Back to examining the raw data that Dave suggested I analyze. He clearly didn't do it. Today I want to look at the data between two towns situated on opposite sides of the Mississippi River, St. Joseph, Louisiana, and Port Gibson, Mississippi. The town centers are 25 miles apart. One would expect that they would have similar temperatures, both in the daily maximum, the daily minimum and the daily average. But, as we have seen so often before this is never the case.
I want to assure my few readers that every single comparison of two nearby towns has revealed data like you are about to see. All of them, each and every one, has lunacies like we see below. these lunacies in the raw data make it impossible to use this data to calculate the global average temperature or to know if the world is warming or not. Why do I say this? Because the error in the data is the amount of degrees one needs to move the data to 'correct' it. If you need to move the data by 10 degrees, that becomes the error. Then it becomes ludicrous to say that the world has warmed 1.1 deg F +/- 10 degrees. Statistically that is nonsense.
Let's start with the difference between the minimum temperatures between these two towns view of the data from 1930 to 2005.
You can see that the silly and erroneous data says that St. Joseph was hotter at night, for the past 70 years than the town just 25 miles away. Clearly this is bad data, yet this is the kind of data the global warming hysteriacs are depending upon to prove their case. And the data is crap.
The difference in the daily temperature values is equally ridiculous. This is seen here.
In both cases you can see that St. Joseph is hotter than Port Gibson for decades on end. And the 365 day running averages of the temperature differences get as large as 4 degrees over that 25 miles, a temperature gradient that, if true, should give rise to severe thunderstorms--which weren't observed for decades without end. Thus we can be sure that the temperature difference isn't this great and we can equally be sure that the temperature record of the US Historical Climate Network is crap.
Another way to illustrate the extremely bad state of the raw data is to examine a small period of time, May 1, to June 15, 1998. What I will show below IS reported in the raw data from this government site, source. This of course, is the site recommended by Dave, who seems to have disappeared after it has been shown over and over that the data he recommended is so bad.
Anyway, here is the daily maximum temperatures for this period of time. You can see that they generally move in sync but are separated by quite a large temperature difference. The Julian day of the year is the x-axis, May 1 through June 15, 1998.
The difference in the daily maximum temperatures of these two towns is shown here. Note that it is a fairly significant temperature difference
A temperature gradient of 16 degrees per 100 miles, which is what most of this difference is, would mean that a moderate cold front existed between the two towns for a month and a half. Never has such a situation been observed.
Let's look at the temperature difference of the daily minimums. This is truly bizarre. In the raw records of Daves favorite site during this time are temperatures (we are talking about May and June here) of 12 deg, 22 deg, and 38 deg, not to mention the -52 deg, -53 deg and -56 degrees. One might be tempted to say that the negative signs don't exist and that was a transcriptional error, but one can't do it for the 12, 22 and 38 deg F. Does anyone beleive that On May 16, 1998 the temperature in Port Gibson fell to 12 degrees F while 25 miles away the temperature in St. Joseph, Louisiana was a balmy 68 degrees?
After this cold spell, the next nightly low was 38 deg F before, according to the raw data, the temperature plunged to -56, then the next night was -53, followied by 4 days in the mid 60s at night. Then it was -52 followed by a 22 degree low temperature. Clearly this is crap. But it is what we are basing our global warming conclusions upon.
So, the record really does say it was in the -50s in May in Mississippi. The difference in the daily low temperature is shown below.
Don't let anyone tell you that the raw data is correctable or even of good quality. If it is, then we had some truly weird times along the Mississippi River in May and June of 1998.
One final thing. I plotted a histogram of the data. Those who know statistics will know that the errors in the data are not subject to normal statistical correction as the errors are non-Gaussian. That is a big word for really screwed up data.