|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2009 0:48:18 GMT
I looked at the NASA site to see what the temperature for May was for my area. The anomoly was wayyyyyy off, and by way off I mean 4-5F.
Since NASA publishes a map that is so blatanly off, does that call into question all of the warmth showing up on said map as well?
And to top it all off, the map indicated that our friends to the north, Canada in my case, has no stations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Yet, I can opem Canada weather forcasts and find stations all over that area.
This is really troubling to me as people are making decissions based on this type of data, yet said data sure looks lacking in validity.
Maybe that is why so many question the "warming trend". As they read about it but can't observe it themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 3, 2009 7:14:17 GMT
There are a few things to consider, whether or not they apply I don't know.
The GISTEMP map is for May so covers temperatures a month ago rather than now, you probably already took that into account though.
Some weather services may charge money to use their product for research. In which case GISTEMP may choose not to use that data or include it a few months later, however that pricing works.
|
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 3, 2009 8:20:14 GMT
There are a few things to consider, whether or not they apply I don't know. The GISTEMP map is for May so covers temperatures a month ago rather than now, you probably already took that into account though. Some weather services may charge money to use their product for research. In which case GISTEMP may choose not to use that data or include it a few months later, however that pricing works. According to the NOAA (and I know GISS uses their data), most of North Dakota (where sigurdor lives) was 4-6F below normal in May. It wasn't just a localized effect. So I don't see how it's a case of them missing the data. |
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jul 3, 2009 8:20:11 GMT
Some weather services may charge money to use their product for research. In which case GISTEMP may choose not to use that data or include it a few months later, however that pricing works. So NASA can afford to spend gazillions on humungous computers to play around with models but can't spend a few dollars for real world data? This explains a lot, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 3, 2009 10:59:47 GMT
According to the NOAA (and I know GISS uses their data), most of North Dakota (where sigurdor lives) was 4-6F below normal in May. It wasn't just a localized effect. So I don't see how it's a case of them missing the data.
Firstly - what is defined as normal?
I've just had a quick look at the station data used by GISS and it seems entirely consistent with the May reports for ND, i.e. that the North East was up to 7 deg F below normal and the South West round about normal.
There's no missing data. The spatial coverage may not give an exact representation every time, but it's a case of swings roundabouts, and it will have absolutely no effect on the overall situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2009 12:11:55 GMT
According to the NOAA (and I know GISS uses their data), most of North Dakota (where sigurdor lives) was 4-6F below normal in May. It wasn't just a localized effect. So I don't see how it's a case of them missing the data. Firstly - what is defined as normal? I've just had a quick look at the station data used by GISS and it seems entirely consistent with the May reports for ND, i.e. that the North East was up to 7 deg F below normal and the South West round about normal. There's no missing data. The spatial coverage may not give an exact representation every time, but it's a case of swings roundabouts, and it will have absolutely no effect on the overall situation. Good Morning. Where I live it was the 7F below normal. The SW corner was 2F below their normal, and according to state climatologist, however he does it, we as a state were 5.3F below normal in May. The Canadian Praries were also way below normal, but I do not know the exact temp below. As far as I know, Canada does not charge for temp data, and they have an extensive weather network even in the territories etc. I am not looking for a red herring here, but the mistakes and lack of complete coverage when it is available causes me to question the data. I had always thought that NASA/NOAA would be as reliable as one could get. This is just troubling to me as the validity is questioned. I did take into account that it was May data that I was looking at. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 3, 2009 12:54:07 GMT
According to the NOAA (and I know GISS uses their data), most of North Dakota (where sigurdor lives) was 4-6F below normal in May. It wasn't just a localized effect. So I don't see how it's a case of them missing the data. Firstly - what is defined as normal? I've just had a quick look at the station data used by GISS and it seems entirely consistent with the May reports for ND, i.e. that the North East was up to 7 deg F below normal and the South West round about normal. There's no missing data. The spatial coverage may not give an exact representation every time, but it's a case of swings roundabouts, and it will have absolutely no effect on the overall situation. These NOAA maps are routinely inaccurate, glc. Terribly sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 3, 2009 14:41:17 GMT
Good Morning.
Where I live it was the 7F below normal.
What are you defining as 'normal'.
Also where do you live? I 've seen at least one station in the NE North Dakota region which is around ~4 deg C (~7 deg F) below. GISS will have used this in their analysis.
As far as Canada is concerned the anomaly maps show Canada as being colder than normal whatever baseline is used.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2009 15:00:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2009 15:07:35 GMT
GLC:
I found the NOAA website with the average monthly temp data. Thank you GLC.
|
|
