Global warming errors (all seem to favor global warming theory)

[Epidemic]

I am not one for conspiracy butttt! this guy watts identifies improper location of weather stations and NOAA removes the list of coordinates from public view.

Notable weather station mistakes. Incandecent light burning in cabinet, station located on chimney, by air conditioning exhaust. (heard these on radio yesterday)

Strange how the little y2k problem yielded a talking point that has lasted for a few years now... (1998 was the hottest recorded year (even hotter than the 1930's) Of course this talking point touted in every alarmist speech seems to be based upon an oops!!!

(couple this with the mistake about the hockey stick)

(oh yeah and my findings of warming leading co2 rise , and subsequently massive cooling occurring during historical peak co2 levels in the ice core record.)

Still none of this gives the news pause enough to report on any of this

Like I said I am not a conspiracy buff but geeeze what a wild set of coincidences.

Putting Global Warming on Ice
By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/13/2007

Big things happen when you’re discovered by the Drudge Report.

Ask Anthony Watts. He’s the veteran meteorologist from Chico, Calif., who was featured in the June 17 edition of this column because of his project to quality-check the 1,221 official weather stations used to take the country's average surface temperature.

In the hours after DrudgeReport.com posted The Pittsburgh Tribune’s "scoop" about Watts, his Web site Watt’s Up With That? (norcalblogs.com/watts) was visited by 20,000 people. Normally it gets 3,000 hits a month, which is why he had to shut it down.

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity subsequently did pieces on Watts' project, which is not looked upon warmly by climate-change alarmists. Predictably, the liberal media ignored Watts.

Things are calmer now for Watts, who said Tuesday he’s making steady progress in building an Internet database that includes every one of the 1,221 small weather stations, which were handpicked by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration for their reliability and because they have been in roughly the same places for at least 100 years.

Watts believes, logically, that if the stations are not set up according to NOAA specs -- i.e., if they are not on grass, 100 feet from buildings and not sitting on hot asphalt or near air-conditioning exhaust vents -- their readings are likely to be biased toward higher temperatures.

Watts and his volunteers have now surveyed about 227 weather stations. A recent discovery: Many are sited at water sewage treatment plants, which Watts described as "giant heat bubbles."

A responsible scientist, Watts won't draw any conclusions from his research yet. But one top climate scientist -- NASA’s James Hansen, the patron saint of the apocalyptic global warming movement -- apparently doesn't think Watts' dogged pursuit of scientific certainty matters much.

I asked Hansen by e-mail last week “How important is the data from these (1,221 ground) weather stations in your climate modeling?”

“It has no effect on modeling,” Hansen replied. “Of course we compare modeling results with observed temperatures. But the observational analysis is based mainly on measurements at places remote from human influence.
“The large observed warming’s are in remote regions, e.g., the Arctic, Siberia, Canada -- the warming is clearly real, as verified in many different ways, as described in our papers. At any given station there can be significant problems, but the uncertainty in global temperature change is rather small.”
I also asked Hansen if he was confident that these weather stations were "providing accurate/reliable temperature readings or readings that can be accurately tweaked/adjusted to take into account any heat-island effects or poor site placements.”
“We have enough reliable stations to get a reliable temperature change for the U.S., which covers only 2 percent of the globe,” Hansen answered.

Noting that Watts has found many sites whose readings are clearly compromised, I asked Hansen if that concerned him “about the long-term reliability of the temperature readings.”

“No,” Hansen's e-mail said.

Watts had a similar but more scientifically nuanced e-mail exchange in June with a top NASA researcher who told him -- in a rather officious and cold way -- that temperature data from NOAA ground stations is not used "in" its climate modeling or used to predict future climate.

Citizen Watts may look like a troublemaker to NASA's experts but he's convinced he's on to something important. He's found no evidence that anyone except him has ever made an effort to verify the quality-control standards at every weather station site.

Until he finishes his project, Watts says, not even Jim Hansen will ever know for sure if -- as a recent scientific paper at the University of Colorado puts it -- "the use of the data from poorly sited stations provides a false sense of confidence in the robustness of the surface temperature trend assessments."

In English, that means Watts may be on the way to proving that the country is not as dangerously hot as we've been led to believe.

[voogru]

Global Warming = Global Stupidity

[EXreaction]

Originally Posted by voogru

Global Warming = Global Stupidity

Well, it does show us all the idiots who believe its fake.

[Beemer]

This little exchange is all hype by Watt's considering it's impact on GW analysis.

I asked Hansen by e-mail last week “How important is the data from these (1,221 ground) weather stations in your climate modeling?”

