Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist

[David S]

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2007
9:55 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Full story at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58767

Some of the stations with issues are shown at:
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

[jbtornado]

Also in the last 40-50 years, many weather stations that used to be on the edge of towns or in more open rural areas, are now in the middle of cities.. In more of an urban heat island. Temperatures especially at night stay warmer in urban areas compared to rural and this cannot be discounted.

[Gabu]

What percentage of these stations have a problematic setup, does he say?  If it was, say, 1%, this would be rather insignificant, but if it's a fair number, he has a point.

[David S]

With regard to percentages of stations surveyed and percentage that are substandard this is what the article says:

"With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded."

[Gabu]

Well, if that's a random sample, 70% of weather stations being severely compromised certainly is cause for concern... even if it's not a random sample, that's still almost 25% of weather stations that he surveyed that were in disrepair, which is definitely interesting.

[Citizen James]

Well, for starters, you chose a source that makes the national enquirer look like a reliable publication.

One of the things that disappoints me about the death of conservatism is that these "new conservatives" not only don't stand for anything beyond blind hatred of anyone they label "liberal" (which translates as 'disagrees with me' - whether the subject is global warming or a balanced budget.), but that they actually oppose many of the things real conservatives used to stand for - pragmatic realism.    Reagan would have never charged into Iraq - he listened to reason from his advisor's which would later become the Powell doctrine.   Bush Sr. assembled an international coalition which became essentially Iraq v most of the rest of the world, and got several of the regional Islamic nations to defacto recognize Israel's right to exist.

[Verily]

Absolutely irrelevant. Surface temperatures as far as climate change is concerned are most pressing in places such as Greenland and Antarctica. The data from the United States proper is worthless because it doesn't tell us whether ice caps, for example, are in danger. I wouldn't necessarily expect to see a substantial shift in domestic temperatures for a while, anyway.

[opebo]

Another indictment of underfunding and neglect of government functions by the right wing over the last few decades.  We should be lavishing money on such pursuits, though my criticism is more about economics than global warming.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We have more accurate ways of measuring global temperature now with satellites.  Unfortunately, we've only been doing this since 1979, so we can only look at data back to 1979.

Still, the warming trend in satellite data has been weaker than the trend shown from surface measurements, with no real warming between 1979 and 1997, a huge spike in 1998 thanks to a strong El-Nino, and then a generally warmer climate since.

It is hard to trust surface records very much, especially given the UHI effect and other variables.  A station that took weather records at Embarrass, Minnesota, was one of the coldest stations in Minnesota, but when they re-located the thermometer to a forested area in a small depression, they were shocked when temperatures plummeted into the -50s several times the first winter, and -50*F readings have been common since.. something they thought only occurred during the coldest winters.

Again, satellite temps, which measure the whole surface of the earth as well as the atmospheric temperatures, are much more accurate, but we can't compare them to surface records.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oceanic  temperature stations show steadily increasing temperatures as well.
http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean-1900-2005.dat

Warmest: 1998, 2003, 2005,  2004, 2002, 1997, 2001
(2006 not included)

While it would be nice if this hack was right, the fact is sh**t is hitting the fan; have you paid attention to the recent news about the Arctic melting? You can't blame that on the location of weather stations.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oceanic  temperature stations show steadily increasing temperatures as well.
http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean-1900-2005.dat

Warmest: 1998, 2003, 2005,  2004, 2002, 1997, 2001
(2006 not included)

While it would be nice if this hack was right, the fact is sh**t is hitting the fan; have you paid attention to the recent news about the Arctic melting? You can't blame that on the location of weather stations.

Sorry, there's no sh**t hitting the fan.  And the Arctic melting had very little to do with human induced global warming.

It had about as much to do with global warming as the record cold water that is pluming up in the equatorial Pacific has to do with it.

Or as much as the record large ice sheet over Antarctica this winter.  North pole record low, south pole record high...

And the sh**t is hitting the fan?  Nah... things are just a little lopsided. 

[dead0man]

Come on guys, Gore told us the science was in and the discussion was over.  We must get past this petty bickering and start flying all over the world telling everybody else to stop flying all over the world.

[opebo]

Come on guys, Gore told us the science was in and the discussion was over.  We must get past this petty bickering and start flying all over the world telling everybody else to stop flying all over the world.

Pointless ad hominem, deadman.

[David S]

Well, for starters, you chose a source that makes the national enquirer look like a reliable publication.

You're attaching the source, not the substance. The WND article contains a link to the original source if you would like to read that instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   That's a rather rambling comment but I'll try to answer it.

1) I don't hate liberals. I was raised in a very liberal left wing democrat household. I was a liberal for many years. My brothers are both liberals and I certainly don't hate them.

However I do dislike some of the liberal policies of the democrats, such as gun control, high taxes, big government programs and what I see as a move toward socialism.

2) With regard to the war, I have been one of this forum's most outspoken critics of it. The candidate I support for president, Ron Paul, was one of the few in congress who voted against it. The leading candidate in your party voted for it. Although what that has to do with this post is beyond me.

3) Who said I'm a conservative? Libertarian is a much better fit.

Rather than mud-slinging why can't you debate the subject based on the facts.

[dead0man]

Come on guys, Gore told us the science was in and the discussion was over.  We must get past this petty bickering and start flying all over the world telling everybody else to stop flying all over the world.

Pointless ad hominem, deadman.

Nah, there was a point.  The point was that there is no point in discussing Global Warming with people that aren't willing to look at the science.  Like Al Gore.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I dare say Al Gore has done a lot more looking at the science then the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Sure, Al Gore doesn't have it all right, but he's a hell of a lot closer than that fool.

[Person Man]

Yes, Global Warming is happened. It's been feeling like Atlanta/Macon instead of Laramie where I live of late.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes, Global Warming is happened. It's been feeling like Atlanta/Macon instead of Laramie where I live of late.

Well, it feels like Bemidji, Minnesota here... so global warming must not have happened at all.  But it happened yesterday when the temperature surged to a mild 42 and we were feeling more like Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  This Global Warming fella sure is a dodgy character.