Hottest Year Claims Based On Sparse Coverage
January 19, 2015
By Paul Homewood
Remember, when NOAA and NASA declare “hottest years”, just how poor their surface temperature coverage is.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201401-201412.gif
16 Comments
Trackbacks
- Hottest Year Claim: Miniscule Change in Imaginary Number | NoFrakkingConsensus
- What Gavin Forgot To Tell You | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow
- Hottest Year Claims Based On Sparse Coverage | inconveniencetruth
- Hottest Year 2014 Biased on Sparse Global Thermometer Coverage | paullitely
- The Hottest Year 2014 Claim is Biased on Sparse Global Thermometer Coverage | considerthisinfo
- Le grandi manipolazioni delle temperature in sud america | New Ice Age
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Just eyeballing the map, it looks like we have mostly northern hemisphere coverage. So what we are looking at is average northern hemisphere temperature. It also looks like the coldest spots are not represented at all—or numbers are fabricated.
@ RC
You have got it right. That is the problem. They never figured out what is wrong but I did.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2014/11/09/henryps-pool-tables-on-global-cooling/
These “land” temperatures are a scam: I believe they are based ONLY from about 6000 land stations. Furthermore, it is evident from the map that vast areas are not covered [shown in grey]: northern and western Russia, large parts of China, the Arabian peninsula, the Pacific islands….
And many of the 6000 are estimated, either because the stations are closed, or have missing months
No problem. Just use ocean temperatures to infill the missing land data :
I prefer this map,.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob
It shows that the only major warming since 2001 is where they have very few thermometers. !
Arctic above Russia, and a small piece of Antarctica.
Kamchatski peninsular also shows some warming, but if you look at the urban expansion at the only city, you can see why.
The small warming in Perth may be correct.. I’m trying to find time to search the data to find out.
Remarkable correlation between number of stations and global temperature measurements show the temperatures rise as the number of stations fall.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
It helps the cause if the warming occurs in parts of the globe where there are few people living to dispute the claims.
I could do with some warming here today!
Have you seen this?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/how-the-met-office-forecast-a-hot-2014-and-why-it-thinks-2015-may-be-even-hotter.
My recollection is that the forecasts weren’t as good as that.
It seems to me to be a bit of re-writing history by comparing past forecasts with more recent increased observations. For a start since the switch to HadCRUT4 added about 0.058c.