Nick is no longer trying to defend USHCN, and is now spreading mindless FUD about it. Perhaps he realizes that my assertions about USHCN adjustments are correct.

USHCN has not been discontinued, the data is updated every single day. Adjusted USHCN is essentially identical to what NCDC is reporting now.

National Temperature Index | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

USHCN consists of 1,218 high quality stations. If we look at all 56,434 GHCN stations located in the US, we see a sharp cooling trend.

The frequency of hot days has also plummeted.

USHCN raw data is by far the best long term weather record on Earth. The bottom line is the US is cooling, and NOAA temperature adjustments are fraudulent.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to USHCN Vs. GHCN

  1. Steve Case says:

    You have to believe that the United States record is an anomalous outlier.

    Should you believe your high quality calibrated to NIST digital caliper or a rubber yard stick?

    • Tom says:

      Depends upon if my NIST calibrated caliper returns a clearly suspicious result.

      Calibrated does not mean correct rather that it meets a “Gold” standard reference.

      At my lab, infrequent errors in calibration have been discovered – which is good. What concerns me most is there may be calibration errors that have not been discovered.

      • RAH says:

        The first year of US submarine operations against the Japanese during WW II all of the magnetic exploders in the torpedoes the US subs were using had been “calibrated” and confirmed to work correctly before being issued. They didn’t, and once the politics and bureaucratic denial were overcome they were ordered to be deactivated. Only then did the defects in the contact exploder and in the depth setting and control mechanisms start to come to light.

        So confidence in the calibration in one aspect of a complex system can result in masking the problems in others.

        It took over two years for all the defects to be corrected or eliminated.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      Ken Stewart has been analysing GHCN/GISS stations for here in Australia for a long time. His blog is here.

      One of the best was the Mackay sugar mill station which has had good data for a century, and is a field of green sugar cane for a lot of the year. Fairly likely to be a class A rural dataset.

      This graph is the adjusted minus raw. Don’t you love it? (You can see the whole blog article if you click the Feb 2010 link on his side bar.)

      So I somehow doubt USHCN is anomalous compared with GHCN.

  2. TA says:

    “USHCN raw data is by far the best long term weather record on Earth.”

    And the temperature profile of USHCN raw data, showing that the 1930’s is as hot or hotter than subsequent years, is also the same temperature profile that unaltered charts show, from around the world.

    None of the unaltered temperature profiles show a “Hockey Stick” pattern.

    Alarmists depend on the Hockey Stick chart to make their case, but it is a bogus, bastardized version of reality. The alarmists have to distort reality to make any case at all for CAGW. It’s all they have.

  3. sunsettommy says:

    Nick, will say that ClimDiv is not the same data set as USHCN,therefore that ClimDiv replaced USHCN. Therefore USHCN is obsolete.

    Thus that green line at far right is NOT USHCN at all.

    He will NEVER admit that it was NEVER obsoleted by CONUS, which is a very different set of data base than USHCN.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      He’ll complain that Goddards graph isn’t adjusted.

      • Jl says:

        Or, if you read at other sites, it doesn’t matter because they’re not “peer-reviewed”.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Willing to bet that more people have reviewed Tony’s work than have reviewed any “peer-reviewed” journal article.

          Anyone can grab his code and review it, use it, check it… if they are capable.

          The ULTIMATE review.

          Some may even be his peers, (but not many of the AGW cultists)

  4. sunsettommy says:

    I see that this comment effectively destroys Nick argument by showing charts doesn’t support Nick at all:

    “Scott Wilmot Bennett
    October 5, 2017 at 5:39 am Edit

    Sometimes Mr Stokes will take the time to write reams of nick-picking that looks clever but is actually argument-less. His “Random walk” comments are a perfect case and for a formal example of a PHD mathematician being completely and unashamedly obtuse, you need look no further! Just to be clear, the argument is about finding trends in a database and showing that there is no statistical difference between that correlation, and a random walk through the very same data – not some other data – and not data that includes off the scale points where the earth boils at the point your supposed linear trend extrapolates too! ;-)

    But as for this current thread, I still have no idea of the relevance of his dispute about the graphs above. What follows is a an example of a Nick Stokes argument in three graphs, two of which he posted:”

  5. gator69 says:

    Agraph of temperature anomalies is just an opinion. Anomalies are created by the definers of “normal”.

