|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 20:39:07 GMT 1
Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source: Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network: Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees. Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg. Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters. Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters. Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface." www.surfacestations.org/Only 10% of USHCN stations are in the best, top 2 categories. The other 90% are prone to huge errors. And puh-lease don't waffle on about the "trend" being the imprtant things rather than absolute temperature. This is nonsense. 69% of surface stations are sited within 10 meters of an artificial heat outlet. The surface stations are rubbish, the paleo data are proxies which are largely suspect. So what basis in recorded "fact" is there for a claim of "unprecedented" global warming let alone anthropogenic CO2-induced warming? WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA. We have a load of influential ideologists instead. People who can claim with a straight face that siting the majority of GHCN (source of global mean temp databases) surface stations in cities and at airports, where they are surrounded with concrete and asphalt, often close to air-conditioning outlets and other artificial sources of heat, is perfectly OK, deserve some sort of accolade. What should it be? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 20:45:30 GMT 1
But Anthony Watts' own abstract states "the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications"
In other words, there is no impact of these supposedly poorly located sites.
They may appear to be scandalous when you look at them in isolation but they don't add up to a hill of beans. The data analysis isn't mistaken (if Anthony is behind it).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 21:03:24 GMT 1
I don't even understand what the abstract means. Perhaps Louise can explain it to us with a little more clarity?
The only bit I understood was this
"According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend."
What does this MEAN Louise?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 21:07:35 GMT 1
I don't even understand what the abstract means. Perhaps Louise can explain it to us with a little more clarity? You're not accusing Anthony Watts of lack of clarity are you? Read it through carefully, sentence by sentence and I'm sure you'll get it - you're a bright girl. I wouldn't want to risk confusing the issue by paraphrasing Anthony Watts' elegant turn of phrase.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 21:16:04 GMT 1
On second thoughts, rather than expecting YOU to be able to elucidate the abstract, Louise, I think I'll wait for Anthony's personal discussion on WUWT..
Louise, weren't you the one who couldn't grasp a list of years in temperature order?
You're right, though, I am bright.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 21:30:41 GMT 1
Louise, weren't you the one who couldn't grasp a list of years in temperature order? No. I'm the one that thinks that this sentence: "1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116." implies that 1998 is being called 1st (I suppose is the use of the word 'leads' - leaders come first in races) and so 2010 is a long way away from 1st by being 94th out of 116. The sentence should correctly state 1998 is warmest at 116th, followed by 2006 at 115th and then 1934 at 114th. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th or it should state 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 23rd out of 116I questioned whether it was a mistake or spin. I'm quite able to read sentences and to read tables of temperature. It confuses me when the two don't match yet are designed to do so. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 21:41:33 GMT 1
I'm surprised you wanted to revisit the scene of your public gaff, louise. No-one else on the thread was in doubt about the year order - it was obvious the order was lowest rank = lowest temperature highest rank = highest temperature
Look before you leap in future. You thought you had scored an easy hit, instead you just looked naive. You missed this
*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period. Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.
There were 22 years hotter than 2010 in the USA in the years 1895 to 2010 according to NCDC. That was the point of the WUWT article. Your intervention, whether it was a genuine misunderstanding or just a distraction from an unwelcome message, was a little bit silly and irrelevant.
Those genuinely aquainted with the debate (like me, for example - the "bright" one) understood the ranking even though it might have been somewhat counter-intuitive. That's where genuine familiarity with the debates rather than spoon feeding from warmist crib websites shines through.
Just to remind you the 22 years supposedly HOTTER than 2010 (in DEscending order), according to NCDC, were
2006, 1934, 1999, 1921, 2001, 2007, 2005, 1990, 1931, 1953, 1987, 1954, 1986, 2003, 1939, 2000, 2002, 1938, 1991, 1981, 2004, 2010
But of, course, you could come back with the usual warmist handwaving that the USA is only a small part of the global land surface so it is irrelevant anyway. Isn't that how the strategic retreat from unwelcome data is supposed to go, Louise?
Remind us.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 21:48:42 GMT 1
I'm surprised you wanted to revisit the scene of your public gaff, louise. No-one else on the thread was in any doubt about the year order. Look before you leap in future. You thought you had scored an easy hit, instead you just looked naive. No I was right then and I'm right now but I do recognise when blinkers come down on others and they won't concede that they're wrong. I don't need to make the same point over and over to know that I'm right. I said you were a bright girl - can't you see that 'leads' a list of 116 reads as if it were 1st? The words did not match the table. My last words on the matter
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 10, 2011 9:45:14 GMT 1
Oh, good! That means I have the last word.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Apr 10, 2011 9:48:18 GMT 1
No you don't.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 10, 2011 19:25:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 11, 2011 16:02:40 GMT 1
If poorly-sited surface stations produced similar results to the product of the multi-million GHCN CRU and GISS temp series what does that tell you about the latter? That they have actually done sod all to improve the situation! In other words - Garbage IN Garbage Out.
The minority of US stations that are well sited according to NOAA/NCDC guidelines show "the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend."
You never did get round to explaining this to us, did you, Louise?
But I know your preferred mode of "debate" is cribbing ad hominems from Sourcewatch and DeSmugBlog, like your pal Helen.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 30, 2011 9:08:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 30, 2011 16:44:56 GMT 1
Marchesa By coincidence I am currently in Canada. The high roof temp. readings are probably down to the fact that they use a bitumen based tile, which obviously absorbs heat. I'm not sure for the reason, other than cost.
On the positive side, the houses use chipboad for walls with a large amount of insulation, so making them environmentally friendly from heat loss and energy used in their construction (ie vs energy making bricks, tiles, mortar etc) point of view.
P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 1, 2011 10:32:13 GMT 1
Hi, principled! Another who can't resist posting while on holiday! Never mind, your posts are always informative and therefore very welcome. ------- Here's a nice demonstration by Charles Duncan of the difference between urban, suburban and rural temp data produced by GHCN V3. Plus the difference between adjusted and raw data. Yes that’s right, from 1940, on average adjustments increasingly warm the data. Here are the differences: I got THIS from Verity Jones' blog "DiggingtheClay" here diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-only-way-is-up/CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ADJUSTMENT FOR UHI CAN BE UPWARD?
|
|