I could also opt for a different design that uses a thermocouple. But that presents other problems.

“I digitized the Chico points and took the average of 24 measures, 78.14F. If we average the Tmax and Tmin we get, 76.0F. That is 2.14 degrees lower than the integrated value and that is a lot . That is about 1.9C difference between the two methods. When was the B91 form put in place? If it was decades ago like in the 30’s then I can see why this was done, GW was not an issue then. If it is a recent invention then shame shame shame.”

“Looking at the zoomed Tmax, if we take the average Tmax for the three boxes and compare to the air temp, the boxes are 2.69F hotter than the air. Similarly, for Tmin, the boxes are an average 0.78F hotter. If this holds for these stations in general, then the daytime Tmax has 3 times the error than an early morning Tmin. It bothers me that the Tmax difference is so large.”

“Is there any accounting for this?”

JoeH, what you show in your post indicates that averaging MM compared to integrating the data results in a hotter value. I wonder how prevalent this is?

For what it’s worth, I was curious as to the difference in daily average temperatures when you averaged all readings vs averaging the high/low points. Here’s a table of the daily readings and the results. If you need it the spread sheet with the calculations, let me know and will send them to you. I was a bit surprised at the difference but also understand this is a very limited data set so no conclusions or inferences are implied or can be drawn. Just interesting.

Readings Start @00:01 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan
Avg all rdgs. 43.3 43.3 43.0 40.1 43.3 45.1 44.2
Min 34.0 35.0 32.0 28.0 30.0 33.0 33.0
Max 55.0 56.0 60.0 57.0 63.0 67.0 59.0
Avg. of MM 44.5 45.5 46.0 42.5 46.5 50.0 46.0

Delta: Avg MM vs All -1.2 -2.2 -3.0 -2.4 -3.2 -4.9 -1.8

Delta, Min-Max 21.0 21.0 28.0 29.0 33.0 34.0 26.0

REPLY: No its a garden hose reel box.

http://www.hosereelstore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=STB200B

Do ya think I’m stupid? ;-)

The History Channel folks must not have attended any of Bjorn Lomborg’s economic conferences a few years ago. Whether presented to audiences of Nobel Laureates in Economics or College Students, the results were pretty much the same: When it comes down to “bang for the buck”, GW comes in at or near the bottom.

Some of the world’s top economists – including three Nobel Laureates – answered this question at the Copenhagen Consensus last May, prioritising all the major requirements for improving the world. They found that dealing with HIV/Aids, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world’s top priorities. This was where we could do the most good for our dollar. Equally, the experts rated urgent responses to climate change at the bottom. In fact, the panel called these ventures – including Kyoto – “bad projects”, simply because they cost more than the good they do. (emphasis added)

He’s working on fining it down.

Evan has confidence in you, Anthony. (and so do I.) How close do you think you’ll be able to get to the performance of a hard-wired MMTS with this device?

No, it’s not as accurate as the NOAA MMTS, but the siting of most NOAA stations introduces warming biases that like so totally dwarf the MoE that it ain’t funny. (I lied. it is funny, actually. “Lights=0, Har, Har!” Though I really shouldn’t be laughing.)

Considering that T-Max, T-Min, and TOBS data is rounded off to the whole degree (0.5′s rounded up, therefore an average 0.3C spurious warm bias, BTW), the Rev’s setup is minimally acceptable to be going along with, assuming the MoE is roughly evenly distributed and the skew is not too bad.

Roughly the same MoE as a CRN-2 rating, though A CRN-2 would probably indicate a warming skew.

He’s working on fining it down.

REPLY: “you said this MMTS unit is accurate to plus or minus 5 degrees”

I never said any such thing. That level of accuracy would be useless.

Sorry for the bad news.

John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

REPLY it will resolve itself eventually, no big deal, it was broken its fixed, cache.

When I click on the graphic for a larger image, I get a 404 file error. The link must be broken and with my old eyes the graphic has to be LARGE for me to read the details.

Russ

REPLY: Thanks to both Russ and Jeff for pointing that out, fixed. Try it now

I’m officially renaming them the Hysteria Channel, from their previous appellation The Holy Channel.