Post observation adjustments - appropriate?

[dseagull]

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

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.

See, I enjoy having conversations with you.  We can agree on certain topics and have a discussion and challenge each other on the topics we don't see eye to eye with.   That is scientific debate....healthy and productive debate, which also sparks an interest to research opposing viewpoints.

 

If done amongst the scientific community, this has the potential to result in solutions, rather than a divided room of people who sling insults at one another.  Many things can be true at the same time.  

 

The insinuation that people with opposing viewpoints are "insane" and should be locked away in a padded room is simply wrong... This is America. History is an important part of everything, including science.  Censorship and persecution don't belong in the scientific community.  

 

The statements made in some of the previous posts aren't scientific.  They ate display of unwillingness to have a conversation.  They are disturbing, and as I suggested, are a part of an entirely different underlying issue. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, dseagull said:

See, I enjoy having conversations with you.  We can agree on certain topics and have a discussion and challenge each other on the topics we don't see eye to eye with.   That is scientific debate....healthy and productive debate, which also sparks an interest to research opposing viewpoints.

 

If done amongst the scientific community, this has the potential to result solutions, rather than a divided room of people who sling insults at one another. 

Thanks, I have said this before and I'll say this again-- you provide a valuable service with what you do both in terms of your service record and also the logs you keep about sea surface temperature.  It's not easy to find this kind of information for specific areas.

I have always thought the most important way to handle situations is how do they impact human health?

Changes in temperature do have an impact, but it's always been a hazy issue how much is cyclical and how much is human induced, and out of that subset, how much is from carbon emissions and how much is from transforming the planet into large densely populated concrete filled cities.

I can definitely say that living in a large urban area has an impact on health, because whenever I stay at my other house in the Poconos I sleep so much better (no light pollution) and the air feels so much cleaner.  This is an issue that isn't just about climate change, but also about how we build our cities and the materials we use to build them with.

 

[dseagull]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks, I have said this before and I'll say this again-- you provide a valuable service with what you do both in terms of your service record and also the logs you keep about sea surface temperature.  It's not easy to find this kind of information for specific areas.

I have always thought the most important way to handle situations is how do they impact human health?

Changes in temperature do have an impact, but it's always been a hazy issue how much is cyclical and how much is human induced, and out of that subset, how much is from carbon emissions and how much is from transforming the planet into large densely populated concrete filled cities.

I can definitely say that living in a large urban area has an impact on health, because whenever I stay at my other house in the Poconos I sleep so much better (no light pollution) and the air feels so much cleaner.  This is an issue that isn't just about climate change, but also about how we build our cities and the materials we use to build them with.

 

I look at things from a health and quality of life vantage point as well.  

 

The great debate is surrounding how we can address the issues that are presented to us, with the least disruptions and the best results.   It also has to be done without forfeiting the liberties and freedoms that are afforded to us in our constitution.  There exists ways to do this.  Anything is possible.  The number one thing that stands in our way is human greed and the thirst for control and power.  

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, dseagull said:

I look at things from a health and quality of life vantage point as well.  

 

The great debate is surrounding how we can address the issues that are presented to us, with the least disruptions and the best results.   It also has to be done without forfeiting the liberties and freedoms that are afforded to us in our constitution.  There exists ways to do this.  Anything is possible.  The number one thing that stands in our way is human greed and the thirst for control and power.  

Yes, sadly we see greed and a thirst for control and power from all sides, because everyone seems to be chasing their cash cow.  It's happened throughout human history, from even way before there were fossil fuels being used.  It's why wars are fought and millions of people die.

[dseagull]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, sadly we see greed and a thirst for control and power from all sides, because everyone seems to be chasing their cash cow.  It's happened throughout human history, from even way before there were fossil fuels being used.  It's why wars are fought and millions of people die.

The only way you defeat this is through a unified population.  The PEOPLE need to find a way to get behind something everyone universally agrees on.  Utopia doesn't exist, and it never will.  But, large governing bodies only grow more an more powerful with the use of division.  

 

The use of propaganda and censorship only throws gas on the fire.   People need to educate themselves.  That is a tall order, however.  Unfortunately, change and progress usually only follow tragedy, at least in human history.  

