NOAA/NCDC has been caught flat footed with a significant bug in its temperature data and its processing software. The man who discovered the issue, and his latest article http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/the-manufactured-data-controversy/
and a more studied discussion of the impacts: The man who discovered the issue
Pertinent information: “NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to the as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site”
I wonder how many times Goddard will unearth discrepancies in data gathered in the US before he actually finds something even remotely important?
Fascinating to read the comments on goddard’s site and compare them to the comments on Tamino’s site
“Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?
Most who call themselves “skeptics” of global warming would probably say “No global warming since 1998!” Under the name “hiatus” or “pause,” it features prominently in public discussion and even in senate testimony (e.g. from Judith Curry). In truth, such a “pause” or “hiatus” is not that surprising, neither from a statistical point of view nor based on climate model output. But there is one thing about post-1998 temperatures, compared to the pre-1998 temperatures, that is quite a surprise.”
“Fox News is reviving accusations that NASA’s peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to “fak[e]” global warming, a claim that even a climate “skeptic” threw cold water on.
Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.” After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was “fabricated” or “faked.” On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s” but scientists had “faked the numbers”:
However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made “major errors in his analysis” and criticized the implication that “numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way.”
In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA, which both maintain temperature records that use slightly different methods but show close agreement, have publicly documented the peer-reviewed adjustments they make to raw data. NCDC states that the “most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler,” and so it must correct this cool bias as well as other biases that, for example, result from moving temperature stations.”
Pertinent information: “NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to the as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site”
After several paragraphs of reasoning for while he was biased against Goddard, he said this: “All of that added up to a big heap of confirmation bias, I was so used to Goddard being wrong, I expected it again, but this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa.”
But by that time he had already wrought his damage so that folks like you could/would reference his first and not his later comments.
I’m adding this to emphasize it. Folks, this could be a really, really big issue. Its impact will almost surely be minimized by many on one side, but it will reverberate for some time.” I suspect this will do for data confidence, what Climategate did for trust in climatologists.” (Borrowed from another commenter.)
Consider if these data are wrong. How many scientific studies have used them? Even with the adjustments (?extreme?) we still only have a trend of <1C over the whole record. How many times does the trend sign change in that record. How long are the periods for these trends. How many other data sources use the same processes?
For those who do not know, NOAA/NCDC is the official repository for the worlds temp data.
Since no one with an IQ over double digits think Climategate had any effect on how people view climatologists, I see this being the same. Somehow you think that there is something in an insignificant part of data that changes anything. Have any idea of how large the errors would have to be to have any effect whatsoever?
Kudos from going to a total idiot(Goddard) to a plain idiot(Watts). Geez, how many times has Watts talked about measurement errors in the last decade and been dead wrong?
EM, indeed the data is now being analyzed to determine the overall impacts. Regrettably this will be on a site by site basis and take some time. some examples are: “Currently, 0.3F is being added to actual temperatures, whilst back in 1934, for instance, 1.1F was deducted. This makes a net adjustment of 1.4F.
It seems the more we look at the issue of temperature adjustments, the less credible they become.”
What it already has effected is NOAA claims such as: “May 2014 was the warmest May on record for global land/surface combined. Records go back to 1880.”
BTW, why all the rancor. I seriously doubt you go to their sites unless directed to them. Why call them names, you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable even Googling the subject.
Apart from neg IOR how could the fed impose neg rates in fed funds market? Would it have to engage in direct lending?
NOAA/NCDC has been caught flat footed with a significant bug in its temperature data and its processing software. The man who discovered the issue, and his latest article http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/the-manufactured-data-controversy/
and a more studied discussion of the impacts: The man who discovered the issue
Pertinent information: “NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to the as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site”
I wonder how many times Goddard will unearth discrepancies in data gathered in the US before he actually finds something even remotely important?
Fascinating to read the comments on goddard’s site and compare them to the comments on Tamino’s site
“Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?
Most who call themselves “skeptics” of global warming would probably say “No global warming since 1998!” Under the name “hiatus” or “pause,” it features prominently in public discussion and even in senate testimony (e.g. from Judith Curry). In truth, such a “pause” or “hiatus” is not that surprising, neither from a statistical point of view nor based on climate model output. But there is one thing about post-1998 temperatures, compared to the pre-1998 temperatures, that is quite a surprise.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
geez
“Fox News is reviving accusations that NASA’s peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to “fak[e]” global warming, a claim that even a climate “skeptic” threw cold water on.
Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.” After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was “fabricated” or “faked.” On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s” but scientists had “faked the numbers”:
However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made “major errors in his analysis” and criticized the implication that “numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way.”
In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA, which both maintain temperature records that use slightly different methods but show close agreement, have publicly documented the peer-reviewed adjustments they make to raw data. NCDC states that the “most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler,” and so it must correct this cool bias as well as other biases that, for example, result from moving temperature stations.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/24/fox-news-cites-birther-to-claim-nasa-faked-glob/199871
EM, I’m sorry for not entering the URL for this quote in my first comment. It was from Watts latest article about the issue: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
Pertinent information: “NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to the as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site”
After several paragraphs of reasoning for while he was biased against Goddard, he said this: “All of that added up to a big heap of confirmation bias, I was so used to Goddard being wrong, I expected it again, but this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa.”
But by that time he had already wrought his damage so that folks like you could/would reference his first and not his later comments.
I’m adding this to emphasize it. Folks, this could be a really, really big issue. Its impact will almost surely be minimized by many on one side, but it will reverberate for some time.” I suspect this will do for data confidence, what Climategate did for trust in climatologists.” (Borrowed from another commenter.)
Consider if these data are wrong. How many scientific studies have used them? Even with the adjustments (?extreme?) we still only have a trend of <1C over the whole record. How many times does the trend sign change in that record. How long are the periods for these trends. How many other data sources use the same processes?
For those who do not know, NOAA/NCDC is the official repository for the worlds temp data.
For once we agree.
Since no one with an IQ over double digits think Climategate had any effect on how people view climatologists, I see this being the same. Somehow you think that there is something in an insignificant part of data that changes anything. Have any idea of how large the errors would have to be to have any effect whatsoever?
Kudos from going to a total idiot(Goddard) to a plain idiot(Watts). Geez, how many times has Watts talked about measurement errors in the last decade and been dead wrong?
Same old, same old.
EM, indeed the data is now being analyzed to determine the overall impacts. Regrettably this will be on a site by site basis and take some time. some examples are: “Currently, 0.3F is being added to actual temperatures, whilst back in 1934, for instance, 1.1F was deducted. This makes a net adjustment of 1.4F.
This figure is way above NOAA’s previously published figure for TOBS, which is about 0.3F.” From here: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/more-news-on-ushcn-temperature-adjustments/
He ends his article with this: “It seems that nowadays actual temperature data no longer matters, only what the computer decides it should be.
And they call it “science”!
It seems the more we look at the issue of temperature adjustments, the less credible they become.”
What it already has effected is NOAA claims such as: “May 2014 was the warmest May on record for global land/surface combined. Records go back to 1880.”
BTW, why all the rancor. I seriously doubt you go to their sites unless directed to them. Why call them names, you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable even Googling the subject.