The Idso clan has done it again. More cherry picking of the RAW
U.S. HCN data without regard to quality, etc.

http://www.co2science.org/ushcn/stationoftheweek.htm
************************************************** *************
* USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Hiawatha, Utah
*
* To bolster our claim that "There Has Been No Net Global
* Warming for the Past 70 Years," each week we highlight the
* temperature record of one of the 1221 U.S. Historical
* Climatology Network (USHCN) stations from 1930-2000.
*
* This issue's temperature record of the week is from Hiawatha,
* Utah. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas
* buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward,
* Hiawatha's mean annual temperature has cooled by 2.28 degrees
* Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!
************************************************** **************

Hiawatha, Utah, 39.49N, 111.02W, elevation 2219 m (7050 ft)

Annual trend = -0.37 deg F/decade, 46 years of 71 possible
Missing 1940, 41, 58, 63, 64, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77,
78, 79, 85, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000

Winter trend = -0.12 deg F/dec, 61 yrs
Spring trend = -0.39 deg F/dec, 58 yrs
Summer trend = -0.38 deg F/dec, 51 yrs
Fall trend = -0.45 deg F/dec, 58 yrs

Hiawatha, Utah is a very small mining town at the base of a
mountain range. It serves 2 mines and has a railroad connection.
The town has about 3 blocks of buildings on 2 roads.

The station history shows no period of missing observations from
1930 until 1992. October 1992 is the last of the data. Funny
thing, the last 8 years may have shown the greatest warming, if
the global data is of any consideration. The times of
observation are almost all in the evening, so there would be
little influence from that kind of bias. There are no large
moves, although the stations after 1973 are about 50 feet higher
than previous stations. Of the 5 nearest stations, all show a
warming trend in the Idso's data set.

In my opinion, this station is a very poor choice and the Idso's
should have known better than to include it. There are just too
many years of data missing and the fact that the 8 years at the
end of the period are lost is particularly troubling. Why didn't
they say the record only ran from 1930 to 1991 (62 years)? Even
considering this short period, there are still 16 years of missing
data (that's 25%!!).

This has got to be junk science at it's worst, IMHO.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------