From: He Whose Name You are Not Allowed to Utter
Gavin, you said:
[Response: There are still (at least) four stations that have Oct data in place of september data but that didn’t report september data (Kirensk, Irkutsk, Bratsk, Erbogacen). I expect that the SEP=OCT check that NOAA did, just didn’t catch these. Still, this is embarassing – but will be fixed today. Nobody is ‘indifferent’. – gavin]
As you said elsewhere:
Why anyone would automatically assume something nefarious was going on without even looking at the numbers is a mystery to me.
Why would you assume that Erbogacen, Kirensk, Bratsk and Irkutsk did not report September data? I hope that you didn’t do so “without looking at the numbers”. Just to make things easy for you, here is a script that will do download daily GHCN data for you.
id1=c(22224817000, 22230230000, 22230309000, 22230710000)
# id site
#1729 22224817000 ERBOGACEN
#1777 22230230000 KIRENSK
#1779 22230309000 BRATSK
#1791 22230710000 IRKUTSK
for(i in 1:4) chron=ts.union(chron, read.ghcnd(id0[i]))
As you see, Erbogacen and Kirensk both reported September data to GHCN (daily). So your statement that these stations didn’t “report” September data is incorrect. Exactly why the September daily data didn’t get incorporated into the GHCN monthly data is one of many climate science mysteries on which we would welcome enlightenment.
The GHCN daily file seems to have lost track of Bratsk and Irkutsk after the year 2000, though GHCN monthly has, for the most, kept track of these two stations. Obviously Irkutsk and Bratsk both “reported” September data. They are both reasonably large cities whose temperatures can be located on the Internet Irkutsk Bratsk. Exactly why NASA GISS (and NOAA GHCN) were unable to locate this readily available is a mystery that has puzzled us at Climate Audit for a long time and perhaps you can enlighten us on why this task has seemingly baffled the NASA “professionals”.
In the meantime, perhaps you should withdraw your claim that these stations failed to “report” September data and replace this with a more accurate statement, saying that, for reasons that you (and many others do not understand), this data was not incorporated in the GHCN monthly file.
Perhaps this may give a long overdue impetus for a proper examination of GHCN’s failure to properly update readily available station data.