Does NOAA use cherry picking techniques?

Question

NOAA recently put out its "State of the Climate" report for the US here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Can you spot any cherry picking?

Answer 1

Sorry to burst your bubble Ottawa Mike, but just because YOU are unfamiliar with the term "pentad," that doesn't mean that everyone is. I hear that term on a regular basis. I'm sure there are lots of things that you are unfamiliar with in climate science. You probably also haven't heard of "quasigeostrophic" and yet you'll find that in most atmospheric science books too.



As for cherry-picking, don't you cherry pick every time you ask a question? I have never seen you ask a question that ever (intentionally) put the denial side in a bad light, and you are constantly attacking the work of climate scientists--if you were an impartial, skeptical observer who was not cherry-picking, wouldn't we expect you to have at least occasional questions that weren't on the denial side?



And you have the nerve to say to ******



"Like I've said before, if you don't like me or my questions, then just move on. I really don't care."



If you'd like us to move on, then stop being a propagandist!! Start asking actual questions where you want to learn something (like you could ask people what "pentad" means), and stop throwing slop at every climate scientist you can find. As long as you keep up your garbage, don't expect people to remain silent about it. As someone once



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil [Ottawa Mike and the denial machine] is that good men [****** et al] do nothing"



EDIT: Ottawa Mike, if someone repeatedly ranted in their questions that a particular ethnic group was dishonest or corrupt, based on nothing more than the color of their skin or their religion, should we show "common courtesy" for their differing view? If you want respect for your "differing view," then it should be based on science and not slander. You're such a hypocrite to say "Everyone wants to be treated with respect..." when EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS IS ABOUT NOT RESPECTING SCIENTISTS.



It's not your "differing view" that engenders a lack of respect from people like ****** and me, it's that you can't ask a question without it being an insinuation of dishonesty on the part of scientists. As long as you keep insulting my profession and a lot of hardworking scientists, the only "respect" you'll get is the fawning admiration of the rest of your anti-science cronies.

Answer 2

You have to look at the whole picture. The Old Testament does speak to us for there we find the ones who have waited for the coming King and doing God's work believing in that. We look to them as examples in our lives on what or what not to do. From the beginning to the end God's Word is relative. It speaks of everything that we need to know as Truth. In regards to women we are to give our husbands respect as he is to us also. The husband is to take care of the family's needs. It is his responsibility for when he doesn't he is worse than an infidel. The husband and wife are to be one and if he is a Believer then he is the spiritual head of the family. If he isn't and the wife is then it is her job to pray for her husband and set an example of a Christian woman. Her spiritual head then is the Lord and her covering is the Church. As is in my case. I attend an adult care facility every Sunday and that is my church time. I'm however under the covering of the ministry I am under. At this facility I am the one that leads the worship and scripture reading. I encourage the others to join in and share too. However, there are brothers that don't live there who come but, the willingness to teach is not there so, the Lord has put me in the position to do so. It is not me that teaches. It is the Holy Spirit. Scriptures say that there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus. However, I personally do have a problem with a woman being the head of a Church just because of those scriptures. Sharing the Word is one thing. Leading a congregation is another. God forgive me if I'm in the wrong.

Answer 3

Given the claims deniers made about short term shifts in both Arctic sea ice and sea level in the last 6 months, that's priceless.

As for the claimed cherry picking, what is it you refer to as trying to 'mind read' deniers is a painful experience. The NOAA report is a monthly report if you are trying to claim that as cherry picking then you may want look up the word 'statistics' rather than cherry picking.

certainly based on the data they present (for the U.S.) it was warmer in May

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201205-201205.gif

and this would correlate with a shifting ENSO as does their Mar-May average

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201203-201205.gif



I can see why this sort of data would upset deniers trying to claim the world/U.S. is cooling, but as the continuing data shows no real sign of this cooling, deniers continue to try and claim, sadly, who is trying to cherry pick is (as always) sadly quite obvious.



You want a fine example of classic cherry picking, how about the claim it has cooled since 1998, (a denier claim) 1998 a year boosted well above the trend rise caused by AGW by perhaps the strongest El Nino of the last century, a fact easy to see in the temperature data

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

Yet one deniers continue to pretend they can't see, there's some cherry picking for you, but you wont want to talk about that either will you.

Answer 4

Selecting the 1 bit of data that differs from the other 99 is a cherry pick.



Selecting one of the 99 bits of data that are in general agreement is a representative sample.

Answer 5

I see know sign of cherry picking in your link. Where I usually see cherry picking is from denialist sources, such as

http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

and

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/sea-level-falling-in-2010/



And Madd Maxx is talking about jailing honest scientists again. Hey, Maxx, I notice that you do not have an avatar. Here is a perfect avatar for you.

http://www.smileosmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Adolf_Hitler.jpg

Answer 6

It is a summary of climatic averages across the whole USA. They are relaying observations. Not really sure how we can spot any cherry picking techniques.



Suppose it is only a summary though (which in essence is cherry picking) ... but they make it obvious it is a summary and "highlights".



Please show us any cherry picking techniques within the page that you referenced ... I am genuinely interested.

Answer 7

Nowhere near as much as you cherry pick or reword other's works so as to consistently mudsling against science. As to your "common courtesy" argument, I'll refer you to Heinlein:



"The only way to deal with that type is to insult them until they apologize."

