USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data – Arizona

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Sundance says:

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

  2. Robertv says:

    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

  3. emsnews says:

    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!

  4. Mike D says:

    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.

  5. Pete says:

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

  6. tom0mason says:

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

  7. Gail Combs says:

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

  8. Chad Bergen says:

    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.

  9. gregole says:

    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.

  10. Send Al to the Pole says:

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

  11. Gail Combs says:

    “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

  12. B.C. says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *