Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Reliable?

[GPS_Flex]

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Reliable?

How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?

This question was asked by meteorologist Anthony Watts who launched a world-class study of the siting quality of the US climate reference network (USHCN) and led to the "Fall et al 2011" study "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" recently published in the American Geophysical Union.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

I suspect that NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) will have a lot of explaining to do very soon.

 

[Middleground]

This again? LOL

It's been debunked a thousand times. It turns out that these suspect stations--as a whole--actually gave a cooler temperature reading.

 

[Deuce]

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Explained.

Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S.
Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability
of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluate
the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends
derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there
is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however,
this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread
conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the
sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because
associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum
temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These
results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining
the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on
temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data.

GPS_Flex seems to have found a repository of the standard talking points. Next up we'll see "Global warming stopped in 1995 1998 2005" and "mankind only emits .05% of CO2!"

 

[GPS_Flex]

This again? LOL

It's been debunked a thousand times. It turns out that these suspect stations--as a whole--actually gave a cooler temperature reading.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Explained.


GPS_Flex seems to have found a repository of the standard talking points. Next up we'll see "Global warming stopped in 1995 1998 2005" and "mankind only emits .05% of CO2!"

These responses typify what is wrong with the alarmist crowd: a political rush to judgment and/or conclusions, prior to examining all of the facts followed by an immediate, premature backlash with attacks leveled at anyone who dares to point out any flaws in the science used in the standing, politically motivated rush to judgments and/or conclusions. Politics work this way, not science.

Had the “defenders of truth” actually taken the time to absorb the words I wrote and checked the link I provided, they would have noticed that the paper I referenced (Fall et al 2011) was accepted for publication 05/03/2011 but has not yet been published and that the link I provide is a pre-published draft of said paper. Considering the fact that the paper they cite was accepted for publication 01/07/2010 and published 06/08/2010, I’d say their reactions are rather silly, political and very unscientific.

How can a paper that has not yet been published be “debunked a thousand times” or be “explained” by a paper that was published more than a year ago?

GPS_Flex seems to have found a repository of the standard talking points. Next up we'll see "Global warming stopped in 1995 1998 2005" and "mankind only emits .05% of CO2!"

I think this comment sums up the issue nicely. Once again Deuce engages in argumentum ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi (red herring) rather than disputing the soundness of the argument at hand. If Deuce would like to argue the psychic visions of the “standard talking points” I am destined to make, I suggest he create a “reading the tea leaves” forum and entertain us with his visions of the future.

 

[Deuce]

These responses typify what is wrong with the alarmist crowd: a political rush to judgment and/or conclusions, prior to examining all of the facts followed by an immediate, premature backlash with attacks leveled at anyone who dares to point out any flaws in the science used in the standing, politically motivated rush to judgments and/or conclusions. Politics work this way, not science.

Had the “defenders of truth” actually taken the time to absorb the words I wrote and checked the link I provided, they would have noticed that the paper I referenced (Fall et al 2011) was accepted for publication 05/03/2011 but has not yet been published and that the link I provide is a pre-published draft of said paper. Considering the fact that the paper they cite was accepted for publication 01/07/2010 and published 06/08/2010, I’d say their reactions are rather silly, political and very unscientific.

How can a paper that has not yet been published be “debunked a thousand times” or be “explained” by a paper that was published more than a year ago?

Because it's the same guy making the same argument. If Anthony Watts had been trying to make an honest, unbiased assessment of the reliability of the US surface temperature record he would have completed a study of that reliability before making all the accusations he has in the past. He presented his conclusion and now is "investigating?"

You're right: the NCDC will have to respond.

GPS_Flex, I have a question.

Why are you presenting two contradictory arguments?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...n-koch-brother-payroll-10.html#post1059652179

This argument is "global warming is happening but it's natural."

Now you're suggesting that maybe it isn't happening.

Another question:

If the surface temperature record is unreliable, why does the satellite record match it so well?

