How those record temperatures were derived

[daveman]

When it read 104 in October, get back to me.

It gets hot in summer! Sweet Jesus!

Global Warming -- it's real!

If it read 104 in October there is a good chance life would have changed and not for the positive. Thus we need to do something now. Some people enjoy life and want to have their great grandchildren do the same. Some are ostriches, doesn't it get dark and lonely in your hole.

What is the optimum temperature of the Earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet, the temp curves from the UAH satellite data is almost exactly the same as the temps derived from these stations. Perhaps you dingbats are overlooking something?

 

[daveman]

Yet, the temp curves from the UAH satellite data is almost exactly the same as the temps derived from these stations. Perhaps you dingbats are overlooking something?

Then obviously, the satellite data is flawed.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've been pimping this site for a while now.

Surfacestations.org

They've been showing how out of calibration these stations have become by encroachment of interfering sources like HVAC units, acres of asphalt, mirrors, windows traffic and so on.

Of course these things are not to be considered when looking at temperatures in areas, formerly rural now suddenly surrounded by a semi trailer lot next to a cold storage exhausting off onto the surface station.

 

[Big Fitz]

Remember, folks...it's cherry-picked data like this that people are using as a tool to justify crippling the Western economy.

Remember folks, Dave could not find his ass with both hands in a science class.

Even skeptics like Dr. Spencer have to show that this year, and the previous decade have been exceptionly hot. From his own site, look at the 13 month running mean.

June 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.44 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

And that refutes the claim of agencies using data from poorly-sited stations...how, exactly? Do you think this station gives accurate data?

NOTE: Just because it shows hotter temps than it should does not prove your claim of AGW.

Dang it... beat me to it.

 

[daveman]

Dang it... beat me to it.

Actually, Dude beat us both to it. I pulled that pic from his link.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, it's too bad that this is the fifth time I have seen Crocko debunked on this very issue using the same points because he never gets around them.

 

[Oddball]

The enviro-fundies have been doing double shifts to discount and downplay the heat island effect, and that many of their sources of data are smack in the middle of heat islands.

 

[2Parties]

The earth would be better for everyone if it was warmer. More places would be livable.

How horrible it would be if food could be grown year round in more places. How horrendous it would be the millions of acres of uninhabited land could become livable for hundreds of millions increasing the supply of livable land making housing and acreage cheaper. It would be absolutely preposterous if it were easier for the poor to have a better life.

Then again, the followers of the religion of Scientology errr globalwarmingology only care about their power and are obsessed with controlling you...

 

[westwall]

When it read 104 in October, get back to me.

It gets hot in summer! Sweet Jesus!

Global Warming -- it's real!

If it read 104 in October there is a good chance life would have changed and not for the positive. Thus we need to do something now. Some people enjoy life and want to have their great grandchildren do the same. Some are ostriches, doesn't it get dark and lonely in your hole.

Try reading some history books. The Roman Warming Period of a few hundred years was on average 2.7 degrees C warmer than today and life was good...very good in fact. The period witnessed widespread prosperity.

Jump forward to the Medieval Warming Period of several hundred years and you find the historical record once again shows widespread prosperity. Average temps were 2.4 degrees C warmer than today.

Now lets look at the times when it is cold.... Things don't look so good. Widespread poverty, wars, and famine. I know which temperature zone I want to live in. After reading some history books and determining the fact that I have not lied to you come back and tell us whether you would rather live while it is warmer or colder.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, post your source for this bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet, the temp curves from the UAH satellite data is almost exactly the same as the temps derived from these stations. Perhaps you dingbats are overlooking something?

Then obviously, the satellite data is flawed.

I see. The most prominent and scientifically acceptable of the critics is pimping for the warmists.

Don't lose your little tin hat, Dave. Never know when I am broadcasting

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, post your source for this bullshit.

Which information are you requesting oh foul mouthed one?

Mayhaps this?

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

I put the link through the google translator so it will make it easier for you to read though there are some obvious problems. In the notes are several sources for historical data that confirm just how nice it was during the MWP. I found Wilfried Webers, "The development of the northern limit of viticulture in Europe" particularly interesting and it will automatically go through the google tranlator bot for you if you wish to read it.

 

[Oddball]

Ahhh...Another gem from our resident scatologist, Oldrocksinthehead.

 

[Big Fitz]

he's become a twisted version of Fox News' slogan.

"He purports, We deride."

 

[code1211]

Yet, the temp curves from the UAH satellite data is almost exactly the same as the temps derived from these stations. Perhaps you dingbats are overlooking something?

This correlation could be due to the excessive adjusting, modifications and averaging that is applied to all data before it is released.

If the data was so good, why would all of the adjusting be required?

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).

 

[edthecynic]

Yet, the temp curves from the UAH satellite data is almost exactly the same as the temps derived from these stations. Perhaps you dingbats are overlooking something?

Then obviously, the satellite data is flawed.

I love it! When Spencer and Christy at UAH were cooking the data to show global cooling by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were saying that satellite data from UAH was the ONLY accurate data. Spencer is Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist. Now that the correct sign is being used, suddenly satellite data from UAH is flawed.

To deniers, any data that confirms global warming, no matter how rabid a denier the source, is by definition "flawed."

 

[edthecynic]

Odd sites

No matter how much you pretend to be a dumb liar, by now you know full well you are lying!

How many times have I busted you posting this same crap, and yet you still post it knowing full well it is nothing but deliberately deceptive lies crafted to deceive anyone who doesn't understand ANOMALIES!!!!!

Real scientists use ANOMALIES to correct for things like heat islands. As you well know, all the heat sources will do is create a warmer AVERAGE that the ANOMALY is measured against. The TREND shown by the ANOMALY will be quite accurate, as proven by the fact that the satellite data collected by deniers matches the ground station data almost exactly!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

When it read 104 in October, get back to me.

It gets hot in summer! Sweet Jesus!

Global Warming -- it's real!

If it read 104 in October there is a good chance life would have changed and not for the positive. Thus we need to do something now. Some people enjoy life and want to have their great grandchildren do the same. Some are ostriches, doesn't it get dark and lonely in your hole.

Try reading some history books. The Roman Warming Period of a few hundred years was on average 2.7 degrees C warmer than today and life was good...very good in fact. The period witnessed widespread prosperity.

Jump forward to the Medieval Warming Period of several hundred years and you find the historical record once again shows widespread prosperity. Average temps were 2.4 degrees C warmer than today.

Now lets look at the times when it is cold.... Things don't look so good. Widespread poverty, wars, and famine. I know which temperature zone I want to live in. After reading some history books and determining the fact that I have not lied to you come back and tell us whether you would rather live while it is warmer or colder.

As you well know, none of the temps you cite were from direct instrument measurements, nor are they global. They come from PROXY data from very limited locations and cannot be HONESTLY equated to global direct instrument measurements.
But deniers are NEVER honest!

 

[Oddball]

Odd sites

No matter how much you pretend to be a dumb liar, by now you know full well you are lying!

How many times have I busted you posting this same crap, and yet you still post it knowing full well it is nothing but deliberately deceptive lies crafted to deceive anyone who doesn't understand ANOMALIES!!!!!

Real scientists use ANOMALIES to correct for things like heat islands. As you well know, all the heat sources will do is create a warmer AVERAGE that the ANOMALY is measured against. The TREND shown by the ANOMALY will be quite accurate, as proven by the fact that the satellite data collected by deniers matches the ground station data almost exactly!!!!

Anomaly!...Denier!...Anomaly!...Denier!...Anomaly!...Denier!...Anomaly!...RAAAAAK!