Illinois GHCN airports show warming, while the non-airport stations show cooling.
When I see stuff like this, it sends up a huge red warning flag, which reads “complete garbage.” Both sets of temperatures were taken covering the same state over the same time period. The divergence in polarity tells us that something is fatally contaminating the data. The graph below indicates that the S/N ratio is probably an unbelievably poor < 0.25.
Were those with or without TOBS GIGO? 😉
Obviously cornfields have a cooling effect, which requires endless annual adjustments
Are you using the corrected USHCN data or the raw data?
You need to use the adjusted data from USHCN version 2. NCDC revealed:
“The adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (designed with the highest climate monitoring standards for siting and instrument exposure), thus providing independent evidence that the USHCN provides an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.”
With respect to the unadjusted data, NCDC stated:
“The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
It appears that you may be using the uncorrected USHCN data, which due to well-documented biases, does not accurately represent the U.S. temperature record.
ROFLLLLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
If one is interested in objectively learning what the data indicate about the climate, one must use the correct data. Use of the homogenized data to address well-documented biases is an example of that approach.
Orwell ……….. 1984
I agree. The use of raw data with well-known inherent biases to promote an illusion of cooling when, in fact the climate has been warming, is Orwellian.
“Well known biases” which miraculously appeared sometime after the year 2000.
“Inherent biases” like UHI to promote an “illusion.”
Don you’re hallucinating and your apologetic activity sounds stupider by the minute.
“ROFLLLLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:”
Don brought up an excellent post. If you are truly honest in your conclusions you would have addressed him. This doesn’t look very good for you publicly.
This is how one gets 5, from 2+2.
Haven’t you ever heard of a “max-min” thermometer. Those are supposed to record daily highs and lows regardless of what time their readings are recorded. Yes, there could be a fluke with an early morning max or a late afternoon min, but that is a small factor that should all come out in the wash.
The time when the thermometer is reset makes a lot of difference
Richard Muller says UHI is fiction. So Richard has disrupted “settled science,” and leftists agree, “settled science” can be overturned.
I claim “greenhouse effect” is fiction. So I guess leftists are open to throwing out old beliefs when they can’t account for the facts.
My open minded colleagues, the leftists.
He absolutely says no such thing. He says that the impact of UHI in the adjusted data is virtually non-existent. That is entirely different from saying that UHI is not real. Instead, he’s saying that the corrections that are applied account for virtually all of UHI.
Richard Muller, Don Sutherland, and Brian Valentine all agree:
Can’t see it = doesn’t exist.
Neither Dr. Muller nor I believe UHI doesn’t exist. The correction largely addresses the problem, removing its impact from the data.
“My open minded colleagues, the leftists.”
Why do people like you drag politics into this? It’s like saying “Well the scientists say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old BUT THEY ARE ALL LEFTISTS AND COMMUNISTS SO IM GOING TO IGNORE THEM”
Science is science. Data is data.
I think the only reason you bring politics into this is if anything contradicts your way of thinking it has to be aligned with things that you hate – e.g. the ‘vast leftwing conspiracy’ (of which I’m a card-carrying member).
You better watch out because late at night we steal your underpants for profit.
The word “data” is the plural of the word, “datum.”
“Profit” is a bourgeois concept. You’re a traitor to your own cause.
Please send your donations now, to help these poor UHI deniers learn how to read…
It’s not their problem, it’s yours. Quit relying on “20th century math.”
I’m sorry, I forgot to add my ‘feelings’ to the raw data.
The right feelings, yes.
Not “feelings of anger about Communist “skeptics” who pander to the left for more Government grants.”
Feelings of sympathy, one gets from forlorn looking polar bears, for example.
“The right feelings, yes. ”
Pity science doesn’t operate on ‘feelings’, padawan.
Hansen ‘feels’ it was cooler than the data shows for the 1930’s, and he lets this get in the way of truly objective science. There is no excuse for altering historic data. If you ‘feel’ it is incorrect, then you have your ‘opinion’, but not data.
2nd chart looks upside down… Shouldn’t the difference be positive on the right?
Actually, Hansen says the data collectors in the first half of the 20th century, had the thermometers installed upside down.