Its a fascinating time to be alive.   I think the best way to better all of our lives is to find things we can all agree on.  We can all agree on certain sacrifices that can be made, I'm sure.  I'm sure we can also agree upon ending censorship.  It's difficult to form opinions and debate effectively without all of the information.   

[LibertyBell]

17 minutes ago, dseagull said:

The only way you defeat this is through a unified population.  The PEOPLE need to find a way to get behind something everyone universally agrees on.  Utopia doesn't exist, and it never will.  But, large governing bodies only grow more an more powerful with the use of division.  

 

The use of propaganda and censorship only throws gas on the fire.   People need to educate themselves.  That is a tall order, however.  Unfortunately, change and progress usually only follow tragedy, at least in human history.  

Its a fascinating time to be alive.   I think the best way to better all of our lives is to find things we can all agree on.  We can all agree on certain sacrifices that can be made, I'm sure.  I'm sure we can also agree upon ending censorship.  It's difficult to form opinions and debate effectively without all of the information.   

Yes, I agree with this too, large paradigm shifts only usually happen after something really bad happens first.  I thought the results of the pandemic would be cause something like that to occur (it still might, how it was handled has lasting effects.)

 

[dseagull]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, I agree with this too, large paradigm shifts only usually happen after something really bad happens first.  I thought the results of the pandemic would be cause something like that to occur (it still might, how it was handled has lasting effects.)

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the pandemic and the disaster of how it was handled or the distrust that has resulted... is the "something really bad."  We may be getting closer to that though.  We shall see.  Until that day, it's important to keep perspective and live.   Enjoy the day, gentlemen.  Time to enjoy the bluebird skies on my day off and take my fur missle for a hike at Wells Mills.  Be well. 

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, dseagull said:

Unfortunately, I don't think the pandemic and the disaster of how it was handled or the distrust that has resulted... is the "something really bad."  We may be getting closer to that though.  We shall see.  Until that day, it's important to keep perspective and live.   Enjoy the day, gentlemen.  Time to enjoy the bluebird skies on my day off and take my fur missle for a hike at Wells Mills.  Be well. 

Be well, one other thing we can all agree on, sunshine and blue skies heals the heart and energizes the soul!

 

[bdgwx]

20 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So again

This is what I mean. This has already been hashed out with you. We have given you links to the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for stations. We've posted examples of those analysis for stations you've mentioned. We've posted links to literature explaining why station measurements are biased, why corrections must be applied, how those corrections are applied, and the verification of those corrections. We've even posted links to the source code that you can use to make the corrections on your own machine. And yet here you asking us to hash this out with you yet again. What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

[ChescoWx]

54 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

This is what I mean. This has already been hashed out with you. We have given you links to the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for stations. We've posted examples of those analysis for stations you've mentioned. We've posted links to literature explaining why station measurements are biased, why corrections must be applied, how those corrections are applied, and the verification of those corrections. We've even posted links to the source code that you can use to make the corrections on your own machine. And yet here you asking us to hash this out with you yet again. What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

Unfortunately it did not answer or support the downward adjustment specific for 110 consecutive years (1895 thru 2004) at each specific station level I was looking for. The adjustments appear to be a simple blanket average adjustment downward by up to 4 degrees at some stations for 73 of 77 straight years. This lowered the annual average temperature than was recorded at every single station in an entire county in Pennsylvania for many decades in a row. It does not make sense that every single station's observations needed to be adjusted below what any of the stations in their area ever actually reported for decades on end. Plus the links to the observation time bias were easily refuted with consistency over a year or month of observation times. Below is a 25 year slice of the data (1927 thru 1951) in 99 of the 100 station annual average temperature reports were all lowered below any station in the county for that reporting year. Charlie earlier mentioned the Coatesville is clearly the coolest station in the county...Charlie earlier said that station had a cool bias. If that is true then why did NCEI choose to lower every station to lower than the Coolest bias station??

[TheClimateChanger]

21 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Unfortunately it did not answer or support the downward adjustment specific for 110 consecutive years (1895 thru 2004) at each specific station level I was looking for. The adjustments appear to be a simple blanket average adjustment downward by up to 4 degrees at some stations for 73 of 77 straight years. This lowered the annual average temperature than was recorded at every single station in an entire county in Pennsylvania for many decades in a row. It does not make sense that every single station's observations needed to be adjusted below what any of the stations in their area ever actually reported for decades on end. Plus the links to the observation time bias were easily refuted with consistency over a year or month of observation times. Below is a 25 year slice of the data (1927 thru 1951) in 99 of the 100 station annual average temperature reports were all lowered below any station in the county for that reporting year.

Countywide averaging is not an adjustment, though. The countywide average can, in fact, be less than all official observing sites if the observing sites are located generally in warmer locations (low elevation, latitude). The county averages shown by NCEI are still often lower than the official temperatures. 

The actual adjustments are small and well-justified to eliminate known and recognized biases in the raw data. Berkeley Earth already recreated the warming trend without any explicit adjustments - instead treating variations in the data [when compared to data from surrounding sites] as a new station. Moreover, the U.S. is less than 2% of the earth's surface. Finally, if the warming was all made up from adjustments, then why do satellites, radiosondes, and more recent observations [largely unaffected by these old adjustments] all show strong warming over the past 4-5 decades? If the warming trend was not real, then wouldn't these new tools reveal that the earth really isn't actually warming? But instead, they all show warming - including the UAH satellite data analysis, headed by notable skeptics? Not to mention, warming is evident in physical changes which have been observed - remote sensing of Arctic and Antarctic ice cover, changing plant and animal behavior, etc.

[bdgwx]

37 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Unfortunately it did not answer or support the downward adjustment specific for 110 consecutive years (1895 thru 2004) at each specific station level I was looking for.

First...the adjustments weren't all downward. Second...yes, we did explain why the adjustments were made to the 4 stations in your table. In fact, I think I posted the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for each one of them.

I'll ask again...What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

 

[ChescoWx]

1 minute ago, bdgwx said:

First...the adjustments weren't all downward. Second...yes, we did explain why the adjustments were made to the 4 stations in your table. In fact, I think I posted the changepoint/breakpoint analysis for each one of them.

I'll ask again...What has changed this time? Why do you expect us to repeat it all this go around? Will it be received any differently?

 

Yes bdgwx they were almost all adjusted downward. To recap for 45 years straight from 1895 thru 1939 the adjusted average was lower than any station reported in any one of those 45 years! For the 76 years from 1895 through 1970 - 73 of those years featured an average county temperature that was lower than any reported station in the entire county. NCEI then continued to apply temperature reduction adjustments to lower the average county temperature by more than 1 degree F (but not every station) for an additional 23 years through 1994. Before gradually reducing the adjustment down and then turning it around and increasing the average county wide temperatures each of the last 18 years through 2023.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Countywide averaging is not an adjustment, though. The countywide average can, in fact, be less than all official observing sites if the observing sites are located generally in warmer locations (low elevation, latitude). The county averages shown by NCEI are still often lower than the official temperatures. 

 

This is a good comment. The 4-station average is not representative of the county. All 4 stations are at low elevation and the coldest, Coatesville, is the most centrally located.  Others are on the warmer south and east side of the county. Below are the station bias adjustments for Coatesville (based on material downloaded from the GISS site a while ago). They are generally smaller than the ones Paul calculated and can be negative. The average is 0.8F. I have also shown the difference between NOAA County temps and the bias adjusted temperatures for Coatesville. The measured values for Coatesville with proper bias adjustment are close to the NOAA County values. On average NOAA is 0.1F warmer than the corrected observations. Remember that Coatesville best represents the county as a whole, albeit at lower elevation than most of the county. Pretty good job by NOAA I would say. This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.

[bdgwx]

@ChescoWx I'm not going to waste my timing explaining something to you a second time unless you tell me why it will be received differently this time. If you tell me that you now form your position around facts and the consilience of evidence then great. I'd be happy to rehash things with you. But if you're going to ignore what has already been presented like what you did last time and instead form a position that is not based on fact and/or contrary to the consilience of evidence then I have no choice but to think you aren't going to receive the information any differently. Asking the same questions with the same insinuations as last time is not an effective way of convincing me you've had a change in heart in how you deal with facts and evidence.

