UPDATE: Published. Not in moderation.
Over at WUWT I have a couple of comments in moderation in the argument about US climate data. This one of them (slightly clarified).
Zeke is quoted: “The way that NCDC, GISS, Hadley, myself, Nick Stokes, Chad, Tamino, Jeff Id/Roman M, and even Anthony Watts (in Fall et al) all calculate temperatures is by taking station data, translating it into anomalies by subtracting the long-term average for each month from each station (e.g. the 1961-1990 mean)”
To create a 1961-1990 baseline, you would have 360 monthly values.
The USHCN monthly data has error flags. The E flag means the data for that month is Estimated. There is not enough daily data to created a monthly value.
There are ONLY 51 stations that had 360 values without an E flag from 1961-1990.
That means only 51 out of 1218 stations have relatively complete data to use as a baseline.
WY MORAN 5 WNW USH00486440 is one of the 51
WY NEWCASTLE USH00486660 is one that failed. 61 months of the 360 had an E flag. (Admittedly my comment had a typo over at WUWT).
And I just looked at the E flag. There lots of other flags.
Here is the other comment:
Anthony, you should double check Zeke’s work.
Using USHCN Final Tavg dated v2.5.0.20140622
July 2012 – 880 Stations have data without the E for Estimated flag.
There are 1218 stations.
27% of the July 2012 Stations are missing data.
July of 1895 has 472 station reporting Real (non-Estimated) data
61%. of the July 1895 stations are missing data.
Now remember, I am only look at the monthly records. Monthly records avoid the E flag if there are enough daily data. It doesn’t mean there is data for every day.
What do you suggest should be done to create anomalies if you only have enough data to create a baseline for 51 stations ?
Honestly the quality of the data is so bad it is useless to try and save it with “math”.
If it isn’t there, ignore it. Quit manipulating it.