USHCN Estimated Data Shows Greater Warming Trend
July 8, 2014
By Paul Homewood
Sunshine Hours has a post, which analyses the difference in trends between Estimated and Non-Estimated data on the USHCN Final dataset. He finds that the warming trend for the Estimated data since 1895 is consistently greater than the Non Estimated. For instance, December:
You can see the graphs clearer at his blog, but the red line is the plot of Estimated data, and the blue is Non Estimated. Remember that the Non Estimated is adjusted and not raw data.
Of course, it may just be the case that all of the stations, where data has to be estimated, just happen to be in parts of the country where warming has been greatest.
And, of course, it is also possible that fairies live at the bottom of my garden.
6 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It is a conclusion chasing data. They estimate a warming trend because they expect to find one. And that in itself is enough to invalidate their entire thesis.
If the conclusion was justified, they would not need to create estimated data to validate it – the raw data would do that.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog.
This is the same faulty method that Steve Goddard uses. The population of estimated stations changes from year to year. So if those happen to be warmer places, average estimated will rise, but it’s nothing to do with estimation. I show that here. I plot the difference between the average climatology of estimated minus non-estimated. It is very similar. It’s the change of stations in the sample, not the arithmetic of estimation, that you are seeing.
Read comment 6 on your site.
Paul, comment of the day?
JJ is clearly Nick’s star pupil.