From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas. […]
…. according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?
But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.
In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.
Note as well, that the largest adjustments are for the estimated months of March – December. This is something that Steve Goddard has been emphasising.
It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.
Via Judith Curry – “is Steve Goddard right?”. (read the whole thing)
Western Society needs more pock-marked walls.
An interesting read. Not as popcorn-worthy as Mann v. Steyn, but interesting. It seems it only took 3 degrees of adjustments to make last year as hot (or hotter) than 1934 at that station? Amazing how modern science works. Why, by that standard, if she weighs the same as a duck, then that mean’s she’s made of wood, which means…. a witch, a witch! (/python)
These altered and fabricated temp databases are the bedrock from which all the Climate Change studies, policies, regulations and taxes spring from. Without the fabrication, the last century probably had a slight cooling of world temps.
Even ignoring the data manipulation fraud as if they were actually being honest, the U.S. weather service does things like use one, single weather station’s readings (just over the 60th parallel and not much-further north) extrapolated for all of the Canadian Arctic; and ignores weather stations in cooler, landlocked Bolivia (or Paraguay) instead, again, extrapolating readings from warmer, neighbouring countries rather than using the real data taken from as many sources as possible.
It’s time to call a Fraud the Fraud it IS , or all science will take a fatal HIT.. If you can’t trust science to purge false data, nothing is valid. Suck it up!
The record high temperatures for the US states have not (yet) been adjusted!
Of the 50 states, 35 high temperature records were set before 1940.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html
“The bias-adjusted temperature” says it all.
One point that Judith Curry makes, and that bears repeating, is that the online climate skeptic community, particularly the ones that do their own number-crunching, is highly self-critical and self-correcting, whereas the Warmists are dogmatic and impervious to criticism. The skeptics have an active peer-review loop going in real time, whereas the Warmists confine themselves to crony review.
Anthony Watts has a great piece linked and updated from the Judith Curry’s link. This has legs.
Even if these prostitutes with science degrees, whose lies and cover-ups have been exposed again and again, are correct (which I absolutely don’t believe), this from the Wikipedia article on the Devonian Period:
So – was the Devonian period marked by worldwide sterility, a complete dearth of life? Uh-uh: the first insects, the first vascular plants, the first trees, and the first tetrapods (the ancestors of every land vertebrate including us) all arose during the period.
I just read a hilarious brainfart by a climate scientist about how we “deniers” fail to see “the big picture”. Haven’t found that myself – just the reverse in fact.