Sorry guys, but this is a thread about data manipulation and boy is there plenty of it around at USHCN

Steve Goddard is right, a statement for all that mocked him

Nearly every station has had the actual temperatures adjusted upwards by about half a degree centigrade.
There are 8, out of the 29 stations, which have “Estimated” temperatures on USHCN. This is a ratio of 28%, which seems to tie in with Steve Goddard’s country-wide assessment.
Of these eight estimates, five are because of missing data, as listed at the bottom. Four of these are now shut.
There seems to be no obvious reason why the other three estimates have been made , at Ellsworth, Liberal and Ottawa. The adjustments at these though don’t appear to be significantly different to the non estimated ones.

In addition to recent temperatures being adjusted upwards, we also find that historical ones have been adjusted down

. So, for instance we find that the January 1934 mean temperature at Ashland has been adjusted from 3.78C to 3.10C, whilst at Columbus there is a reduction from 4.00C to 3.52C.

In total, therefore, there has been a warming trend of about 1C added since 1934. It has always been my understanding that the various adjustments made for TOBS, etc, have been made to the historic data, and that present temperatures were left unaltered. Certainly, the cooling adjustments of about half a degree in the 1930’s would seem to tally with what NOAA have been publishing.

But this leaves the question of just why there is a need to continually adjust current temperatures upwards.



http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/ushcn-adjustments-in-kan...

Of course there are temperature adjustments, progs. When methodologies change, data has to be adjusted.

Surely, you're not advocating that we should be basing our science on raw data, even when we know the data collection methods have a bias.



Just keep in the back of your mind this is the gap in which progs and others believe they can seed doubt.

MOTR wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 9:15am:



Why does data gave to be adjusted- it is data. How much does
'data' have to be adjusted before it is meaningless?

lee wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:

There are needs and there is fraud. A mixture of both keeps the agw loon dream alive.

How can we ever know that any adjustments to the historical record makes them right? The answer is we can't.

With the use of minimum and maximum thermometers, why is time of reading so important. Surely the importance is accuracy. I would take a bet that a maximum reading at 5pm would be accurate at least 364 days/year.

I can't ever remember a maximum after 5 pm.

Perhaps it is more the systematic adjustments over time. Why the need to change more than once?

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

The trouble lies in the fact people don't understand what temperature is!
Temperature is an indicator of heat content!! It means next to nothing when discussing the system that is climate as it can only ever be a local indicator of heat content- unfortunately that is all anyone understands so to make the science understandable to the public weird concepts such as global average temperature have to be invented to keep the public- who votes - informed.

THIS is why doubt can be thrown in at every stage... it's simply called groupthink!

And why has NOOA adjusted temperatures yet again?

July 1936 is now back to being the hottest EVAH.

But it is all hunky dory.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/noaas-temperature-control-knob-for-the-pas...

Or you can just check it for yourself.

To put progs' concerns into perspective, think about this. The US makes up 2% of the earths surface, so in effect he is worried about 2% of the gap between the dark green line and the light green line.