Nick Stoke and Zeke Hausfather don’t like my graphs showing a difference between Estimated (infilled) and non-Estimated (not infilled) USHCN data
“The difference between average estimated and average non-estimated, doesn’t reflect estimation. It just reflects changes in the kind of stations that were being estimated.
For some reason, they were more likely to be warmer. I don’t know why, but they were. It’s just the wrong way to do it.”
I’m not sure I believe in coincidences.
I believe Nick and Zeke both created an anomaly baseline for each month for each station. Nick used 1900 to 2013. Zeke said he used 1961-1990.
Neither of them added trend lines.
I believe both used all the data (infilled and non-infilled). (As of my posting this they had not confirmed). I disagree with that. Infilled data should not be used in the baseline.
As an example of what infilling does using the difference by station from the 1895-2013 baseline here is Dec 1998 to 2013 Tmax.
In this case, the real data had a downwards trend of -0.82C/decade and the infilled data was -0.64C/decade which is .18C/decade higher not because infilled data was hotter, but because it was less cold.
From 1895 to 2013 the infilled trend is consistently .02C/decade to .03C/decade higher than the non-infilled trend.
The red dots are higher on the 1980 and later side of the graph while they are lower on the pre-1960 part of the graph.
Cooling the past, warming the present.