Lies, spin or mistake?

[louise]

From wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/

Discussing USA temperatures Anthony Watts states "Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116."

This is not correct

If 1998 leads (was warmest) then his own table shows that 2010 is 23rd of 116, not 94th. This has been pointed out to him yet he has not corrected this error.

Lies, spin or a mistake?

[rsmith7]

The fact that the temperature data has been corrupted, manipulated and homogonised doesn't seem to count as "lies, spin or a mistake" in your world, louise.

[marchesarosa]

Not to mention UHI being largely ignored.

[helen]

UHI is largely ignored because whilst absolute temperatures may be called into question at individual stations as a consequence of UHI (despite there being a statistically significant number of recording stations not subject to UHI critisism). The UHI question is irrelevant when recording long term trends, as I have noted elsewhere , it matters not whether the recording station is on an airport runway, a block of flats, an olive grove or a beach. Is there, over time, a detectable trend? Most scientists believe that there is. It's up to you and yours to prove that this is not the case..

[rsmith7]

Did you glean that tripe off your iphone app, helen darling?
If the thermometer used to be in a field and is then gradually urbanised, it will show an upward trend.
Just like the statistical hi-jinx performed by Mann et al that gave a hockeystick no matter what data was used.
Either you're a zealot or a fool if you still believe in this scam.

Take your pick.

[helen]

Take some lessons on data analysis RSmith and then come back and call me. I'm not going to explain how wrong your simplistic analysis is here and you won't look at links provided. We've discussed this before. You don't believe anything that doesn't fit your world view no matter how compelling the evidence so the world is mistaken. I see little point in continuing this.

[rsmith7]

You were just as adamant about cod stocks darling.
What does it take to embarrass you off your CAGW high horse?
It's all so last year.

[carnyx]

Helen,

Re your Post #3

The idea that absolute calibration of thermometers is irrelevant to the establishment of a trend, presupposes;

- a linear, monotonic characteristic. i.e. that the thermometer performance is strictly proportional, and that the scale has equal steps.

- the enviroment of the thermometer is consisgtend, and remains unchanged .. i.e. that all we are measuring is a change of air temperature.

- the establishment of a trend-figure cannot be stated as having a greater numerical resolution than the basic resolution of the thermometer

As a considerable proportion of the thermometer readings have been taked at airfields, and as most airfileds have undergone considerable building development, the trends of each site ought to show the warming of the local microclimate. And it is most likely that the night-time temperatures will show the warming effect, owing to the heat-storing capacity of buildings.

[louise]

Nobody care to address the point in the OP?

[marchesarosa]

There IS an upward trend in temperature. There has been ever since the end of the last ice-age. Is any part of it due to anthropogenic emission is the question. This is for the proponents of the AGW hypothesis to demonstrate. They have not done so. Nothing currently observable departs in any way from natural variation. Until it does your AGW "scenario" is BS.

[louise]

marchesarosa - I don't see how your post addresses the OP.

Do you think Anthony Watts was mistaken or deliberate with his 2010 was "94th[warmest] of 116" statement when his own table clearly shows that 2010 was 23rd warmest of 116 years (in USA)?

[marchesarosa]

The Surface Station Project undertaken by Anthony Watts, which has inspired to many others to investigate the basis of the compilation of the supposedly "global average" temperature by GHCN, is a classic piece of careful observation. It cannot be faulted.

A report on the Surfacestations Project with 70% of the USHCN surveyed.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/10/a-report-on-the-surfacestations-project-with-70-of-the-ushcn-surveyed/

Perhaps you could ask youself what is the effect of "The Great Dying of the Thermometers", Louise? This refers to the massive reduction in number and spatial coverage of the surface stations included in the GHCN global dataset so that the vast majority currently being used are in urban areas and at airports and that the comparisons over time are no longer comparing like with like?

You could also ask what is the effect of the endless and repeated adjustment and homogenization of the data both current and historical.

The changing position of 1934 and 1998 in the various temperature databases is just symptomatic of the fiddling that goes on.

I take it your interest in climate is recent and shallow, Louise? Perhaps you get your pointers from "How to reply to a Skeptic" crib sheet. The quality of your understanding suggests this.

[carnyx]

Louise,

I suspect you think that Watt's error is clearly deliberate, as his motive was trying to downplay the awful scary news that 2010 was not the 23rd warmest year in the last 112 years.

He claimed that it was the 94th warmest, obviously to show that the world was cooling down faster that it clearly is ...

However, he did not mangle the data as well; so that sceptics could pick up and expose his enormous and significant error .. and also his feeble attempt to claim that 2010 was not as warm as the 23rd-warmest year since 1898.

So, we have to thank the principles of Science for catching out this obvious falsehood, namely that the data should be presented along with any conclusions, so that anyone .. even a nasty bastard evil-minded sceptic ... could examine the results and prove/disprove the conclusions

But, in terms of Post-Normal Science as practiced by Trenberth & co., was was his real sin? Not changing the data to match his argument?

BTW Helen, are you aware of the various fallacies of argument?
I suggest: onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

(And, does this actual result for 2010 mean that whilst the world cooling down, it is not cooling down as much as Watts claims. And so does it mean that we have a bit more time to prepare for the coming Thermageddon?)

[marchesarosa]

I think Louise missed the footnote to Anthony Watts's table of rankings of hottest/coolest year in the USA FROM 1895 to date.

*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.

I know it is counter-intuitive - we tend the think of highest as 1st and lowest as 116th. But it was clearly spelled out in the footnote in red to anyone who REALLY wished to understand the table that whereas 1998 was 116th (i.e. TOP) 2010 was 22 places lower in the rankings at 94.

Geddit, Louise? SIMPLES.

Did you actually read Anthony's article on WUWT or did you crib your OP from "How to argue with a Skeptic" again?

Anyone who wants to check the data can find it here
According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/

[marchesarosa]

Here is the order of "hottest" (by annual mean temperature) years in the USA starting with the hottest first, as given in Anthony Watts' article

1998, 2006, 1934, 1999, 1921, 2001, 2007, 2005, 1990,1931, 1953, 1987, 1954, 1986, 2003, 1939, 2000, 2002, 1938, 1991, 1981, 2004, 2010, 1933, 1946, 1994, 1900.............. etc