[ChescoWx]

23 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

@ChescoWx I'm not going to waste my timing explaining something to you a second time unless you tell me why it will be received differently this time. If you tell me that you now form your position around facts and the consilience of evidence then great. I'd be happy to rehash things with you. But if you're going to ignore what has already been presented like what you did last time and instead form a position that is not based on fact and/or contrary to the consilience of evidence then I have no choice but to think you aren't going to receive the information any differently. Asking the same questions with the same insinuations as last time is not an effective way of convincing me you've had a change in heart in how you deal with facts and evidence.

HI bdgwx, No need to rehash the same explanations again!! I will of course continue to only present the actual concordance of validated factual climate data as recorded by the official historic NWS Cooperative Observers for Chester County PA without any post hoc adjustments. I will protect the integrity of the factual actual data set by not including any unsupported adjustments like blanket county wide time of observation tweaks etc. A valid exception could be if we were to see real time documented NWS notes or reports at the station level documenting either faulty equipment or observation errors as noted by the NWS reviewer prior to their stamp of approval as best available record on the station climate sheets. I will continue to default to the NWS Cooperative Observers of record who at the time were supplied with the best available equipment and training and served this role in some instances for 30 or 40 consecutive years. I will not risk actual historical data contamination with adjustments made years or decades after the recorded observations.

[TimB]

16 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

HI bdgwx, No need to rehash the same explanations again!! I will of course continue to only present the actual concordance of validated factual climate data as recorded by the official historic NWS Cooperative Observers for Chester County PA without any post hoc adjustments. I will protect the integrity of the factual actual data set by not including any unsupported adjustments like blanket county wide time of observation tweaks etc. A valid exception could be if we were to see real time documented NWS notes or reports at the station level documenting either faulty equipment or observation errors as noted by the NWS reviewer prior to their stamp of approval as best available record on the station climate sheets. I will continue to default to the NWS Cooperative Observers of record who at the time were supplied with the best available equipment and training and served this role in some instances for 30 or 40 consecutive years. I will not risk actual historical data contamination with adjustments made years or decades after the recorded observations.

Your arrogance is disgusting. I can’t wait until climate denial mostly dies with your generation.

[bdgwx]

@ChescoWxYour hubris almost defies credulity. There is no change in heart here that I can see. I'll grant you the last word.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, TimB said:

Your arrogance is disgusting. I can’t wait until climate denial mostly dies with your generation.

Thanks for the kind words Tim!

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, bdgwx said:

@ChescoWxYour hubris almost defies credulity. There is no change in heart here that I can see. I'll grant you the last word.

Thanks bdgwx! I promise to keep only to the actual pure un-adjusted National Weather Service Cooperative observers factual data and nothing else!! count on it!!

[dseagull]

17 hours ago, TimB said:

Your arrogance is disgusting. I can’t wait until climate denial mostly dies with your generation.

1. Locking people who don't agree with you into padded wall rooms, without food and water.

2. Wishing for the death of an entire generation.

 

Wow!  Your parent's did a fine job, hoss.  

 

And you wonder why the vast majority of Americans have given up on having very necessary discussions surrounding a topic that you believe is the number one existential threat facing the world.  

 

Public education, social media, and propaganda sure have been successful.  In my many decades on this planet, I can count on one hand how many times people have walked up to me and said anything that is said 100x a day on a public internet forum. 

 

Being angry and rude during your short existence on this planet seems like a horrible way to live.   Being nice, is nice.

Good luck to ya, keyboard cowboy.  

 

 

[ChescoWx]

To show how significantly the post observation adjustments skew the warming trends. Take a look below at the actual average Chester County PA average annual temperatures (orange) vs. the NCEI adjusted averages (blue). Keep in mind NCEI continued to apply downward average temperature adjustments to the actual averages each and every year for the first 35 consecutive years on this graph between 1970 and 2004. The actual true warming of Chester County PA (orange) has clearly been very modest and not alarming at all since 1970. However if we apply the NCEI adjustments look how much greater the warming trend line becomes.... well alarming.

 

[Brasiluvsnow]

This is only stunning news depending on which side of the fence you sit as people can have an opinion and we can all pick a side but in the end this speaks volumes as it appears that they are tired od fighting a losing battle and even though JP Morgan and Blackrock have more money then they know what to do with they are cutting their losses  https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/jpmorgan-chase-drops-out-of-massive-un-climate-alliance-in-stunning-move

[TheClimateChanger]

Personally, and I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think the data adjustments are insufficient and it's actually warmed considerably more than claimed by NOAA.

