Originally begun in the main general discussion thread for March, in the Pacific Northwest sub-forum of the main "Weather Observations" section.
.. posts nos. 933 —> , nos. 937 —> , and then 951-53, 956 and 957, follow the submission accessible here above, in response to it.
... In order to reply to this topic with perhaps wanting to refer to ("quote".) from one of the posts pointed to here above, you'll need to do so, from whatever post, where you find it, and with first switching (Main "toggle" alternative, upper left of whatever main "More Reply Options" composition field.) .. to the more "code" focused text composition option, .. before copying it to tack in as part of a post-reply here.
NOAA's Departure from Normal Temperatures "bias" ....
Posted 18 March 2014 - 07:47 PM
Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:32 AM
Does NOAA use ground observations or satellite data? I've often scratched my head at some of the colors on the map for my local area, wondering how they came up with them.
Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:11 AM
I saw this on another forum.
Posted 31 March 2014 - 02:07 PM
That's pretty sketchy right there. I would be interested in an answer if anybody digs anything up.
- IbrChris likes this
Posted 02 February 2015 - 01:20 PM
They don't use a lot of weather stations so it could be that the weather station used near Hartford was near normal. For example, there are only 38 weather stations representing Canada in 2014. Therefore, each weather station represents a 500 km by 500 km square. The weather can sure change in 500 km.
EDIT: Hardford is on the list. February 2014 was ranked 47th of 61 years, so I think you're right to question the "near normal" part.
Posted 07 February 2015 - 06:24 AM