USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data – Arizona

13 Responses to USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data – Arizona

1. Sundance says:

   June 5, 2014 at 8:53 pm

   It’s NCDC’s version of Kirk fixing the Kobayashi Maru for needed outcomes..

   Reply
   • Jason Calley says:

     June 6, 2014 at 1:03 am

     You can do that with computer models. 🙂

     Reply
2. Robertv says:

   June 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm

   Jeff Holmstead, former assistant administrator at the EPA for Air and Radiation, on why the latest EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants are massively misguided

   http://schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/audioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=2165BABAB53470AA6553BF18DF7E13FF?dispid=301&pid=65564&f=NjU1NjQtdHJ1ZS0wNi8wNS8yMDE0

   Reply
3. emsnews says:

   June 5, 2014 at 10:32 pm

   Nothing is more irritating than not using proper instrumentation data to chart changes over time!

   If a cook did this in a kitchen, everything would either burn or not cook enough!

   Reply
4. Mike D says:

   June 5, 2014 at 10:56 pm

   Hey, the cat’s out of the bag. Hope this starts getting into the wild. Though I expect that they’ll just stop indicating any estimated data because it’s not about integrity with the scammers.

   Reply
5. Pete says:

   June 5, 2014 at 11:11 pm

   Wallowing in the raw data. Aint no substitute. Good work. Thanks.

   Reply
6. tom0mason says:

   June 5, 2014 at 11:14 pm

   I see a clear upward trend in manufactured temperatures. Of course their methods of estimation are fully verified and validated – aren’t they?

   Reply
7. Gail Combs says:

   June 6, 2014 at 12:10 am

   Take Screen shots or whatever before all the evidence vanishes and we are called crazy.

   Reply
8. Chad Bergen says:

   June 6, 2014 at 12:30 am

   Your site is so much more scientifically respectable and responsible than that global warmer Anthony Watts’. Everything I see printed there I have to remember has been filtered for ” Magic Gas Believer Vision” compatibility.

   Reply
9. gregole says:

   June 6, 2014 at 12:33 am

   Looking at the topmost chart it is easy just by eye to see the E values produce cooling during 1920 through 1940 which n turn does a lot to produce the current upward temperature trend.

   Cool the past. Warm the present.

   Not much is needed to turn a non-trend or a very slightly cooling trend into a warming trend; then claim it’s “worse than we thought” and cobble together some nonsense relating it to drought/flood/fire/storms, you name it.

   Reply
10. Send Al to the Pole says:

    June 6, 2014 at 5:22 am

    I think the bottom line is that it isn’t coincidental, or accidental.

    Reply
11. Gail Combs says:

    June 6, 2014 at 11:57 am

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

    Lets look at that.
    My nearest weather station shows 68 °F and the nearest neighboring station shows 64 °F (north) and 72 °F (south) (Piedmont)
    Another set of “nearby stations” in North Carolina (mountains) shows:
    65.8 °F
    59.3 °F
    56.8 °F

    And a last set (Coastal Plain)
    70.4 °F
    71.8 °F
    67.5 °F
    75.2 °F
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If you want to “Infill” with estimated data then fine but don’t go showing the result of that mangled data to a hundredth of a degree when you are lucky to get a real error of less than a degree.

    Remember the “offset” from one station to another does not stay the same day to day or even minute to minute. All it takes is a small thunderstorm to cause a major change in readings and I have seen it raining on the other side of the road and my farm never get any rain

    Reply
12. B.C. says:

    June 6, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    If NASA had used this kind of data manipulation “Scientific Guesstimation” during the Apollo 13 mission, the crew would be wandering through the Oort Cloud right about now.

    Reply