NCDC Changing Temperature Data Values

(I’ve been sitting on this post as a draft for a couple days, thought I would finally post it based on an earlier comment by John, in which we can clearly see that the “2010 is the hottest year evah! ” talking point is a lie, and Warmists don’t care enough to see hard data)

I happened to be looking up some values regarding the talking points of “9 of the 10 warmest years EVAH!!!!!! occurring during this century” in a whiny post at Climate Progress by Tiffany Germain. Those values came from a post by Anthony Watts. Let’s take a look at some of those values, shall we?

That’s the beginning of the data set starting with warmest “on record” (which only goes back to 1895), and we should expect increasing warmth during a warm period following a cool period, shouldn’t we? But, that’s a separate debate.

Now, here’s what I found today

That data set comes from looking at temperature, time scale is year to date, month is December (that’s the end month). Let’s break this down, shall we?

What’s with all the downward revisions? .71+ is not chump change when we’re talking about data that is presented in tenths of a degree in order to maximize the visual impact. Of course, they now have 2012 as #1 by a wide margin, instead of the original .26. I suspect this is done intentionally, just like so much of the other data has been changed to conform to the talking points.

Data is data. If they took the measurements and set them, why change them? Who is changing them? Why change them? One meter is 100 centimeters. You don’t change it to 90 centimeters. (edited for correct figures)

It will be interesting to see what they do with 2013, which has over 70% of the nation at or below average temperatures.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “NCDC Changing Temperature Data Values”

  1. Zachriel says:

    NCDC: The raw data is constantly being scrutinized to “account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice.” Version 3.2.0 of GHCN was released in September 2012.

  2. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    What doesn’t make sense, is why KEEP ON changing the values. I can see changing pas values following a station move or an upgrade. But there is no reason at all to keep on massaging the data year after year after year.

    Sites don’t get changed that much. Which is actually one of the problems with the site-thermometer data. and when sites are moved, there is no formalized cooperative procedure to calculate what the transformative equation will be on the old data.

    More than likely, as we have seen in the past, the data-holders massage the data because it does not conform to their models.

    That’s the problem with the cult’s scientists. They believe the data must fit the models.

  3. Zachriel says:

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: What doesn’t make sense, is why KEEP ON changing the values.

    Because more information and methods become available.

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Which is actually one of the problems with the site-thermometer data. and when sites are moved, there is no formalized cooperative procedure to calculate what the transformative equation will be on the old data.

    What you can do is take the raw data, and see if the trend is there. What do you think you will find?

  4. john says:

    Teach just when I think you can not embarrass yourself to a greater degree you somehow manage to do it. Teach the metric is pretty simple, that is the reason that most of the world chooses to use it.

    Data is data. If they took the measurements and set them, why change them? Who is changing them? Why change them? One meter is 10 centimeters. You don’t change it to 9 centimeters.

    Teach a centimeter is 1/100 of a meter (think cent)
    A decimeter is a tenth of a meter

    Teach my advice is to take another good long hard look at some middle school math and science books, before trying to tell us that all the scientists are wrong.

    Yo gotta know i am going to have a hard time letting this go

  5. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    Deflect much (again) john?
    And yeah, we (and all of Zacriel’s personalities) noticed that you completely missed the point of the post. It was not about an attack on the use of metric. Temperature is not metric john, you moronic troll.

  6. Zachriel says:

    Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Temperature is not metric

    We saw that problem in the original post too, but figured it was just an ill-chosen analogy.

  7. Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs says:

    You’re an idiot too. The analogy is correct. john was trying to be specific.

  8. Nah, John’s right. I posted this using Droid and it picked up the original before revision.

    Still, he likes his deflections

  9. gail Combs says:

    “GIStemp, dumber than a tomato” or It’s Cold, Just Ask The Tomatoes

    And then there was the Great Dying of Thermometers.

    Verity Jones did a great deal of work on The ‘Station drop out’ problem and Temperature stations : how many have data adjusted?

    Most of the ‘Warming’ has been due to data ‘Adjustments’ link but when any one asks about it you get “The Dog Ate my Homework” (Phil Jones CRU) or The Goat Ate the Data

    And then there is The Airport Issue When they killed off thermometers they left an overabundance of airports.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9805 access attempts in the last 7 days.