EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

2014 one for the record books ...
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24805
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2014 one for the record books ...

Milton Banana wrote:
What about the resolution of the land based stations?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlib ... td3200.doc

Quote:
The accuracy of the maximum-minimum temperature system (MMTS) is +/- 0.5 degrees C, and the temperature is displayed to the nearest 0.1 degree F.


The former is the accuracy of the measurement system as a whole and the latter is the precision of the measurement devices. I would not expect someone of your shallow knowledge of science to grasp how this works, but here is a link that may help you.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html


Quote:
The Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor used in the majority of land based stations has a margin of error of a full degree C. Once that is taken into consideration the only conclusion one could logically arrive at is complete skepticism about the OP study.


No, since the current accuracy is greater than it was in the past, the error margins are lower and as such does not affect the study.

Quote:
For the record NOAA is trying to field some new wireless stations to combat poor placement problems.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/12/m ... less-mmts/


Except the data has shown the "poor placement" problem is more of a tempest in a teapot than a real problem.

Quote:
The bad news is it doesn't appear the censor technology has been improved so we're still looking at a margin of error of plus or minus .5 degree C.

Quote:
Temperature Accuracy Typical: ±1°C (±2°F)


Still this will not improve future land based studies and does not save a poor OP study for this thread.


Only because you know nothing of which you speak, but that is more and more commonly known.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2014 one for the record books ...

From bama, the only good thing said IMHO;
"“No challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does—14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.”

“I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act,” he continued. “Well, I’m not a scientist either. But you know what—I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it. "
The rest is too little too late and too much garbage attached that actually makes CAGW worse by more overpopulation.
In the longer term every year will be a record, until there is no one left to keep them.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2014 one for the record books ...

Isn't it interesting how the number of stations were dramatically reduced at the same time the temperatures dramatically increased. 40 years worth of nominal station number and temperature readings, and all of the sudden in 1988.

Image

Just a coincidence. :lol: :angel:

Nothing going on here. :lol: :angel: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And, isn't it interesting the very year climate change was thrust upon the political arena is the very same year the surface station number were slashed. :-$

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2014 one for the record books ...

Milton Banana wrote:
Isn't it interesting how the number of stations were dramatically reduced at the same time the temperatures dramatically increased. 40 years worth of nominal station number and temperature readings, and all of the sudden in 1988.

Image

Just a coincidence. :lol: :angel:

Nothing going on here. :lol: :angel: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And, isn't it interesting the very year climate change was thrust upon the political arena is the very same year the surface station number were slashed. :-$


Ok, compare the data you have just questioned to the data from the satellite measurements and show us where they diverge to create the evidence of this being a problem and not just your attempt to make something appear to be wrong.

Here let me help you out:

Image

Odd the RSS and UAH temperature anomaly peaks in 1998 are BOTH higher than that of NOAA's ground based measurements, how can that be if the number of stations had any impact on the increase you tried to imply was related?

Author:  Snowy123 [ Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2014 one for the record books ...

Ocean Heat Content for Oct-Dec 2014 is now in. 2014 saw the highest ocean heat content ever on record.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/