This graph shows the difference between USHCN daily and GHCN HCN daily temperature. USHCN created a hockey stick just by selectively picking US stations which show more warming.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- Imaginary Cold And Snow
Recent Comments
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- arn on “Siberia might stay livable”
Call me dumb, uninformed, not up to date, but, don’t these ppl ever chart or plot these differences for publication on their own sites? How about other authors – anybody in academia ever take a look at, and most importantly, publish any charts or graphs showing these kinds of differences?
Seems to me that some of the orgs would take time once in awhile to stand back and see where all their ‘data jockeying’ is taking them. This is little different from say looking at the historical ‘lot’ yields for wafers coming out a semiconductor front end, a facet of close, tight process control procedures …
“…don’t these ppl ever chart or plot these differences for publication on their own sites? ”
Oh Jim, that would derail the gravy train….
It’s funny, when you deliberately eliminate stations that don’ t show warming you get warming. Oh well, I guess it’s just Peer Reviewed Science™.
They show only LA sites. NOT Wisconsin or Michigan…funny, how one of the several Ice Ages is named ‘the Wisconsian’.
USHCN (The U.S. Historical Climatology Network) = United States temperature data offered by the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), a government body.
GHCN HCN (The Global Historical Climatology Network / Historical Climatology Network) = global temperature data offered by the National Climatic Data Center, another government body.
In my search for this background info, I discovered that skeptic Lucia claimed that two independent approaches nearly exactly matched, thus validating USHCN adjustments:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/
But this is only for raw/adjusted within the US data, wheras Steve’s post is about global being selectively parsed into that US data. It would be appropriate to also include a plot of both the average of all the US data within the global archive and also one of just the excluded stations that didn’t make it into the US series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mDaK9bH5o&feature=player_embedded
It would seem that a “hockey stick” is a signature indicator of data fiddling.
+1