Enormous "oops" for NOAA global warming data

[hellokeith]

NOAA Global Warming Data Challenged

Michael Asher (Blog) - June 18, 2007 11:15 AM

Severe problems found in temperature monitoring network.

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration reported 2006 as ?the warmest year on record" for the United States-- a statement the media trumpeted from coast to coast. A few months later, the NOAA revised their figures, saying it was actually the second warmest on record. Unsurprisingly, the correction drew little attention.

But just how accurate are these figures? The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists. The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers. To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they're being maintained. His site, Surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data. The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

In a prime example, a site in Orland, CA (which meets good guidelines) has shown a pattern of declining temperatures for many years. A few miles away, a station in Marysville has shown a rising pattern...but the station is now next to dark asphalt, and only a few feet from the exhaust vent of a commercial AC unit. Another site is near a large barrel used for burning trash. One site even had a light bulb burning inside the tiny enclosed hut, effectively warming the thermometer by several degrees.

Surfacestations.org has only surveyed 48 of the total sites, but problems abound. Watts says this raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the network, the only source of long-term historical data for US temperature data.

The NOAA did not return a request for comments on the accuracy of their monitoring network.

I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, and I've continually heard from the media and MMGW proponents on this board that last year was the hottest, and yet it wasn't.

Not surprising for the non-science agenda-driven MMGW folks.

Take a visit over to Surfacestations.org to see some pics of the weather stations and make up your own mind if you think accurate data comes from them.

 

[Jeff7]

All this great technology, and we're using thermometers in shacks? Lovely.


What does satellite data say?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
NOAA Global Warming Data Challenged

Michael Asher (Blog) - June 18, 2007 11:15 AM

Severe problems found in temperature monitoring network.

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration reported 2006 as ?the warmest year on record" for the United States-- a statement the media trumpeted from coast to coast. A few months later, the NOAA revised their figures, saying it was actually the second warmest on record. Unsurprisingly, the correction drew little attention.

But just how accurate are these figures? The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists. The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers. To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they're being maintained. His site, Surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data. The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

In a prime example, a site in Orland, CA (which meets good guidelines) has shown a pattern of declining temperatures for many years. A few miles away, a station in Marysville has shown a rising pattern...but the station is now next to dark asphalt, and only a few feet from the exhaust vent of a commercial AC unit. Another site is near a large barrel used for burning trash. One site even had a light bulb burning inside the tiny enclosed hut, effectively warming the thermometer by several degrees.

Surfacestations.org has only surveyed 48 of the total sites, but problems abound. Watts says this raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the network, the only source of long-term historical data for US temperature data.

The NOAA did not return a request for comments on the accuracy of their monitoring network.

I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, and I've continually heard from the media and MMGW proponents on this board that last year was the hottest, and yet it wasn't.

Not surprising for the non-science agenda-driven MMGW folks.

Take a visit over to Surfacestations.org to see some pics of the weather stations and make up your own mind if you think accurate data comes from them.

these problems are nothing new, and most likely they have been ongoing for decades. Secondly, this isn't exactly the holy grail of climate change research.

 

[CyberDuck]

This may be related to whats called Urban Heat Islands. It has an effect, but it's a known effect and was accounted for also in the previous IPCC report http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221

There may be more to know about this though, but don't expect it to change the big picture.

regards

Jostein

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
All this great technology, and we're using thermometers in shacks? Lovely.


What does satellite data say?

Down here in Georgia many of us are convinced the rain gauge at Hartsfield International Airport is kept indoors so it doesn't get wet

 

[MadRat]

Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

 

[GoPackGo]

Global Warming is gonna getchya!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if they didn't plant evidence of something they are supposed to be researching and paid to prove.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MadRat
Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if they didn't plant evidence of something they are supposed to be researching and paid to prove.

Yup. I need to get aboard that gravy train. Having a lab coat and being called a scientist is like being clergy to the eco-theists, the type of clergy that tell their congregations to repent and sacrifice more so they can purchase their next mercedes.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MadRat
Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if they didn't plant evidence of something they are supposed to be researching and paid to prove.

Yup. I need to get aboard that gravy train. Having a lab coat and being called a scientist is like being clergy to the eco-theists, the type of clergy that tell their congregations to repent and sacrifice more so they can purchase their next mercedes.

You sound like one of them there Global Warming deniers...and we dont take kindly to them.

 

[umbrella39]

MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

 

[1EZduzit]

They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

So its okay for the moonbats to have six threads all about the same thing but not for those whose viewpoints you oppose?

Frankly I like new threads.

Why?


Because edits to the original post, as Dave does with many of his, can throw the replies out of context ruining the discussion that was going on.



In anything I would ban any editting of the original post within 12 hours of its posting just to keep the new threads coming and the board looking fresh.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

So, how many sites before its not trolling?


If the first sites you check have such a high number of troubling issues why should anyone expect the rest to not continue the trend?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: umbrella39
MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

So its okay for the moonbats to have six threads all about the same thing but not for those whose viewpoints you oppose?

Didn't take long for someone to jump in and play the "I don't agree with you so I want to censor you card" grow up Zed.

Like I said, 4 troll and run GW in one month is enough already.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

And apparently in those 48 sites they have found many that had issues or they wouldn't have published a document saying that the information given previously was wrong. They have checked 4% of the sites and found enough of a difference to change the global temp from the highest on record to the second highest. If they check them all it could change even more or the other 96% could be perfect. However, the likelihood is that if data from a 4% sample had enough issue to change the global temp that much then likely other sites have issues as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Global Warming is gonna getchya!

Saddam is gunna getchya!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

And apparently in those 48 sites they have found many that had issues or they wouldn't have published a document saying that the information given previously was wrong. They have checked 4% of the sites and found enough of a difference to change the global temp from the highest on record to the second highest. If they check them all it could change even more or the other 96% could be perfect. However, the likelihood is that if data from a 4% sample had enough issue to change the global temp that much then likely other sites have issues as well.

There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

 

[Arkaign]

Another 'drop a turd and run away' posting by Keith. This is becoming a trend.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

I wonder what is the temperature difference between the first and second warmest years?

I do not have an axe to grind either way on global warming. But I would not use this instance of a measurement mistake that was corrected and announced as an argument pro or con global warming.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

Dan Rather...is that you??

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

Spoken like a truly un-biased MM Global Warming scientist.

Does it ever alarm you guys how quickly your agenda hops in front of the science and how you start sounding like CREATIONIST scientists or GW Bush fearmongering people to pigeon hole them into towing your line?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

Spoken like a truly un-biased MM Global Warming scientist.

Does it ever alarm you guys how quickly your agenda hops in front of the science and how you start sounding like CREATIONIST scientists or GW Bush fearmongering people to pigeon hole them into towing your line?

Might want to check your sarcasm meter.