Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas

Posted: June 28, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Ohhh. Dear. Paul homewood finds the same sort of Shenanigans going on in Texas as Roger Andrews found in Australia. Several degrees added to temperature records…


By Paul Homewood

As most will be aware, Steve Goddard has been running a series of posts about the large and unexplained adjustments being made to the US temperature record by NOAA.

For instance, his latest post is here.

So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.

From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.


(The file can be opened by Zip File).

Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated…

View original post 724 more words

  1. tchannon says:

    Oops, I was about to post a short article on this on my own blog when I spotted your reblog.

    Continued as intended so if it adds anything here it is.

  2. Roger Andrews says:

    The data tweaking has been going on for years. Here’s a plot of a “corrected” US record I put together back in 1999. Nothing seems to have changed since then.

    It gets a little disheartening sometimes.

  3. Kon Dealer says:

    This is the kind of “creative accounting” that brought the banking system to its knees- bankrupted governments and brought to light all other manner of scams, designed purely to fleece the public.
    Just like Enron lawsuits are required.

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    A local claims the station just had a wiring problem that was then fixed, something the automatic adjustment algorithm likely already coped with, properly:

    “mesoman PERMALINK
    June 27, 2014 7:39 pm
    The station I compared it to is mine. I live 5 miles away from the Luling COOP site, and have a Davis Vantage Pro2 with aspirated radiation shield, located in the middle of a large (maintained) grass field. I verify the Davis system every 6 months against a calibrated lab thermometer. I was suspicious when daytime temperatures in sunny, breezy, well-mixed conditions were sometimes 8-12 degrees cooler at the COOP site, which didn’t make meteorological sense.
    When I went to investigate the Luling MMTS, my control thermometer inserted into the shelter showed an average MMTS error of -3.6 F degrees over the 30 minute comparison, with larger individual sample differences. I traced the problem to damaged cabling that was causing the temperature readout system to calculate temperatures incorrectly. After the cable was replaced, the MMTS showed an average error of -0.4 F, which is within tolerance.”

  5. Nick Stokes says:

    I made some shaded plots of the anomalies around Luling during the peak months. There is definitely something odd happening there.

  6. A C Osborn says:

    How odd that a poster should live within 5 miles of a Station in Texas chosen at random and was on hand to personally fix an error which he noticed because the values did not match his own personal Station.
    As I have suggested on Paul’s thread we need this mesoman to go and check all the other Texas Stations that are showing Estimated values for 2013, on a small sample of the first 10 files listed in the USHCN final Zip file I found 3 (30%) with estamated values from 2012 to the current 2014 month.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Great comments. The plot thickens as they say.

  8. Konrad says:

    “The plot thickens”?

    I’d say close to congealed. But then, gelitin from ground up racehorse hooves will do that…

    And it may be time to get the hygiene inspectors back. Droppings from Tom Karl’s pet rat TOBy may have been found again in the AGW kitchens.

  9. tallbloke says:

    “There are quite a few “zombie weather stations” in the USHCN final dataset, possibly up to 25% out of the 1218 that is the total number of stations.”


  10. tallbloke says:

    “For absolute clarity, I should point out that the RAW USHCN monthly datafile is NOT being infilled with estimated data, only the FINAL USHCN monthly datafile. But that is the one that many other metrics use, including NASA GISS”

    I wonder why the 25% discrepancy in station numbers wasn’t noticed by people studying the differences between RAW and final USHCN data. Didn’t Watts et al do a big study in 2010, still awaiting publication?

  11. tallbloke says:

    “I’m reminded of the famous line from The Green Mile “how can you be so obstuse”?”


    That was “The Shawshank Redemption” Anthony, not The Green Mile. 🙂

  12. tallbloke says:

    From:John Nielsen-Gammon
    Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:27 AM
    To: Anthony
    Subject: Re: USHCN station at Luling Texas

    Anthony –

    I just did a check of all Texas USHCN stations. Thirteen had estimates in place of apparently good data.
    410174 Estimated May 2008 thru June 2009

    410498 Estimated since Oct 2011

    410639 Estimated since July 2012 (exc Feb-Mar 2012, Nov 2012, Mar 2013, and May 2013)

    410902 Estimated since Aug 2013

    411048 Estimated July 2012 thru Feb 2014

    412906 Estimated since Jan 2013

    413240 Estimated since March 2013

    413280 Estimated since Oct 2012

    415018 Estimated since April 2010, defunct since Dec 2012

    415429 Estimated since May 2013

    416276 Estimated since Nov 2012

    417945 Estimated since May 2013

    418201Estimated since April 2013 (exc Dec 2013).

    Hmmm. Why so many since 2013? Worth plotting estimates vs ‘good data’ for these.

  13. A C Osborn says:

    Rog, I have looked at a few Texas stations myself after Steve and Paul’s posts.
    In the first 10 files 3 of them (30%) have Estimated data for 2012 to 2014 current month as well as many other periods of years of estimates.
    But on top of that a couple of stations had, now get this, 30 YEARS of Estimated Values from 1890 on.
    Now this begs the question, was there originally data which has been “Quality Control Adjusted” or have they just made up the values.
    Steve also found Estimates where there are perfectly good values as well as the “Zombie” station con.
    This brings all of the current data sets except BEST in to complete disrepute, especially as GISS add there own adjustments on top of those.
    Others have also shown that the some historic monthly values are changed every month.
    This has to be by design and therefore must be illegal.
    However BEST has it’s own problems. there front page “Summaries” are complete crap, bearing no relationship to reality whatsover.
    I looked at 3 Areas on their “Interactive World Map”, London where I used to live, Swansea where I have lived for the last 45 years and Cardiff for comparison.
    I then compared those “Summaries” with actual station data for those areas, BEST has introduced warming where there is none.

  14. hunter says:

    The tell for me is that we see far too many people following the processed derived product, and not the data.

  15. A C Osborn says:

    Rog, have you noticed Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher plus the usual warmist crowd are really circling the wagons over on Climate Etc.
    They are very rattled indeed, Steve Mosher actually called me an Asshole for defending Steve Goddard.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    tallbloke says: @ June 29, 2014 at 7:14 am

    ….I wonder why the 25% discrepancy in station numbers wasn’t noticed by people studying the differences between RAW and final USHCN data. Didn’t Watts et al do a big study in 2010, still awaiting publication?
    Actually it was noticed by E. M. Smith and Verity Jonesand discussed in 2009/2010 several links listed @ :

    E.M. Smith had a post on the Thermometer Zombie Walk

  17. Gail Combs says:

    A C Osborn says: @ June 29, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    SWAG: I think the trojan horses inserted into WUWT thought they had the skeptics under control via A.W. reliance on their “Expertise”

    Each one said he was a ‘Skeptic’ or at least a ‘lukewarmer’ and ALWAYS showed up to defend their chunk of the CAGW doctrine but was usually never seen otherwise. And GEE WILLIKERS, between them the covered almost the entire doctrine! of CAGW!

  18. tallbloke says:

    Gail: Heh. Remember the guy who jumped in to misconstrue Nikolov and Zeller with his ‘one time heat of compression’ argument? what was his name?