Post observation adjustments - appropriate?

[ChescoWx]

Some really interesting statistics for Chester County PA that really makes you question some of the historical temperature trending data we see. Incredibly the NCEI data set for Chester County PA.

Of note from 1895 through 1970 (77 years) the reported average Chester County PA temperatures for 73 of those 77 (95%) years is now reported as lower than any available reporting site in the county in those years. So are we to assume all stations in Chester County were faulty and or needed post hoc adjustment for 95% of the reporting observations through 1970??

[TimB]

I would tend to trust the professional opinion of the experts at the NCEI over some amateur in East Nantmeal with a poorly sited weather station.

[bdgwx]

You are sealioning. It has been explained to you many times how adjustments are made and why they are necessary and appropriate. You are doing the digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling incoherently so that you can feign like we haven't already addressed it. 

 

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, TimB said:

I would tend to trust the professional opinion of the experts at the NCEI over some amateur in East Nantmeal with a poorly sited weather station.

Of course not an answer from you Tim...call me stunned!! LOL

[ChescoWx]

43 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

You are sealioning. It has been explained to you many times how adjustments are made and why they are necessary and appropriate. You are doing the digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling incoherently so that you can feign like we haven't already addressed it. 

 

Right!! So again what is the scientific explanation in Chester County PA for why they adjusted average temperatures down to a mark not just down to the lowest recorded station value....but took them all down below any available station obs for 73 of 77 years? Does that feel right to you?

[ChescoWx]

48 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

You are sealioning. It has been explained to you many times how adjustments are made and why they are necessary and appropriate. You are doing the digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and babbling incoherently so that you can feign like we haven't already addressed it. 

 

Hey bdgwx how about showing me the analysis specific to Chester County PA that details what station or area they used as the control to make the after the fact adjustments to the NWS cooperative data for 95% of the years from 1895 thru 1970??

[TimB]

1 minute ago, ChescoWx said:

Hey bdgwx how about showing me the analysis specific to Chester County PA that details what station or area they used as the control to make the after the fact adjustments to the NWS cooperative data for 95% of the years from 1895 thru 1970??

They certainly didn’t use the poorly sited weather station in your backyard. You’d probably get more accurate data out of it if you shoved it up your ass.

[ChescoWx]

16 minutes ago, TimB said:

They certainly didn’t use the poorly sited weather station in your backyard. You’d probably get more accurate data out of it if you shoved it up your ass.

Timmy you sure have insults but as always come up a wee bit short on facts and data!

Psst by the way my weather station data and equipment has as always been continually verified by MADIS with the latest note being "These values are within the acceptable range. This probably means that your sensor is sited correctly and is calibrated correctly"

[TimB]

Just now, ChescoWx said:

Timmy you sure have insults but as always come up a wee bit short on facts and data!

Psst by the my weather station data and equipment has as always been continually verified by MADIS with the latest note being with the note "These values are within the acceptable range. This probably means that your sensor is sited correctly and is calibrated correctly"

The meteorological community does not respect you. I can assure you of that.

[ChescoWx]

3 minutes ago, TimB said:

The meteorological community does not respect you. I can assure you of that.

And let me guess you think they respect you? I have been recommended by Tony Gigi with the NWS in Mount Holly to be interviewed by the Philadelphia Inquirer and my data has been used consistently by the NWS as a trained NWS spotter and the Inquirer for my detailed and stringent compliance with 20 plus years of daily weather observations. Now you go.....

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Hey bdgwx how about showing me the analysis specific to Chester County PA that details what station or area they used as the control to make the after the fact adjustments to the NWS cooperative data for 95% of the years from 1895 thru 1970??

You shouldn't be surprised. I've told you repeatedly about large bias adjustments at Chester County coop stations. To be frank the raw Chesco coop data that you use  is useless for climate purposes. All the data, methods, and bias adjustments that NOAA (and others) use are publicly available. I have showed you how to access the info before. Your response - crickets. Now you are suddenly up in arms. LOL

[ChescoWx]

41 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You shouldn't be surprised. I've told you repeatedly about large bias adjustments at Chester County coop stations. To be frank the raw Chesco coop data that you use  is useless for climate purposes. All the data, methods, and bias adjustments that NOAA (and others) use are publicly available. I have showed you how to access the info before. Your response - crickets. Now you are suddenly up in arms. LOL

Charlie not crickets you have simply only showed the cumulative adjusted data...without any data that supports such post hoc adjustments across every single available station in Chester County PA.  Did they use another counties data as the control? Berks? Montgomery? Lancaster? Where is proof that 95% of the county obs required after the fact adjustments?

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie not crickets you have simply only showed the cumulative adjusted data...without any data that supports such post hoc adjustments across every single available station in Chester County PA.  Did they use another counties data as the control? Berks? Montgomery? Lancaster? Where is proof that 95% of the county obs required after the fact adjustments?

Here is an example of problematic coop data that I have shown you before. Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to other nearby stations after World War II and received a well-deserved bias adjustment. Crickets when I presented this to you previously and you are pleading ignorance today.  Its not my job to justify NOAA's work to you. Everything is documented by NOAA and by others. If you want to criticize NOAA's work, educate yourself and provide technical arguments. Otherwise you are just handwaving or whining.

[ChescoWx]

Charlie again the above does not answer the questions as I have the above data. The question is why were each and every Chester County station cooled to even lower than Coatesville ever reported? You mention above that Coatesville had a "cool bias" - then why give all of the Chester County stations the what you call "a well deserved bias adjustment" to make them all cooler". This bias adjustment resulted in actually cooling the all Chester County station average to cooler than the station (Coatesville) with the cool bias you mentioned above do you see my point??   This is in fact what happened in 73 of 77 years between 1895 and 1970 - as the average NCEI temperature for the county was lowered to below any averages reported by any station including Coatesville.

[TimB]

13 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Charlie again the above does not answer the questions as I have the above data. The question is why were each and every Chester County station cooled to even lower than Coatesville ever reported? You mention above that Coatesville had a "cool bias" - then why give all of the Chester County stations the what you call "a well deserved bias adjustment" to make them all cooler". This bias adjustment resulted in actually cooling the all Chester County station average to cooler than the station (Coatesville) with the cool bias you mentioned above do you see my point??   This is in fact what happened in 73 of 77 years between 1895 and 1970 - as the average NCEI temperature for the county was lowered to below any averages reported by any station including Coatesville.

1895 to 1970, even if inclusive, is only 76 years. How can you do statistical analysis if you can’t do simple arithmetic?

[ChescoWx]

10 minutes ago, TimB said:

1895 to 1970, even if inclusive, is only 76 years. How can you do statistical analysis if you can’t do simple arithmetic?

But of course still no answers from Tim.....

[TimB]

5 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

But of course still no answers from Tim.....

I haven’t researched this particular issue, but it’s obvious to anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever that:

1) the NCEI had their reasons for making those adjustments

2) the reasons for those adjustments are based in actual science that they are qualified to do, otherwise NCEI wouldn’t have hired them

3) there is no hidden agenda in this particular issue

4) the earth is warming

and 5) humans are the primary cause of said warming.

It’s utterly ludicrous to disagree with any one of these points, let alone all 5.

[ChescoWx]

Just to correct one point Charlie and others have often made on what Charlie calls a "major source of bias being the older temperature max and mins aren't on a midnight-to-midnight basis" This is a non-material difference. For a quick example I notice many of the old historical obs took place at 9pm. So I went back and recast the month of December at East Nantmeal and took the High and Low as of 9pm for the previous 24 hours. This resulted in a December average temperature of 40.4 degrees....this compares to.... you guessed it 40.4 degrees from the calendar day midnight  to midnight obs for December. Over a month and especially over 365 days of annual records the observation time will not impact the average temperature for any location no matter what time it is taken - as long as it is consistently observed at the same time. Also of note in many historical months the observer took multiple recordings for example 7am-2pm and 9pm. Between these 3 obs they would take the lowest and maximum and record those. In some months they even listed those multiple observations on the written records they forwarded to the weather service or Department of Agriculture as it once was.

