More Than 40% Of USHCN Station Data Is Fabricated

Another hockey stick. Coincident with the hockey stick of USHCN temperature adjustments, is a hockey stick of data fabrication. More than 40% of USHCN final station data is now generated from stations which have no thermometer data.

ScreenHunter_236 Jun. 01 15.54

The graph below is generated by counting the number of reported monthly temperatures in the final and raw data sets. The have lost 30% of their station data since 1990, but still report adjusted temperatures for the missing data.

Final : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz
Raw : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

ScreenHunter_237 Jun. 01 16.10

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to More Than 40% Of USHCN Station Data Is Fabricated

  1. Marc Blank says:

    Can you explain? That sounds pretty outrageous!

    • They have been rapidly losing stations, and fabricate data for the lost stations by interpolating from other stations.

      • Anne Ominous says:

        It is my understanding that it’s not all just about “losing” stations, but even simply no longer collecting data from some stations that are not technically “lost”.

        For example: in CA, they have stopped collecting from some stations in the Sierra Nevada, apparently preferring stations in the basins (San Joaquin valley, LA).

        It has been reported that the geographic locations of the stations that are NOT being reported anymore, in comparison to those that are, is… interesting. But I do not have any hard figures at hand.

        • Morgan says:

          If I wanted to hide the decline, I’d hide the stations in the Sierra Nevada.

        • gator69 says:

          Here is a good graphic Anne. They are eliminating stations in higher latitudes, higher altitudes, and rural locations, in favor of warm biased stations. It ain’t ticket science.

        • gator69 says:

          iPhart alert! It ain’t ticket science, it’s ‘rocket science’ (not).

        • Gail Combs says:

          If you do not have any data to hand, Try Verity’s Diggingintheclay she has several post on the subject of The ‘Station drop out’ problem

          (especially look at the older posts in this listing.)

          And Try E.M. Smith:

          One of his articles worth reading:

          Calorie Counting Thermometers
          Posted on 5 January 2014 by E.M.Smith

          That’s what the Global Warming folks would have you believe. That a thermometer can do “calorie counting”. It’s a fundamental tenet of how they “do the math” of calculating Global Warming.

          The basic “issue” is temperature vs. energy. This gets complicated with all sorts of physics and strange jargon that causes folks to glaze over on the subject. For a while now, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to explain it that sidesteps things like “enthalpy”, “specific heat”, and “intrinsic property”. What is everyone familiar with that would be a touchstone for those physics terms?

          I think I’ve found that touchstone….

          No amount of averaging of thermometers can ever tell you how many calories you are eating, and how much weight you will gain. And no number of thermometers can be averaged together to tell you how much thermal energy is being gained or lost from the planet.

  2. Truthseeker says:

    If you do not have inconvenient observational data, then just make stuff up!

    Welcome to 21st century “science” …

  3. I’d noticed that, doing some some comparisons between “raw” and adjusted temps, we often get adjusted temp records for dates where there is no corresponding “raw” record for that station; often for years at a time.

    (BTW I put “raw” in scare quotes because it is anything but.)

  4. At this rate, we’ll be over 100% by 2020. I’m not sure what happens then.

  5. Strum says:

    The Smoking Gun.
    If you don’t have the data you want, hey just make it up.
    No doubt most warmistas don’t have the scientific education to understand the implications.

  6. Frank says:

    You have remarked very interesting details! P.s. Nice web site =)

Leave a Reply