Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

Hawkmoon

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (53565)	6/7/2014 12:54:12 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 86355

USHCN Temperature Adjustments Are Not Credible Posted on June 6, 2014 by stevengoddard About 40% of the reported USHCN station data is now fabricated from no raw data at that station. Zeke says that USHCN temperature fabrications of 40% of the data are golden, and my method of averaging the actual measured data is incorrect. Let’s put that to the test. My approach (red below) closely matches satellite data (blue) and the USHCN method (green) doesn’t. Raw data and satellite data show almost no net warming since 1990, while NCDC adjusted data shows about 0.2C warming. As stations disappear exponentially, the adjustments increase exponentially (graph below.) It is simply not credible that a set of random errors in a data set could produce such a pattern. Random errors produce bell shaped curves, not exponential curves. The only error in the data set which should produce a deterministic trend is UHI, and that would produce the exact opposite slope of adjustments. Some people are heavily vested in a methodology which fails the most fundamental tests of credibility.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next