What is NOAA saying here?

[CrusaderFrank]

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Again, what changed to call "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" into question? Sure, we measure more accurately today, but does that give NOAA the right to retroactively alter data? Moreover, isn't NOAA admitting that temperature 30, 50 100 years ago are not accurate to a tenth of a degree?

 

[mamooth]

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean?

That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches.

Seriously, that confused you?

In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory.

Only a paranoid conspiracy fruit loop would say somethign that crazy. You're not worth anyone's time.

So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

I could spend a long time answering that question in detail. But since we've done that before, just to have you chickenshits ignore it all, we won't be doing it again. We'll just tell you to stuff it, and then walk away laughing. We get to do that, being how the world now classifies you as one of the last diehard acolytes of a dying cult.

 

[jc456]

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean?

That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches.

Seriously, that confused you?

In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory.

Only a paranoid conspiracy fruit loop would say somethign that crazy. You're not worth anyone's time.

So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

I could spend a long time answering that question in detail. But since we've done that before, just to have you chickenshits ignore it all, we won't be doing it again. We'll just tell you to stuff it, and then walk away laughing. We get to do that, being how the world now classifies you as one of the last diehard acolytes of a dying cult.

what do you mean "that instruments change over time"?

 

[depotoo]

Excuses for explaining to Congress what the data really shows that they subpoenaed

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Again, what changed to call "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" into question? Sure, we measure more accurately today, but does that give NOAA the right to retroactively alter data? Moreover, isn't NOAA admitting that temperature 30, 50 100 years ago are not accurate to a tenth of a degree?

 

[Weatherman2020]

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Again, what changed to call "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" into question? Sure, we measure more accurately today, but does that give NOAA the right to retroactively alter data? Moreover, isn't NOAA admitting that temperature 30, 50 100 years ago are not accurate to a tenth of a degree?

It's called toss the data we don't like.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Same old crap on a different day..

This is the "we cant explain why our HCN data diverged from satellite data" so instead of figuring out what changed and what failed we will just throw out the more reliable data set becasue it is not "what we expected it to be"..




Lying pieces of crap..

 

[IanC]

weather balloons. is this the next data set to undergo 'reanalysis'? like temps, OHC, SLR, tidal gauges, and any number of ones that have not been brought to attention.

do the current versions of balloon data match the figures from 5, 10, 20 years ago for the overlapping years? my hunch is that there has already been 'adjustments', and we all know that almost any adjustment ends up with an increased trend.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean?

That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches.

Seriously, that confused you?

In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory.

Only a paranoid conspiracy fruit loop would say somethign that crazy. You're not worth anyone's time.

So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

I could spend a long time answering that question in detail. But since we've done that before, just to have you chickenshits ignore it all, we won't be doing it again. We'll just tell you to stuff it, and then walk away laughing. We get to do that, being how the world now classifies you as one of the last diehard acolytes of a dying cult.

Please explain your comment, "That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches." Does this mean we throw out all data that was recorded on old thermometers?

 

[IanC]

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean?

That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches.

Seriously, that confused you?

In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory.

Only a paranoid conspiracy fruit loop would say somethign that crazy. You're not worth anyone's time.

So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

I could spend a long time answering that question in detail. But since we've done that before, just to have you chickenshits ignore it all, we won't be doing it again. We'll just tell you to stuff it, and then walk away laughing. We get to do that, being how the world now classifies you as one of the last diehard acolytes of a dying cult.

Please explain your comment, "That instruments change over time, as did places and times of balloon launches." Does this mean we throw out all data that was recorded on old thermometers?

here is a video of mamooth explaining-




hahahaha. ...wont light up on one side!!! that line always killed me. hahahaha

 

[mamooth]

Summary:

The hardcore cultists were shown how the weather balloon data contradicts their cult's nutty claims. Hence, they all instantly declared that weather balloon data also must all be faked.

So what's the point in speaking with any denier cult fruitloop, given that their only response to anything is "It's a conspiracy!"?

 

[jc456]

Summary:

The hardcore cultists were shown how the weather balloon data contradicts their cult's nutty claims. Hence, they all instantly declared that weather balloon data also must all be faked.

So what's the point in speaking with any denier cult fruitloop, given that their only response to anything is "It's a conspiracy!"?

so in other words, you can't explain it why the NOAA threw data out. Why don't you just post that up, instead of lying?

 

[flacaltenn]

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question?

If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Again, what changed to call "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" into question? Sure, we measure more accurately today, but does that give NOAA the right to retroactively alter data? Moreover, isn't NOAA admitting that temperature 30, 50 100 years ago are not accurate to a tenth of a degree?

Oh that's an easy one Frank. It means you need to stop sending up those balloons that disagree with the new TURBO - heated version of NOAA surface temperatures. Those pesky balloons and satellites are making liars out of us.

Watch for the drones to come out and start targeting weather balloons.. Guaran-damn-teed... There's an exec order in his top right right desk drawer to do just that. Put them on the "Kill List"..

 

[Crick]

Are you both having trouble with the English?

I found the link was no longer functional - a name or two had been changed [Now: Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)] but the quoted text had been expanded - or at least there was a good deal more of it than originally noted in this thread. I think the question posed by this thread is clearly answered below:

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC)

Army Air Force meteorologists prepare to launch a hydrogen-filled balloon that will carry a radiosonde up in the air to measure temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure and transmit the data back to a ground station. Courtesy of the NOAA Photo Library.

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) are datasets created through a collaborative effort involving NOAA scientists from the Air Resources Laboratory, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and NCEI. Observations in the dataset are collected by hydrogen-filled weather balloons that carry a radiosonde up in the air to measure variables including temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure.

RATPAC data come from 85 stations with near-global coverage. NCEI provides data on 13 atmospheric pressure levels: the surface, 850, 700, 500, 400, 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, 70, 50, and 30 mb. Where available, data begin in 1958 and extend through the present. Some of the 85 stations have discontinued observations since the 1990s, and not all stations have observations at all levels.

The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis. The goal of researchers was to create time series from radiosonde temperatures that are less influenced by the inhomogeneities. Two distinct datasets, RATPAC-A and RATPAC-B, were derived using different approaches to meet this need based largely in part on the Temporal Homogenization of Monthly Radiosonde Temperature Data (LKS) bias-adjusted dataset.

Products

• RATPAC-A
  RATPAC-A contains adjusted global, hemispheric, tropical, and extratropical mean temperature anomalies. From 1958 through 1995, the bases of the data are on spatial averages of LKS adjusted 87-station temperature data. After 1995, they are based on the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA) station data, combined using a first difference method (Free et al. 2004). For analyses of interannual and longer-term changes in global, hemispheric, and tropical means, the team recommends use of RATPAC-A since it contains the most robust large-scale averages.
• RATPAC-B
  RATPAC-B contains data for individual stations as well as large-scale arithmetic averages corresponding to areas used for RATPAC-A. The station data consist of adjusted data produced by LKS for the period 1958–1997 and unadjusted data from IGRA after 1997. The regional mean time series in RATPAC-B are based on arithmetic averaging of these station data, rather than the first difference method used to create RATPAC-A. For individual station data, monthly data, or regional means on smaller scales, the team recommends use of RATPAC-B, with careful attention paid to the potential of inhomogeneities influencing analysis after 1997.

For analyses that require data not included in RATPAC and that are less sensitive to long-term biases, consider the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA).