People send me stuff. My Inbox bursts daily with ideas, suggestions, papers, and photos.
Here is a climate monitoring station in Tremonton Utah. Notice anything peculiar about the placement of the temperature sensor? It is the white “bee hive” on the pole on the asphalt.
Note the conduit for the cable to the MMTS. This underscores something I’ve been saying about the MMTS installation for some time. The COOP managers that install these aren’t given the tools or time to get past obstructions like asphalt and concrete, thus the MMTS ends up closer to buildings than the “wireless” Stevenson Screen.
Randy Julander writes in:
Randy Julander here, snow survey supervisor, NRCS, USDA. Here are a few pics from the Tremonton Utah MMTS site which is right outside our NRCS field office in Tremonton. Normally there is a large truck parked right next to the sensor. As you can see, next to the building, next to the air conditioner, asphalt everywhere. Nice placement.
I’ll say, right on the pavement, 10 feet from the building. Randy mentions a truck being parked by the sensor. It shows up nicely on the Google aerial view:
A live Google maps interactive view is here
Temperature measurement issues aside, I wonder what the wind tunnel between the vehicles does for the accuracy of the rain gauge?
Here is the view looking north showing the parking lot that doubles as a climate monitoring station.
In the photo below, notice how the rain gauge and MMTS have been placed in parallel with the diagonal parking. This is not accidental.
While we have many people who are actively surveying the USHCN network, there are still hundreds of other NOAA/NWS COOP stations that are not part of the special USHCN subset of stations.
There is also the COOP-A network, which is used in climate and the is reported to NCDC, just like USHCN.
Most importantly, these stations are used by NCDC’s FILNET program, which will “fill in” missing data for a single station.
Here’s more on FILNET from NCDC:
FILNET (Fill Missing Original Data in the Network)
Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in SHAP. This adjustment uses the debiased data from the SHAP and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a “network” of the best correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations that moved too often for SHAP to estimate the adjustments needed to debias the data.
The B91 for Marysville is shown at left. Note the significant amount of missing data.
This happened because the volunteer observer was the fire station office manager, who didn’t work weekends or holidays, and had vacation throughout the year. Even though the fire station was manned 24/7, unfortunately the firefighters on-duty did not participate in keeping the records.
See a B91 form page from the Marysville USHCN record at left and note the missing data.
COOP-A stations like Tremonton Utah one are used by NCDC’s FILNET to interpolate missing data for nearby USHCN stations. Thus, it is just as important that they also be properly sited and maintained.
It appears though that they may suffer from the same sort of maintenance and siting issues that the USHCN does. After all, other than being a special subset of the COOP-A network, chosen for continuity of records over a long period and a minimum of site moves, there really is no other difference between USHCN and COOP-A stations.
They are all part of the same group and are maintained by the same people using the same tools and methods.
It seems that the sot of problems we see at Tremonton UT are widespread in the entire COOP-A network as well as USHCN. I’ll have more examples in future posts.
Any time estimate on when you will finish your analysis of the whole network?
So dark pavement and asphalt are the cause of global warming. Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt must read these posts. If they oppose honest science to support their superstition they call science, so be it. This web site is so enlightening. Monday algore speaks (preaches ) in australia. This bad data is why they are more afraid than ever on asking questions. It creates shame.
why not place a rain guage under a tree?
Another OT, sorry, but Peter Sissons, a long time television news broadcaster in the UKhas launched a withering attack on the BBC’s reporting of the `Climate Change’ issue, saying:
“Notice anything peculiar about the placement of the temperature sensor?”
Well, actually, no. It all seems common. Sad fact that, yes?
Humm,
Would it be a violation of your copyright Anthony to make a large poster of sites like this with the caption “This is man-made global warming at its best.” Then stand outside AGW meetings???
Just a thought – maybe even get an MSM picture.
Mike
REPLY: no issues with that – Anthony
Post Script –
I’m familiar with Tremonton (near Ogden), a hot place anyway. It’s at the northern end of the Bonneville lake bed prior to the climb to Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. The terrain means northerly and easterly winds warm as they come down the thousand or so feet from the plateau above.