Answer 8

<>



Why don't you just say what in your opinion is cherry-picked Mike, instead of insinuating (like you always do) that NOAA does in fact cherry-pick?



It's ironic that neither Maxx nor Sagebrush have been able to find any, as none of their answers contain any reference to an obvious cherry-pick on behalf of NOAA, just their usual anti-science drivel.



Edit @ Ottawa Mike:



Found it! That cherry-pick, it's in your added details!



<<"The last nine 5-year periods (2003-2007, 2002-2006, 2001-2005, 2000-2004, 1999-2003, 1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000, and 1995- 1999), were the warmest 5-year periods (i.e. pentads) in the last 113 years of national records, demonstrating the anomalous warmth of the last decade.">>



Strange that you missed the very first paragraph which precedes your cherry-picked quote, a paragraph which contains an important NOAA finding which you in turn describe as:



<>



You do have a way with words Mike, I gotta admit it. NOAA actually describes the whole of 2007 as "...2007 was the 10th warmest year on record for the U.S. with a nationally averaged temperature of 54.2°F (12.4°C). This value is 1.4°F (0.8°C) above the 20th century (1901-2000) mean." And that quote directly precedes your cherry-picked quote above.



Not only do you cherry-pick and thereby omit the most important NOAA finding (why else would they begin their annual report with it), you also deliberate describe that year as "one of the coldest in the past 10 or so years. While the latter is technically true, it still is dishonest and highly misleading.



<>



Let's see: your basic research sucks (you claim 2007 first mentions pentads when it is in fact 2006), you deliberately omit to quote the very first paragraph of the 2007 report and you also deliberately mislead with your description of what first paragraph actually says about 2007.



I'd say you failed. Big time.



Edit 2 @ O Mike:



<>



Oh, I know you don't care as you don't care for any actual answers either. You just want to criticize science as much as possible with your fake questions.



<>



You did not cite their 2008 report, you specifically mentioned their 2007 report, You're moving the goalposts by now all of a sudden ignoring the 2007 report (which you cherry-picked and deliberately misinterpreted) and now you bring up an entirely different report with which, once again, you cherry-pick by leaving out the very next phrase which puts the "2008 was the coolest year" in its proper context.



<>



No, because unlike you, NOAA does mention that nevertheless the "average temperature [over 2008] of 53.0°F (11.7°C) was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century (1901-2000) mean."



<>



You guessed wrong. Your whole "one of the coldest" claim was based entirely on the 2007 report. You did not even bother to check 2008 until I caught you on your cherry-picks and distortions (and now by moving the goalposts).



<>



Which is why I believe you truly suck at research.



<>



Excuse me? I specifically requested from you to indicate just where-oh-where the 2007 report you linked to was cherry-picked as I (nor Sagebrush or Maxx, your ideological buddies) could find any. And when you did so by providing Additional Info, I IMMEDIATELY spotted a very obvious CHERRY-PICK and reported so here by editing my answer. I therefor think I have provided an answer to your vague question, though perhaps not the kind of answer you were waiting for. But guess what? That's science!



<>



What you did here is typical of you and can by no means be described as "nit picked, razor thin". You deliberately cherry-picked a 2007 report, you deliberately mislead by labeling NOAA's finding as "one of the coldest in the last 10 years or so" and when I catch you on that you move the goalposts by coming up with a completely different report. That's deception in my book. Deliberate deception.



Edit 3:



<>



Do NOT put words in my mouth. You insinuated cherry-picking, I requested an example, you FAILED.

Answer 9

No.



Try googling the phrase "cherry-picking," since you are apparently quite clueless as to what it means. If (ha ha!) you'd like to learn something.

Answer 10

It is a virtual cherry picking machine. You notice their aim is clearly to exaggerate warming. It isn't about relaying facts. It is about cherry picking to exaggerate a threat. One thing that really strikes me is that they pretend a warm spring is a bad thing. For most plants, it is a very good thing.



I notice they picked June to May 2012 for warmest period. That is an odd choice. I guess January to December didn't work out so well.



They ignore the fact that there was general warming for the last 300 years certainly most of which was natural. There is no surprise that we have had warm wonderful weather.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=5&year=2012&filter=1&state=110&div=0

This is a graph from the temperatures since the 1890s assuming no fudging, adjusting, bogus stations, and/or funny business it isn't so alarming. If you started in 1930, that trend line might be a cooling trend through the present. I still believe there was a long term warming trend for the last 300 years as stated above.

Answer 11

Reminds me of a old Magnavox TV commercial that claimed "Magnavox is 23% better." Better that what? Their comparison left it so open it could have been comparing video qualities of an a RCA radio with their TV. Who knows? But their sales went up. It did its job and that was to deceive people.



I wonder how many cities they had to throw out to find that one with St. Louis?



In grade school we used to have the 'Weekly Reader' and it had more technical write ups than that. And it was mostly Communistic drivel.

Answer 12

Government Scientists Add Half A Degree, Then Claim That Temperatures Are Above Average

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/government-scientists-add-half-a-degree-then-claim-that-temperatures-are-above-average/



Somebody needs to go to jail for all of this fraud.



------------------------