Sentences with phrase «temperature measurement sites»

Well, this is the same Federal government that can not spare a dime (or more than 0.25 FTE) for bringing up its temperature measurement sites (whose output help drive this whole bill) to its own standards, allowing errors and biases in the measurements 2 - 3 times larger than the historic warming signal we are trying to measure.

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen - Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment.

Not exact matches

Gavin does an inline to # 483 which is worth checking out and deals with some other aspects, namely, whether errors in site temperature measurements will generally be positive.

Surface temperature measurements are largely concentrated in the continental USA and suffer from some siting and heat island issues that satellites do not.

The site that graph came from didn't say the satellite temps are inaccurate; it does say that the satellite temps have their own problems (just like the surface temperature measurements).

Also, large areas of the Earth's surface contain no measurement sites, and temperatures for these areas require interpolation.

Trude Storelvmo of Yale University and her colleagues did not use climate models to find out the answer, but they based their calculations on temperature and solar radiation records taken from more than thousands of global measurement sites over the course of 46 years.

There are now improved and expanded data since the TAR, including, for example, measurements at a larger number of sites, improved analysis of borehole temperature data and more extensive analyses of glaciers, corals and sediments.

If this is their site where temperatures are verified against you can be thankful they are not responsible for establishing all measurement standards in the country.

The scenarios that scientists are looking at depend on measurements of air and water temperatures taken at hundreds of sites around the world, as well as complex models about how trends will evolve in the coming decades.

Ablation has been measured for periods of at least two weeks with on site temperature measurement at numerous Snotel and glacier sites.

c, Measurements of July to September air temperature and annual precipitation changes at each site between 2003 and 2002.

Rhoades and Salinger 1993, Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes (R&S), is the NIWA Bible for estimating the effect of known site changes on temperature and rainfall measurements.

So the claim is that one can reconstruct, to within + / - 0.2 C, what the so - called «global average temperature» was 2000 years ago using proxy measurements from only 73 sites?

Started reading about «global temperature measurement», leading to Anthony Watts and the global thermometer siting scandal.

I think it might help to clarify some points in dispute, such as: — to what extent windiness affects the degree of UHI — local site issues — the simultaneity of wind and temperature measurements

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Neal, the ultimate puzzle for me in studies purporting to show that there is no urbanization impact in temperature averages that include airports, urban and suburban sites is that: (1) we know through direct measurement that there is at present substantial UHI in many sites (although the UHI is a product of many factors and population is only a proxy.

Heat recovery systems Heating systems Summer comfort factors Electrical energy concepts and requirements Heat loss and energy use modelling using PHPP software Cost efficiency Construction documentation and coordination Construction site management and quality assurance Building systems operations Energy efficient building retrofitting Units of measurement and the different physical characteristics they represent, ie: work, power, temperature, heat.

The adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from NOAA's U.S. Climate Reference Network (designed with the highest climate monitoring standards for siting and instrument exposure), thus providing independent evidence that the USHCN provides an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.

However, these sites do not provide even or comprehensive coverage of the Earth's surface, nor are the sites immune to contamination from land - use changes — all of which add noise and uncertainty to the world temperature measurements.

As a 20 yr in the field operational meteorologist with an extreme interest in surface temperature measurement who follows your site closely and consider myself well read on the subject, may I say thankyou for your hard work and determination, whatever the data may show.

It comes down to the apparent judgment of almost all participants in this debate that an UHI effect exists and is probably quite significant, but the differences lay in the whether and how these UHI effects have influenced temperature measurements at the «official» measuring sites.

I keep getting back to Parker's statement, that obtaining temperature measurements at sites without an UHI effect, could explain why his trend indicators show little or no UHI effect at these stations.

In countries such as the US, most urban development / growth predates the period considered by Menne and hence when looking for temperature trends (rather than absolute accuracy in the temperature measurement), during the period considered by Menne, one would not expect to see substantial differences between good and bad sited stations, or between urban and rural stations.

They spell out what they see as an optimum site for collecting temperature measurements, but on further reading it is clear that a true proactive quality control process is not in place.

There are a number of reasons to prefer satellite data over surface data for temperature measurement — satellites have better coverage and are not subject to site location biases.

For example, changes in time of observation, adjustment for a move of a station that was previously sited next to a heat source to a better location (that now allows the station to be classed as Class 1 or 2), switch to a different temperature measurement device or system, etcetera, could explain why smaller classes of raw data don't track well with the overall trend calculated from homogenized station trend data.

This qualitative approach, including rural - urban temperature differentials with value - neutral distance measurements, most certainly confirms AW's site - specific Weather Station theses.

Measurement sites form the core input of the data set for calculating this «global mean temperature» (whatever that actually means), but the measurements from these sites is accurate at best to the nearest 1 degree, in actual practice around the nearest 5 degrees since many are reading off mercury thermometers — and this condition increases in frequency the further back in time you go.

For example, if a site is downwind (prevailing), but close to, an ever expanding urban area, how much does this affect temperature measurements?

While the Leroy (1999) system performs well for new station siting evaluation, it does not take into account the surface area of heat sinks and sources that may encroach upon a temperature measurement station over its lifetime.

Wouldn't it be interesting to compare the ten year temp record of the 114 pristinely sited temperature stations with all the other temperature stations and those closely correlating back measurements looked at to check out the earlier period a decade before to see whether non - cooling or warming.

Since then, a growing number of surface temperature measurement stations worldwide, coupled with improved methods for correcting for biases induced through urban heat island effects and other station siting and operational issues, have allowed for the development of accurate global temperature estimates.

Its authors explain how their findings can be used to examine the viability of future Olympics sites based on a measurement that combines temperature, humidity, heat radiation, and wind — their wetbulb globe temperature (WBGT).

Adjustments ensure that trends in the climate record can be accurately attributed to changes in temperature — and not due to changes in the site or the equipment used to take the measurements.

Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, W. Parton, J. Moeny, N. Doesken, L. Schell, and K. Redmond, 2000: Spatial representativeness of temperature measurements from a single site.

I have seen sites like RealClimate arguing in their myth busting segments that the global temperature models are based only on rural measurements.

Inhomogeneities are introduced into the station temperature series by such things as changes in the station site, changes in measurement time, or changes in instrumentation.

For this cherry - picked good example of a historical temperature measurement point, here are the adjustments that are made to this site's measurements before it is crunched up into the official historic global warming numbers: