Tag: Raw Temperature

I’ve been posting on USHCN and the effect of “estimating” or “Infilling” on  the Final data.

Earlier today I showed that Estimating/Infilling made the 1980-2014 trend steeper upwards.

Now I will show the opposite: When the trend is down, infilling makes the trend steeper downwards.

I repeat … this is the Final data after all the other adjustments. About 15% of the data is Estimated from neighboring stations.

I will post all the monthly graphs … but just discuss the first – January.

The data is 1945 to 1980. So it covers a period of cooling.

The trend of REAL data is –0.58C/decade. That’s the 39,766 values referenced in the legend.

Then they add in about 15% Estimated data with a trend of  -0.79C/decade. That’s the 3987 values.

The net result is a new trend of -0.61C/decade.

Presto. Magic. A -0.58C trend is now a -0.61C trend.

Not a big change. But it is always there.  But the red line is almost always well above the others. Sometimes by 2C.

(Click on graphs for larger).

I’ve been posting on USHCN and the effect of “estimating” or “Infilling” on  the Final data. I did Arizona earlier.

I repeat … this is the Final data after all the other adjustments. About 15% of the data is Estimated from neighboring stations.

I will post all the monthly graphs … but just discuss the first – January.

The data is 1980 to 2014. So it has the 1980-1990 warming trend in it.

The trend of REAL data is 0.23C/decade. That’s the 35,854 values referenced in the legend.

Then they add in about 15% Estimated data with a trend of  +0.66C/decade. That’s the 4516 values.

The net result is a new trend of +0.33C/decade.

Presto. Magic. A .23C trend is now a .33C trend. (Click on graphs for larger).

I’ve been dabbling in the USHCN data to see how much is Estimated and how much is Real. You can read more here.

This is California (Nevada is there because of the shape of California) for the 12 months of 2013. The red stations (with name and elevation) are Estimated. The blue stations (no name to save space) are “real“.

For just California December 2013, 18 out of 43 are Estimated. The Estimated stations average 8.12C and the “Real” stations average 7.02.  Click image for full size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An addendum to yesterdays post about “Estimated” data.

These are the 9 months in Arizona with the biggest change due to Estimated data. I’ll focus on December (the top graph). Remember, this is the Final data after all the other adjustments.

About 15% of the data is Estimated from neighboring stations.

The trend of REAL data is negative -.04C/decade.

Then they add in about 15% Estimated data with a trend of  +0.43C/decade.

The net result is a new trend of +0.02C/decade.

Presto. Magic. A downward trend is now an upward trend. (Click on graph for larger)

Over at Steven Goddard’s blog he is trying to point out how much USHCN data is “Estimated”.

From the readme.txt file: " 'E' indicates the data value is an estimate from surrounding values; no original value is available;"

So I had a copy of the data from last month because of a previous post.

So I thought … take the Final data and graph each month comparing data with an E flag to all the data without an E flag.

Surprise. Estimated data is Warming Data. And that is ignoring all the manipulation in going from Raw to Final data.

Over at Nick Stokes blog they are trying to tear down a graph used by WUWT and Steven Goddard. They have made a valid point that the last few skyrocketing points may be because of late data.

But I thought I would take a look at monthly adjustments to tavg, tmin and tmax. Each of these 3 graph sets show the Final Temperature  minus the  Raw Temperature.

1) As you can see the USHN adjustments cool the past (especially the warm 20s/30s/40s).

2) I don’t know why they adjust tmax so much.

3) I really, really want to know why Dec/Jan/Feb (and to a lesser degree Nov and Mar) are so heavily manipulated. The adjustments can change by .5C from year to year. Bizarre.

Click for bigger.