“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’Now one might think that a "data center" would check the reliability of its data sensors more often than the six weeks or more in error here. In fact the problem was not found at the data center, it was found by alert readers who contacted the data center. The data center commented that such problems are found by a quality control check before the data is archived. Apparently there is no quality control during the data acquisition? If not, exactly what is it that a data center does?
"The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said."Apparently the data center adjusts its data ex post facto, based on comparisons with more reliable sources.
The data center commented also that despite the regaining of sea ice the size of California, the sea ice is still retreating. No word on the reliability and functionality of the remaining sensors that are being used in that determination.
One wonders if they really know such a thing. If data sensors are not checked and are not reliable thereby requiring after the fact data adjustment, then neither, one would surmise, are the conclusions derived from that data.
When functional lapses of this magnitude are seen in a data gathering enterprise, the integrity of the entire enterprise is called into question. After all, California is not a trivial point on the world globe.
No comments:
Post a Comment