  6. sunsettommy says:

    What really hurts Nick is his insistence that USHCN is OBSOLETE,when his own quote says it was replaced,which a very different meaning.

    We KNOW that USHCN is still being updated in steps,which is up to year 2016, which is TWO years after it was supposedly made obsolete.

    Then Nick destroys his own position by saying this chart supports him,when actually it has 116 years of USHCN data sitting in it.

    his post,

    He is a joke,

  7. Pathway says:

    I quit reading Nicks and Moshpits comments long ago.

    • gregole says:

      I ignore them too. Nothing to learn from Nick’s thick-headed obtuseness or Mosh’s bitter little drive bys.

      • angech says:

        No entertainment value then?
        I quite like their (wrong) comments.
        I occasionally try to shoot them down.
        Know thy opponent is a good maxim and you cannot know them if you ignore them

  8. Windsong says:

    I realize the length of record is fairly short, but what trends can be seen looking at USCRN data? NCEI refers to the CRN as “…NOAA’s premiere surface reference network.” Okay, sounds good. Does CRN match other data sets, or is there some divergence?

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Last checked CRN in 2016. At that time, it was reasonably matching nearest well maintained rural USHCNs. To be expected. The USHCN problems lie in non-rural poorly maintained stations, as Watt’s Surface Stations project and paper showed. Whether those wash out is doubtful. So the likelihood is that the cooling Tony continues to show is actually greater than portrayed.

      • AndyG55 says:

        CRN responds more to El Nino spikes, but up until the beginning of the recent EL Nino, it was an almost perfect trend match with UAH USA48 and RSS ContUS.

        The problem really LIES with what is done with the data.

  9. Timo Soren says:

    USCRN or the United States Climate Reference Network is high quality sites that, I believe, have been running since 2007 that don’t have site-ing issues and were standardized. In addition, I believe that have backup hardware to keep them running identically for quite sometime.

    Although these are only a decade in length. It seems a simple analysis of these sites would reveal longitude, latitude, and altitude well distributed properties.

  10. richard verney says:


    It does appear that Nick is back tracking somewhat, and it was always difficult to see his point, when you were essentially comparing like with like (within the limitation of the data set), and that even if the USHCN had been discontinued (which it has not, merely fallen out of favour), this fact would not render a like for like comparison invalid. There was never substantial substance to his criticism, save that which is applicable to all time series data sets (whether these be GISS, or HadCrut etc), namely that they are compiled from station sets which are continually changing over time.

    What would be useful would be for you to compile a sub set of USHCN.

    I have in mind a review of Anthony’s surface station audit. I presume that there is an appendix to his paper/ to this audit, that identifies the stations that comply with CRN 1 guidelines.

    It would be interesting to identify which stations in USHCN comply with CRN1 guidelines, and then compile some plots/charts using only those stations to see how temperatures have faired these past 100 or so years.

    Is that possible? Perhaps, it would give a good insight into UHI, and illustrate the issues with poor station siting.

  11. Sean says:

    Where are the second and third plots from? Did you download data and make them yourself, or can they be found somewhere?

  12. windlord-sun says:

    Feburary 2, 2020

    I know this is an old thread, but I am catching up by running fast. I’m just now grasping the attempt to diminish USHCN and elevate USCRN. This can only be part of a scheme to hide the warm past.

    Confirming what Tony said above … USHCN is indeed still being updated. But the number of stations reporting has diminished from 1215 in 1989 to 868 for 2019.

    WHY? are the stations sending in data and NOAA represses it, or have the 400+ stations stopped recording and/or sending? What is NOAA’s explanation in either case.

    I am fixated on this issue.

    Can anyone say? Tony?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.