Also, quit playing the "boo hoo Deuce is being mean to me" card. You've been just as hostile.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I suppose that since these "suspect" temperature stations mean the earth is not really warming, that also means that glaciers in the mountain west are not actually rapidly melting:

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

I guess it also means that USDA Climate Zones are not moving Northward:

Climate change comes to your backyard

I guess it also means that millions of acres of lodge-pole pines in the mountain west are not dying because we have not had winters strong enough the kill pine beetles:

Mountain pine beetle activity may impact snow accumulation and melt

I suppose it also means that ice coverage duration for northern lakes has not been declining:

Ice Out | Open Mind

I guess it means that the permafrost is not melting:

Permafrost in name only

I suppose it means that wildlife migrations are not actually changing due to the warming climate:

Global Warming and Waterfowl - National Wildlife Federation

But wait, actually all those things are happening. Why is that? Hmm, I wonder, could it be, could it possibly be..... The earth's climate is warming. Yeah, maybe so. There is a reason why many global warming deniers are creationists, and most creationists are global warming deniers. These people will buy into anything that fits their religious beliefs or political ideology. Its plain as day to anyone that the earth's climate is warming. Nature does not lie. Glaciers don't melt to promote some socialist conspiracy. Bird's don't change their migration patterns because they are in cahoots with Al Gore. You can't all of a sudden grow Magnolia trees in Iowa because the environmentalists are trying to take away your freedoms. Millions and millions of acres of lodge pole pines have not died across the mountain west because scientists are lying to get research money.

 

[Catawba]

Study Says Climate Models May Underestimate Warming

Factcheck: Opposition Web Sites Misrepresent Findings

"Several climate science contrarian Web sites are misrepresenting the findings of a peer-reviewed study published in the July 13 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. The study—by scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and the University of California at Santa Cruz—provides evidence that current climate models are underestimating the amount of warming that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause. In other words, the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting."

"According to Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), carbon dioxide-induced warming can lead to changes that exacerbate the problem. For example, increasing CO2 concentrations:

* melt tundra, which then releases methane and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere;

* warm the air, which then can hold more water vapor, another heat-trapping gas; and

* melt white ice, which exposes the ocean and land, which, because they are darker in color, absorb more heat from the sun and reflect less of it back into space.

Scientists are still trying to precisely quantify the effect of such "positive feedback cycles" that took place millions of years ago as well as the ones that are happening today, Fitzpatrick said. The scientific literature, including the new Nature Geoscience study, indicates that positive feedbacks greatly outweigh negative ones and that current climate models are likely underestimating potential temperature increases from overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. "

 

[GPS_Flex]

Because it's the same guy making the same argument.

That sounds like an awesome rebuttal. Have you tried to get this published? Consider this a peer review: Not factual and not sound science but it would make a great reality TV show or soap opera if you could get Deuce and Watts together in the same room for an hour. Make that 5 minutes.

If Anthony Watts had been trying to make an honest, unbiased assessment of the reliability of the US surface temperature record he would have completed a study of that reliability before making all the accusations he has in the past.

What accusation are you referring to? They must have been pretty bad if they have you so riled up that you would lose your composure. Please share the dirt and transgressions with us.

He presented his conclusion and now is "investigating?"

The paper I referenced, Fall et al 2011, wasn’t written by Watts. I thought you understood how things work in the modern day of science but I must have been mistaken.

You're right: the NCDC will have to respond.

Yes, but not with the same lame “everything is fine” line of crap, they need to fix the problems they have with more than customized algorithms that homogenize and pollute the data and they need to fix these site conditions. If this were a network run by people you consider skeptics, would you trust the data or question the reliability? I know you would be screaming from the rooftops about it and rightly so.

GPS_Flex, I have a question.

Why are you presenting two contradictory arguments?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...n-koch-brother-payroll-10.html#post1059652179

This argument is "global warming is happening but it's natural."

Now you're suggesting that maybe it isn't happening.

I have said nothing contradictory. You are being lazy and fanatically political while trying to wrap yourself in the cloak of science but truth-be-told, you have no respect for real science as evidenced by your outburst on this topic. Think about it, you haven’t presented a single perspective yet, pro or con, that doesn’t involve an attack on me or an attack on others involved in the studies I have reported on. That isn’t what fact finders do, that is what political hacks do.

If the surface temperature record is unreliable, why does the satellite record match it so well?

This is a vague question. If you have a study that compares USHCN or USCRN data to satellite data, please source it. It is sad that this was the extent of your scientific argument. After sifting through all the other drama crud you posted I was really looking forward to a challenge.

Also, quit playing the "boo hoo Deuce is being mean to me" card. You've been just as hostile.

