A new story by Jonathan Leake in the Sunday Times puts the spotlight on surface temperature data.
Above: Rome’s airport weather station. Here is the interactive view
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
….
I and the surfacestations project get a mention also.
Read the remainder in the Sunday Times
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“These add up to a large warming bias”
Looking at that image, I have absolutely no idea how anyone could come up with that conclusion.
LOL
To paraphase a movie: ‘Let’s approach this from a perspective of status. What have we got left in the IPCC that is good?’
They always said that air travel contributed to global warming. I don’t think they meant what this picture shows, however.
CO2: as a business model…..
1) hype it’s dangers.
2) prey upon guilt.
3) hype some more.
4) create a market.
5) sell new technology to counteract it.
(repeat steps 3,4 and 5 as needed.)
6) get out before the bubble bursts.
7) if you’re still reading, go back to #1.
Just what did they build that thing out of to stand up to the jet wash?
I bet if we were to look at adjustments made to the station data we will find that it has still been adjusted up LMAO.
Ah, the aesthetic panaorama of a Stevenson Screen on a freshly-mowed tarmac. The very picture of Spring itself.
The article even made it into the newspaper in lil’ ol’ Christchurch, NZ – once a bastion of the concensus view.
The question then is this: did the principals in the temperature data collection business know this was possible if not likely and did they refrain from investigating it because it could possibly spoil the AGW narrative?
Does anyone know the report that Vicki Page mentions?
Ahem. The Climate Reference Network Rating Guide doesn’t mention anything about jet blast from two 50,000 horsepower turbofans at any distance. So I suppose they put it in class 1.
I don’t care for the title they give. Neither Christy nor McKitrick believe the world hasn’t warmed at all, but it is a perfect straw man for Trenberth to strike down, as he does, in the article.
Then again, “warming exaggerated” while more accurate, doesn’t grab attention.
We now know the origin of the “hockey stick”, the upper part anyway.
Is any of the $2-3 billion Obama has budgeted for climate the last two years going towards new data stations?
A mention and a link to the D’Aleo and Watts report.
Interesting developments in the UK MSM.
How far could the heat of a jet engine reach? Have a look:
Another look (21 seconds long)
On the third hand… the truth is the truth, even if it inspires ennui.
Note how they still tend toward AGW at the end of the article. We corrected for the abnormalities of the station data. Nice try!
That’s an obviously doctored photo! Most jets emit streams of little brown arrows, not yellow ones like in that photo.
Kidding aside, the heat effect from the concrete is most likely more important than the jet blast, since the weather station appears to be adjacent to aircraft parking area rather than the end of a runway or a taxiway.
Concrete and roadways may not look as impressive as a nearby aircraft, but the effect of concrete is probably bigger when measured with the relatively slow time constant of most temperature measurement systems.
rob m (19:17:36) :
Is any of the $2-3 billion Obama has budgeted for climate the last two years going towards new data stations?
I thought the funding had already been appropriated well before the election. There’s a thread here about it here….somewhere. I can’t seem to find it.
That aircraft ‘outgassing’ to the Stevenson screen in the photograph is parked there. Note the cockpit access staircase. The runway is to the right.
I note that according to the news , Anthony’s report on surface stations has not been peer reviewed. I guess it may not really exist then 😉
more from the media
This in bold print on headline at Drudge:
THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT!
http://drudgereport.com/
The picture is a TOTAL LIE.
Click on the link yourself and take a real look.
Someone did some really nice photoshop work.
You guys just make me sick.
Might as well lie and get a big headline, cause nobody will go check the facts.
BAH
REPLY: No lie, the jet is really there. That’s really the climate station of record. How much jet wash does it get? Nobody knows for sure. But the point is we shouldn’t even have to argue about it. – A
Well now. Phil Jones has told us now that the current warming is similar to the 1880 and 1940 events. BUT, now we are told (as we have all known for some time) that the current data has a warming bias. Does that mean the 1880 and 1940 events were characterised by FASTER warming than we have recently experienced? Was the MWP in fact MUCH warmer than current? Seriously we must STOP spending billions on this, and get back to basics. Oh, how I wish it could happen…