The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

http://www.co2science.org/ushcn/stationoftheweek.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
* USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Fort Sumner, New
* Mexico
*
* To bolster our claim that "There Has Been No Net Global
* Warming for the Past 70 Years," each week we highlight
* the temperature record of one of the 1221 U.S.
* Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations from
* 1930-2000.
*
* This issue's temperature record of the week is from Fort
* Sumner, New Mexico. During the period of most
* significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past
* century, i.e., 1930 and onward, Fort Sumner's mean
* annual temperature has cooled by 1.04 degrees F. Not
* much global warming here!
---

From their site, one finds the following:

Annual trend: -0.15 deg F/decade with 63 years of data.
Missing are the years 1937, 67, 71, 73, 74, 76, 96, and 2000.

Trends for other seasons"
Winter: +0.30 deg F/dec with 68 years data.
Spring; -0.03 deg F/dec with 69 years data
Summer: -0.52 deg F/dec with 67 years data
Fall: -0.18 deg F/dec with 68 years data

As usual, they start with 1930, in the midst of the big
drought event which came to be known as The Dust Bowl. Here
is a brief discussion about events next door in Texas.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cle...usa/dbowl2.htm

The station history thru 1995 indicates little movement of
the observation station, even though there were 6 different
observers during the period. The time of day that the
observation occurred was at sunset until 1959, then late
afternoon (7 PM or 5PM) between 1959 and 1966, then back to
a sunset observation until early 1976. Between February and
May 1976, there was no observer listed. From June, 1976
until the end of the history, the observation time was
shifted to 8 AM. The shift from late day observation to
early morning will produce a negative bias in the data.

According to the history record, there is a break in
observations between July 1944 and June 1945 and another
break shown between November 1945 and May 1946. This is most
curious, as the Idsos present data for all three years, even
though they claim that their processing eliminates years when
a month is deemed missing. One wonders where the Idsos
obtained their data.

So, the Idsos combined cherry picking with lack of concern
for the known time of day bias and found a cooling trend.
And, just maybe, they fudged the data...

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

(Eric Swanson) wrote in message ...
The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

http://www.co2science.org/ushcn/stationoftheweek.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
* USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Fort Sumner, New
* Mexico
*
[ . . . ]
According to the history record, there is a break in
observations between July 1944 and June 1945 and another
break shown between November 1945 and May 1946. This is most
curious, as the Idsos present data for all three years, even
though they claim that their processing eliminates years when
a month is deemed missing. One wonders where the Idsos
obtained their data.

When I asked them, they claimed they copied their files from
the Carbon Dioxide Data Center at:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/

When I downloaded CDIAC's USHCN files and compared
them to the IDSO's data, I found differences. When I asked
them about this, they claimed that they had done "their own
analysis on the data." The Idso's have never responded to
my request for a description of their analysis procedure.

Were you expecting a fossil fool to be honest? That bucks a
well established trend on the alt.global-warming newsgroup.



So, the Idsos combined cherry picking with lack of concern
for the known time of day bias and found a cooling trend.
And, just maybe, they fudged the data...

Below are the calc mean data for the entire state of New Mexico:

~F/Dec Prob0.0 ST Station Name Lat Long AltFt Years
0.4605 0.999908 NM AZTEC RUINS NATL MONUMENT , 36.83 -108.00 5644 , 44
0.0100 0.198798 NM BELL RANCH , 35.53 -104.10 4500 , 99
0.2613 1.000000 NM CARLSBAD , 32.42 -104.23 3120 , 103
0.2493 1.000000 NM CARRIZOZO 1SW , 33.63 -105.88 5405 , 95
0.0708 0.846650 NM CHAMA , 36.92 -106.58 7850 , 100
-0.0043 0.100690 NM CIMARRON 4SW , 36.47 -104.95 6540 , 99
0.2378 1.000000 NM CLAYTON WSO AP , 36.45 -103.15 4970 , 107
0.1810 0.999991 NM ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM , 33.15 -107.18 4576 , 95
-0.1223 0.999424 NM FORT BAYARD , 32.80 -108.15 6142 , 108
0.1073 0.992175 NM FORT SUMNER , 34.47 -104.25 4025 , 94
0.2526 1.000000 NM GAGE 4ESE , 32.22 -108.02 4410 , 97
-0.0003 0.006993 NM JEMEZ SPRINGS , 35.77 -106.68 6262 , 93
0.2124 0.999995 NM JORNADA EXPERIMENTAL RANGE , 32.62 -106.73 4266 , 87
0.2178 1.000000 NM LAS VEGAS SEWAGE PLT , 35.53 -105.20 6349 , 102
0.0828 0.974446 NM LOS LUNAS 3SSW , 34.77 -106.75 4840 , 104
0.1851 1.000000 NM LUNA RS , 33.83 -108.93 7050 , 97
0.3179 1.000000 NM MOUNTAIN PARK , 32.95 -105.82 6780 , 98
0.2650 1.000000 NM MOUNTAINAIR , 34.52 -106.25 6520 , 89
0.9499 0.993713 NM OROGRANDE , 32.38 -106.10 4182 , 22
0.2750 1.000000 NM RED RIVER , 36.70 -105.40 8676 , 97
0.1477 0.999959 NM ROSWELL FAA AP , 33.30 -104.53 3649 , 109
0.1187 0.990287 NM SAN JON , 35.12 -103.33 4230 , 94
-0.1020 0.973806 NM SANTA ROSA , 34.95 -104.68 4620 , 91
0.0956 0.992496 NM SOCORRO , 34.08 -106.88 4585 , 101
0.1754 0.999998 NM SPRINGER , 36.37 -104.58 5922 , 105
0.2611 1.000000 NM STATE UNIVERSITY , 32.28 -106.75 3881 , 111
0.1029 0.984652 NM TUCUMCARI 4NE , 35.20 -103.68 4086 , 98
0.3469 0.989342 NM TULAROSA , 33.08 -106.05 4430 , 41

