Since 1990, New York has lost 18 out 57 USHCN stations – but NCDC still reports monthly temperatures for those 18 non-existent stations. They appear to have adopted the standard Democratic voting philosophy of allowing dead people to cast multiple ballots.
Below are the 1990 and 2014 station lists. USHCN still reports data for all 57 of them, with 18 of the stations being completely imaginary.
This is what NOAA climate experts consider good practice. My approach of using actual data from thermometers is considered bad practice by experts on both sides of the debate.
“NCDC still reports monthly temperatures for those 18 non-existent stations”
All “E” values, presumably?
All E’s – reported to a precision of 0.01 degrees.
I wonder which thermometers have such precision in reality.
I’m sure they must of nature be “E” values. And warm ones at that. LOL
A comment transcribed from WUWT today –
Zeke Hausfather says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Brian R,
NCDC lets you compare USHCN and USCRN here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2014&month=5
They are very similar over the period from 2004 to present (USCRN actually has a slightly higher trend). However, Goddard’s misconceptions notwithstanding, there has been very little adjustments to temperatures after 2004, so its difficult to really say whether raw or homogenized data agrees more with USCRN.
If you look at satellite records, raw data agrees better with RSS and homogenized data agrees better with UAH over the U.S. from 1979-present.
***
The way I read this, for all of Zeke’s criticism of Steve’s method, his method doesn’t appear to be any better than Steve’s… Which would suggest that the adjustment regime makes the data worse or at least, no better.
(Roy Spencer has also hinted recently that UAH will likely cool down a bit once they have added more corrections to their data set, bringing them more in line with RSS.)
A total ruse. They are adjustment curve is exponential, and just recently went from negative to positive. The fact that it is currently close to zero is meaningless.
To modify Calgacus’ comment on the Romans
Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness fame and riches. To measurement, programming, data manipulation, they give the lying name of science; they make a solitude and call it concensus.
Full speech as reported by Tacitus here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus
consensus. 1 c, 3 s’s. Honest.
18 out of 57? Hey, that’s only 31.6%. At least they’re fabricating fewer stations than the mean!
Heh!
You couldn’t make it up!
I know you are busy defending your honor from Zeke, Anthony, etc (correctly so, I am not arguing that point).
But don’t forget about temps 80N – I think today’s graph deserves a post: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I think this comment is more appropriate in this thread than where I fist posted it, as it addresses the practice of infilling and synthesizing of data where none existed before.
– – –
_Jim June 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm
… I’m thinking that, because of bureaucratic inertia, this is a continuation of a practice from years ago, when processes were not so automated, even in the early days of ‘mainframes’ running ‘jobs’ queued via ‘JCL’ and using FORTRAN as the computer language.
Got to remember, these ‘bureaus’ have been working with this data for a long time now, migrating systems from an all-paper ‘processes’ in the early years to the first relatively simple IBM or Data General computers and interspersed with upgrades every so often as new hardware and ‘tape storage’ initially and finally mass storage ‘disk drives’ (DASD for Direct Access Storage Device in IBM parlance) became economical some 25 or more years ago …
It would be interesting to here the perspective of someone from IBM who sold or ‘quoted’ them systems back in the 50?s 60?s or 70?s, and also to hear from someone who worked at NOAA (or its predecessor) on how operations were handled back then by civil service government employees.
.
I’d understood that most of the 4400 “Disappeared” weather stations still existed, but were simply ignored after 1990.
Billions for climate study, but not a few dollars to maintain weather stations. Does that make any sense? Only if you have a vested interest in manipulating the results.