[Vision2020] NOAA: NCDC: June 2010, Jan. Through June 2010, Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record

[Craine Kit]

Paul,

What is the period for your NOAA averages? If it is the entire period  
of record, there is a glitch in the data. When the station was moved  
from where the Ag Sciences complex is located to the Plant Science  
Farm there was an instaneous change in our climate by (if I recall  
correctly) 3-4 degrees cooler.

Kit Craine


On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>  
wrote:

>
> This reminds me.  I've been meaning to run Moscow's numbers for  
> temperature graphed over time.  So I went to the USHCN website (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ 
> ) and downloaded their massaged averages file  
> (9641C_201007_F52.avg.gz).  I also downloaded their list of stations  
> (ushcn-v2-stations.txt).  I then looked up Moscow in the stations  
> file to get it's station ID, which is 106152, and selectively  
> extracted those rows from the averages file after unzipping it.  I  
> then loaded this data into the Open Office Spreadsheet application  
> (Excel would also work, but doesn't run on my operating system).  I  
> removed the monthly data, leaving only the year and the annual mean  
> columns.  I then made a computed column which divided the annual  
> mean numbers by 10, since they have one decimal place and are saved  
> in the file as integers.  I averaged the annual mean temperatures  
> and then made another computed column where I subtracted the average  
> from the individual annual mean / 10 numbers.  This gives me the  
> temperature anomaly for each year, the amount that it differs from  
> the average.
>
> I then plotted that using Open Office, and told it to compute the  
> trend line.  The trend comes out to be negative, Moscow is according  
> to the data cooling at about a degree a century.
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Given the reasoning of many of the so called "skeptics" (many are  
>> not really skeptics, of course, but confirmation bias driven  
>> denialists, while all competent scientists are skeptics by  
>> training, including the climate scientists who state that the  
>> scientific evidence, after rigorous skeptical analysis, is  
>> compelling that human impacts are altering climate to a degree  
>> requiring action)
>
> I have to admit, I'm skeptical that this definition of the group of  
> people who question the AGW theory is really accurate.
>
> Paul
>
>
> <Moscow.jpg>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================