• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

sawyerloggingon

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have heard before and we have discussed here the theory of false readings from weather stations. This study sheds light on it.

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?
 
Excellent link. It's nice to see someone concerned about the quality of the data.
 
The ground stations are the source of the data. That data is immediately adjusted to fit the outcomes desired by NOAA or GISS. Following that adjustment, the overall outcomes is compared to the results produced by RSS, UAH and HADCrut.

Upon THAT further review, the results are adjusted again and following that the raw data is adjusted again.

By this process we see that the Land Station data is considered by the experts to be worthless and the adjusted data must be considered to worth less.
 
The underlying issue with the paper is that these calculations compare "raw" data with the homogenized data on the assumption that these adjustments aren't justified. For example, Watts doesn't appear to have factored in changing times of observation.

Additionally, satellite observations record a temperature trend that disagrees with Watts' proposed .155C/decade.
 
Last edited:
It's climate creationism, and Watt's a priest. Think of an outcome you desire, then dress it up in scientific terms.
 
So a study of direct observations gets branded 'creationism' where doubtless a multitude of Hansenesque computer modelled constructs dont then ?

Such is the logic of the climate alarmist :roll:
 
Get yourself an accurate temperature sensing device. Place it outside in a location not surrounded by blacktop. Now, find the closest monitoring station. Contrast the two readings taken several times a day over the course of a month and you'll find there is a radical difference between what they record and what you experience.

They have a 6-7 degree difference (hotter) on average for the month of July and my local monitoring station is less than a mile away from my house. I've checked and they've recorded their inaccurate reading as part of the historical record. So a few months from now they'll be saying August was one of the hotest on record for Beaverton and they'll be lying.
 
I'm south of you and I have a long sleeve shirt on.
It sure feels like fall.
Don't tell the nuts.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's climate creationism, and Watt's a priest. Think of an outcome you desire, then dress it up in scientific terms.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's my opinion of Hansen.
 
Darroll said:
I'm south of you and I have a long sleeve shirt on.
It sure feels like fall.
Don't tell the nuts.
Click to expand...

Seriously, sweater weather in August and the station is reporting 85 degrees. I'm right there with you.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's climate creationism, and Watt's a priest. Think of an outcome you desire, then dress it up in scientific terms.
Click to expand...

Dressed up by the WMO apparently.


Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.
 
So he just reinvented the wheel - did he feel left out? :D

They've already tackled this and conjured up some extreme programming and statistical analysis that requires several supercomputers to crunch to analyze such things - far more in depth and accurate - and already produced similar results when projected into the future.
 
clownboy said:
Seriously, sweater weather in August and the station is reporting 85 degrees. I'm right there with you.
Click to expand...



In Indianapolis, it's been a very odd summer and Spring, too, for that matter. July was a burner. The first couple weeks of August were pretty cool and now we're back to seasonable highs and lower than normal lows. The Spring seemed to start early after a very mild winter then alternate between warner than normal/cooler than normal months.

Now people are wondering if this might be a hard winter upcoming. At least we're finally getting some rain and we might get a little of what left of Isaac.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Dressed up by the WMO apparently.


Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.
Click to expand...

The USA represents 0.06598 of the world land mass. Tell us how these spurious numbers would make any difference to the world data.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The USA represents 0.06598 of the world land mass. Tell us how these spurious numbers would make any difference to the world data.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the rest of the worlds weather station data doesn't have the same inherent flaws as ours? Seriously, that's what you are saying?

Just out of curiosity though where did you get that 0.06598 number, it seems low.
 
Yes it is low by a factor of 100

The USA represents 1.9% of the worlds surface area and around 6.6% of its landmass.
 
Errr, guys, even Watts himself admits these calculations are incomplete. I wouldn't go crowing about victory yet. Then there's that little detail about how the satellite temperature record shows a near-identical trend, as does a separate (although smaller) network of temperature stations placed deliberately far from civilization.
 
So wait...you are saying they MIGHT be getting false readings from temp senors placed near AC units???

bainbridge_ga_ushcn.webp
 
VanceMack said:
So wait...you are saying they MIGHT be getting false readings from temp senors placed near AC units???

View attachment 67133146
Click to expand...
No, it sounds like some are saying we shouldn't adjust the temps if someone puts an A/C unit near a station that's been around for 50 years.


Haven't you been paying attention? According to some we're not supposed to adjust temps regardless of the siting -- unless it makes the temps lower, then it's OK. :roll:
 
flogger said:
sawyerloggingon said:
Manc Skipper said:
The USA represents 0.06598 of the world land mass. Tell us how these spurious numbers would make any difference to the world data.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion the rest of the worlds weather station data doesn't have the same inherent flaws as ours? Seriously, that's what you are saying?

Just out of curiosity though where did you get that 0.06598 number, it seems low.
Click to expand...
Yes it is low by a factor of 100

The USA represents 1.9% of the worlds surface area and around 6.6% of its landmass.
Click to expand...
You think 0.06598 ~/~ 6.6%?!? :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom