No wonder it's the warmest year on record, in Michigan it was 600°F! we're screwed

[Hacp]

I'm of the opinion that it's as the NOAA Program Coordinator stated. "..................One of our colleagues checked the status of the satellite that generated that image on that particular day and indicated it was operational but degraded. We'll look more into this.

Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator "

My curiosity is whether this data was used in NOAA's recent claim about "the hottest year ever" It's a question that should be very easy to answer and whether or not it had an effect on their results. I don't see it as a deliberate attempt to manipulate data, but an example of sloppy QC.

My question is why it didn't read -400 degrees instead of 600 degrees? Why was it a higher temperature instead of a lower temperature?

 

[CycloWizard]

Alright so let me get this straight.
-their raw data has a value that is totally fucked, 600 degrees
-they want to Q test this value out, which would LOWER the temperature
-you claim that their lowering the temperature through statistical fuckery is a conspiracy to increase the temperature?

Would you rather them leave the outlier in there so the reported average is waaaay higher? Or do you want them to "change the raw data deliberately" which would lower the average and increase the precision of their numbers?

That's not how outlier discovery works. Seeding a dataset with wild values increases the apparent variance of the distribution, thereby making it much more difficult to pick up outliers (since they are now mathematically inliers). Of course, in this case, they could just use a simple sniff test: if the temperature is over, say, 150°F, it can probably be thrown out. That wouldn't get all of them, but it would certainly get a lot of the crap on that map real quickly.

 

[Double Trouble]

If we (or rather, the entire public, including all scientists) don't have access to the raw data on which studies are based, they are meaningless. It's simply too easy to manipulate data. Each time something like this comes up, they go and fix it real quick, but it calls into question their entire methodology.

 

[CycloWizard]

If we (or rather, the entire public, including all scientists) don't have access to the raw data on which studies are based, they are meaningless. It's simply too easy to manipulate data. Each time something like this comes up, they go and fix it real quick, but it calls into question their entire methodology.

You should be able to gain access to the raw data by contacting the corresponding author of the article. That author is responsible for sending any requested datasets (and such things as chemical reagents) to anyone who might request them.

 

[Lemon law]

Where does this whole concept come from, but somehow, global warming deniers seem to think any exaggerated claim, typo, small unintended error or the similar is PROOF POSITIVE that global warming does not exist.

 

[chucky2]

The problem LL is it's not a typo, or a small unintended error, it's F'ing 600 degrees!

The data from these satellites needs to be posted to the public (and once posted never to be edited again, ever, so as to remove any doubt of post-sharing tampering/cover-up) as both raw, and raw w/ corruption corrected and noted...with the same corrected raw being corrected by at least two people, one who's a MMCC skeptic (have the oil companies fund him/her), and the other a Believer, that way whatever ends up as corrected raw can at least somewhat be trusted as not having glaring F'ups like this one.

Scientists can then chose to use one or the other for their work, preferably the corrected raw...in fact, if we went through the trouble of funding both a skeptic and a Believer to correct the raw data for inaccuracies before sharing, I'd say only share the corrected raw, but, keep the raw in-house only as a backup (you know, not destroy it or change the raw so later people are asking WhyTF did you change it and what was it before).

It's just simply inexcusable that someone from the public brought a failing satellite to the attention of the people closest to the data from the satellite: There 1.) should have been a warning from the aforementioned data checkers to the satellite folks that the satellite data was hosed, and none could be trusted, and 2.) a posting by those same folks to the public internet page where they post their data explaining that data would not be shared until the satellite was fixed.

Now the only thing we can assume, after the past year or three of F'ups by MMCC scientists on their data being made public, is that yet again, they're caught.

This type of shit is just insane, it makes getting a clear and untarnished view of Global Climate Change that much harder to be accepted by Everyone so concensus can be reached on the best ways to move forward.

Unreal!

Chuck

 

[DrPizza]

Some of you guys are a bunch of friggin idiots. Did you even read the article (which is pretty clearly written by someone with an agenda - hint - read the address of the URL:

Author's Addendum:
Of major concern here is whether the false data has been fed into climate models ascertaining the broader temperature averages for the entire United States.

