Originally Posted by fizzissist  Anthony Watts is spearheading the effort here in the U.S. to quantify the Stevenson Screens used in temperature measurements. There's 1221 of 'em, and so far around 200have been audited.
What is most interesting is the number of stations that are subject to .....well, let the pictures speak for themselves...
http://www.surfacestations.org/ |
Yes, good reliable data collection.
Anyway, welcome back, and perhaps you can comment on this.
When you read a bit about how these "highest temperatures" wherever and whenever they were recorded, are defined it seems to me that they are almost meaningless regarding making a conclusion on climate change. The way I read it they are the most anomalous reading compared to a 30 year average; presumably the high anomaly.
There must be a low anomaly but this seems to be ignored, however, if the high and low occurred in contiguous years doesn't that render both of them useless for making any conclusion about anything. That is if they had a relevance in the first place.
Also because they are being compared to a temporally local average if there was an underlying oscillation longer than the period over which the average was taken, some anomalous highs would be lower than other anomalous highs but they are all counted as highs.
I thik it reinforces the adage that statisticians are the biggest liars of all.