“It has no effect on modeling,” Hansen replied. “Of course we compare modeling results with observed temperatures. But the observational analysis is based mainly on measurements at places remote from human influence.
“The large observed warming’s are in remote regions, e.g., the Arctic, Siberia, Canada -- the warming is clearly real, as verified in many different ways, as described in our papers. At any given station there can be significant problems, but the uncertainty in global temperature change is rather small.”
I also asked Hansen if he was confident that these weather stations were "providing accurate/reliable temperature readings or readings that can be accurately tweaked/adjusted to take into account any heat-island effects or poor site placements.”
“We have enough reliable stations to get a reliable temperature change for the U.S., which covers only 2 percent of the globe,” Hansen answered.

The significance of the 2% of the globe? It is an 0.3% change to world temp anomaly results after 2000.

0.003C.

The error was only in data for the lower 48 states, and was 0.15C for that data. The lower 48 is about 2% of the earth’s surface. 0.15 x .02 = 0.003C

Global temp change over the last century is 0.8 - 1.1C depending on method. .003C out of 1C (in the range and easy to calculate) is 0.3%

Thanks for bringing it to our attention but it is already known and accounted for as Mr. Hansen has said.

[Shipuuden]

0.8C-1.1C temp change in 100 years thats amazing........

[Epidemic]

Beemer what would the temperature have changed with out the advent of mans evil behavior?

I mean we all know that we are due for global warming (the ice record indicates that no matter what.) This is beyond conjecture or speculation. Natural global warming is on its way. so .8 to 1.1C (how much of that is ours?)

[Beemer]

Epi
Like, I'm going to do all your homework for you. lol

If you have the answer already, cough it up. There's an awful lot of details to sift through to detirmine an answer for you. I work best when challenged with an assertion based on so called fact.

I'm thinking the answer will be based on CO2 changes in density, duration and speed considering pre-industrial evolution figures over thousands of years comparing to figures generated in the last 50 years.

Good Luck The answer is out there.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Epidemic, here's where you got me confused:

By your article, NOAA stations according to Watts are often/sometimes suspect due to poor site placement which delimits their validity,while Hensen doesn't use NOAA stations in modeling climate. Is this a correct reading ?

For a Gov't agency to be goofing up doesn't surprise me.

But what is the relevance of NOAA's temperature readings --if they are not used in Hansen's climate modeling ?

Secondly, whether the observed global warming --as reflected in glacial breakdown etc. is -- is "natural" or "man-made", the real questions is whether it's real and what can we or should we do about it.

The Florida coast doesn't care whether the rise in water level is due to man or nature --only if it's happening. Man tends to move into areas of present water distribution --not caring about 50 - 100 years from now.

Look at the projects to "correct" beach erosion and beach shifting , when beach shifting is a natural phenomen. But tell that to the person who paid big bucks to live near the beach.

MegalosSkylaki

[Beemer]

Excuse me for a second there Doog. Just want to hand this to Epi.

If you want to avoid the hype, twists, errors and down right lies of the media reports and or the numerous sideline bloggers that may or may not no what the hell they are talking about or aren't always exactly accurate, shop where I shop for Climate Science news and views.

RealClimate.org (About page) seems to be highly respected amongst the climate science bloggers and others over at scienceblogs.com .

Just what you would hope to find on a credible science "About" page. No?
A site that wants to be known as being neutral and report the science and nothing but the science. I don't find the writing hard to digest or overly technical. A lay person such as me easily muddles through. Claims come with full citations and when you'll be clicking into a paid journal paper, they give good abstract.

You'll notice that many of the articles carry Profiles/Bio's of the authors. If there isn't a bio offered, their names are easily googled to find their bio's online. Lots of credentials in this crowd working for recognised science institutes. It doesn't get much better that I've found. If someone has better, please let me know.

Down the right hand side is a vast navigation menu.
Scrolling down past the sections of "Recent Comments:" and "...With Inline Responses:" you come to Categories:. Click on Climate Science or any of the related research listed below it. Current climate science explained and a thorough debunking of myths if necessary.

Further down the sections list, don't miss the Highlights: section. In there you'll find some of the recognisable issues to click on.

All the common issues we've all talked about can be found easily within this site. Maybe even the answer to, "Beemer what would the temperature have changed with out the advent of mans evil behavior?"

All that to say, Here! Click this link. They're good at framing the science.

P.S. Don't miss Doog's post above.
Thanks Doog.

[Epidemic]

I found that site to be more of the same. It is a nice compilation of data and resources. however it does not address the larger question of why incorrect data always seems to favor exaggerating the warming argument.