Temperature Adjustments Mar 6, 2015 0:33:27 GMT
Post by missouriboy on Mar 6, 2015 0:33:27 GMT
Adjusting the data is not wrong in this regard of ensuring consistency among weather stations. The data was collected originally with no regard to the use of "averaging" between weather stations but entirely for the sake of consistency in reporting from a specific weather station.
Where I think the problem is in is in managing the task so that each weather station is treated the same in a manner specifically designed to accurately represent the objective. Instead, like all academic and piecemeal work its done inconsistently and nobody knows if what is being done is for an identical objective. Further due to the nature of funding for this work its more than likely what is being adjusted is biased going out the door. We have graphically seen how the main guy in all this Dr. Phil (the dog ate my raw data) Jones worked to essentially deceive the IPCC process as to the strength of information about historical warming. No question he did the same sort of questionable manipulation with the historical data sets that in whole or in part underlie every global surface record in the world. thats true because only Phil Jones and his group are the only people to compile datasets of considerable portions of the globe over considerable periods of time, up until sometime in the past 30 or 40 years, a fact that has huge ramifications as to how much warming we have really experienced since say the late 1930's and early 1940's.
There is no question of the likelihood of in inappropriate adjustments because he has defended the "Hide the Decline" trick as a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
Of course he got demoted over it, as all the agencies scrambled to deny any significance of it, but heck we probably should not pay any attention to that!
So my bottom line is yes some adjustments are warranted, but the original datasets should be archived and all methodologies and computer processing documented and archived as well. And at some point somebody should audit not just the recomplilation of the adjusted data as was done in the Best reconstruction but go back and actually audit (in the professional sense of the term) all the adjustment processes for consistency and a lack of bias and the reconstruction.
However that might not be possible considering the likelihood all the raw data and adjustment methodologies are not properly archived.
No data set is perfect ... never has been and likely never will be ... people change, methods and instrumentation change, places change.
There's nothing wrong with categorizing stations and their data sets as to quality, limitations or anything else. There is no problem with
adjusting data for specific purposes such as, as you state, ensuring consistency among weather stations. The problem lies in replacing
original, historical data with adjustments of ANY kind. The original data, whatever their warts, should always be available for verification
or use ... at the user's discretion. The old adage that ... "figures don't lie, but liars figure" will always be with us. While "liar" is a harsh term ...
how is one to figure out who the "fibbers" are without the original figures? Or ... was that the whole point?
NOAA used to have a stellar reputation ... but we are left to question either their competence or their honesty.
Particularly when I see data like this for two locations just 50 miles apart ... on the Official data base?
I suppose nothing is impossible. Do you think that they are just incompetent?