More Bad Climate Data from NCDC

This could be a big issue, perhaps not.  I wrote on SLB in September, 2011 about NCDC temperatures not matching between the US and the individual states - see link.   The latest data error is somewhat different. 

The assertion of error is that the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) database as kept by NCDC (National Climate Data Center) does not take actual, measured temperature data even when such data is available for some, perhaps many, stations.  In essence, the final data set uses "estimated" data.  

Several bloggers at internet sites have made the boffins at NCDC aware of this, as has the Texas State Climatologist.   Drudge carried a report, see link.   Drudge criticizes the EPA and US Supreme Court for making regulations based on the bad data.  

So, is it any wonder that the climate models are totally wrong?  We know the models use data that is corrupted by almost constant adjustment; this has been admitted and even published in peer-reviewed literature.  Now, it appears that a good fraction of the temperature sites are just making up the data.   Why would the temperature dataset use estimated data, when actual data is ready and waiting to be plugged into the database?  

If the problem is corrected, and non-trivial changes result in the many different reports that have issued from various climate centers that use the NCDC data, it will be interesting to see how many of those reports are updated.   I suspect that NCDC will make the corrections, then report out that the differences were de minimis, so trivial that no changes to any reports are required.  

We also know that the climate models themselves are woefully inadequate, as even the IPCC itself has admitted, in writing.    The key sentence from IPCC: 

"This difference between simulated and observed [recent global temperature] trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error."

IPCC's catch-22 is if they attribute the pause to natural variability, they then must concede that any warming from 1970-1998 could also be due to natural variability.

If they admit it is due to b) or c) above, then faulty modeling is obvious. 

Quite an admission by IPCC. They really have themselves in a box.

Now, they also have to wonder about the very input data to the models - is it any good at all?  Or, were (or are) many insiders aware of this all along, and it was kept secret in order to perpetuate the myth that man-made Carbon Dioxide causes global warming?

In light of the President (Obama) telling college graduates that the global warming problem is real, and the 18 warmest years on record have happened in the past 22 years, one must wonder if he will ever be advised that the issue is not "put to rest" as he stated.   see link.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California