Just look at this map from NOAA for July 1901 - allegedly the warmest July on record in the State of Ohio (lol).

If you went on to the NCEI website and played around with this map, you would see it's almost identical to this hand-drawn map from the July 1901 monthly weather review. A few areas are shown as warmer on the hand-drawn map (southwest Ohio), but some areas are a bit cooler (west-central Ohio, parts of northern and eastern Ohio).

But where are the so-called adjustments? The month was reported as 78.1F in the monthly weather review. The official number today is 78.0F. There is essentially no adjustment for equipment bias (MMTS), no adjustment for substandard exposure, no adjustment for anything - the original calculated value is pretty much identical to what was reported. The adjustments are really only later on from the 20s/30s to 50s/60s for TOBS. Most of what is referred to as "adjustments" is just proper areal averaging of the mean temperature, including elevational effects.

The Weather Bureau offices almost exclusively collected temperature from rooftop exposures, now known to produce much warmer averages relative to a station sited over grass or sod. Yet, these locations are regularly beating 1901 using recent temperatures collected from an automated, fan-aspirated temperature sensor properly sited over grass or sod. Somehow 1901 is still hottest on record?

 

[TheClimateChanger]

4 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Personally, and I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think the data adjustments are insufficient and it's actually warmed considerably more than claimed by NOAA.

Just look at this map from NOAA for July 1901 - allegedly the warmest July on record in the State of Ohio (lol).

If you went on to the NCEI website and played around with this map, you would see it's almost identical to this hand-drawn map from the July 1901 monthly weather review. A few areas are shown as warmer on the hand-drawn map (southwest Ohio), but some areas are a bit cooler (west-central Ohio, parts of northern and eastern Ohio).

Also where are the so-called adjustments? The month was reported as 78.1F in the monthly weather review. The official number today is 78.0F.

 

But let's evaluate some of these temperatures. Cuyahoga County is said to have been 77.2F, per NCEI. Yet the downtown city station [on a rooftop exposure!] had a mean of 76.2F. Why in the world is the county average a degree higher than what common sense would dictate is the warmest spot in the county? Same thing with Summit County. Akron is 76.7F that month, yet NCEI has Summit County at 76.8F for a county-wide average. Complete nonsense.

Despite being tied for 8th warmest in the Akron-Canton area threaded record and tied for 11th warmest in the Cleveland threaded record - these being high-quality, first-order sites [including Weather Bureau data] - NCEI has 1901 as warmest on record in Cuyahoga, Summit and Stark Counties, in Ohio. Again, this is complete nonsense, and there is ZERO chance that 1901 is actually the warmest July in Ohio.

[LibertyBell]

On 2/16/2024 at 11:47 AM, Brasiluvsnow said:

This is only stunning news depending on which side of the fence you sit as people can have an opinion and we can all pick a side but in the end this speaks volumes as it appears that they are tired od fighting a losing battle and even though JP Morgan and Blackrock have more money then they know what to do with they are cutting their losses  https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/jpmorgan-chase-drops-out-of-massive-un-climate-alliance-in-stunning-move

if you know the history of JP Morgan and Chase, you know this comes as no surprise.

Just remember they financed a pedophile.

[Brasiluvsnow]

On 3/23/2024 at 5:17 PM, LibertyBell said:

if you know the history of JP Morgan and Chase, you know this comes as no surprise.

Just remember they financed a pedophile.

Liberty, I understand all too well and IF people actually knew who Epstein and Diddy worked for, as they are both only the tip of the iceberg - lets just say that most people would would really be shocked,,,,,now back on topic 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, Brasiluvsnow said:

Liberty, I understand all too well and IF people actually knew who Epstein and Diddy worked for, as they are both only the tip of the iceberg - lets just say that most people would would really be shocked,,,,,now back on topic 

Someone needs to tell Greenskeeper ;-)

did you notice how he never posts and goes into every forum and weenies 90% of the forum lol?

He does have the intellect to be the perfect hot dog vendor.