Worse. All this purports to measure a 0.72 increase from 1900 – 2000.

“Adjusted” up from 0.60. For an unknown reason.

NOAA adjusts temperatures UP 0.3C from the 1900 norm. This, when there is every reason to suspect that if SHAP were half up to snuff, the adjustments would clearly be DOWN.

To make a long story short, according to NOAA/CRN’s own estimates, the observed stations so far (c. 40% of the US net) is running an average 2.0°C too warm. And the bulk of these violations occurred after 1979 as a result of the MMTS switchover.

As to how much this has affected the rate of change is yet to be determined. This iis the sort of violation that a.) should never occur in the first place, and, b.) SHAP shoud adjust for (but clearly does not).

Be sure to check the “Weather Stations” category on this blog which will give you the full cacophony of risible siting violations.

Thanks for your replies to my queries! Devilish business, this. So many potential sources of error and uncertainty to determine a final result of such relatively low magnitude (avg. temp. rise of a few degrees globally over many years.)

I read a book some years ago called Ice Time. It was written in the late 80s, or early 90s when climatologists will principally concerned about a new ice age coming soon. The author made an excellent point which is never discussed these days and which troubles me greatly, i.e., investigations that are largely dependent on complex digital simulations comprise a new kind of “science.” Perhaps a kind that isn’t really science as we know and value it? More akin to informed speculation. It has its uses, but you have to know the difference.

You make joke, yes-no?

Fear not. Your imagination would seem to be in proper working order.

Money quotes on Phoenix:

“Our freeways, streets and structures all hold in heat, creating a reservoir of heat in the Valley,” Fernando said. “There was almost no heat island effect in the Valley until the late 1940s but it was rising by the late 1950s and has risen quickly since then.

“If you keep increasing the heat island effect, as we have, at some point it will become so uncomfortable that people will start leaving the Valley. It becomes the difference between comfort and misery.”

The rising misery quotient in the Valley helped prompt the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality six years ago to sign an intergovernmental service agreement with Fernando and ASU to create a computer model to study air quality and meteorology, including the urban heat island effect.

According to the computer model, which Fernando and his colleagues completed last year, Valley temperatures have climbed in recent years from three to eight degrees in some areas, and as much as 10 to 11 degrees in the most densely built areas during the summer.

Here in central Ohio, March was wet and cold.
Someone forgot to tell Mother Nature, March – In like Lion Out like a Lamb.
Well, it’s April and it’s still wet and cold.

“It’s us against phlegm”

Oh no you didn’t!

Completely off topic, for which I apologise, but have you seen “Achmed, the dead terrorist” at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
especially 1.32 to 2.02. Hope you feel better soon

REPLY: Thanks for the laugh!

BHTICS – thats a great replacement for “good enough for government work”!

March 2008. Continental USA DOWN .877C

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt

More proof of global warming!

REPLY: “It’s us against phlegm”

BBC admits:

“This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

Sure … they try and weasel out of it …

Anthony, keep up the good work. Its wearing them down.

REPLY: AGW is not global in its “effects”. I’m betting that if someone can find the data for 2004 on and compare it to pre 2004, we’ll see a jump. This is a perfect test case.

“Ah heck, it ain’t important, I’ll just put down 1st January. The debate’s over anyhow…”

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/02/solar-wind-sun.html

“Solar Wind Born of Colliding Magnetic Fields”

… At the Royal Astronomical Society meeting, Harra planned to show images from the orbiting Hinode spacecraft showing magnetic fields linking two bright spots on the sun that were nearly 500 million kilometers, or 311 million miles, apart — a distance equivalent to 40 Earths placed side by side. …

I find your blog very interesting, but I have not had time to digest much of the technical detail yet. I am trained as an engineer, and I share your Green-Sceptic attitude.

I have a specific question that perhaps you can answer succinctly:

What is the meaning of the metric, Average Global Temperature?

That is, are the records from the various stations taken and simply averaged?
Are the station records weighted in some way to reflect the geographic area which they are assumed or calculated to represent?
Is there a weighting to take into account the unequal distribution of stations across the hemispheres?
How are temperatures for the oceans gleaned, and are they treated the same?
Why is the Average Temperature considered meaningful, outside of being a crude metric for calibrating models?
Wouldn’t it be better to develop average temperatures for global sectors?

Anyway, the one question is really many, but I’d appreciate a short answer if you can take the time for one. I really am puzzled by this. I have a background in computer modeling of large natural water systems, and I can’t imagine anything comparable being done there.

Best regards,
L