Posted on August 5, 2014 by angech Reply angech (Comment #131480) at Blackboard August 4th, 2014 at 8:07 pm Edit Delete but you still have goddarians out there. Only a complete munchkin would argue that we should use the “raw” data in deference to quality controlled data. Steve Goddard is that munchkin, and it’s not surprising to see his surrogates here making the same stupid arguments here. I repeat, I am not interested in Goddard or waiting for him. Calling him a munchkin is a really good argument, Carrick, Thanks for including that brilliant riposte.Better than Tamino when on a losing argument. Using raw data, real data, in deference to quality controlled model inferred “data”? [lets call it gloop] is better? Note there are no tree rings or proxies in real data. Lets note that all data is adjusted [rounded] at some level by a person or program. There is nothing wrong with this and rounding can go up as well as down Mosher, it evens out. Real data by a thermometer is pretty accurate. It was taken on the day, it was written down, it is still amazingly extant in “the true original value, it must be retrieved from DSI-3210?. Now to correct some minor subterfuge. The first USHCN datasets . defined a network of 1219 stations in the contiguous United States. 24 of the 1,218 stations (about 2 percent) have complete data from the time they were established. The initial USHCN daily data set contained a 138-station subset of the USHCN. Even though there is supposed to be a network of 1218 stations from which the model is derived for most of its life since 1987 USHCN has used variations on a smaller critical subset to issue its temperature model, roughly the 138/1218 or 10 % of the stations [do not get picky on my maths]. Steven said “USHCN version 1 data comprise about 5% of station months, generally in the earliest years of the station records.” This is not correct, if referring to USHCN which he seems to be though he may mean USHCN compared to all US CONUS. Furthermore “Monthly values calculated from GHCN-Daily are merged with the USHCN version 1 monthly data to form a more comprehensive dataset of serial monthly temperature and precipitation values for each HCN station” Err no , USHCN is supposed to be worked out from its 1218 stations, infilled by surrounding non recognized stations when data is missing and then this is incorporated into GHCN, smaller to larger, not using the world data to fool the American data, surely, please. I understand the reams of data , Steve, so when you josh around telling the less able people like myself to go and do the work that a highly trained person like yourself found almost too hard it is not even comedic, just sad and not helpful. Lets have real history and explain we use models for science, but they are not real.