USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data

sunshine hours

Over at Steven Goddard’s blog he is trying to point out how much USHCN data is “Estimated”.

From the readme.txt file: " 'E' indicates the data value is an estimate from surrounding values; no original value is available;"

So I had a copy of the data from last month because of a previous post.

So I thought … take the Final data and graph each month comparing data with an E flag to all the data without an E flag.

Surprise. Estimated data is Warming Data. And that is ignoring all the manipulation in going from Raw to Final data.

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Jan

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Feb

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Mar

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Apr

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) May

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Jun

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Jul

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Aug

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Oct

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Sep

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Nov

USCHCN Final v2.5.0.20140509 (from 1895) Dec

View original post

About stevengoddard

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

9 Responses to USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data

  1. Bill says:

    And if they are estimating based on nearby stations, why would the trend be higher? The world wonders.

  2. northernont says:

    We will have to wait for Mosher to pop in and remind us all of how robust this methodology employed by NOAA is and how obtuse we are for not recognizing that. In the words of Trenberth, a scientist that reduces Mosher to the equivalent of a preteen giggling “Bielieber” schoolgirl, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
    Most people with critical thinking skills see through the smokescreen of Global Warming science to this basic undeniable fact. No warming for going on 17+ years while CO2 emissions continue to rise, falsifies the impact of CO2, and the models based on that assumption underpinning the current science, relegating it to a non-issue. The rest of the supporting science is as simply explained as scientists needing to put bread on their kitchen tables.

    • 57Orion327 says:

      You have to read between the lines with Mosher. The BEST method is all about algorithms estimating station moves rather than determining actual station moves. This is how I suspect his robust algorithm really works: Stations with declining temperatures are split into multiple stations because they appear to be station moves according to his subjective methodology. Anomalies are then calculated on the new stations and presto, these new stations, because they are split and then anomalies calculated show zero warming (or cooling). Stations that show a warming trend are not split because this is expected. Therefore, anomalies calculated on these stations are positive. Averaged together, UHI warming is preserved and spread though the record. Mosh declares his method unassailable – the planet is warming and we are all ignorant.

    • I wouldn’t actually call Trenberth a scientist. He is vying to beat Holdren as chief propagandist

  3. Andy Oz says:

    One big nail in the alarmist agenda coffin.

  4. James Strom says:

    Steve Mc was really onto something when he named his site Climate Audit. I wonder whether we will ever have a full and unbiased audit of the various temperature records.

    It’s interesting, also, that climate panic has been promoted in the very earliest days of arguably reliable temperature measurement from space. Climate has been in existence for over four billion years, and here we are panicking with only forty years of satellite measured data.

  5. I looked for the worst change by State. Arizona is quite illuminating.

    December, for example:

    About 15% of the data is Estimated from neighboring stations.

    The trend of REAL data is negative -.04C/decade.

    Then they add in about 15% Estimated data with a trend of +0.43C/decade.

    The net result is a new trend of +0.02C/decade.

    Presto. Magic. A downward trend is now an upward trend.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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