Unbelievable – Yet Another USHCN Cheat

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily

Index of /ftp/ushcn_daily

You can’t make this stuff up. There is yet another USHCN cheat going on with the raw data – which I just discovered.

The graph above plots USHCN 2.0 daily minus GHCN HCN daily data.  They are supposed to be identical raw data sets, but USHCN 2.0 is doing something to cool the past and warm the present. This occurs before the USHCN 2.5 raw data cheat which I reported earlier today.

These people are corrupting the trend upwards at every step of the process.

About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to Unbelievable – Yet Another USHCN Cheat

  1. Eric Barnes says:

    I believe the explanation (or what passes for an explanation) is in this Menne paper…

    Click to access menne-etal2012.pdf

    • Eric Barnes says:

      It appears that my memory is faulty. I remember reading something that tried to explain the discrepancies between the two data sets, but can’t find it at the moment.

  2. Eric Barnes says:

    Perhaps the qc in table 1 of this paper accounts for some of the difference?
    So raw data is never really raw for these people?

    • Eric Barnes says:

      These 2 checks are demonstrably false…
      Lag-range inconsistency Identifies maximum temperatures that are at least
      40°C warmer than the minimum temperatures on the
      preceding, current, and following days as well as minimum
      temperatures that are at least 40°C colder than the
      maximum temperatures within the 3-day window

      Temporal inconsistency Determines whether a daily temperature exceeds that on
      the preceding and following days by more than 25°C


      Rapid temperature change is common in the great plains area.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      From page 995 of ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal2009.pdf

      the daily QA system had
      an estimated false-positive
      rate of 8% (i.e., the percent of flagged values that
      appear to be valid) and a
      miss rate of less than 5%
      (the percent of true errors
      that remain undetected).
      Monthly means were then
      derived from the qualityassured daily data, with a
      requirement that no more
      than nine values be flagged
      or missing in any given

      • That doesn’t produce a temperature trend.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        OK, my thought was …
        GHCN daily is used used as input for USHCN daily
        The quality control checks ( in the above paper) are ran on the USHCN daily data and failing days from quality control so that the trend in GHCND vs USHCND is modified

        I checked Great Falls for a QC fail flag (Close to the LOMA MT, the US 24 hour temp diff record on 1/15/1972) and it was not set, although I verified the huge temp drop/raise at around that time.

        Strike 1 🙂

        It would be nice to write some software that compares daily temps between USHCN and GHCN in detail and summary and outputs the diffs.
        Wish I had more time.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        The qc rules they’ve defined are arbitrary and post hoc. Also, the temperature patterns across the US are non-random. Chinook winds, canadian cold fronts, etc. It is very possible to define the qc procedures that preferentially removes data from the real raw data set.

        I think I need to do more reading (wish I had the time for it).

  3. NikFromNYC says:

    Where is a picture of the sudden downward T plunge that this sudden upward adjustment is hiding?

  4. suyts says:

    Steve, you’re doing a great job! Through your work, and others, we”ll get to the truth. Sadly, those people, who are systematically altering what people perceive as truth, don’t care.

    Luckily, there are people like you who help us laugh at the people at the USHCN. Thanks Steve!! Keep it up!

  5. Eliza says:

    This needs to be reported to the police

  6. savebyj says:

    I am I simpleton in thinking you have instruments that daily record the temperatures and then you graph this data? Can anyone explain to me how this data needs to be ‘modified’?

    • B.C. says:

      Billions of dollars in funding require the numbers to fit the narrative. Remember, “If the glove trend don’t fit, you must acquit adjust it.

    • rw says:

      I think it begins with the fact that the data are basically crummy and always have been. “controlled observations” is not really an accurate characterization of world temperature records. So they had to make adjustments, and that’s where the fun began. At one time it was questionable but not prone to political bias (see the records by Clayton et al. in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 1927, 1934, etc – they can be downloaded). But that was long, long ago.

      • savebyj says:

        Good stuff. Thanks. But why are they modifying present data? Isn’t it electronically gathered? So either their data is garbage (and why would we use it?) or they are modifying the data when they shouldn’t be. Correct?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s