NOAA has inflated the 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of the 1930s. That is a completely illegitimate approach, suitable only for government workers.
An apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations. When that is done, 2012 doesn’t even crack the ten hottest years.
Steve, the government also has the Climate Reference Network. 116 state of art stations well sited, that data has the ave. temperature as 55.25.
Makes you wonder why NCDC never mentions their new state of the art, well sited climate monitoring network in those press releases, doesn’t it? The CRN has been fully operational since
late 2008, and we never here a peep about it in SOTC. Maybe they don’t wish to report adverse results.
here’s an link from Antony Watts for last years data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/07/announcing-the-first-ever-conus-yearly-average-from-the-climkate-reference-network/
ave….avg
Antony…………… Anthony………..Proofreader is on strike till the caffeine levels rise
Here’s another link also from Anthony,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/
Are the added sites cherry-picked for warmer temperatures? On its face, the addition of more sites would tend to increase accuracy, but if they are skewed to tropical or balmy areas, that should be emphasized in criticizing this assertion.
It doesn’t make any difference. Any station which has been added in the last 30 years will have 366 all-time records set during the last 30 years.
That’s true as to the number of record highs, which is the point of your post. I guess I was assuming the the warmists are claiming the global average temperatures are better determined with more sites, which is the whole BEST issue they claim as the final word on siting.