More evidence that the temperature record isn’t worth the toilet paper it was written on. The daily USHCN temperatures for Texas show a strong cooling trend, while the daily GHCN temperatures for Texas show a strong warming trend.
Somehow out of this spectacular mess we are supposed to believe that climate scientists can pin down a fractional century trend?
Below is the divergence between GHCN and USHCN daily temperatures in Texas.
I’ve wondered about this for awhile: Putting aside for the moment problems of station siting, UHI, enclosure design, etc, how accurate were thermometers until they became electronic/auto-recording?(which was when?) To the nearest degree? If so, how could anyone claim a trend to an accuracy of less a degree (like 0.75C/century)?
Do statistics allow you to do this, or is it just another case of “lies, damn lies, and statistics”?
It seems unrealistic to claim a fraction of a degree from data with a resolution of 1 degree but if one measures the same thing over and over there is such a thing as the standard error of the mean which can show a resolution smaller than the resolution of the original measurement device. The problem with that is that we are not really measuring the same thing in the same place at the same time but we are, of course, taking measurements of various places on the same planet. I doubt you could get by with this for a doctoral thesis.
GHCN graph should be Commie Pink in color
So how do you guys account for this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
It seems that the Koch’s commie millions were misallocated! Maybe our genial host would be willing to sell them the result they desire?
Cheers
Elroy
Muller told Huffing Post that he never was a skeptic. Apparently he lied to get funding.
Peter Gleick will corroborate Muller’s story…
You didn’t indicate whether these were raw or adjusted sets, but either way, this is crazy stupid.
As far as a I know, the daily data is raw.