It isn’t about you hurting my feelings, it’s about you losing the right to claim you approach this issue from a scientific perspective.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I suppose that since these "suspect" temperature stations mean the earth is not really warming, that also means that glaciers in the mountain west are not actually rapidly melting:

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

I guess it also means that USDA Climate Zones are not moving Northward:

Climate change comes to your backyard

I guess it also means that millions of acres of lodge-pole pines in the mountain west are not dying because we have not had winters strong enough the kill pine beetles:

Mountain pine beetle activity may impact snow accumulation and melt

I suppose it also means that ice coverage duration for northern lakes has not been declining:

Ice Out | Open Mind

I guess it means that the permafrost is not melting:

Permafrost in name only

I suppose it means that wildlife migrations are not actually changing due to the warming climate:

Global Warming and Waterfowl - National Wildlife Federation

But wait, actually all those things are happening. Why is that? Hmm, I wonder, could it be, could it possibly be..... The earth's climate is warming. Yeah, maybe so. There is a reason why many global warming deniers are creationists, and most creationists are global warming deniers. These people will buy into anything that fits their religious beliefs or political ideology. Its plain as day to anyone that the earth's climate is warming. Nature does not lie. Glaciers don't melt to promote some socialist conspiracy. Bird's don't change their migration patterns because they are in cahoots with Al Gore. You can't all of a sudden grow Magnolia trees in Iowa because the environmentalists are trying to take away your freedoms. Millions and millions of acres of lodge pole pines have not died across the mountain west because scientists are lying to get research money.

I guess this means you don’t give a rip how accurate the U.S. Surface data is?

 

[GPS_Flex]

The cited Menne et al 2010 paper (admittedly) uses about 40% of the data used in the Watts 2009 data, created a new two-class good/poor classification method “similar to those used to classify U.S. Climate Reference Network stations”, used preliminary non-quality controlled data and apparently uses homogenized data to homogenize data.

The most disturbing thing about Menne et al 2010 however, IMHO, is the unprofessional manner (professional discourtesy) in which the NCDC acted by attempting to preempt the publication of Fall et al 2011 using a flawed subset of the data/work from Fall et al 2011 and without giving Anthony Watts, the person who gathered the primary data for Menne et al 2010, an opportunity to review the data and/or the use of said data.

Now, you may find solace in the NCDC claim, via Menne et al 2010, that there is a “cool” bias in their maximum temperatures but the ad hoc nature of the manner in which this paper was published should set off alarm bells. It’s also worth noting that “a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures” is a pretty big deal.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I guess this means you don’t give a rip how accurate the U.S. Surface data is?

It reflects the reality demonstrated all around you by nature. How much more "accurate" would you like it to be? The "riled" reaction ma well be down to the semi-permanent feeling of deja vu as the same tired fallacious debunked arguments are regurgitated yet again.

 

[GPS_Flex]

It reflects the reality demonstrated all around you by nature. How much more "accurate" would you like it to be? The "riled" reaction ma well be down to the semi-permanent feeling of deja vu as the same tired fallacious debunked arguments are regurgitated yet again.

Read the cited papers and you will find your answer. Not sure why you are asking me as I think it is pretty clear that the science needs to be very accurate if we are going to overturn the entire global economy to save…whatever it is that needs to be saved.

Do you have a problem with people who demand the truth Manc Skipper? Should politics trump science?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I guess this means you don’t give a rip how accurate the U.S. Surface data is?

I do, but I if anything, we are underestimating warming, not over estimating it. Moreover, the entire premise of the argument presented in the opening post of the thread is highly flawed:

RealClimate: No man is an (Urban Heat) Island

 

[Manc Skipper]

Read the cited papers and you will find your answer. Not sure why you are asking me as I think it is pretty clear that the science needs to be very accurate if we are going to overturn the entire global economy to save…whatever it is that needs to be saved.

Do you have a problem with people who demand the truth Manc Skipper? Should politics trump science?

The science is reflected all around you but you won't see it. You obviously can't handle the truth.

 

[Deuce]

The cited Menne et al 2010 paper (admittedly) uses about 40% of the data used in the Watts 2009 data, created a new two-class good/poor classification method “similar to those used to classify U.S. Climate Reference Network stations”, used preliminary non-quality controlled data and apparently uses homogenized data to homogenize data.

The most disturbing thing about Menne et al 2010 however, IMHO, is the unprofessional manner (professional discourtesy) in which the NCDC acted by attempting to preempt the publication of Fall et al 2011 using a flawed subset of the data/work from Fall et al 2011 and without giving Anthony Watts, the person who gathered the primary data for Menne et al 2010, an opportunity to review the data and/or the use of said data.

Now, you may find solace in the NCDC claim, via Menne et al 2010, that there is a “cool” bias in their maximum temperatures but the ad hoc nature of the manner in which this paper was published should set off alarm bells. It’s also worth noting that “a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures” is a pretty big deal.

