NOAA Caught changing temp data...........AGAIN.

I would prefer they use the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES.

Weird, huh?

 

You are arguing with someone who claims the manipulation in the OP was due to "urban hot spots". Apparently, they intentionally put instruments in places that record inaccurately higher temps to they can adjust to get "real temps". What he can't explain is why they adjusted these inordinately hot areas UP instead of DOWN. Seems to me if your instruments are reading inaccurately HIGH temps one would need to adjust the temps down to reality.

Not with the MMGW Cult though, they have an agenda to push............science doesn't matter.

 

Still spouting from ignorance, I see. Trying to rescue this failure of a troll thread?

 

See.

 

Global Warming: It means what we say it means right up until the moment when we change the meaning to something else because, well, you see, actually, you know what shut the hell up and give us more money you racist ol' straight White male denier!!!!

 

First, the temperature didn't change by 3 degrees. Second, getting caught implies there was deceit. NOAA publishes all adjustments and the reasons behind them. Paul Homewood ignores that. But the real problem here is that he makes trivial arithmetic mistakes while comparing apples to oranges and then is incredulous when he can't get things to match and just blames it all on a conspiracy to commit fraud.

 

And you think the measurements would be reliable if some are taken at night, some are taken during the day, some are taken at high altitude, some at low, and so forth?

 

So, you think the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS are unreliable? Why take them? Why not just pull numbers out of your ass?

 

My bad.........3.1 degrees.


The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F

 

Yes, not only is that weird, but it's unethical and fraudulent to do so. For example, if you have stations A, B, and C at 500, 750, and 1000 ft respectively and then replace them at some time later with stations X, Y, and Z at 500, 600, and 700 ft and didn't do anything about the warm bias that you've introduced then not only are you going to get the wrong answers to your climate questions, but you are being unethical at best and being fraudulent at worst especially if you don't tell anyone. So just to clarify, is this really what you're advocating for?

 

How about replacing A, B, and C at 500, 750, and 1000 ft just like the ones you are replacing?

 

There's more to it than just that.

Yes, stations are intentionally placed in cities. It's actually required by law for airports. They are not inaccurate temperature readings. They do read the actual temperature. It just so happens that temperatures tend to be higher in urban cities. That doesn't mean the instrument isn't reading correctly.

You are confused. The urban heat island effect is adjusted down specifically to reduce the UHI bias. Some adjustments are up. But, the net sum of all adjustments works to reduce the warming rate; not increase it. This is especially true of the older data. Newer data after say 1970 or so the adjustments pretty much wash out to 0.

They are not reading inaccurately high. The problem is that proportion of urban stations is overweight to rural stations. So when you go through the homogenization step using unevenly spaced inputs you must compensate for this unbalanced weighting of the inputs. If you have questions let me know. I'll try to answer to the best of my ability or point you to the literature that explains how and why it's done.

 

That sounds like a great idea in an ideal world. If money were no object I would agree that's the best solution going forward. It still wouldn't solve the problem of it already occurring. You still have to deal with that problem via post processing of the data.

 

How much does it cost to walk that extra 300 feet?

 

Now now, please calm down. No need to get all worked up.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear. When I used feet as an example above I was talking about altitude above mean sea level. I should have made that more clear. Anyway, obviously walking 300 ft horizontally will not guarantee you any specific increase or decrease in altitude.

But, I understand the crux of your question. The costs incurred could come in many forms. The obvious solution is to site the station at it's original location. This may involve buying out a property, flattening a productive corn field and subsidizing the owner for lost productivity, rerouting irrigation or flood mitigation channels and the list goes on and on. There are technical aspects as well including running telecommunications to the site. There are meteorological implications as well including prioritizing weather forecasting over climate forecasting. Then there are equipment and maintenance costs. It all has to be factored in. You don't simply get a free lunch with atmospheric data collection just because you want it.

 

Good on you for explaining politely. But you are making the mistake of thinking he is actually interested. He just wants to fling poo.

 

Yes according to NOAA the 2013/2014 and 2017/2018 epic north east winters didnt happen.

You still cant explain this. You simply say "science". I say fraud. They are giving us a 'who you going to believe me or your own lying eyes.'

The bigger issue of course is if they can get away with this fraud in the US what are they doing in the rest of the world. Most of their "warming" comes from where non one lives and can call bullshit. While you love your little graph it creates the illusion of complete data where in reality its actually little dots extrapolated over vast swaths of the earth. Much of the high arctic is dependent on a single weather station at the Barrow Alaska airport. An airport that has a huge heat island influence.

You post this but this which crates the illusion of completeness



When this is what it really is.



If you have every actually been in these arctic villages there is a huge heat island effect in the village where most of these GCHN stations are. As they have grown from simple dirt airstrips the effect has grown more and more. The Alarmists really have no way of correcting for this as the stations are so dispersed nor do they really want to. They love the temperature trend at the Barrow airport in Barrow as it has grown a small dirt/snow landing strip in a tinny village to a major hub for the arctic petroleum industry.

 

So all of this potential " misunderstanding" of the data could be simply resolved by taking temperatures at static levels over time? The reason that isn't happening is due to cost? I think ima call BULLCRAP.

Why would any scientist with integrity do research and publish it based off of 2nd rate data? Why even allow it at all knowing there is more pure data available? Sub standard very easily manipulated data having to take in several different new variables?

I mean seriously.

Many moderate conservatives like myself do believe Global Warming as I define it exists. That being the changing of the world's temperature over time due to man's influence. Heating.

It's undeniable. NASAs studies and papers on their site devoted alot of time and resources across many different fields of study and producing I believe quite rational unbiased results.