Mike
I still can not figure out how anyone could claim this information has “little or no bearing” on the conclusions reached by those who utilize this data. With a slight wave of the hand it is dismissed as irrelevant. One of my pet peeves is when engaged in conversation, the other persons says “let me be perfectly honest with you”. That little phrase tells you all you need to know about what is coming next.
So, what is going on in the minds of the people that set up these stations? I set up a station this year at my place and went out of my way to find a non-corrupted site lest I lose the value of my investment by poor placement.
This looks like an example of “good enough for government work” at its poorest. Either that or the people called upon to site these units don;t have a clue as to what they are doing, or have incompetent supervision, or both. What a waste!!
If, instead of painting all our roofs and roadways white, we just painted the area around these stations, we could save paint, compared to Dr. Chu’s plan. Global temperature, as measured, would fall, and they could go back to scaring us with deja flu, or something. Mmmm, no – they’d just adjust it back up…
Best,
Frank
Still working on summer plans. Any chance that Randy will be visiting Corinne?
You know the thought just occured to me. How much heat capacitance in joules does the totall of all the cubic meters of asphalt layed on the ground hold in comparison to the ammount of anthropogenic Co2 we have put into the atmosphere. I mean, it’s night time im walking my dog on this parking lot, and it’s still hot. I should do a google search see if there is an easy way to determine the total anthropogenic cubic meters of asphalt and it’s heat capacitance.
Is there a possible way to set up a small competing network of temperature monitors in ideal surroundings. Perhaps on some farms or other adequately large properties of volunteers? One could select areas that are served by corrupted stations, number them, throw the numbers in a hat and randomly choose, say 2 dozen to “twin”. Naturally it would require some donations and I suppose they should automatically record at the right times of day and night. Or is this not practicable? We would soon get a measure of whether corrections being done for official sites are being overdone.
It is obvious what is wrong with the placement.
The sensor is too close to the doors of the building which is air conditioned. Whenever somebody steps out of the building the sensor will get a blast of cold air thus artificially lowering the temperature. Therefore the temperature readings need to be adjusted upwards.
Gary Pearse (18:24:58)
I think it would be better to use one of the temp loggers from Anthony’s toy store. You could get min/max but also a shape of the temp profile. TOBS wouldn’t matter, you have a continuous record. And they would work all by themselves without an operator. Some can even link to a PC which could record everything and send it to a data analysis location. Would take some volunteers and contributions, I agree. Sign me up.
Somebody screwed up this installation. No BBQ.
An interesting misspelling that would not have been picked up with spell check.
3rd paragraph from the end.
“It seems thought hat….
Both are correct spellings, just not when used together.
REPLY: Thanks fixed -A
I give credit to the volunteer’s cleverness in managing to install the equipment. I’m sure he wants to help, but he just simply doesn’t have a suitable location. Even if he tunneled the cable into the nearby green area, it looks like it has too much overgrowth. Hmm.. on the photo looking north, there also is a downward slope. The Google photo shows a large shadow from trees on the south side of the green area, so there is an open space but probably not as large as required. The downward slope could also mean that’s not a cleared level field. So even some tree cutting might not form a suitable location.
There is no reason in this day and age for this nonsense. We don’t need gatekeepers for this global data either.
What about a complete reboot of the surface temperature record.
It is what it is. Let us argue about the past, while we start a new baseline for ALL surface stations. A raw data set of temperatures, their stations, methods, etc. for any researcher to analyze.
A reset would dictate that the poorly sited spots become a part of the baseline for future global data with prior biases now history. A policy that any station move be documented to accepted standards is not unreasonable.
Get as many stations as we can. With current technology every station could be entered into a googleearth file, with pictures and links to raw, pure unadulterated data. We should be able to at least quadruple the station networks world wide for posterity.
Some of these stations could also choose to measure local water temps.
Our future scientists would applaud this desicion.
Data manipulation is really just lame scientists keeping their shoes dry. End the manipulation tomorrow.
If the US surface station network suffers from so many UHI and siting deficiencies that result in a false warming trend, then why does the UAH satellite data, which should be more representative, have a higher trend than GISS for the US and surrounding regions?
http://i40.tinypic.com/nget8k.png
http://i43.tinypic.com/4in94x.jpg
How many people coming out the door into the bright light have tripped over the cable conduit? Where’s OSHA? And that rain gauge looks like it’s been clipped a couple of times.
Hi folks,
I hope you’ll forgive an off topic question… I’ve wondered for some time just how solid the atmospheric CO2 measurements are? How robust and reliable is the system? I haven’t run across anything addressing this side of the whole AGW issue.
Thanks!
David Ball (18:03:47) :
I still can not figure out how anyone could claim this information has “little or no bearing” on the conclusions reached by those who utilize this data.
This station is not part of GISS Temp data (at least I could not find it) so will only change temperatures if it is used to infil.
Pretty amazing that when, decades from now, they write the books about the AGW hysteria, they’ll be shaking their heads as they acknowledge Anthony’s contribution. His pictures of poorly-sited surface stations will be featured cheek by jowl(s) with Algore.
I just want to live long enough to enjoy perusing these texts and having the satisfaction of shutting the book knowing that Al’s visage will be snuggled against a nice picture of a temperature sensor in hot asphalt.
Scratch and sniff sulfur would be a nice touch.
Love the “How not to measure temperature” series – it’s the Sunday comics section of science.
So what we have here is an example of a bad station, whose data is used to make guesses about and fill in missing data for other bad stations. You can’t make this stuff up!
How about the CO2 measurements?
To start with – WUWT 4,6 and 7 Aug. 2008
Also, Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven+Earth” which is being published in USA this month, has several pages and many references to this. An interesting graph shows CO2 measured by the Pettenkofer method 1812 to 1961, comparing it with estimates from an Antarctic ice core. Apparently the IPCC rejected the high values of the Pettenkofer figures.
Robinson (17:36:44) :
Another OT, sorry, but Peter Sissons, a long time television news broadcaster in the UKhas launched a withering attack on the BBC’s reporting of the `Climate Change’ issue…
He gave the head of the Green Party a hard time she wasn’t expecting in an interview a while ago. I’ve tried to find the footage on the net. Not a chance. I bet the BBC has ritually burned the tape.
Peter Sissions is a national treasure, and will be missed. I hope the BBC take note of his words.
Gillian, thanks for the reply.
Oh, boy, ok, here goes the ignorance question of the week…. how do I find those particular WUWT 2008 post dates? I see the calandar that allows selecting dates this month, but don’t see how to go that far back in archives…. I tried a simple search on the date without success.
In general, would you say the CO2 data is reasonable, or seriously flawed? I’m thinking the typical things here, e.g., number and placement of testing sites worldwide and sorts of basic things.
Thanks again!
Hooray! Peter Sissons mentioned the topic that dare not speak it’s name in a mainstream newspaper – Climate Realism.
How about the CO2 measurements?
To get the 2008 figures in WUWT you need to go to the Archives section at the bottom of the right hand side of the page.
Apparently other places in the world keep CO2 statistics, but the IPCC will only use the Mauna Loa figures. Here in Tasmania they are kept at Cape Grim, but I have not seen them – I’ll make further enquiries.
>>>So dark pavement and asphalt are the cause of
>>>global warming.
And not forgetting the truck exhaust too – pretty hot sometimes.
Quick question. I presume it is max and min that is being measured by the MMTS, not an average. Does this mean that if a truck pulls up next to the MMTS and belches hot gas for just five minutes, that this becomes the day’s max temperature? Ditto the aircraft exhaust at an airport site?
Is this how these things work? If so, the measurements could be completely wrong.
How about the CO2 measurements?
You can find the Cape Grim measurements by doing a search on “Cape Grim CO2”
>>>Hooray! Peter Sissons mentioned the topic that
>>>dare not speak.
Sissons is one of the rational old guard who has talent and integrity. He is there because he is good at his job.
In recent years, the new BBC influx were deliberately chosen because they were ‘nice boys’ or the ‘right shade of pale’. They are not there on merit, and so will parrot whatever they are told in grateful genuflection to the great god of the Director General.
It is the new government policy. They hated a meritocracy, as we are all supposed to be equal, so they pushed for a mediocracy instead. We are now plagued by the curse of the average, where those that excel are ruthlessly culled.
.
The curse of mediocracy, part II.
And if you don’t believe me, take a look at UK schools. There has been a deliberate policy in recent decades of identifying all the best schools in the UK (grammars) and closing them down – because we don’t want elitism or selection by merit. Having closed all the good schools down, they are now wondering why (real) educational standards are falling rapidly.
To compensate, they simply made the exams easier, so the exam results looked better (a direct correlation to AGW temperatures here). The government spin-meisters say “rubbish, standards are still high” – but take a look at this UK physics exam for 16-year olds.
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-QP-MAR08.PDF
I kid you not – this is the attainment of 12 years of UK education – ‘what is a plastic cup’!!
The entire exam is now composed of wind turbines, solar cells, pollution, radioactive waste, renewables, conservation, geothermal power and insulation.
This is supposed to be a physics exam. Where are the equations? Where are the underlying principles, the foundations of knowledge – the nature of forces, waves, motion, propagation of light, conservation of energy, electrostatics, momentum, vectors? Where is the science? Just where are tomorrow’s scientists and engineers going to come from??
We are lost. Destroyed as a nation. I despair.
Notice anything peculiar about the placement of the temperature sensor?
Yea, I sure do! They put it in what used to be MY parking space!
@Ralph ellis (03:56:28) :
“[…] but take a look at this UK physics exam for 16-year olds.
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-QP-MAR08.PDF
I kid you not – this is the attainment of 12 years of UK education – ‘what is a plastic cup’!!
The entire exam is now composed of wind turbines, solar cells, pollution, radioactive waste, renewables, conservation, geothermal power and insulation.
This is supposed to be a physics exam. Where are the equations? Where are the underlying principles, the foundations of knowledge – the nature of forces, waves, motion, propagation of light, conservation of energy, electrostatics, momentum, vectors? Where is the science? Just where are tomorrow’s scientists and engineers going to come from??
We are lost. Destroyed as a nation. I despair.”
I followed the link to the exam. Unbelievable! That wasn’t a physics exam. That was a “Propaganda Pop Quiz” (head shake and heavy sigh…).
ralph ellis – well said. The death of the UK grammar school system is a national embarassment. The dumbing down of education is a national scandal. But then public school education isn’t much better – look at the way the so called Tory Toffs allowed Miliband’s “cap and trade” energy bill to pass without so much as asking one sensible question, the most obvious one being, “where’s the proof?”.
I believe it is the fault of the coop managers when they place their equipment. Mammoth Ranger Station, here in California, just abandoned their CRS located far from any buildings(it is now falling apart and left the sixes high and low thermometers in the shelter but not read) and put in an electronic thermometer right next to a new visitor center and just a few feet from an asphalt driveway. The guy did not want to have to dig a trench any further than he had to.
Re: How about the CO2 measurements?
Try to find the site of German Hans Georg Beck.
h.oldeboom (06:28:05):
Prof. Beck’s website: click
Beck’s site is one of the best interactive sites I’ve seen. Try clicking on the charts, pictures and links and see where it takes you.
Adam (20:10:38) : I would like to look at your question in some more detail.
What is the source of the two graphics?
Does that source have similar graphics for other regions of the US and North America?
‘what is a plastic cup’
Too easy. It is something baseball players wear to cover their sensitive parts.
The transmission of data from these stations should have been done wirelessly, by short-range radio waves, to avoid siting problems. Probably one reason this choice was not made was that the decision-makers were so analytically oriented that they didn’t think of the real-world difficulties that would discourage real-world humans from implementing their ideal-world best-butter design specs. They lacked emotional intelligence and common sense.
After carefull review of the ariel picture, I can see them adjusting the readings upward. The shadows from the trees in the morning will cause lower readings. The afternoon shadows from the brick building will do the same. So when the sun is high, the black asphalt will cause about 8 degrees higher reading when the wind is low on top of which they can add let’s say 6 degrees for shade, and there we have it.
What do the people that form the “consensus” want it to read? That is what we should go by. actual readings are out in the world of the superstitous.
How conscientious of NOAA/GISS. The conduit was run diagonally to match the parking lanes so cars won’t run over it… it also looks like plastic PVC although the color suggest EMT! LOL
ralph ellis (03:56:28) :
“The curse of mediocracy, part II.
This is supposed to be a physics exam. Where are the equations? Where are the underlying principles, the foundations of knowledge – the nature of forces, waves, motion, propagation of light, conservation of energy, electrostatics, momentum, vectors? Where is the science? Just where are tomorrow’s scientists and engineers going to come from??”
Seriously disturbing test. And those that fail? That’s OK, they just put them on track for the Energy Ministry.
Here would be an interesting exercise. Compare this test to ones in Japan, China or India. Should we wonder about the future path of western civilization?
>>Seriously disturbing test (examination). And those that fail? That’s
>>OK, they just put them on track for the Energy Ministry.
Just some background information for non UK readers. We always had simple examinations at 16 years old, for the less academic, but there was a very rigorous exam (‘O’ level exam) for the educational high-fliers. But this exam was ‘elitist’ and ‘stigmatised the less-gifted’, and so it was banned.
So now everyone takes the simple exam at 16, and the better schools (usually private schools) get every pupil attaining 100%. Now an exam where everyone gets 100% is hardly an exam – its a box-ticking exercise.
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-QP-MAR08.PDF
In fact, the only people to benefit from this brave new education policy are the privately educated pupils, which is a bit odd for a socialist policy. The private schools still have good discipline and good masters and often choose alternative, more rigorous examinations (the baccalaureate). Meanwhile, all the good government schools (similar to private schools, but free) have been closed down.
As education policies go, this must be the dumbest and most destructive ever invented. (And the most hypocritical, as most of the government ministers came through the very government schools that they have now closed.)
.
Official NOAA employee: “Oh, Oh… I see a patch of grass at the foot of the pole… all is well here.”
I’ve often wondered if the MMTS is shipped as a kit for installation. If the cable harness for the sensors is of a precut lenght, that would explain why MMST is allways so close to a building. A longer harness would allow installation farther away from heat sources.
Just a thought, anyone have info on this?
ralph ellis:
What did Prime Minister Blair say?
“Education. Education. Education.”
Meaning that was their first target, I presume.
What he failed to add was:
“If we can destroy that, they will all be stupid enough to put up with us forever.”
Maybe he only added that after the cameras had gone!
Ralph Ellis: 11:42:07
How right you are.
My old Grammar School physics teacher must be turning in his grave.
So — for sites like this — all that is necessary to drop the temperature recorded should be for someone to go there at night when the parking lot is deserted and quickly paint in a 20 foot in diameter white circle around it. Maybe add a red border around the outside of the circle and paint via a stencil something like “Official NOAA boundary No Parking” in white on the red boundary repeatedly all the way around.
After all, people can do pretty elaborate crop circles over night. Something like this could be done by 3 or 4 people in about an hour. And who could complain? After all, UHI effects are “negligible”, right? So if the sensors suddenly started recording 1 degree F lower (or more) — who could legitimately complain? And since they don’t bother to actually CHECK all the sites – they couldn’t fiddle and make “adjustments” for quite a while — and wouldn’t be able to justify them anyway since the amount by which they applied “adjustments” would be the new defacto admission of UHI effect.
Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
London is 1580sq km the UK is 224820sq km i.e. London is 0.7% of the total land area of UK Birmingham 0.1%. This deserves to be included as it is part of the environment
That mounting pole doesn’t look to be Regulation-Spec-Niner-Niner-Aught-Stroke-Zulu standard issue. Looks like a re-mount on a chain link fence post to me.
How many times has the unit been hit? As many times as the rain gage?
bill (13:58:55) :
Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
London is 1580sq km the UK is 224820sq km i.e. London is 0.7% of the total land area of UK Birmingham 0.1%. This deserves to be included as it is part of the environment
Bill here’s a little counter thought
If you want to include urban areas like London and Birmingham, what about the upland areas in the Scottish Highlands, i.e. the area over 1500 feet? (This area is of course far greater in areal extent than all the cities and towns in the UK put together). To my knowledge, apart from Braemar there are no Met. Office stations above 1000 feet. In winter our temperatures (in Highland Perthshire in the Southern Highlands) are regularly 3 or 4C colder than the Met Office’s forecasts, and regularly 2 or 3 degrees colder than the minimum’s recorded by the nearest official stations at Tyndrum and Bridge of Allan. And I live next to the River Tay, at only 80m above sea level. Glen Lyon is usually 3C colder than here, and it is only 15 miles further west. And the temperatures above the tree line (1500 feet) and on the snow fields will typically be even colder. But as the Met Office network seems to be incapable of recording (and forecasting) these lower temperatures, maybe they are just my imagination. After all, their computer generated forecasts can’t be wrong.
