By Paul Homewood
As most will be aware, Steve Goddard has been running a series of posts about the large and unexplained adjustments being made to the US temperature record by NOAA.
For instance, his latest post is here.
So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.
From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2.5_monthly/monthly
(The file can be opened by Zip File).
Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated…
View original post 724 more words
Real Science 
If it were just an outlier, I would agree with others that it is a mountain out of a molehill. But with multiple examples, and complaints coming in from around the globe, it is the norm, not an outlier.
Keep poking the bear….its safe enough when properly armed.
Has anyone considered organizing a crowd-sourcing of this type of analysis for every station in the country?
Read my mind
Like, take one’s home state. Or half the state (I’m in Tejas – big state).
Paul Homewood’s blog site has the tag-line of
Such an apposite quote.
Yes it is …
” We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert ”
That’s why the better engineering/fab and layout software includes DRCs (Design Rule Checks) …
Anthony Watts says he will get to the bottom of this discrepancy through his “direct line to John Nielsen-Gammon,” the state climatologist of Texas.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/#comment-25839
Watts’ reply raises the question: When did states create these “state climatologists” positions?
Right. That is the same guy who didn’t know that 40% of USHCN data is fabricated.
The American Association of State Climatologists was founded in 1976, soon after Newsweek and Time reported scare stories of another Ice Age coming:
http://www.stateclimate.org/about/
It is so much worse than we thought.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-climatechange-economy-regions-idUSKBN0EZ0AI20140624
What crap. It has been a lot cooler in the last five years or more in my state. Also if you have high humidity you have thunderstorms when the afternoon temperature reach ~90 °F or above.
It is 91 °F and I am watching them form right now and the humidity is only 38%
Makes you wonder how there is any life on the Eastern Seaboard in August when it’s 95F and 95% for two weeks running. I just played a softball tournament with about 70 other guys 50-80 years old in 92F and we all survived.
Bet you were all dripping sweat. Could do the same in Colorado and wind up simply damp, but gasping.
Fuck yeah. Watts might be bagging on you but you are getting traction.
Following climate gate, data forging and manipulation was the single thing that led me to abandon any confidence in climate “science” and realise the whole thing is a giant scam.
People, even purported “scientists”, have no idea what “empirical” means. But your graphs sending the message are easy to understand!
Keep it up!
IPCC AR5 followed NOAA’s methodology w/ sea levels. Real hard sea level data from harbors and coast lines is sketchy, unreliable, inconsistent, and then there are those messy tides slopping back & forth so they picked some data they liked and modeled from there. When/if this temperature controversy settles down someone might turn their statistical expertise that direction. If NOAA has been “adjusting” temperature data have they done the same with CO2 at the Tall Tower sites?
From the linked stories comments…..
Anthony Watts states..I should add that this is a different issue than what Goddard has been claiming about missing data. He’s saying 40% of the data is missing, you show that data is there but is flagged as estimated.
And there is a bit of word semantics by Watts. As I understand it, when Goddard states the word missing in relation to fabricated station data, he means their is no actual recorded temperature data from that station for the period given, instead they give an estimated temperature derived from interpolation or infilling statistical techniques using temperature readings from nearby stations for that period. Watts is not looking good right now.
Hansen proved this method trustworthy with his interpolation of Arctic temps using weather stations 1200 to 1500km apart. The arctic was hotter then ever and we needed to act fast in getting him more funding. lol
Actually Anthony is wrong. Paul did say the entry is marked E, but he never claimed that the number in the dataset is the “Actual” reading. Anthony missed that. I would like to know if the data marked E is actual (the real number that was taken) and just mislabeled – or a bogus number because they did not like the actual number.
That will go a long way in this debate.
I always took data to be factual information unless it was otherwise noted. The public surely assumes it to be actual temps, not a “swag.” I foresee yet another scandal to be added to the growing mountain. Keep the pressure up.
There is a whole field of study on that which ultimately comprised the “DIKW Pyramid” – Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom.
Data and information until ‘verified’ may only represent ‘noise’; one step up and it may become ‘factual’ on it’s way to becoming knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_Pyramid
The deception revealed in 2009 Climategate emails and documents was the result of unreported CHAOS and FEAR of nuclear annihilation in late August 1945:
Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf
Fifty-seven years later, the BBC News confirmed the CHAOS of late August 1945 in 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm