Raw USHCN Daily Data Shows 0.11 C Warming Per Decade Since 1979

Starting in 1979 make no sense though, because it was the coldest year since 1924. If we start in 1930, the US is cooling.

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Raw USHCN Daily Data Shows 0.11 C Warming Per Decade Since 1979

1. Eric Webb says:

I don’t trust any of the temperature data that comes out of NASA, NOAA and their related agencies, because they are going to do whatever they can to keep the lie alive, They knew to cool 1979 because that’s when objective satellite measurements started.

2. Mariana Torres says:

Sorry I dont see any significant trend at all if you know anything about stats should be much much tighter than that. Cheers just for fun hahahaha

3. No climate scientist would make it in any other field of quantitative science I’ve ever worked in. I know they all do it, but drawing a trend line through such widely dispersed data, without providing an R-square value, is in my opinion fraudulent. The R-square value is a quick way to know how much the trend line is really worth, for example, how much it depends upon the length of the time period, without having to do a whole series of graphs with differing “cherry picked” time periods. With the data shown above, for example, a true scientist would say the temperature has varied widely around a constant value–and one might go farther, and say that constant (not warming, not cooling) value is somewhere between about 53 and 53.5°F (which fairly well encompasses the entire trend lines shown above, note).

4. John Silver says:

Watts says: rural MMTS, no airports: 0.032 C/decade.

• gregole says:

What! 1/32 of a degree C per decade! Let me be the first to say it:

We Are Doomed!
/sarc

• lance says:

Al babies beach front resorts are safe….

5. scizzorbill says:

Go back 1,000 years to start the baseline. The trend is down/cooling. Start the baseline in the middle of the little ice age, and the trend is up/warming. I just love statistics. You don’t have to preprogram a model to achieve the desired results. A basic knowledge of arithmetic is all that is required. Even Joe Biden could understand this.

6. kim2ooo says:

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

7. slimething says:

scizzorbill, I think you’re stretching it a bit on the Biden part……….

8. Brian G Valentine says:

Just out of curiosity, what is r**2 of the red line?

9. Andy DC says:

This is all well within the range of natural variability. The whole AGW matter is a scam of massive proportions.

• tckev says:

As well as the estimated amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is well within the historic range of natural variability.
The computer models are broken, the data is a fraud. The ‘science’ is the hook in a ponzi scheme for big government whereby they solicit new taxes by promising to invest funds in evermore expensive CO2 clean-up and research.