Raw Climate Data - a challenge

[asterism]

Through other conversations here and elsewhere, I've made the point that the raw data has either been hidden or destroyed through incompetent data management. While the Climategate folks made every intention to keep their data secret, eventually forces beyond their control caused them to relent and they released everything they said they had.

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted - environment - 28 July 2011 - New Scientist

The only problem I see with this is that in none of those links, supporting links, or any of the other files released is there actual raw data. EVERY dataset has averages, average anomalies, and data that has been adjusted.

Here's the Met Office (UK's National Weather Service) website, where the raw data is said to reside:

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

I challenge anyone to find a file with a station's actual temperature record.

An actual temperature record would be something denoting the station, the temperature at a given time, and the time and date.

Any takers?

 

[Abraham3]

Through other conversations here and elsewhere, I've made the point that the raw data has either been hidden or destroyed through incompetent data management. While the Climategate folks made every intention to keep their data secret, eventually forces beyond their control caused them to relent and they released everything they said they had.

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted - environment - 28 July 2011 - New Scientist

The only problem I see with this is that in none of those links, supporting links, or any of the other files released is there actual raw data. EVERY dataset has averages, average anomalies, and data that has been adjusted.

Here's the Met Office (UK's National Weather Service) website, where the raw data is said to reside:

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

I challenge anyone to find a file with a station's actual temperature record.

An actual temperature record would be something denoting the station, the temperature at a given time, and the time and date.

Any takers?

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

 

[asterism]

Through other conversations here and elsewhere, I've made the point that the raw data has either been hidden or destroyed through incompetent data management. While the Climategate folks made every intention to keep their data secret, eventually forces beyond their control caused them to relent and they released everything they said they had.

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted - environment - 28 July 2011 - New Scientist

The only problem I see with this is that in none of those links, supporting links, or any of the other files released is there actual raw data. EVERY dataset has averages, average anomalies, and data that has been adjusted.

Here's the Met Office (UK's National Weather Service) website, where the raw data is said to reside:

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

I challenge anyone to find a file with a station's actual temperature record.

An actual temperature record would be something denoting the station, the temperature at a given time, and the time and date.

Any takers?

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

So you're saying that the raw data is not available?

That's what I've been saying for years.

 

[asterism]

Through other conversations here and elsewhere, I've made the point that the raw data has either been hidden or destroyed through incompetent data management. While the Climategate folks made every intention to keep their data secret, eventually forces beyond their control caused them to relent and they released everything they said they had.

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted - environment - 28 July 2011 - New Scientist

The only problem I see with this is that in none of those links, supporting links, or any of the other files released is there actual raw data. EVERY dataset has averages, average anomalies, and data that has been adjusted.

Here's the Met Office (UK's National Weather Service) website, where the raw data is said to reside:

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

I challenge anyone to find a file with a station's actual temperature record.

An actual temperature record would be something denoting the station, the temperature at a given time, and the time and date.

Any takers?

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

I think that through improper data management and lack of expertise in software development the initial data manipulation was flawed.

These are both documented here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

'Botch after botch after botch' | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

 

[Old Rocks]

Same shit that Watts has been bleating about for decades. And then Muller did the study and found that the data and it's use were accurate.

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer | Ars Technica

In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups. Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years. But, given this analysis, there's no reason to give any credibility to accusations that climate scientists were cooking the books on temperatures.

But could the climate record be inadvertently biased? Critics have suggested that urbanization and the changing environment around many temperature stations have created a false warming signal; this is the premise behind the Surface Stations project, which went out and rated US instruments for likely problems. Both of these issues had been tackled by the scientific community. A paper from NOAA scientists looked at the best-rated US surface stations, and found they produced a temperature plot indistinguishable from that of the network as a whole. Berkeley Earth essentially duplicates this analysis.

Similarly, a group of NASA scientists (including James Hansen—yes, he still does science) used satellite images of nighttime lighting to determine which temperature stations are in urban areas, and found that these have a minimal impact on the temperature record. Berkeley Earth used a different source of urbanization information (daylight imagery that was processed by a machine learning algorithm), but come to the same conclusion: the urban heat island effect isn't skewing the temperature record.

What we have here are the same people that worked for the tobacco corperations trying to spread doubt about established science.

 

[RollingThunder]

Through other conversations here and elsewhere, I've made the point that the raw data has either been hidden or destroyed through incompetent data management. While the Climategate folks made every intention to keep their data secret, eventually forces beyond their control caused them to relent and they released everything they said they had.

