCDC to undermine the accuracy of the temperature record. Are you going to stand behind your words - or are you willing to retract them? I fear that under Ben's bridge, there are no penalties attached to making statements of dubious (or in this case nonexistent) veracity, so why should he retract them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's not only Goddard who is finding this. Spencer has found this as well. Now you can also add Christie and Watts to the mix. What the NCDC has done to the temperature record is politically driven and has nothing to do with trying to be accurate. Same with Mann and his hockey stick. You must be referring to Spencer's heavily adjusted ISH-PDAT data set. I noticed Watts posted this in his response to the NCDC op-ed. Note ISH-PDAT shows a negligible warming trend of 0.01C/decade. Anthony omitted the fact that this was Spencer's first iteration of his ISH-PDAT data set. In May 2012, he quietly released a second iteration, which showed a warming trend of 0.14C/decade, compared to a USHCN trend of 0.27C/decade. And then in June, he released this graph. It no longer lists a trendline, but it seems very similar to the official USHCN data. In fact, the ISH-PDAT figure for June was warmer than the corresponding value from USHCN. It might be the same as the May iteration, but it's hard to tell for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 He quietly released it? LOL. Yeah it was so quite he put it right there in his blog post and easy to find. If you read my previous post on this new dataset, you might be wondering why I am now getting a warmer trend than I did before. When using hourly temperature data, it turns out you have to be careful because of the increase in the number of “special” (off-hour) reports in recent years, which changes the average local time of the observations. Now, I am only using observations taken in the 10 minutes before the top of the hour, which are the routine hourly reports that have been made for many decades. (I actually took some of those observations myself in the 1970s when I worked at a NWS office, so I have some familiarity with the issue.) As for USHCN, he looked at their Version 2. I took all station pairs within 200 km of each other in each of these datasets, and computed the average absolute difference in temperature trends for the 1973-2012 period across all pairs. The average station separation in the USHCN and ISH PDAT datasets were nearly identical: 133.2 km for the ISH dataset (643 pairs), and 132.4 km for the USHCN dataset (12,453 pairs). But the ISH trend pairs had about 15% better agreement (avg. absolute trend difference of 0.143 C/decade) than did the USHCN trend pairs (avg. absolute trend difference of 0.167 C/decade). Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes. And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 He quietly released it? LOL. Yeah it was so quite he put it right there in his blog post and easy to find. Well, apparently Anthony didn't get the memo since he's still using the first iteration. And even you are still quoting his statements that were based on his initial flawed attempt at creating a US temperature record. I find it funny that some of you who have derided the US temperature record because it only used a subset of stations and was subject to adjustment have adopted Dr. Spencer's temperature record, which uses a much smaller subset of station and is subject to even greater adjustment! The ISH-PDAT trend is much lower than even the trend found by Spencer & Christy's UAH satellite-based U.S. temperature trend (+0.23C/decade). You would have thought that the BEST analysis, which used considerably more data and utilized techniques to minimize the need for any adjustments, would have put an end to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.