Walbrook was hardly criticising the new stations, rather...

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
ferronium

1,306 Posts.

29/10/14

15:55

Post #: 14201872
Share

Originally posted by Gneissic ↑

This is from your link walbrook.

"Data from NOAA's premiere surface reference network. The contiguous U.S. network of 114 stations was completed in 2008. There are two USCRN stations in Hawaii and deployment of a network of 29 stations in Alaska continues. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years?
"These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds. They also include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity for most of the 114 contiguous U.S. stations. Stations in Alaska and Hawaii provide network experience and observations in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29-station USCRN network in Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA's Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division."

Now exactly what is "bogus" about the design of these stations and the measurements they produce?

Could it be the numbers are not in agreement with your pre conceived ideas?

That isn't how science works.

Expand

Walbrook was hardly criticising the new stations, rather praising that they fulfil the criteria of; 1. being remote from Heat Island influence, and 2. being independent of human interpretation, as any rational unbiased weather/climate scientist would expect.

Moreover, comparison of old vs. new shows that old were/are subject to significant bias because of either/both location/human intervention.

However, first reading suggests that these are simple one-off comparisons, i.e. new stations may still be recording temporal rise in temp. (or pause or decrease).
Upvote

Reply