The author found that there were errors in data as reported somewhere. Yet, you guys claim that
A) This raw data that is publicly available is not publicly available because scientists aren't releasing it.
B) Any attempt to deal with outliers like this is "cooking the data."
C) This data was actually used in climate models when even the author states that he doesn't know.

Regardless of your point of view on global warming, to accept at face value any article written which supports your point of view shows an incredible degree of academic laziness.

Furthermore, the title - average of 10 to 15 degrees warmer. Sure, if you have one data point that's 500 and something degrees above the actual value, when you average it in with a bunch of other data points that are correct, the new average is going to be 10-15 degrees higher. If the other data points were higher than actual, then that average is going to be even higher yet. I can't recall any scientific studies that said "OMG! Michigan was 15 degrees warmer on average this year!" That's pretty telling that this 600 degree point was NOT used. ANYONE who isn't an idiot will "manipulate (omg!)" the raw data to exclude outliers.

 

[Hacp]

Some of you guys are a bunch of friggin idiots. Did you even read the article (which is pretty clearly written by someone with an agenda - hint - read the address of the URL:
The author found that there were errors in data as reported somewhere. Yet, you guys claim that
A) This raw data that is publicly available is not publicly available because scientists aren't releasing it.
B) Any attempt to deal with outliers like this is "cooking the data."
C) This data was actually used in climate models when even the author states that he doesn't know.

Regardless of your point of view on global warming, to accept at face value any article written which supports your point of view shows an incredible degree of academic laziness.

Furthermore, the title - average of 10 to 15 degrees warmer. Sure, if you have one data point that's 500 and something degrees above the actual value, when you average it in with a bunch of other data points that are correct, the new average is going to be 10-15 degrees higher. If the other data points were higher than actual, then that average is going to be even higher yet. I can't recall any scientific studies that said "OMG! Michigan was 15 degrees warmer on average this year!" That's pretty telling that this 600 degree point was NOT used. ANYONE who isn't an idiot will "manipulate (omg!)" the raw data to exclude outliers.

Scientists are probably releasing processed data, not raw data. They do this by adjusting low temperatures higher, extrapolating temperatures to areas where there aren't any stations, then releasing the data and calling it "raw" when it really isn't raw.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

 

[senseamp]

You really don't know what you are talking about. If you are going to critique scientists and statistics, at least get some basic knowledge of science and statistics to base your critique on.

 

[NeoV]

let me summarize

a mistake in a number - as pointed out earlier - likely a mis-placed decimal

out of the hundreds of thousands of numbers involved in this...

and the "see it's a conspiricy" morons are circle jerking in full force

here is a question dumb asses - take the number out - what do all the trends still show?

it's getting hotter

some of you clueless people still bring up stuff like hockey-stick graphs - even though at least 3 other major studies - with no 'found' errors in them - show nearly the exact same pattern - but it's the 'hockey stick' error that you want to talk about

temperature readings, for the planet as a whole - as well as a host of other measurments, show the same thing - but you morons want to talk about a temperature reading station that happened to be located in a really sunny spot - nevermind the fact that there are likely sensors in really shady areas too..

it just goes on and on like this

it's getting warmer folks

the questions now are - what happens next - is there anything we can/should do about it?

I'm all for arguing what makes the most sense in terms of what to do, what makes sense economically and scientifically - but this arguing about if it's really getting warmer or not - it's just plain stupid -

the way you people jump up and down about a story from - get this - an anti-gw site - is just pathetic.

 

[Hacp]

You really don't know what you are talking about. If you are going to critique scientists and statistics, at least get some basic knowledge of science and statistics to base your critique on.

Obtaining raw data that hasn't been adjusted or cherry picked to check that scientists are playing by the rules is not a fundamental part of science? If we just trusted scientists without fact checking their original data, we could have many instances of the stem cell debacle that occurred 5 years ago, with that korean scientist that was disgraced after lying about all his work.

 

[Hacp]

it's getting warmer folks

How do we know that when the data sets are not independant of each other? We have "official" separate data sets that show the earth is getting warmer. Well three of those use some of the same stations! They use the same data and still call the data sets independent. Fallacy.

 

[Robor]

Some of you guys are a bunch of friggin idiots. Did you even read the article (which is pretty clearly written by someone with an agenda - hint - read the address of the URL:
The author found that there were errors in data as reported somewhere. Yet, you guys claim that
A) This raw data that is publicly available is not publicly available because scientists aren't releasing it.
B) Any attempt to deal with outliers like this is "cooking the data."
C) This data was actually used in climate models when even the author states that he doesn't know.

Regardless of your point of view on global warming, to accept at face value any article written which supports your point of view shows an incredible degree of academic laziness.

Furthermore, the title - average of 10 to 15 degrees warmer. Sure, if you have one data point that's 500 and something degrees above the actual value, when you average it in with a bunch of other data points that are correct, the new average is going to be 10-15 degrees higher. If the other data points were higher than actual, then that average is going to be even higher yet. I can't recall any scientific studies that said "OMG! Michigan was 15 degrees warmer on average this year!" That's pretty telling that this 600 degree point was NOT used. ANYONE who isn't an idiot will "manipulate (omg!)" the raw data to exclude outliers.

Stop interrupting a great anti-GW circle jerk with facts.

 

[Pens1566]

So who is pivot?

 

[waggy]

my big complaint with these are that they never release the data so others can verify its correct.

it IS getting hotter. that much is fact. Though i am do not buy that its 100% man caused. There is a history of the world getting hotter then cooling off.

 

[Paul98]

It's funny that all of you want the raw data then when you get it you don't bother to do any analysis on it and instead say look all the data must be wrong since part of it was obviously wrong. Then you complain that they took out the data that was incorrect. You don't bother to try and understand what or why things are not accurate or what's going on.

If you have data that you know has to be adjusted or is going to be incorrect seems that you would want to adjust, or throw away the stuff you know is incorrect.

Having written programs that deal with data, and worked with people who have to deal with the data. Sometimes there is tons of faulty/bad data, or data that needs to be adjusted to read correctly. If you know that you are going to have this bad data in your data set you better be removing data you know is bad, and adjusting data that you know needs to be adjusted. That way when you actually work with the data set you can at least hope you are working with good data.

 

[Jaskalas]

it IS getting hotter. that much is fact.

Correction, it WAS getting warmer.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

 

[Brainonska511]

Correction, it WAS getting warmer.

Playing with graph scales and ranges to get what you want?

 

[Moonbeam]

I knew I wasn't God when I got a hang nail.

 

[NeoV]

look, it only took 2 pages for Jaskalas and his BS to make an appearance - I am let down though - since you've figured out this is all due to El Nino - and you haven't even mentioned that yet? Slacker.

Here's a tip Jaska - look at a temperature graph from 1975 to today, then you tell me what the trend is

the 'down' trend your pathetic little graph shows - you and I both know the explanation for that - in fact it's the 'sister' to your El Nino explanation for everything - La Nina - but you already knew that, right?

 

[waggy]

Playing with graph scales and ranges to get what you want?

that's the problem. you don't know what information is 100% correct or truthful.


I wish that people would put out the data, the experiments etc. Everything without messing with it so we know what the fuck is going on.

right now there is so much bullshit going on the avarage joe has little to actually believe (well besides IT IS getting warmer and this summer has sucked!)

 

[Hacp]

Playing with graph scales and ranges to get what you want?

Same should be said of climate wackos. Why don't people show the graphs in Kelvin? Why don't they show the whole graph(from 0 kelvin to whatever degree it is) instead of zooming in on a particular section? Because they have nothing to stand on otherwise.

 

[Jaskalas]

Playing with graph scales and ranges to get what you want?

Yes, the entire last decade was "playing with graph scales". What will you say when 2010-2019 accelerates the cooling trend from 2000-2009?

 

[NeoV]

jaskalas - you simply don't get it - the 'only' real cooling trend was in 2007, which was only for a short period of time that year, and was for the most part attributable to the La Nina effect - which has produced similar, global drops in the past

there is no overall cooling trend from 2000 to 2009, it's that simple, and it's cute how you left 2010 out, which clearly isn't supporting your 'cooling trend' either

 

[monovillage]

jaskalas - you simply don't get it - the 'only' real cooling trend was in 2007, which was only for a short period of time that year, and was for the most part attributable to the La Nina effect - which has produced similar, global drops in the past

there is no overall cooling trend from 2000 to 2009, it's that simple, and it's cute how you left 2010 out, which clearly isn't supporting your 'cooling trend' either

It's tough to understand, but 2010 isn't over yet. posted on 8-15-10