Yes we are influencing the heating of the planet. No every hurricane or forest fire that pops up or any rather have anything to do with Global Warming. And we will not for a very long time. In human life span thinking of time..we don't live long. That's MY concern.. We are impacting it over time. Like by alot. Read some anyone I'll link it. Click the menu and peruse the drop downs.

I can defend global warming and win. Just not the way leftists would like!

But if you turn on CNN they will have one scientist that published X with no peer review, no cross study analysis and declare that their study X proves Y and fk Z.

Why? The liberal driven grant machine loves loves scientists who are in the media. It's true.

NOAA has scientists that do the above. They have a corrupt history. Proven.

Not all scientists succumb to leftist pressure. I heard a dean of science from a major college flat out say NO I can not say any of this years hurricanes were influenced by Global warming NPR.. He sounded insulted really. He tried to explain the complexity of it but the NPR host just moved on.

So. That's that. OPs assertion is correct. NOAA got caught with its hand in the temperature cookie jar again. Or they are frauds and shouldn't be scientists at all.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

 

They aren't as epic as you think they are. Sure, it was cold for a few days. But it was also really warm. The magnitude of records highs actually outweighed the magnitude of record lows in Jan. 2018 in the NE.

Take Binghampton, NY for example. Jan 1st set a record of -7F breaking the -3F record set in 1957. However, on both Jan 12th and 13th broke the previous record on each day by +9F for a total of +18F. Ironically the old records were from 2017 in both cases. You can see this same theme over many sites in the NE. It's not just isolated to one site. It was a widespread phenomenon. The fact of the matter is that Jan. 2018 wasn't that cold in the NE when you look at the monthly mean.

I believe you. However, keep in mind that reanalysis does not have to compensate for UHI effects because it computes a true global mean temperature using equally spaced measurements covering the whole Earth. And yet it agrees (within a reasonable margin of error) with the proxy datasets that do have to adjust for UHI.

 

We already do this. It's called reanalysis.

It's just another line of evidence that be used to cross check other datasets. It's done in a completely different way to help tease out any problems/bugs with the other datasets (including itself) that it's being compared to. You don't want everyone doing the same thing. That could introduce a systemic bias if that one way happened to be wrong.

 

By the way, you and I probably see eye to eye more than you might think from my posts here.

I completely agree with you. The media spins and exaggerates global warming. Al Gore is a definite problem here. His catastrophic viewpoints are far removed from what the science actually says. And the media constantly blaming every hurricane, tornado, flood, etc on climate change is garbage.

The fact is that the Earth will likely continue to warm mostly due to our influence. I happen to think the scientific consensus on warming (~3C by 2100) is too high. I think it'll be closer to 2C and I can back that up with facts. I also think sea level rise will stay within 1 foot or so. Again, I can back that up with facts. So this nonsense of civilization ending effects is ludicrous. The alarmists are doing more of a disservice to the science than they are to help it along. Just my $0.02.

 

How is it that the climate experts on the board want us to believe one of those dots can accurately show the exact temps over thousands of square miles, yet tell us they need to manipulate data if they move an instrument 300 feet.

It seems inconsistent, to say the least.

 

Neither you nor any other believer /moderate believer/ disbeliever in GW/CC are actually interested or ever can be open to any knowledge.

iamanonman said: ↑

“But, I understand the crux of your question. The costs incurred could come in many forms. The obvious solution is to site the station at it's original location. This may involve buying out a property, flattening a productive corn field and subsidizing the owner for lost productivity, rerouting irrigation or flood mitigation channels and the list goes on and on. There are technical aspects as well including running telecommunications to the site. There are meteorological implications as well including prioritizing weather forecasting over climate forecasting. Then there are equipment and maintenance costs. It all has to be factored in. You don't simply get a free lunch with atmospheric data collection just because you want it.”

Obviously, if weather is forecasted it may be less expensive to make an adjustment to a weather station temperature reading (notwithstanding the fact that neither you nor any other believer /moderate believer/ disbeliever in GW/CC can ever know that temperature is just one out of a number of parameters of weather), than to move the station away from a place turning from a rural air landing strip to a major airport.

Since neither you nor any other believer /moderate believer/ disbeliever in GW/CC are interested or ever can be open to any knowledge and prefer to stay clueless clinging to your total ignorance it is very easy for iamanonman and 97% of scientists to cheat you in any way they want.

Weather is a number of parameters for a region, locality. Weather is forecasted and all forecasts will be verified. It is science of meteorology in which the idea of forecasting global weather is nothing but a total insanity exhibited by believers/in the middle/disbelievers in GW/CC. Climate is a recorded (happened) average weather over a period of time (usually 30 years) for the same location. It is climate science. Forecasting non-existing and not defined global climate is like global weather pseudoscience, another insanity.

But since none of believers/in the middle/disbelievers in GW/CC can ever have any clue how to see what is science and what is not, all of them including you have to do pseudoscience, in other words to fling poo.

This is exactly what you do in almost each and every post of yours.

I just don't know if I should cry or laugh watching that.

 

There's more to it than just those dots. Anyway, proxy datasets like GISS and NOAAGlobalTemp use a homogenization process to do this. I'm not a big fan of proxy datasets either though I do acknowledge their usefulness.

Fortunately, the academic community does most climate research using reanalysis which is a far better method of measuring the Earth for many different reasons. So, if you aren't a big fan of proxy datasets then I suggest you take a look at the many reanalysis datasets that are freely available. They do not adjust the observations for urban heat island, altitude, etc. They also incorporate orders of magnitude more data.