*****************************************************
From the comments:
*******************************************EXCERPT*******************************************
evanmjones says:
1.) The new USHCN2 sites are all COOP, not a CRN site among them. That leads to the question of what the raw CRN data is (gridded and ungridded) and why the suggestion to convert to CRN readings was not implemented.
2.) After the substitution, there are 2218 USHCN2 sites as compared with 1221 USHCN1 sites. By my count, 50 have been added, 53 discontinued. This has had the effect of somewhat increasing the adjusted historical trend by ~0.12C/century. This increase may be due to the change in stations, a change in adjustment, both (or perhaps some other factor entirely).
************************************EXCERPT**************************************
evanmjones says:
Wow.
Yet he does not seem to have switched over to CRN.
At this date we have surveyed well over a thousand stations (I, myself, have over 200 kills, a dozen f-t-f, the rest “virtual” and/or by direct interview). Most of the remaining USHCN1 stations are long closed, and some sites are known only after recent station relocations).
The recent switchover to USHCN2, substituting ~50 stations, does not, to my recollection, show a switchover to CRN stations — but I will give it a look-see and report back.
Also, UHCN1 showed a +0.6°C/century trend, while USHCN2 shows +0.72. But that’s adjusted data, of course. As NOAA has refused to release its adjustment code, we cannot reproduce the adjusted data, and therefore, of course, any results are Scientifically Insignificant.)
These people are the most incompetent and corrupt "scientists" I've ever encountered.
Yea. I notice the long duration as indicated on anyone getting serious about implementation of changes suggested a few years back. That might required some honest work to be conducted. These people don’t believe in such standards.