Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: JDG rules this gay forum

Topic: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data (Read 1210 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #50

This doesn't even match what Blue Hill reports on its own website:

http://bluehill.org/observatory/2013/05/2012-mean-temperatures/
2012 January mean according to Blue Hill's website: 31.2. Your graph has it below 31.

That is a conversion issue.  The data looks like this


-.695C gets rounded to -.7C

which converts to 30.74 F

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #51
The rounding of the data is one reason I say the small changes don't matter.   Over long periods, as long as you keep using the same method, the trends show up.  It's when you try to really change the actual data that the natural climate cycles no longer show up, at which point it isn't actually data anymore. It's bullshit.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #52
Because the electronic sensors will record very brief transient highs, the ASOS data records a brief warm event as the daily high, which means the Tmax data from the new equipment has a warm bias, which of course makes the daily mean higher.
Only records transient highs, eh? 
No you idiot.  Learn to read.  When it's windy, ASOS records transient high temps (usually from hot runways and paved areas) which means the daily high (Tmax) is not anything like what an old fashioned mercury Tmax thermometer would record.

Mercury takes time to expand, so a mercury thermometer won't record a brief gust of hot air, that an electronic sensor in an ASOS shield will record as a high of 110F.  The mercury thermometer will stay at 106F
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #53
-.695C gets rounded to -.7C

which converts to 30.74 F
How the hell is that supposed to explain the difference between that and 31.2 F? -0.695 C is only 30.749 F. That doesn't explain the difference at all.

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #54
The problem is even worse in the following year, as I can see from your spreadsheet.
2013: -1.985 C. That's 28.427 F. Blue Hill lists it as 29.5 F. Over a full degree higher!

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #55
The problem is even worse in the following year, as I can see from your spreadsheet.
2013: -1.985 C. That's 28.427 F. Blue Hill lists it as 29.5 F. Over a full degree higher!
You might be starting to see the problems.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #56
Have you extracted the Blue Hill data yet?
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #57
I've got the .dly file for it, but there's no monthly average in there, as far as I can tell, hence my question about how you calculated that vs. how NOAA does it. And Blue Hill themselves might do it differently as well. I haven't been able to find descriptions of methodology for that (though I also haven't spent a ton of time looking).

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #58
Okay, let's take it as read that that's what you did. What might explain the difference between the values on the graph and the ones reported on Blue Hill's website?
That's a damn fine question actually.
Do you have any ideas? My first guess would be that they're calculated differently. Monthly average isn't raw data. It has to be calculated from the daily measurements. What was your method for doing that? Is it the same as NOAA's?
You add all the Tmax, then divide by the number of days, this is the Tmax average.  Same with Tmin. Then you add the Tmax and Tmin, divide by 2

That is the monthly mean.

Blue Hill also does a numerical add, where they add all the hourly digital data, divide,  and produce a different mean. 

(24 hour readings a day)

The difference between the digital method and the old way of using daily Tmax/Tmin to produce a monthly mean is one way we know the instrument are recording different numbers.  But they are close to each other, which is why we also know for long term trends a quality station isn't changed much by the different methods.

The UHI effect matters far more than the ASOS errors, which are actually related when it's an airport ASOS station.  The heating and de-icing at a large airport, along with the ASOS problems (both Tmax and Tmin are different than mercury thermometers) makes a large airport ASOS station pretty much worthless for climate research.  Which is exactly why they are not used for climate data. 

(Except of course they are, like Nuuk and other arctic stations, which are indeed ASOS stations)

It's really complicated, so when Mann demanded we create our own global temperature record (because he wouldn't share his), it was a high level fuck you.  And understandable to me.  I've spent a decade working on it now, and anyone who hasn't spent any time actually doing any of the work seems like an idiot when you talk to them.


"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #59
Then there is the transparency issue.  Considering the amount of money involved, you would think the graphs like I have been making would be easy to create, and anyone could do it using online software and NOAA/NCDC data, anytime.

But fuck no.  Good luck simply getting the daily Tmax/Tmin, snow/precip from Blue Hill online. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #60
For example






  • Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 06:59:37 AM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #61
Okay, let's take it as read that that's what you did. What might explain the difference between the values on the graph and the ones reported on Blue Hill's website?
That's a damn fine question actually.
Do you have any ideas? My first guess would be that they're calculated differently. Monthly average isn't raw data. It has to be calculated from the daily measurements. What was your method for doing that? Is it the same as NOAA's?
You add all the Tmax, then divide by the number of days, this is the Tmax average.  Same with Tmin. Then you add the Tmax and Tmin, divide by 2

That is the monthly mean.

Blue Hill also does a numerical add, where they add all the hourly digital data, divide,  and produce a different mean. 

(24 hour readings a day)

The difference between the digital method and the old way of using daily Tmax/Tmin to produce a monthly mean is one way we know the instrument are recording different numbers.  But they are close to each other, which is why we also know for long term trends a quality station isn't changed much by the different methods.
Well in this case, assuming this is the difference, it changes it to the point that Blue Hill's own method produces values that are closer to NOAA's adjusted numbers than they are to the Tmax/Tmin method (assuming that's what you've used). Doesn't that suggest that NOAA's adjustments might not be as bullshit as you've been thinking?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #62
The adjustments NOAA makes are not related to the rounding errors or the way they calculate monthly values/
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #63
I know. I'm just saying that when you compare the adjusted values to the unadjusted values that Blue Hill themselves have produced, you see that they haven't actually adjusted it as much as you seem to think they have.

ETA: Or possibly they have adjusted it a fair amount from the values you get if you use the Tmax/Tmin method, but in a way that makes it more accurate. I mean, if Blue Hill is using the hourly method, which on its face seems like it would clearly be a more accurate method, and NOAA's adjustments bring their data closer to that, then they're doing their job.
  • Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 07:25:32 AM by BenTheBiased

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #64
Blue Hill is not adjusted by NOAA very much at all. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #65
I mean, yeah. So it would appear. Which makes it not particularly compelling as an example of NOAA's adjustments fucking anything up.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #66
Nor was it ever claimed to be.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #67
Nor was it ever claimed to be.
LOL. What?

Since Blue Hill can't just be handwaved away, we established that before proceeding, using it as a base to compare with makes it very difficult for the alarmists to just ignore it.

Actual data

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What the adjusted data looks like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The fuckhead can't see the problem.  But anyone with a working brain can.

Actual data

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What the adjusted data looks like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

How can it be so wrong?

Because of the idiot adjustments.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Adjusting quality stations to make the climate data not reflect reality, is not scientific.

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #68
Because the electronic sensors will record very brief transient highs, the ASOS data records a brief warm event as the daily high, which means the Tmax data from the new equipment has a warm bias, which of course makes the daily mean higher.
Only records transient highs, eh? 
No you idiot.  Learn to read.  When it's windy, ASOS records transient high temps (usually from hot runways and paved areas) which means the daily high (Tmax) is not anything like what an old fashioned mercury Tmax thermometer would record.

Mercury takes time to expand, so a mercury thermometer won't record a brief gust of hot air, that an electronic sensor in an ASOS shield will record as a high of 110F.  The mercury thermometer will stay at 106F


If it records transient highs it records transient lows, you idiot. 

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #69
Here we see the oh so common lunacy of the true believer.
If it records transient highs it records transient lows,

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #70
It's not my dumb argument that either the instrument only records transient highs and ignores lows, or that there are no transient lows to record.  That's your dumb argument. 

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #71
Nonsense.  What I mentioned is still right there.  No need to lie about it.
The extensive research Blue Hill has done with the data does show how the new electronic sensors bias the data, but it makes the daytime high higher, not lower.  Because the electronic sensors will record very brief transient highs, the ASOS data records a brief warm event as the daily high, which means the Tmax data from the new equipment has a warm bias, which of course makes the daily mean higher.

So the data should be adjusted down, but that is not what they do.  Blue Hill uses both the original equipment and the new sensors, and compares the results. The true believer could care less, but in science belief isn't what really matters.
The "transient" high temps are from wind and hot surfaces (pavement, runways, parking lots), which change the respiration fan efficiency, and since the heat shield depends on that circulation to prevent spikes from such an event, it's a known problem.

Cold conditions do not suffer from "transient" cold events, you dumb ass.  There is a cold bias, but for a different reason.

But hell, we know facts are the last thing that will matter.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • SR-71
  • Schmewbie
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #72
Nonsense.  What I mentioned is still right there.  No need to lie about it.
The extensive research Blue Hill has done with the data does show how the new electronic sensors bias the data, but it makes the daytime high higher, not lower.  Because the electronic sensors will record very brief transient highs, the ASOS data records a brief warm event as the daily high, which means the Tmax data from the new equipment has a warm bias, which of course makes the daily mean higher.

So the data should be adjusted down, but that is not what they do.  Blue Hill uses both the original equipment and the new sensors, and compares the results. The true believer could care less, but in science belief isn't what really matters.
The "transient" high temps are from wind and hot surfaces (pavement, runways, parking lots), which change the respiration fan efficiency, and since the heat shield depends on that circulation to prevent spikes from such an event, it's a known problem.

Cold conditions do not suffer from "transient" cold events, you dumb ass.  There is a cold bias, but for a different reason.

But hell, we know facts are the last thing that will matter.


No transient lows he says!  Magic!

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #73
No transient lows he says!  Magic!
Nonsense.  That's what the research shows.  The problem with Tmin and ASOS is well documented in multiple papers.  But this will not matter.  The alarmists are insane.

There is no Tmin transient problem.  You just make shit up because that is what fuckheads do.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Reply #74
No transient lows he says!  Magic!
Nonsense.  That's what the research shows.  The problem with Tmin and ASOS is well documented in multiple papers.  But this will not matter.  The alarmists are insane.

There is no Tmin transient problem.  You just make shit up because that is what fuckheads do.
Such persuasive eloquence!