2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[westwall]

Hey, Kaptain Kool-Aid, red means warming! It is Southwestern Europe that shows cooling! CON$ervative know-it-alls can't even read a chart!

Exactly Gomer. Once again, do you notice the biggest red dots claiming warming in the areas of the arctic where there are very few stations?

Hell, it's no wonder that the obvious fraud doesn't raise any flags for you.

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Exactly Gomer. Once again, do you notice the biggest red dots claiming warming in the areas of the arctic where there are very few stations?

Hell, it's no wonder that the obvious fraud doesn't raise any flags for you.

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

 

[edthecynic]

Exactly Gomer. Once again, do you notice the biggest red dots claiming warming in the areas of the arctic where there are very few stations?

Hell, it's no wonder that the obvious fraud doesn't raise any flags for you.

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Prove it or

 

[Big Fitz]

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Prove it or

Home

There you go, at least for the US on how off kilter our surface stations are.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Prove it or

Home

There you go, at least for the US on how off kilter our surface stations are.

"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville Years


1904 - 2007

 

[Big Fitz]

Prove it or

Home

There you go, at least for the US on how off kilter our surface stations are.

"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville Years


1904 - 2007

Well then, I guess there is almost no surface station data included for the lower 48 states then with the amount that are off.

 

[edthecynic]

Home

There you go, at least for the US on how off kilter our surface stations are.

"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville Years


1904 - 2007

Well then, I guess there is almost no surface station data included for the lower 48 states then with the amount that are off.

Your link has already been discredited by their Marysville, Ca. crap, re-posting their bullshit does not make it suddenly credible.

 

[westwall]

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

I guess you don't keep up with GAO reports huh? It seems that yes indeed, the weather stations are sighted in violation of regulations all over the damned place. In front of air conditioner unit exhausts (where it's really hot), in the middle of the tarmac at airports (where you get the benefit of all that blacktop warming) etc. etc. etc.

As a physicist you certainly realise that accurate data measurement is critical to any scientific endeavor, yet when it comes to climatology all of the normal protocols go right out the window...why is that?

Why do you condone it? If you're a legit scientist?


"In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."





U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

 

[westwall]

Exactly pinhead, and did you notice there were also the FEWEST dots in the Arctic also????

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Prove it or

Check out the GAO report a few posts down.......

 

[westwall]

"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville Years


1904 - 2007

Well then, I guess there is almost no surface station data included for the lower 48 states then with the amount that are off.

Your link has already been discredited by their Marysville, Ca. crap, re-posting their bullshit does not make it suddenly credible.

The GAO did a extensive review of their information and found it credible enough to direct NOAA to fix the wether station siting.

U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

 

[wirebender]

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

You know, don't you that there is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows just that. Very poor placement of data collection stations.

 

[RollingThunder]

Boy, you retards sure do love to beat a dead horse. LOL. Did you block out all memory of this very recent independent study led by AGW doubter Dr. Richard Muller and partly funded by the Koch brothers?

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project is an effort to resolve criticism of the current records of the Earth's surface temperatures by preparing an open database and analysis of these temperatures and temperature trends, to be available online, with all calculations, methods and results also to be freely available online. BEST's stated aim is a "transparent approach, based on data analysis."[1] "Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."[2]

BEST founder Richard A. Muller told The Guardian "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]

The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were made available to the public in October 2011. The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Initial results

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. The Berkeley Earth study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, nor tried to assess how much of the observed warming is due to human action.[9] The Berkeley Earth team also released the preliminary findings to the public on October 20, 2011 in order to promote additional scrutiny. The data sets and programs used to analyzed the information, and the papers undergoing peer review were also made available to the public.[7][8][9]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[7][8][9][10]

* The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet's urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
* Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkely Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, just 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."[7]
* About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming.
* The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) has played a larger role than previously thought. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is generally thought to be the main reason for inter-annual warming or cooling, but the Berkeley Earth team's analysis found that the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index, which is a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic.

The BEST analysis uses a new methodology and was tested against much of the same data as NOAA and NASA. The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings. The team claims this approach allows the inclusion of outlandish readings without distorting the result and standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers. The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations. This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia.[8][13]


***

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

You know, don't you that there is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows just that. Very poor placement of data collection stations.

Yet, you aren't able to name it. Its amazing that you could read and understand it yet be entirely incapable of referencing even the name of a single author.

 

[Big Fitz]

"Off kilter" surface stations are removed from the data set, but dishonest deniers leave that fact out. For example, the Marysville, Ca station shown in your link was removed from the data set in 2007, but your link pretends the station is still active. Of course, when "off kilter" stations are removed from the data set, deniers then bitch about the reduced number of stations.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


Marysville Years


1904 - 2007

Well then, I guess there is almost no surface station data included for the lower 48 states then with the amount that are off.

Your link has already been discredited by their Marysville, Ca. crap, re-posting their bullshit does not make it suddenly credible.

Riiiiiight Senor Double-Standard. And why, pray tell, do you keep posting YOUR discredited crap?

 

[westwall]

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

You know, don't you that there is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows just that. Very poor placement of data collection stations.

Yet, you aren't able to name it. Its amazing that you could read and understand it yet be entirely incapable of referencing even the name of a single author.

Ask and ye shall receive....enjoy the read...it is quite enlightening.


http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You know, don't you that there is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows just that. Very poor placement of data collection stations.

Yet, you aren't able to name it. Its amazing that you could read and understand it yet be entirely incapable of referencing even the name of a single author.

Ask and ye shall receive....enjoy the read...it is quite enlightening.


http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

That paper concludes that site placement affects the accuracy of minimum and maximum temperature trends (first bold below) , but not the accuracy of trends in the average temperature (second bold). Says so in the conclusion.

[65] Overall, this study demonstrates that station exposure
does impact USHCNv2 temperatures. The temperatures
themselves are warmest compared to independent analyses
at the stations with the worst siting characteristics. Temperature
trend estimates vary according to site classification,
with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum
temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum
temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial
difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range
trends. Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to
reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant
differences remain for all but average temperature trends.

[66] Trend differences tend to become progressively
larger (and more likely to be statistically significant) as
siting quality degrades, except for average temperature
trends which are relatively insensitive to CRN classification.
It seems that the accuracy of maximum and minimum trend
estimates can be improved by using only better‐sited stations,
but the appropriate quality criterion probably varies
from situation to situation. There is a necessary tradeoff
between the number of stations (more stations improve the
signal‐to‐noise ratio) and the siting quality criterion (more
lenient standards increase the observation biases). For the
long‐term trends considered here, the optimal network may
consist exclusively of the CRN 1&2 stations. However,
even the fully adjusted data from the highest‐quality stations
may be affected by trend biases in lower‐quality stations in
the interval surrounding the change point [Pielke et al.,
2007a]. It may be beneficial to exclude the most poorly
sited stations from the adjustment procedure at better‐sited
stations.

See? Did you read the conclusion?


Heck, did you even read the abstract?

Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically
significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.

 

[westwall]

Yet, you aren't able to name it. Its amazing that you could read and understand it yet be entirely incapable of referencing even the name of a single author.

Ask and ye shall receive....enjoy the read...it is quite enlightening.


http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

That paper concludes that site placement affects the accuracy of minimum and maximum temperature trends (first bold below) , but not the accuracy of trends in the average temperature (second bold). Says so in the conclusion.

[65] Overall, this study demonstrates that station exposure
does impact USHCNv2 temperatures. The temperatures
themselves are warmest compared to independent analyses
at the stations with the worst siting characteristics. Temperature
trend estimates vary according to site classification,
with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum
temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum
temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial
difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range
trends. Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to
reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant
differences remain for all but average temperature trends.

[66] Trend differences tend to become progressively
larger (and more likely to be statistically significant) as
siting quality degrades, except for average temperature
trends which are relatively insensitive to CRN classification.
It seems that the accuracy of maximum and minimum trend
estimates can be improved by using only better‐sited stations,
but the appropriate quality criterion probably varies
from situation to situation. There is a necessary tradeoff
between the number of stations (more stations improve the
signal‐to‐noise ratio) and the siting quality criterion (more
lenient standards increase the observation biases). For the
long‐term trends considered here, the optimal network may
consist exclusively of the CRN 1&2 stations. However,
even the fully adjusted data from the highest‐quality stations
may be affected by trend biases in lower‐quality stations in
the interval surrounding the change point [Pielke et al.,
2007a]. It may be beneficial to exclude the most poorly
sited stations from the adjustment procedure at better‐sited
stations.

See? Did you read the conclusion?


Heck, did you even read the abstract?

Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically
significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.

yes I did. And did you notice the verbiage about better siting is needed? And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ask and ye shall receive....enjoy the read...it is quite enlightening.


http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

See? Did you read the conclusion?


Heck, did you even read the abstract?

Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically
significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.

yes I did. And did you notice the verbiage about better siting is needed?

Yeah, not really sure how that affects conclusions about average global temperature.

And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?

Didn't see the post.

 

[westwall]

See? Did you read the conclusion?


Heck, did you even read the abstract?

yes I did. And did you notice the verbiage about better siting is needed?

Yeah, not really sure how that affects conclusions about average global temperature.

And did you bother to look at the GAO report I posted for you?

Didn't see the post.

Take a look at post 128 of this thread.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, the fewest and the hottest. The weather stations are probably sighted in front of the heater exhaust.

Oh, yeah, that's the way they set up most weather stations, because the weatherman just loves giving you the wrong temperature.

I guess you don't keep up with GAO reports huh? It seems that yes indeed, the weather stations are sighted in violation of regulations all over the damned place. In front of air conditioner unit exhausts (where it's really hot), in the middle of the tarmac at airports (where you get the benefit of all that blacktop warming) etc. etc. etc.

As a physicist you certainly realise that accurate data measurement is critical to any scientific endeavor, yet when it comes to climatology all of the normal protocols go right out the window...why is that?

Why do you condone it? If you're a legit scientist?


"In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."





U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

K. Where does it say conclusions about the rise of global average temperatures are in question?