USHCN has been having to cheat harder and harder every month to create the false impression that the US is warming.
Index of /pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly
They announced last week a new USHCN 2.5 version, which I predicted would introduce a new cheat.
USHCN deleted their monthly data last week, and apparently are making a transition from version 2.0 to 2.5. My guess about this surprise move is that they are going to make past “raw” data colder, and current “raw” data warmer. This will make their massive adjustments appear smaller.
It will be easy enough to test this, as I have local copies of their old raw data, and will be able to do a direct comparison.
They put the USHCN 2.5 data out yesterday, and cheated exactly as I expected – with recent raw temperatures bumped way up, and older temperatures lowered. This is calculated as the yearly average of all “raw average monthly” temperature data for all USHCN stations during all months. I assume a Monte Carlo distribution for missing data.
Index of /pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly
Index of /pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
But it is worse than it seems. There is an additional hidden cheat, because the monthly data is also adjusted upwards from the daily data – which shows a long-term cooling trend in the US.
Even after UHI effects, the US is cooling since 1895.
Oh, I wouldn’t call it ‘final’.
It’s a temporary final. Just when you think they’ve adjusted it all they can they come up with new and creative ways to add more warming. As long as dollar signs are involved those government data sets will NEVER be final.
If a bank freely allows repeat robberies, and pays interest on stolen money, the stickups will continue.
Perhaps they have discovered that the Earth is headed for an ice age and they are using this technique to hide it so that the plebs don’t get scared.
USHCN 2.5 is some sort of interim version. They went USHCN 1, then USHCN 2. Never was a 0.5 version in between any of those.
I suspect USHCN 3 will be out just in time for the summer heatwave.
Warmists, pay heed.
Thanks Steven. 🙂
In seventh grade chemistry class this was called “cheating”. As an adult it’s called: “fraud”. I guess this is what happens when “post-normal” science takes over: fit the data to the result.
For a climate scientist, it’s called “quality control”.
Notice how they constantly improve the quality of the datasets.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/9
You forgot the “/sarc” tag. I find the idea of “quality controlling” 50, 60 or 70 year old (or older)data a bit…. fanciful. But then I’m not a Climate Scientist®
I’m just leaving my /sarc tag on for convenience’s sake when talking about climate science. 🙂
Steve,
The “raw” data is the data as it is reported by the individual stations around the country, correct ? So they are applying their adjustments (v.2 or v.1, whatever) and then they are calling the adjusted numbers raw, as if they are unadjusted ? Then they are deleting the record of the original “raw” data ???
GW
I have no idea what they are doing. This is supposed to be raw data. Why there would be a hockey stick of delta between 2.5 and 2.0 makes no sense.
Look at the section of “database construction and quality control” here …
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
I think they are either failing or unfailing records in daily raw data and then alternately using ghcn or ushcn daily data. Confusing to say the least.
To find out how things change within v2.5, I think you could do a direct comparison of daily data in both ushcn and ghcn to see what was modified.
Figuring out v2 vs. v2.5 would seem to be challenging (as I’m sure they intended).
ghcn just updated as well with results that are certainly no better…
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/roger-andrews-chunder-down-under-how-ghcn-v3-2-manufactures-warming-in-the-outback/
The daily data won’t be published until April
I believe this is the daily data they are talking about. I think it’s up to date? I hadn’t downloaded ghcn daily in a while though.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
GHCN and USHCN are very different data sets.
Yes. They contain the same stations for the US, but with different formats for the station ID’s.
No, they GHCN US stations are definitely not the same as the USHCN stations.
Yes. They do not have the same set of stations, but there is crossover correct? like…
USC00427729 39.6842 -111.2056 2650.8 UT SCOFIELD-SKYLINE MINE HCN
from
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-stations.txt
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that it appears they are putting USHCN out to pasture and/or merging it into GHCN?
Also, It would be those HCN values that would potentially replace USHCN monthly values as described in the “database and quality control” section at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
??
USHCN is a completely different set of stations from the GHCN US stations. The USHCN stations are much better sited.
Yes, but I believe that USHCN is a subset of GHCN.
from http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/readme.txt
II. CONTENTS OF ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily
all: Directory with “.dly” files for all of GHCN-Daily
gsn: Directory with “.dly” files for the GCOS Surface Network
(GSN)
hcn: Directory with “.dly” files for U.S. HCN
It’s too bad the Nationals could not have found a way to adjust yesterday’s raw data (final score) against the Cardinals.
Interesting that they are updating the files daily in v2 now, where they had been only updated monthly before.
It’s clear that the climatastrologists, er, “scientists, at NOAA and NASA are engaging in fraud. Until they investigated and held to account, the flagrant lies, deceit and manipulation of scientific data will continue.
At a bare minimum, the AGW ringleaders should be banned permanently from holding a government or university position. And those universities that are bankrolling the fraud with taxpayers’ dollars should be banned from receiving federal research grants.
Kudos for Steven Goddard over at Watts Up With That:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/ncdcs-new-ushcn-hockey-stick/
This is worthy of a link on Drudge.
Submit Tips to Drudge here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/cgi-bin/fastfeedback.cgi
You can use this too:
[email protected]
Steve:
Your TOBS, Raw Monthly, Raw Daily…brilliant! When someone has done that sort of work, I am derth to complain. However, could I POLITELY ask for you to take the data, and add a 1, 2 and 3 Standard Deviation line to the data.
As someone with an exceptionally strong SPC background, and an excellent Analog and DSP background, I tend to treat things such as this from a “systems” viewpoint. In the venacular of Stastical Process Control, I doubt if this would “be off the X-bar chart”, and this system would be considered “out of control”. (HA! How’s that for jargon?)
The 1, 2 and 3 SD limits on the set would allow a quick assesment of this data in that mode.
THANKS A MILLION!
Yours,
Max H.
They must use the same people for the election polling.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29ETlRbjO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From that article: “This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station.”
http://s13.postimage.org/aw8subgcn/Fire_Shot_Screen_Capture_118_Global_warming.png
Every time I take a hot shower, “smoke” billows up and fogs up the mirror.