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Just to correct one point Charlie and others have often made on what Charlie calls a "major source of bias being the older temperature max and mins aren't on a midnight-to-midnight basis" This is a non-material difference. For a quick example I notice many of the old historical obs took place at 9pm. So I went back and recast the month of December at East Nantmeal and took the High and Low as of 9pm for the previous 24 hours. This resulted in a December average temperature of 40.4 degrees....this compares to.... you guessed it 40.4 degrees from the calendar day midnight  to midnight obs for December. Over a month and especially over 365 days of annual records the observation time will not impact the average temperature for any location no matter what time it is taken - as long as it is consistently observed at the same time. Also of note in many historical months the observer took multiple recordings for example 7am-2pm and 9pm. Between these 3 obs they would take the lowest and maximum and record those. In some months they even listed those multiple observations on the written records they forwarded to the weather service or Department of Agriculture as it once was.

Here's a good blog article on time of observation bias. I've linked it for you before.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

 

[ChescoWx]

43 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Here's a good blog article on time of observation bias. I've linked it for you before.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

 

As the article clearly states "If you keep the time of observation constant over time, this won’t make any different to the long-term station trends" There are no examples of a change in time of observation within any individual month in the Chester County records. So it is again a non-issue. This is not complex Charlie. If the obs time is 7am every day for 1 year and we go back and recast it to 9pm every day for the same year - the average temp over 365 days is of course exactly the same. My favorite part is where the article states a hypothetical of "well what if the the obs is at If you observe the temperature at 5 PM and reset the instrument, the temperature at 5:01 PM might be higher than any readings during the next day, but would still end up being counted as the high of the next day."  The simple answer to that line is so what? In that situation irrespective of the time of obs it will of course even out in standard blocks of 24 hour days (as long as it is a 5pm to 5pm 24 hour span) recorded at the same time every day over 365 days of average temperature calculation. Even if a change was made at the start of 1 month in the middle of the year. The impact to the annual temperature over 24 days is not even close to material.

[dseagull]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Just to correct one point Charlie and others have often made on what Charlie calls a "major source of bias being the older temperature max and mins aren't on a midnight-to-midnight basis" This is a non-material difference. For a quick example I notice many of the old historical obs took place at 9pm. So I went back and recast the month of December at East Nantmeal and took the High and Low as of 9pm for the previous 24 hours. This resulted in a December average temperature of 40.4 degrees....this compares to.... you guessed it 40.4 degrees from the calendar day midnight  to midnight obs for December. Over a month and especially over 365 days of annual records the observation time will not impact the average temperature for any location no matter what time it is taken - as long as it is consistently observed at the same time. Also of note in many historical months the observer took multiple recordings for example 7am-2pm and 9pm. Between these 3 obs they would take the lowest and maximum and record those. In some months they even listed those multiple observations on the written records they forwarded to the weather service or Department of Agriculture as it once was.

Questioning everything and forming and testing hypothesis is a crucial part of both the scientific method and science itself.   This is particularly true when we have a plethora of examples of how "science" has been weaponized to push a narrative (usually for financial or political gain,) in historical text and recent memory.   Questioning keeps people honest, and it also helps stimulate the scientific community and keep healthy conversation and debate front and center.  

Ignore the insults and continue to do research as you see fit.  Many of the world's greatest scientists were often not only criticized, but also censored and even persecuted.   (I don't think I need to list pages of examples here, as I'm sure anyone who visits this page can think of dozens themselves.)

 

Skepticism is HEALTHY, so long as data is not manipulated or skewed.  When a government entity funds or forms an agency of science, people should NEVER accept their scientific arguments as gospel.  Distrust of NOAA is nothing more than distrust in those who operate the agency itself, and it certainly doesn't qualify one as a "science denier."

 

I enjoy reading your posts and your scientific suggestions.   Keep doing what you do, and ignore the insuations that you are a "science denier,"  (whatever the hell that is....)  The insults will continue from those who are wired to follow and fall into line, rather than question.  The poster who suggested you shove a thermometer up your bum seems like an angry human, perhaps because he has his head lodged up his own bum.  

[dseagull]

11 hours ago, TimB said:

I haven’t researched this particular issue, but it’s obvious to anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever that:

1) the NCEI had their reasons for making those adjustments

2) the reasons for those adjustments are based in actual science that they are qualified to do, otherwise NCEI wouldn’t have hired them

3) there is no hidden agenda in this particular issue

4) the earth is warming

and 5) humans are the primary cause of said warming.

It’s utterly ludicrous to disagree with any one of these points, let alone all 5.

So what is the answer?  Trust and agree with anything that is presented to you?  Not challenge it?  That's not scientific.  Declaring that no agenda exists is also denying that human nature does exist.  

 

As for number 5, "Humans are the primary cause of said warming," I'm not even sure how to respond to that.   That's a pompous and "all-knowing" declaration.   Its also the same human nature that you previously and conveniently discarded in (3.)  We are not at the center of the universe and the cause for everything, as is human nature to believe.   Good grief.  

 

 

[ChescoWx]

31 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Questioning everything and forming and testing hypothesis is a crucial part of both the scientific method and science itself.   This is particularly true when we have a plethora of examples of how "science" has been weaponized to push a narrative (usually for financial or political gain,) in historical text and recent memory.   Questioning keeps people honest, and it also helps stimulate the scientific community and keep healthy conversation and debate front and center.  

Ignore the insults and continue to do research as you see fit.  Many of the world's greatest scientists were often not only criticized, but also censored and even persecuted.   (I don't think I need to list pages of examples here, as I'm sure anyone who visits this page can think of dozens themselves.)

 

Skepticism is HEALTHY, so long as data is not manipulated or skewed.  When a government entity funds or forms an agency of science, people should NEVER accept their scientific arguments as gospel.  Distrust of NOAA is nothing more than distrust in those who operate the agency itself, and it certainly doesn't qualify one as a "science denier."

 

I enjoy reading your posts and your scientific suggestions.   Keep doing what you do, and ignore the insuations that you are a "science denier,"  (whatever the hell that is....)  The insults will continue from those who are wired to follow and fall into line, rather than question.  The poster who suggested you shove a thermometer up your bum seems like an angry human, perhaps because he has his head lodged up his own bum.  

Thank you deseagull!! so refreshing to hear someone who does not simply sling insults etc. I have noticed a lot of folks on the non-stop warming bandwagon are very angry (I do want to call out that Charlie is not one of them) we may not agree on this area but he is always civil and respectful! I am a big believer in the day we stop questioning and fact checking science is a bad day. If you ever hear (and I have) anything in life is "settled science" this is false. Science is never 100% settled...science is about narrowing uncertainty. Thanks again!!!

[TimB]

40 minutes ago, dseagull said:

So what is the answer?  Trust and agree with anything that is presented to you?  Not challenge it?  That's not scientific.  Declaring that no agenda exists is also denying that human nature does exist.  

 

As for number 5, "Humans are the primary cause of said warming," I'm not even sure how to respond to that.   That's a pompous and "all-knowing" declaration.   Its also the same human nature that you previously and conveniently discarded in (3.)  We are not at the center of the universe and the cause for everything, as is human nature to believe.   Good grief.  

 

 

Anyone who believes the NCEI has a hidden agenda should be locked in a padded room.

[dseagull]

24 minutes ago, TimB said:

Anyone who believes the NCEI has a hidden agenda should be locked in a padded room.

Let me get this straight...  

You are suggesting that those who question or challenge the conclusions that a government entity came to, be institutionalized?    

 

That's terrifying for those of us who have served and those who love America. 

 

Should the many thousands of scientists that stand apart from the IPCC also be thrown into some padded wall cells?  Why not, right?  How about anyone who doesn't agree with everything you believe?  

See the slippery slope here?

 

Good luck, comrade... tough times ahead.

 

[TimB]

7 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Let me get this straight...  

You are suggesting that those who question or challenge the conclusions that a government entity came to, be institutionalized?    

 

That's terrifying for those of us who have served and those who love America. 

 

Good luck, comrade... tough times ahead.

 

No, I’m saying that those who came to said conclusions have a lot more expertise in the matter than ChescoWx does. That’s why they, and not ChescoWx, were hired to do that job.

[dseagull]

5 minutes ago, TimB said:

No, I’m saying that those who came to said conclusions have a lot more expertise in the matter than ChescoWx does. That’s why they, and not ChescoWx, were hired to do that job.

Incorrect.  You suggested locking human beings away, under the guise of insanity, simply because they have questions.

 

Ok, got it....  I have an idea.

 

Let's make sure there's enough food and water in a padded wall room, and then lock ChecoWx in it for simply questioning why certain data was adjusted.   Even though he didn't say that it was done with a a hidden agenda, let's not take any chances.  

 

We can't have people questioning our "settled science," especially if it was settled by a government agency.  Sorry, ChescoWx.... Banished be you.  

[TimB]

11 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Incorrect.  You suggested locking human beings away, under the guise of insanity, simply because they have questions.

 

Ok, got it....  I have an idea.

 

Let's make sure there's enough food and water in a padded wall room, and then lock ChecoWx in it for simply questioning why certain data was adjusted.   Even though he didn't say that it was done with a a hidden agenda, let's not take any chances.  

 

We can't have people questioning our "settled science," especially if it was settled by a government agency.  Sorry, ChescoWx.... Banished be you.  

Not on board with that.

 

 

 

Take out the food and water part and we have a deal.

 

 

Oh, and re: “human beings”, I’m not sure it’s settled science that climate deniers are human beings.

[dseagull]

2 minutes ago, TimB said:

Not on board with that.

 

 

 

Take out the food and water part and we have a deal.

 

 

Oh, and re: “human beings”, I’m not sure it’s settled science that climate deniers are human beings.

What is a "climate denier?"  Do they exist?   I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that the climate changes.  

 

When people sling insults and make assertions that they are of "higher knowledge," it is often indicative of some underlying issues.  What you post is both unproductive and abhorrent, but seems to be a trend among those who align with "settled science."

 

I'm not going to feed your appetite for an angry form of divisive debate.  I assume you are an American, and although I don't know you, I'll treat you as my neighbor.   As such, I'll pray for you, because what you wrote in the above posts is EXTREMELY disturbing.  Good luck.  

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, dseagull said:

What is a "climate denier?"  Do they exist?   I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that the climate changes.  

 

When people sling insults and make assertions that they are of "higher knowledge," it is often indicative of some underlying issues.  What you post is both unproductive and abhorrent, but seems to be a trend among those who align with "settled science."

 

I'm not going to feed your appetite for an angry form of divisive debate.  I assume you are an American, and although I don't know you, I'll treat you as my neighbor.   As such, I'll pray for you, because what you wrote in the above posts is EXTREMELY disturbing.  Good luck.  

I think there are some things easier to see than others--

we do know that fossil fuel emissions have a negative impact on human health (higher rates of asthma and air pollution shortening life by 2 years on average-- more than smoking cigarettes does.)

The other thing we can acknowledge is that we are causing a mass extinction of species that are very beneficial to us-- the pollinators.