Watts is, in fact, one of the authors. His name is second on the list, dude.

Unprofessional manner? Watts was plastering his "findings" all over the internet before he even finished the research. Have you not visited his website? Skeptics all over the world have been using Watts' photos and declaring that the US temperature record is wrong. Like I said, Watts put forth conclusions before he completed his research, it's hilarious that you think the NCDC is the unprofessional group here.

You say a "warm bias in the minimum temperatures" is a big deal... but did you read Menne 2010? The bias was miniscule, and smaller than the cooling bias put on maximum temperatures. So, show me how it's a "big deal."

 

[W00ster]

In USA opposition to climate change is not based upon science but political affiliation and nothing more. It's sad but oh so typical for the US in so many matters of evidence.

 

[Catawba]

In USA opposition to climate change is not based upon science but political affiliation and nothing more. It's sad but oh so typical for the US in so many matters of evidence.

Its that obvious isn't it?

 

[sookster]

Jesus...

Ocean temperatures are much more reliable when discerning temperature fluctuations in our climate. The answer lies in the polarity of water. I'm sure most of you don't know that temperature is defined as average kinetic energy. It requires more energy to get water to move because it has to fight with the electromagnetic force between the water molecules themselves. Water therefore acts like a huge heat sink like that of a computer. It absorbers heat, until there is enough heat to start moving the water molecules, which results in higher temperatures.

Surface data has so much more intrinsic error. Everything from pollution to shade, to nearby road construction could alter the results of the data.

Ocean temperatures are the blueprint of reliable data that shows the picture of climate change.

 

[Catawba]

Ocean Temperatures Show Possible Climate Change Connection to Australian Flooding

"according to climate researcher David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, the strong La Niña isn’t solely responsible for this year’s heavy Australian rainfall. The sea surface temperatures around Australia, rather than just its northeastern region, also contribute to the rains in Queensland, he says.

“What gives very heavy rainfall is high Indian Ocean temperatures and La Niña in the Pacific,” Karoly explains. “This year we have both of those, and both are at record highs.”

"The toasty temperatures in the Indian Ocean aren’t just a one or two year occurrence, however. Looking back over the past several years, there is a pronounced long-term warming trend in the waters near Australia. Karoly says, “This isn’t just climate variability. This is man-made climate change.”

Because Indian Ocean temperatures influence Australian climate, this means that as sea surface temperatures continue to warm, there will be an increased risk of these heavy rainfall events, says Karoly. As he explains, “we can’t say this individual event [in Queensland] is due to long term climate change, but we can say the overall global sea surface temperature increases are due to anthropogenic [man-made] forcings.”

 

[UtahBill]

Accuracy is not the problem...if an instrument is consistent in its inaccuracy. If the instruments are wrong plus 2 degrees, consistently, in the same direction, there is no real issue to contend with.
What IS important is trending.
What are the readings year to year? If the trend is consistenly up, we have warming....

 

[sookster]

You obviously aren't a scientist.

Accuracy in data brings you closer to Truth. What is your evidence the data is off by two degrees? And it is an issue because it is poor science. Good science is coming to conclusions without a shadow of a doubt, using accurate methodology and calculations.

 

[Deuce]

You obviously aren't a scientist.

Accuracy in data brings you closer to Truth. What is your evidence the data is off by two degrees? And it is an issue because it is poor science. Good science is coming to conclusions without a shadow of a doubt, using accurate methodology and calculations.

That's not at all what he was saying.

 

[UtahBill]

I spent a few years in a metrology lab....I have calibrated many a temperature instrument in my day, and even tried to teach a few people how to use them....

You obviously aren't a scientist.

Accuracy in data brings you closer to Truth. What is your evidence the data is off by two degrees? And it is an issue because it is poor science. Good science is coming to conclusions without a shadow of a doubt, using accurate methodology and calculations.

 

[sookster]

Meteorology isn't a science.

Regardless of having faulty data, ocean temperatures is still the most reliable source we can go off of when talking about climate change. That is constant, and it will always be that way.

 

[UtahBill]

Meteorology isn't a science.

Regardless of having faulty data, ocean temperatures is still the most reliable source we can go off of when talking about climate change. That is constant, and it will always be that way.

Meteorology IS a science, so is Metrology....and for the purposes of determining global warming or cooling, it remains true that absolute measurements, if consistent, are not as important as the trend of the readings.
Long term, very long term, very little is constant.....