Charlie,
Those pics are from Bob Tisdale’s blog. Bob did an interesting series comparing UAH to GISSTEMP for different regions.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
If you ‘trust’ the UAH data more than GISS, then you should be much more worried about surface station reliability/coverage in areas of the world other than the US… at least that’s how I interpret Bob’s analysis. Bob’s posts didn’t recieve much attention here, but I suppose that’s understandable given Anthony’s focus on the US stations.
Apparently other places in the world keep CO2 statistics, but the IPCC will only use the Mauna Loa figures…
Please say it ain’t so! I was afraid that might be the case – so all the AGW stuff is based on a single measuring point, partway down the side of an active volcano? It truly boggles the mind. Well… I assume that other locations being measured must be showing fairly similar values?
Thanks to both Gillian and h.oldeboom — I’m off to check out your recommendations.
How about the CO2 measurements? (18:14:08) : No. CO2 is measured at numerous locations all over the world. See this map from Earth System Research Laboratory:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.png
A rise is observed similarly everywhere. ESRL also provides global means here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt
There is lots one might question about AGW but this really isn’t one of them. And WTR to Beck:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Gillian Lord (03:33:45) :
How about the CO2 measurements?
To get the 2008 figures in WUWT you need to go to the Archives section at the bottom of the right hand side of the page.
Apparently other places in the world keep CO2 statistics, but the IPCC will only use the Mauna Loa figures. Here in Tasmania they are kept at Cape Grim, but I have not seen them – I’ll make further enquiries.
You can find them here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-cgrim.html
timetochooseagain (18:45:37) and others. I produced this plot of CO2 levels (same scales, not normalised) The levels are similar fron NH to SH. The peaks vary in time slightly with much less variation in SH:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6153/co2manysitesch4.jpg
bill (13:58:55) :
Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
——-
If you want an idea of how ambient temperatures in cities have changed over the years, you can keep on taking daily readings, rounding them, averaging them and then adjusting them. Then you’ll have something interesting.
If you get really carried away, you can toss in a random assortment of readings from rural sites and the bilge-water of ocean-going vessels, then you can convince yourself that you know just how warm the air is today, yesterday and in 50 years’ time. Furthermore, you will know exactly how it came to be that temperature and you’ll know just how to correct it to your preferred value.
Adam (16:59:49) :
Charlie,
Those pics are from Bob Tisdale’s blog. Bob did an interesting series comparing UAH to GISSTEMP for different regions.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
If you ‘trust’ the UAH data more than GISS, then you should be much more worried about surface station reliability/coverage in areas of the world other than the US… at least that’s how I interpret Bob’s analysis. Bob’s posts didn’t recieve much attention here, but I suppose that’s understandable given Anthony’s focus on the US stations.
Ooohh, not good Adam. How come Bob’s global trend for gisstemp is higher than the UAH trend. someone fudging the data?
Adam (20:10:38) :
If the US surface station network suffers from so many UHI and siting deficiencies that result in a false warming trend, then why does the UAH satellite data, which should be more representative, have a higher trend than GISS for the US and surrounding regions?
Artificial adjustments like GISS’s will deviate from reality over time, even to the point of not taking advantage of temporary “favorable” (pro-warming) trends in the actual temperature. You have to take the bad with the good to avoid being overtly biased. Just keep your eyes on the prize, so to speak.
If you compare the raw data charts with homogenized temperature charts for many stations, you’ll find the number of sites with pro-warming (overall slope increased) GISS adjustments feels about the same as the number of sites adjusted to show less warming. There’s no obvious finagling. Not until you see the average adjustment for the whole system does the warming bias appear. It’s subtle, but it’s there.