You have 100’s of thermomters. An observation bias is a particular variety of bias introduced into scientific studies when the method of observation used causes the results to be skewed in some nonrandom manner, leading to inaccurate results. That and rewriting the historical records of entire countries to fit globull warming. Again, similar to station E, the TOB is 40% of rather slight ( on the order of 10-15%) again, whatever suggestions, improvements, etc you have, they only get “tickets” if I get a mail. Also it has been shown that MIN is more sensitive to siting error and UHI contamination, so you will have more accurate trend data from MAX alone. Seems the temp trend could be up or pausing right now. No math applied to it. The uncertainty is critical, since it relates to ‘warmest year’ claims, estimates of trends, and comparisons with climate model simulations/projections. That doesnt mean that there is a problem with the uncertainty calculations. Using the hourly data, as you did, for individual CRN stations, is it now possible to verify the regional distributions in the TOB “model” developed by Karl et al in1986? TOB adjustments may be a very valid data treatment. there is No magic date when a network becomes ‘reliable” as if that were a black and white decision. See, for example, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/18/heathrow-hijinks/, nope but I know our saab 340A models had to be very careful comparing airport reported temps against the adc after some tornados/f16/kc135/c5 sat short distance from measuring equipment while doing engine runsups, From the author: I didn’t use any airport data in the analysis because of formatting differences. So, I dont think anyone thinks that redoing the series one more time will yield any game changing insights.. otherwise they would fund it or some amatuer would do his own and be king temperature. Any informed comments on these issues rather than TOBS. Which the politicians then use to con the stupid voters (TM Jonathan Gruber) into voting for more central planning of the energy economy, more taxes, and more power for your fellow progressives. People are people, Zeke. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-321a.pdf. Quite simply, getting the same answer does not prove the methodologies being used are doing a good job. Deep ocean is essentially meaningless without explaining what it means. UHA and RSS are fine products but they are not “adjusted” to match a real thermometer. Usually data is obtained at several depths at each measuring site. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but thats exactly what is done. The NASA Giss adjustments are in dispute because they have blatantly cooled the past and reduced the 1998 peak which coincidentally or not, suits an alarmist narrative of the type we expect from Hansen, Schmidt et al. They come out of the dugout with a chance to win it all and serve up one long ball after the other. Well that’s my take too. I cared about BEST because it was supposed to improve that situation, and people say it has, but I think that’s wrong. Yet the same brokers argue that instrument data almost exclusively from that same fraction of total surface reflects a global average. An independent group called Clear Climate Code even rewrote GISS code in python awhile back: http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/. The variations discussed above, though non-trivial, are relatively modest for most regions (except perhaps In general, the observer can have no control over what times of the day the daily min, and the daily max actually occur and get captured by the THERMOMETER. Are you willing to take personal, legal liability for the correctness of the data treatment, integrity of data? Zeke – One more comment. If you want people to trust your results, you shouldn’t just hand them code and data and say, “Here, spend a couple months examining it.” You should do simple things like: 1) Explain what decisions go into your methodology. 1. It was attributed to thermohaline circulation. But it appears Mosher wants to keep it that way, which is unfortunate. At some time in the past, they changed the fixed time of day at which the readings were taken. This is in addition to the UHI problem. Thank you for this great posting and your responses to commenters, even the nitpickers. A) The CRN stations Do, in practice, provide a rock solid reference in a location that hasn’t undergone any alterations and as such are better determiners of temperatures, but because of this cannot be used as reference because they will make the adjusted data look bad. It’s all about the error bars, as several folks keep coming back to. Hmm for a brief while at berkeley we had a guy looking at redoing UHA and RSS. There’s a couple of paper such as this one which show the necessity for a TOBs adjustment using hourly data. The effect isn’t about whether a station is, today, urban, but about how the surrounding area has changed over the temperature record of the site. Heck, I’d have done it already if I had any way to. Figure 1: Recorded time of observation for USHCN stations, from Menne et al 2009. And further the adjustments are not spatially or temporally uniform. Do they say stored in the abyssal oceans? That prediction has an error. “If you change the observations times from afternoons to mornings, as occurred in the U.S., you change from occasionally double counting highs to occasionally double counting lows, resulting in a measurable bias.” Ever since this man-made global warming/hockey stick hypothesis (and that is all it is, a hypothesis) the scientific community seems to be bound and determined to cool the past century and a half through “adjustments” and to use any means to warm the present. This should allow suspected double-counts to be identified pretty easily. Based on 12 months of data for 2015. =================. The statements about TOBS relate to this method and AFAICT are valid for that method. The morning satellites (about 1930/0730 UTC; NOAA-6, -8, -10, -12) remained close to their original LECTs, but after a few years would drift westward to earlier LECTs, for example from 1930/0730 to 1900/070.3 The afternoon satellites (about 1400/0200 – TIROS-N, NOAA-7, -9, -11, and -14) were purposefully given a small nudge to force them to drift eastward to later LECTs to avoid backing into local solar noon. MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 ) Well if you took everyones salary, averaged with out regards to degrees, experience, and then started trying to find groups discriminated against…. It’s not adequate. But I don’t care about them, as they are not likely to be getting paid with my money to do climate science. At the back end we have the adjustments made by UHA and RSS. Apparently in Climate World this interpretation is just part of their Standard Operating Procedures. All NCDC, GISS and CRU use SST in their combined land and sea global temperature. There are two specific changes to the U.S. temperature observation network over the last century that have resulted in systemic cooling biases: time of observation changes at most of the stations from late afternoon to early morning, and a change in most of the instruments from liquid in glass thermometers to MMTS electronic instruments. Assuming you could accurately compensate this still doesn’t explain the almost monthly change in historic temperature adjustments which didn’t kick into high gear until after Obama was elected. Doing so would take a healthy slice off Tmean LST trend. captd. Observations are subject to unconscious bias because they are subjective – they are based on our interpretation of what we can see. Again, I wouldn’t sweat this if you were getting answers consistent with other methods. To determine potential bias associated with the reporting time, three times—0800, 1600, and 2400 h—were tested. However, there are two reasons. … During a still night, cold air also flows downhill and trees and shrubs can be used to guide / stop it hurting nonhardy plants. ), Except the majority of documented U.S. station inhomogeneities occur post-1975… The rare pair of identical adjacent data points may well be an accurate representation of reality in a century of data. so much for the theory that the US should be the most reliable. David, goes up do we see a similar trend in Tmean? instrument errors.. am I reading that right.. And you can check that estimate by doing out of sample testing. I in no way am claiming BEST is engaged in deceitful behavior, the bill of goods translating here roughly into “being sold the whole package without regards to the variable quality of the contents”. Steve M is very careful. If you change the observations times from afternoons to mornings, as occurred in the U.S., you change from occasionally double counting highs to occasionally double counting lows, resulting in a measurable bias. :) ), http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl, That should have been “max minus min,” not “max minux min.”. If it doesn’t match exactly, it’s not a double count. Thanks. Biases in recording objective data may result from poor training in the use of measurement devices or data sources, or unchecked bad habits. Luckily you dont get to decide what is useful for policy. 3. bad model. Some of this will probably be used if the paper we have been asked to work on continues forward. Much like Zeke never explained how his UHI reduction algorithms were not simply smearing the UHI effect evenly across all stations. The “trick” has been discovered by McIntyre and NASA had to step back. They will only assume, with certainty that anything volunteers did wrong always lowered temperature data and anything they did that might have warmed it, actually meets skepticism. Temperature series for mid and high latitude southern oceans is essentially non-existent before the satellite era. Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization. Given that TOBS occurred post 1960, it had very little impact on the global BEST temperature. Robert does have a complete archive of everything. Is it the historical daily average of highs and lows and has anyone looked at the UHI effect at Reagan airport. I have seen a maximum overall adjustments figure of about 0.8C mentioned, but I have seen many adjustments of individual sites of more than 1.0C. Your question should be, “For a non-random change why is Zeke/NOAA assuming a random error distribution?”. From the author: Not quite sure how to answer. Speaking of which, I suppose I should produce the same figure comparing BEST trend to GISTEMP land only (250km and 1200km both). taxiway usage (and holds on taxiway) used to cause issues especially. I expected something. Those were the days, my friends, they thought they’d never end. There is no need to put into the statistical mincer no satellite team will produce their code from end to end. So they round down to 85 rather than rounding up to 86. ‘ I guess I was wrong about TOBS”. There is no telling where he is coming from on this one. That would make it nearly impossible to isolate micro-site biases based on instrument type, i.e. This has not been counted. Here’s the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2531.html. Scientists are working their hardest to create the most accurate possible record of global temperatures, and use a number of methods including tests using synthetic data, side-by-side comparisons of different instruments, and analysis from multiple independent groups to ensure that their results are robust. However, Rumpelstiltskin was only able to spin straw (bad data) into gold (good data). Of course it could be said that this is a unrealistic example, since all thermometers are better located. I look at it like this. You just need to figure out how to get access to it, and when you have it what to do with it. Right, but adjustments should be instrument specific. I would love to see a link to the study that temporal/spatial coverage over the global ocean was adequate for global average temperature. Geoff. In Were it sunny for a moment, it would be much warmer. But if it all comes down to a drunken postmaster or a sheet of tin left under a Stevenson screen, I’ll live with it. They have the distinct (though unscientific) advantage of being able to match the data to their models rather than the other way about. Fortunately, that only happens a couple times each year. In our system it happens easily. There are no terrific statistics, but it would be nice to have some good ones. PA: The derivative of the min and max temps are very insightful, but it shows that what is happening to our climate now can not be a effect of a global forcing, but is from regional changes to min temp. BEST deserve many congratulations – for their open data, and methods, and for attempting different methods, and additionally, for their affiliated team members appearing online to answer questions in person. My guess is that a (Tmin+Tmax)/2 is usually substituted, but of course, that introduces a bias – and that may well be what we are discussing. Thank you for your analysis. Your phraseology suggests bias on your part, which I doubt was there in that form. The last couple of days I posted on an 8.5 year side-by-side test conducted by German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. All should work on understanding the well bounded cycle of the past 50 million years. This is the sort of logical conclusion that is lost on some. There is clearly a very big problem of interpretation with these adjustments. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/huge-scandal-just-not-that-one/ Used like a timing light; take the product of the two hourly values and do what you will with them… Post the results in the newspapers. The final not so amazement is comparing the PWSs data against nearby Met Office numbers. Temperature is an intrinsic property. Why not calculate Tmean directly from the area under the curve? Zeke is right, in GHCN the time of observation bias is indeed only applied in the USA. so you shift to minutia. That’s what we published. If RSS and UAH are only using half the data that is a choice not a system issue. Since the amount of heat going out increases by the 4th power with temperature increasing should not the true average temperature of the earth, reflecting the average amount of energy received and emitted that day be higher than a half of the max and min temperatures? is a natural extension of our fitting procedure that determines the I would guess, from first principles and without research, that the effect of trees would be to lower the minimum recorded temps at some times, and on average, with greater effect from greater height. Yeah, except I wasn’t talking about the fecklessness of congressional Republicans (who are mostly progressives anyway), I was talking about the pseudo-science of global average temperature. 2 he has about 1040 or so total stations, so are the zombies mid-night or mixed in with am/pm group :). pointing out that every discipline does this should focus people on what matters. I don’t know. If not, I can provide numerous examples where that argument has been used in climate debates to defend bad methodologies. If you are focused on improving the record.. well you have a tougher choice. Station Name: Essex St Hill, ahh “cool” lol Want to work on the problems of getting local scale correct using our approach? Meteor. Introducing a time component to the data collection (highs and lows over 24 hour period) means that moving air masses can influence more than one reading. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/ B) If you remove urban stations the trend will go down. JC SNIP. we landed on the moon The largest deviation occurs in the band centered at 23 W, which had reduced correlation at I doubt if BEST has been given the resources to examine the historic record in the same forensic manner of Camuffo and Jones. Figure 2: Net impact of TOBs adjustments on U.S. minimum and maximum temperatures via USHCN. read this are they doing work or assigning me homework. They are a good guess at the future. 35% are off by 10%, and 15% are crap. Satellite data has higher levels of structural uncertainty, Even if what Zeke says about TOBS makes sense, the probability that his explanation is correct is close to zero. You have to look at everything. Please contact the UAH and RSS groups directly on this. How long any one temperature is sustained is very relevant which is why you need to average all measurements, 8 hour periods are not great and only serve to paper over the fact that 3 is almost as useless as 2 values to average. please take that thermometer to congress when you testify for all skeptics. And the a straight average of the derivative based on actual measurements of the stations by area have the most useful information and is not infected with bias. I, like many others here, thought that the issue was, or at least we were given the impression; that you were adjusting ‘a consistent record of what was recorded’. For your info: “Overall, the SST data should be regarded as more reliable because averaging of fewer samples is needed for SST than for HadMAT to remove synoptic weather noise.” (IPCC AR4). Please refrain from the pejorative term “skeptic” to apply to me. If a bias in temperature readings CHANGES, the TREND will be biased. Look were people are willing to devote some effort. What about all the ice regions of the Earth where nothing lives above the surface. True. Rain is cumulative – generally quoted in per annum. Every time I’ve looked for an explanation of something GISS or HadCRUT does, I could find the answer. In my world, if you are found to have tampered with data you stand a chance of the EPA showing up with badges, Glocks and no sense of humor. I believe there is a lot that can be done to improve the quality of adjustments. As a bonus, the underlying raw data is the best available, not polluted by the double-counts suspected to introduce a systemic bias. Whether the books you looked at were the same records as the US holds or whether they were corrected. That can make a big difference. Not true. There was an unusual number to time of observation changes recorded but no one considered why there would be so many changes. Surely, you aren’t suggesting that SD=0. tonyb, regarding your questions to Mosher, are you familiar with this site? The operators instructors guide specifies one reset. That .5C includes everything, Not according to this guy There is no fraud. Yet you pretend you can… incredible. The bias is different depending on the station location, month, etc, Steven, just tell me how you determine the magnitude of the bias. put down your video game and read climate audit, its discussed there. The amount of error is probably less important than the difference between shore and highland, shade and sun, sand desert and peaty swamp. If one or the other is the cause of the pause does it matter? See the difference between the 0800 and 1600 TOBS? Zeke- P.S. World population increased by 4 billion from 1960 to 2014. Or that GHCN raw is not IMO adjusted? Of course the fact the troposphere didn't cook up was the cause of satellite data being, in some people's minds, "marginalised". For Fishersville, VA the Hrly should be 55.50 (same as all obs); for Harwood, ND the Hrly should be 44.60. You can think of it as an estimator A month ago, I wouldn’t have guessed the results were as large as 20%. People ignore actual facts about actual data. Use perfect Stations.. PURIST I’ll cover automated homogenization and sensor changes in more detail at some point in a future post. If anything, the adjustments underestimate the temperature rise. why just one measure for the whole day or month? First, they are inflection points, second how many different t min/ t max value pairs average to say 44F? Tape their mouths closed. A) calculate min/max at time X for 10 years JimD, as said on that thread, temperature adjustment is an interesting tempest in a teapot, albeit an interesting one. Well, no – no time this month…. I assume your 50 year trends are centered, so that the 1975 data point uses data up to 2000. Correct links for Punta Arenas are the following : If there is a great deal of trouble in resolving things for the more reliable data, I’d hate to imagine what my happen with the less reliable data. use of wind machines for certain types of frost protection. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000. Which is more likely to give a consistent result? than once and in different ways. “The quantitative uncertainty associated with each step in homogeneity adjustments needs to be provided: Time of observation, instrument changes, ”. A) AYUP The diurnal cycle peaks a few hours after local noon at the surface, a few hours later at 850 hPa, and somewhat earlier in the upper troposphere.
Vintage Bikes For Sale In Kerala, Pronoun For Class 3, Stain Killer Spray Home Depot, Scottish Government Grants, Songs With Maggie In Them, How To Remove Ceramic Tile From The Wall, Pa Cdl Physical Exam Locations, Kuwait Schools Opening, Rubbermaid Twin Track Black,