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:11:27 GMT,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn


You do know why Eric is posting this, don't you? Think real
hard. He's very effectively disarming the local trolls who mindlessly
post the Idso's pap every week as proof the GW is not occurring. Your
comment about trolling isn't well posed. I suggest you read what Eric
posted again.

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.



( modify address for return email )

www.numbersusa.com
www.americanpatrol.com

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:27:22 -0400, Steve Schulin
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Ah yes, the, "I've seen a single paper and it says what I want
to hear so I'm going to post it ad-nauseum...." method of posting.
You're getting very good at it. It's too bad you waste so much time
mis-characterizing the science and so little actually understanding
it.

In article , says...

In article ,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Fantastic news, Nuke!

It's nice to know that the signal has finally been detected as being
greater than the noise. That the signal still small is not surprizing.....

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article , says...

(Eric Swanson) wrote in message ...
The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

http://www.co2science.org/ushcn/stationoftheweek.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
* USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Fort Sumner, New
* Mexico
*
[ . . . ]
According to the history record, there is a break in
observations between July 1944 and June 1945 and another
break shown between November 1945 and May 1946. This is most
curious, as the Idsos present data for all three years, even
though they claim that their processing eliminates years when
a month is deemed missing. One wonders where the Idsos
obtained their data.

When I asked them, they claimed they copied their files from
the Carbon Dioxide Data Center at:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/

When I downloaded CDIAC's USHCN files and compared
them to the IDSO's data, I found differences. When I asked
them about this, they claimed that they had done "their own
analysis on the data." The Idso's have never responded to
my request for a description of their analysis procedure.

Were you expecting a fossil fool to be honest? That bucks a
well established trend on the alt.global-warming newsgroup.

Well, if it can be proven that they have changed the data, then
that would be prima fsacia evidence of fraud. Balling could loose
his job if charged with such misconduct, even if he has tenure.
Of course, the Idsos aren't in the academic world, so they could
get away with it. I suppose the FTC might accept a complaint of
wire fraud, or some such??

So, the Idsos combined cherry picking with lack of concern
for the known time of day bias and found a cooling trend.
And, just maybe, they fudged the data...

Balling and Idso published a paper in the GRL which I suspect is
the basis for the data presented on the Idsos web page. See:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 0, 10.1029/2002GL014825,
2002

Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database
---

They do state that they compute monthly anomalies, but this process
does not change the data in any real sense. Certainly, they don't
mention filling in any missing values. Also, one wonders (again)
why the Idsos decided to use the yearly data, instead of using the
monthly data as presented in the Balling and Idso paper. Part of
the impact may be a shift in seasonality, such as earlier spring
warming or later fall freezes, which may not be readily apparent in
the yearly data.

Maybe someone who has looked at the data should ask Balling about this.


--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin wrote in news:steve.schulin-
:

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Gee whiz, you've discovered a new statistical toy: the smaller your sample,
the larger the statistical uncertainty and the harder to get a
statistically significant result. It's like taking a loaded die with 25% of
showing a six, and when someone gets the result that it is loaded you chop
up his test into sequences all so short that the result of each of them is
indistinguishable from a fair die.

In article ,
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Fantastic news, Nuke!

It's nice to know that the signal has finally been detected as being
greater than the noise. That the signal still small is not surprizing.....


LOl - be sure to use an asterisk or somesuch if you use the term
"global" to describe the various warming trends calculated from the
surface temperature records.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article ,
David Ball wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:27:22 -0400, Steve Schulin
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

yes, yes ... keep trotting out your desperately sought, elusive
exceptions to the avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of
warming.

yawn

(Eric Swanson) wrote:

The Idsos are at it again, posting another piece of RAW
USHCN data they cherry picked to "prove" that there's no
warming underway.

Gee whiz, everybody here knows that as many as 19% of the surface grid
boxes in the CRU surface record showed statistically significant warming
over the 1979-2001 period. One-fifth of the globe distinguishable from
no trend! Can you believe there's still anybody who doubts the meaning
of the data! [Ref: Jones and Moberg, J. Climate 16:206, 2003]

Ah yes, the, "I've seen a single paper and it says what I want
to hear so I'm going to post it ad-nauseum...." method of posting.
You're getting very good at it. It's too bad you waste so much time
mis-characterizing the science and so little actually understanding
it.

If you were more interested in the science, you might not demonstrate
such a preference to write about me. I was indeed tickled to see Jones
and Moberg present (and show the percentage of) gridboxes with
statistically significant trends over the 1979-2001 period. Of all the
papers and FAR-SAR-TARs and whatnot I've had the pleasure to read over
the years, I don't recall a single other paper presenting such info for
the surface record.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com