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted - environment - 28 July 2011 - New Scientist

The only problem I see with this is that in none of those links, supporting links, or any of the other files released is there actual raw data. EVERY dataset has averages, average anomalies, and data that has been adjusted.

Here's the Met Office (UK's National Weather Service) website, where the raw data is said to reside:

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

I challenge anyone to find a file with a station's actual temperature record.

An actual temperature record would be something denoting the station, the temperature at a given time, and the time and date.

Any takers?

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

I think that through improper data management and lack of expertise in software development the initial data manipulation was flawed.

You've made it pretty obvious, ass-ism, that you "think a lot of bogus crap is true because you're too stupid and clueless to realize it is crap. You don't understand science at all but you're arrogant and deluded enough, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, to imagine that you're competent to critique the work that world class scientists have done just because you don't like their conclusions.

These are both documented here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

'Botch after botch after botch' | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Nothing is "documented at those sites. They are opinion pieces and denier cult propaganda, not science.

 

[asterism]

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

I think that through improper data management and lack of expertise in software development the initial data manipulation was flawed.

You've made it pretty obvious, ass-ism, that you "think a lot of bogus crap is true because you're too stupid and clueless to realize it is crap. You don't understand science at all but you're arrogant and deluded enough, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, to imagine that you're competent to critique the work that world class scientists have done just because you don't like their conclusions.

These are both documented here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

'Botch after botch after botch' | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Nothing is "documented at those sites. They are opinion pieces and denier cult propaganda, not science.

You keep repeating the same talking point, and you are one who claimed that the raw data was available.


Do you actually consider an average monthly anomaly to be "raw data?"

 

[asterism]

Same shit that Watts has been bleating about for decades. And then Muller did the study and found that the data and it's use were accurate.

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer | Ars Technica

In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups. Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years. But, given this analysis, there's no reason to give any credibility to accusations that climate scientists were cooking the books on temperatures.

But could the climate record be inadvertently biased? Critics have suggested that urbanization and the changing environment around many temperature stations have created a false warming signal; this is the premise behind the Surface Stations project, which went out and rated US instruments for likely problems. Both of these issues had been tackled by the scientific community. A paper from NOAA scientists looked at the best-rated US surface stations, and found they produced a temperature plot indistinguishable from that of the network as a whole. Berkeley Earth essentially duplicates this analysis.

Similarly, a group of NASA scientists (including James Hansen—yes, he still does science) used satellite images of nighttime lighting to determine which temperature stations are in urban areas, and found that these have a minimal impact on the temperature record. Berkeley Earth used a different source of urbanization information (daylight imagery that was processed by a machine learning algorithm), but come to the same conclusion: the urban heat island effect isn't skewing the temperature record.

What we have here are the same people that worked for the tobacco corperations trying to spread doubt about established science.

You're skilled at finding links.

Show me the station data temperature readings. No averages, no adjustments, the actual "raw data."

Berkeley Earth doesn't provide it.

Berkeley Earth

Why don't they provide it? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.


Garbage In = Garbage Out

 

[Abraham3]

Same shit that Watts has been bleating about for decades. And then Muller did the study and found that the data and it's use were accurate.

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer | Ars Technica

In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups. Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years. But, given this analysis, there's no reason to give any credibility to accusations that climate scientists were cooking the books on temperatures.

But could the climate record be inadvertently biased? Critics have suggested that urbanization and the changing environment around many temperature stations have created a false warming signal; this is the premise behind the Surface Stations project, which went out and rated US instruments for likely problems. Both of these issues had been tackled by the scientific community. A paper from NOAA scientists looked at the best-rated US surface stations, and found they produced a temperature plot indistinguishable from that of the network as a whole. Berkeley Earth essentially duplicates this analysis.

Similarly, a group of NASA scientists (including James Hansen—yes, he still does science) used satellite images of nighttime lighting to determine which temperature stations are in urban areas, and found that these have a minimal impact on the temperature record. Berkeley Earth used a different source of urbanization information (daylight imagery that was processed by a machine learning algorithm), but come to the same conclusion: the urban heat island effect isn't skewing the temperature record.

What we have here are the same people that worked for the tobacco corperations trying to spread doubt about established science.

You're skilled at finding links.

Show me the station data temperature readings. No averages, no adjustments, the actual "raw data."

Berkeley Earth doesn't provide it.

Berkeley Earth

Why don't they provide it? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.


