Comments on: Atmoz Agrees on USHCN Adjustment Defect http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 25 May 2013 12:52:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Revisiting Tucson USHCN: Regional Correction Factor | Atmoz http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139848 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:47:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139848 [...] regional average as the 10 closest stations within 1000km. The results from this analysis have been commented at Climate Audit, and have generally recieved praise from the ‘coolers’ group, and not so much praise [...]

]]> By: Revisiting Tucson USHCN: Regional Correction Factor | Atmoz http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139847 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:47:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139847 [...] regional average as the 10 closest stations within 1000km. The results from this analysis have been commented at Climate Audit, and have generally recieved praise from the ‘coolers’ group, and not so much praise [...]

]]> By: Joe Black http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139846 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:42:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139846

steven mosher says:
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

re 30. Joe have you looked at daily data? A while back I compared the Monthly data
USHCN outputs versus the daily there were some odd differences..

Well, I looked at two, month long, daily station data sheets and came up with monthly means that were different from the NOAA monthly data by between 1.6 and 1.9 deg F. Rounding, that would make the differences (100% – 2/2) even, not odd.

Now I have to look at the daily data from the .dly files to see what it looks like.

]]> By: Brian http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139845 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:06:56 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139845 I read the following at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

“March 1, 2008: Starting with our next update, USHCN data will be taken from NOAA’s ftp site rather than from CDIAC’s web site. The file will be uploaded each time a new full year is made available. These updates will also automatically include changes to data from previous years that were made by NOAA since our last upload. The publicly available source codes were modified to automatically deal with additional years.”

Does the foregoing mean that the latest USHCN data become available more frequently or less?

]]> By: K http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139844 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:43:00 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139844 #36, which, unfortunately, I wrote is about as messed up as matters get.

#37 Joe Black and some others saw that it is a mess. Joe’s short comment gave a clue about what was wrong.

About all I can say that I have had insomnia for perhaps 90 hours, I can’t even be sure of how long. And while I thought about weighting I had a great insight which was actually an illusion. (#36 sure looked right this morning.)

I still haven’t slept but my thoughts seem to clear and then fog at various times, it isn’t constant. And I see why Joe is right.

]]> By: Atmoz http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139843 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:56:19 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139843 Oops. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right… Unfortunately. This bug should not invalidate previous work showing the SHAP correction did not properly modify the temperature record for all station movements.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139842 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:24:53 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139842 I’ve deleted some OT posts on rounding – which is not a subject that I wish to bother discussing here,

]]> By: Joe Black http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139841 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:20:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139841 I’m about to head out tomorrow for an 8-week road trip to go do some “gravity research”, so any work on historical US air temps will only be done in my “spare” time.

]]> By: Joe Black http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139840 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:04:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139840

Joe have you looked at daily data? A while back I compared the Monthly data
USHCN outputs versus the daily there were some odd differences..

I’ve started, but haven’t finished yet. I ignored months where NOAA indicated there were more than two days of missing data (2/~30

]]> By: jae http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/#comment-139839 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:01:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2827#comment-139839 1930 Weather Station.

]]>