Is that guy holding GW "data"-- or a hanging chad? Either way, it a lie!

NEVER,NEVER rust a "liberal"

Wow - if I did work that sloppy I would be looking for a new job. 

One Big A$$ Mistake, America 

Besides the shifted data (a novice Excel error), look at the name of the stations where the readings were taken.

Virtually all of them are "cities", and it's well-known that the cities themselves HAVE gotten warmer because of the added mass, asphalt, and energy usage.  So it's clear that taking ONLY the data from the urban areas, you're going to naturally show warming.  Obviously, cities occupy only a miniscule portion of the globe, so a slight amount of warming IN the cities has little effect on the global temperatures.

Let's see the RURAL data sets instead, where urban encroachment hasn't caused any deviations in the "natural temperature trends".

Get a data dump of my on-line accounts and then "import" into Excel and swear to them that the data in the account ballance column is indeed my ballance and not my phone number.

AGW is the 2nd biggest hoax in history, Right behind "No, really it's OK to eat the fruit from that tree, Adam", and right in front of "We can spend our way out of the current recession".

Throw 'da bums out!!!

Before it's too late. 

www.loyaltoliberty.com

"There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science.  One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic.  One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority.  To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits.  To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when the do not fit theory laid down by authority.

            - Robert A. Heinlein -  Short story "Life-Line" 1939 -

We have columns of numbers.  Does anyone know any of the following:

1. Were the same model instruments used at each station?

2. Were the instruments routinely calibrated at each station?

3. Were the personnel all trained to use the instruments in the same way?  Were they then periodically monitored?

4.  Were the temperatures adjusted for altitude (barametric pressure) differences?

5.  What sort of variation do you suppose we would get if everyone attending a pro football game was given an identical thermometer and asked to write down the temperature at the moment the announcer told them to?

 The state controlled media spreading lies while the GOP stares at the ceiling  and sits around licking their fingers which they just pulled from their rectums. Who knew?

Hmmm, very interesting.

I downloaded the data set for the US, then worked up the average numbers by year.  Sure enough, I show a very slight increase during the last decade or so.

Then I noticed something "funny" (and not "ha-ha funny").

A lot of the data for the years 1999-2008 is MISSING.  I noticed that there were very few cities reporting through most of the time period, ramping up to 85 cities by 1948, then holding pretty steady, climbing to 88 cities in 1987-1990, and dropping to 86 cities in 1991-2000.  Then a funny thing happened - five cities "disappeared".

The cities with missing data in the post-1999 timeframe are:

Del-Rio, TX (2001-2007)

Cape Hatteras, NC (2007-2008)

Little Rock, AR (2007-2008)

Clayton, NM (1999-2008) (near Colorado border)

Washington DC (2001-2007)

Mount Washington (1999-2008) (generally the coldest US temps!)

Aberdeen, SD (2001- 2007)

Marquette, MI (2001-2006)

Blue Hill, MA (2001-2006)

The average latitude of the missing city/years is 40 degrees (about the southern edge of Colorado / mid New Jersey)

So what do you suppose happens to the averages when you eliminate the data above?  The only real "warm city" that has missing data is Del Rio TX.  A couple other "warmish cities" have only a couple years of data missing.  But almost all the others are what you'd have to consider as "coldish cities".

 Why do all these (generally cooler) cities mysteriously "disappear" from the data during much of the last decade? 

Did anyone ELSE try to compile this data?

1. The station usually had two components that when the data was imported to excel would take two columns, but not always. Sometimes it had one component. That shifted all the other data left one column.

2. Because of #1 the state data was missing in the places where the station data was only one column.

3. The year heading was over the location data.

4. a column was missing in the headder row to line things up better.

All this could be fixed and the data made to line up, and the correct states could be  filled in, it would take less than an hour to do this. But that still leaves much of the data missing, or in some cases it doesn't pass the "smell" test, i.e. the data is too far out of line with other data for the same year and the same station (June temp = 12, July = 28). I would have to work very closely with the data to see if I could come up with anything that could be used repetitively. How would you compair 5 years of data, all from Key West, to another 5 years of data from Portland Main and Buffalo NewYork? Unless you have yearly data from the same stations, unbroken (by more than one month), anything you get would be "best guess", and I don't care who you are your guess would be as good as mine.