Garbage In = Garbage Out

What time resolution do you want?

 

[asterism]

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

I think that through improper data management and lack of expertise in software development the initial data manipulation was flawed.

You've made it pretty obvious, ass-ism, that you "think a lot of bogus crap is true because you're too stupid and clueless to realize it is crap. You don't understand science at all but you're arrogant and deluded enough, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, to imagine that you're competent to critique the work that world class scientists have done just because you don't like their conclusions.

These are both documented here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

'Botch after botch after botch' | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Nothing is "documented at those sites. They are opinion pieces and denier cult propaganda, not science.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

I'm a member of the Decision Sciences Institute, have served on multiple public committees specifically dealing with analysis and evaluation of data, and have 25 years experience developing software.

I may be wrong in my opinion and analysis, but it is not due to any cognitive bias resulting from my being unskilled.

What are your skills?

 

[asterism]

Same shit that Watts has been bleating about for decades. And then Muller did the study and found that the data and it's use were accurate.

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer | Ars Technica

In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups. Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years. But, given this analysis, there's no reason to give any credibility to accusations that climate scientists were cooking the books on temperatures.

But could the climate record be inadvertently biased? Critics have suggested that urbanization and the changing environment around many temperature stations have created a false warming signal; this is the premise behind the Surface Stations project, which went out and rated US instruments for likely problems. Both of these issues had been tackled by the scientific community. A paper from NOAA scientists looked at the best-rated US surface stations, and found they produced a temperature plot indistinguishable from that of the network as a whole. Berkeley Earth essentially duplicates this analysis.

Similarly, a group of NASA scientists (including James Hansen—yes, he still does science) used satellite images of nighttime lighting to determine which temperature stations are in urban areas, and found that these have a minimal impact on the temperature record. Berkeley Earth used a different source of urbanization information (daylight imagery that was processed by a machine learning algorithm), but come to the same conclusion: the urban heat island effect isn't skewing the temperature record.

What we have here are the same people that worked for the tobacco corperations trying to spread doubt about established science.

You're skilled at finding links.

Show me the station data temperature readings. No averages, no adjustments, the actual "raw data."

Berkeley Earth doesn't provide it.

Berkeley Earth

Why don't they provide it? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.


Garbage In = Garbage Out

What time resolution do you want?

Daily if the time is noted, otherwise hourly as long as it's noted.

 

[Abraham3]

You're skilled at finding links.

Show me the station data temperature readings. No averages, no adjustments, the actual "raw data."

Berkeley Earth doesn't provide it.

Berkeley Earth

Why don't they provide it? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.


Garbage In = Garbage Out

What time resolution do you want?

Daily if the time is noted, otherwise hourly as long as it's noted.

But you've just told us that averaged data were garbage. Daily will be average. Hourly will be averaged. They're all garbage.

If someone is looking for CLIMATIC trends, how much time resolution do you really think they need?

And, with all that technical experience, would you mind explaining to us how averaging turns good data into garbage?

 

[whitehall]

The left wing sponsored analysis of "raw climate data" seems similar to the series on "raw mermaids data". Is it real or is it an elaborate scam?

 

[asterism]

What time resolution do you want?

Daily if the time is noted, otherwise hourly as long as it's noted.

But you've just told us that averaged data were garbage. Daily will be average. Hourly will be averaged. They're all garbage.

Read what I said again. I said daily, as long as the time is noted. That's not an average, it's a reading of temperature at a certain date and a certain time. Hourly is the same, a temperature reading at a certain time of a certain day.

Do you understand how thermometers work?

If someone is looking for CLIMATIC trends, how much time resolution do you really think they need?

The best available as long as the raw data is provided, not the data that has been run through a computer program. That's the crux of my skepticism, that the people who wrote these computer programs have neither formal education nor experience in software development.

And, with all that technical experience, would you mind explaining to us how averaging turns good data into garbage?

If sensor readings are taken a different parts of the day and that data is not captured, it produces an inaccurate trend. If sensor readings over the course of a month are not taken consistently at the same time of each day every day, those readings are inconsistent. If the equation used to average a monthly set of readings and are not true averages but give weighted averages to compensate for a lack of data, those averages are a guess at best.

Read some of the comments noted in "Botch after Botch" cited above. Then read the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file cited above.

This is not the work of professionals.

 

[asterism]

From the page to which you linked:

HadCRUT3 is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for use in climate monitoring and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available. The data contain monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations.
***************************
Are you suggesting that by averaging the temperature readings over a month, they were able to make them look warmer than they actually are? You'll have to explain in what way you believe averaging distorts the data.

BTW, if you wanted it daily, the files, the download time and the storage space required all go up 30-fold. If you wanted it hourly, they all go up 720-fold.

Have you tried contacting them and explaining your need? I'm quite sure they can satisfy your needs. After all, they've got nothing else to do.

I think that through improper data management and lack of expertise in software development the initial data manipulation was flawed.

You've made it pretty obvious, ass-ism, that you "think a lot of bogus crap is true because you're too stupid and clueless to realize it is crap. You don't understand science at all but you're arrogant and deluded enough, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, to imagine that you're competent to critique the work that world class scientists have done just because you don't like their conclusions.

These are both documented here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

'Botch after botch after botch' | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Nothing is "documented at those sites. They are opinion pieces and denier cult propaganda, not science.

Are you disputing the accuracy of what is presented?

That's a separate matter entirely.

 

[Abraham3]

Daily if the time is noted, otherwise hourly as long as it's noted.

But you've just told us that averaged data were garbage. Daily will be average. Hourly will be averaged. They're all garbage.

Read what I said again. I said daily, as long as the time is noted. That's not an average, it's a reading of temperature at a certain date and a certain time. Hourly is the same, a temperature reading at a certain time of a certain day.

Do you understand how thermometers work?

If someone is looking for CLIMATIC trends, how much time resolution do you really think they need?

The best available as long as the raw data is provided, not the data that has been run through a computer program. That's the crux of my skepticism, that the people who wrote these computer programs have neither formal education nor experience in software development.

And, with all that technical experience, would you mind explaining to us how averaging turns good data into garbage?

If sensor readings are taken a different parts of the day and that data is not captured, it produces an inaccurate trend. If sensor readings over the course of a month are not taken consistently at the same time of each day every day, those readings are inconsistent. If the equation used to average a monthly set of readings and are not true averages but give weighted averages to compensate for a lack of data, those averages are a guess at best.

Read some of the comments noted in "Botch after Botch" cited above. Then read the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file cited above.

This is not the work of professionals.

Isn't it interesting that the experts always seem to be lacking in the areas where their critics feel strongest.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's your daily data, hotshot.

The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Main Page

Did you even look for it?

 

[asterism]

But you've just told us that averaged data were garbage. Daily will be average. Hourly will be averaged. They're all garbage.

Read what I said again. I said daily, as long as the time is noted. That's not an average, it's a reading of temperature at a certain date and a certain time. Hourly is the same, a temperature reading at a certain time of a certain day.

Do you understand how thermometers work?



The best available as long as the raw data is provided, not the data that has been run through a computer program. That's the crux of my skepticism, that the people who wrote these computer programs have neither formal education nor experience in software development.

And, with all that technical experience, would you mind explaining to us how averaging turns good data into garbage?

If sensor readings are taken a different parts of the day and that data is not captured, it produces an inaccurate trend. If sensor readings over the course of a month are not taken consistently at the same time of each day every day, those readings are inconsistent. If the equation used to average a monthly set of readings and are not true averages but give weighted averages to compensate for a lack of data, those averages are a guess at best.

Read some of the comments noted in "Botch after Botch" cited above. Then read the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file cited above.

This is not the work of professionals.

Isn't it interesting that the experts always seem to be lacking in the areas where their critics feel strongest.

Yes it is. However I don't "feel" strongest in this area. It's what I do. The "experts" actually are lacking. Go read about Mann's education in computer programming. Then when you're done with that, find out how Phil Jones became some master of data analysis and software development.

 

[asterism]

Here's your daily data, hotshot.

The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Main Page

Did you even look for it?

Yes I did.

Show me where they provide comprehensive (even if it's incomplete) data for temperature readings.

None are there.

USHCN daily data are available as ASCII files.
The format of each record in an ASCII data file, be it a state-level
file (e.g., state01_AL.txt) or the file for the entire U.S. (us.txt)
is as follows. (Each record in a file contains one month of daily data.)

Variable Columns Type
COOP ID 1-6 Character
YEAR 7-10 Integer
MONTH 11-12 Integer
ELEMENT 13-16 Character
VALUE1 17-21 Integer
MFLAG1 22 Character
QFLAG1 23 Character
SFLAG1 24 Character
VALUE2 25-29 Integer
MFLAG2 30 Character
QFLAG2 31 Character
SFLAG2 32 Character
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
VALUE31 257-261 Integer
MFLAG31 262 Character
QFLAG31 263 Character
SFLAG31 264 Character

These variables have the following definitions:

COOP ID is the U.S. Cooperative Observer Network station identification
code. Note that the first two digits in the Coop Id correspond to the state.

YEAR is the year of the record.

MONTH is the month of the record.

ELEMENT is the element type. There are five possible values:
PRCP = precipitation (hundredths of inches)
SNOW = snowfall (tenths of inches)
SNWD = snow depth (inches)
TMAX = maximum temperature (degrees F)
TMIN = minimum temperature (degrees F)

VALUE1 is the value on the first day of the month (missing = -9999).

MFLAG1 is the measurement flag for the first day of the month. There are
ten possible values:

Blank = no measurement information applicable
B = precipitation total formed from two 12-hour totals
D = precipitation total formed from four six-hour totals
H = represents highest or lowest hourly temperature
K = converted from knots
L = temperature appears to be lagged with respect to reported
hour of observation
O = converted from oktas
P = identified as "missing presumed zero" in DSI 3200 and 3206
T = trace of precipitation, snowfall, or snow depth
W = converted from 16-point WBAN code (for wind direction)

QFLAG1 is the quality flag for the first day of the month. There are
fourteen possible values:

Blank = did not fail any quality assurance check
D = failed duplicate check
G = failed gap check
I = failed internal consistency check
K = failed streak/frequent-value check
L = failed check on length of multiday period
M = failed megaconsistency check
N = failed naught check
O = failed climatological outlier check
R = failed lagged range check
S = failed spatial consistency check
T = failed temporal consistency check
W = temperature too warm for snow
X = failed bounds check
Z = flagged as a result of an official Datzilla
investigation

SFLAG1 is the source flag for the first day of the month. There are
nineteen possible values (including blank, upper and
lower case letters):

Blank = No source (i.e., data value missing)
0 = U.S. Cooperative Summary of the Day (NCDC DSI-3200)
6 = CDMP Cooperative Summary of the Day (NCDC DSI-3206)
7 = U.S. Cooperative Summary of the Day -- Transmitted
via WxCoder3 (NCDC DSI-3207)
A = U.S. Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)
real-time data (since January 1, 2006)
B = U.S. ASOS data for October 2000-December 2005 (NCDC
DSI-3211)
F = U.S. Fort data
G = Official Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) or
other government-supplied data
H = High Plains Regional Climate Center real-time data
K = U.S. Cooperative Summary of the Day data digitized from
paper observer forms (from 2011 to present)
M = Monthly METAR Extract (additional ASOS data)
N = Community Collaborative Rain, Hail,and Snow (CoCoRaHS)
R = NCDC Reference Network Database (Climate Reference Network
and Historical Climatology Network-Modernized)
S = Global Summary of the Day (NCDC DSI-9618)
NOTE: "S" values are derived from hourly synoptic reports
exchanged on the Global Telecommunications System (GTS).
Daily values derived in this fashion may differ
significantly
from "true" daily data, particularly for precipitation
(i.e., use with caution).
T = SNOwpack TELemtry (SNOTEL) data obtained from the Western
Regional Climate Center
U = Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS) data obtained
from the Western Regional Climate Center
W = WBAN/ASOS Summary of the Day from NCDC's Integrated
Surface Data (ISD).
X = U.S. First-Order Summary of the Day (NCDC DSI-3210)
Z = Datzilla official additions or replacements

When data are available for the same time from more than one
source,
the highest priority source is chosen according to the following
priority order (from highest to lowest):
Z,R,0,6,X,W,K,7,F,B,M,r,E,z,u,b,a,G,Q,I,A,N,H,S

VALUE2 is the value on the second day of the month

MFLAG2 is the measurement flag for the second day of the month.

QFLAG2 is the quality flag for the second day of the month.

SFLAG2 is the source flag for the second day of the month.

... and so on through the 31st day of the month. Note: If the month has less
than 31 days, then the remaining variables are set to missing (e.g., for
April, VALUE31 = -9999, MFLAG31 = blank, QFLAG31 = blank, SFLAG31 = blank).

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_daily/data_format.txt

 

[asterism]

This is comical.

Does anyone here even understand the issue? NONE of the data released is actual raw data. It's averages, anomalies, and adjustments.


Cannot any of you climate science experts post some actual temperature readings? Just the readings, locations, and time/date of those readings. These averages are just that, averages based on arbitrary calculations.