Readers may recall my investigation over the weekend of an announcement by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) about a new all-time high temperature record set in Greenland that was subsequently picked up by the Capital Weather Gang at the Washington Post.
How not to measure temperature – Part 94 – Maniitsoq, Greenland all time high temperature rescinded?
Over the weekend, I had advised Jason Samenow of the WaPoCWG that he should probably issue some sort of retraction. Not getting any response to my initial email and tweet, I followed up with additional tweet yesterday and today. I’m happy to say that he responded with an update on the original article, and to his credit has written a new article on the subject:
Update, August 12, 12:15 p.m.: This record may not be legitimate and is under review. See related post: Greenland may not have recorded its highest summer temperature
What I find most interesting is this communication from DMI to Samenow:
[Samenow] “…according to a response from John Cappelen, data management specialist and senior climatologist.
Here’s Cappelen’s response, in full:”
Dear Jason,
The reading was valid….but the temperature sensor at the airport station Maniitsoq is not placed according to the WMO [World Meteorological Organization] standards…
It is generally very hard to follow the WMO standards in all details in arctic areas, but this sensor is placed so influence from the surroundings can have affected the reading in a way, so the reading maybe will have to be rejected.
Quality control procedures is ongoing like all ways, where we among other procedures used station data from another station in the area and look into the weather situation in more details.
Whether or not the temperature reading will be rejected and for that reason not included in the extreme records will be announced later.
Best regards,
John
So, the event is still under review.
The takeaway here is:
- They think station siting is an issue here
- Station siting quality seems to be a common problem in the Arctic
- The Maniitsoq station is not WMO compliant and thus likely not suitable for climate monitoring, but fine for aviation monitoring as I pointed out.
The other takeaway is that when there is a rush to judgement (and announcement) of significant new temperature records, the devil is always in the details, and reporting of such events should have appropriate caveats in place.
I don’t blame Samenow for this, he was reporting what DMI said, and one could generally assume their reporting can be taken as solid. But, as we see, that may not be the case.
In the current mindset of warmer world, it is easy to brush aside such concerns, only to find later they come back as legitimate concerns that may make the report a non-event.
It should be noted that any new temperature record is subject to review, all-time high ones, even more so. A rush to trumpet a new temperature record before it is certified doesn’t help the credibility of climate science.
Related articles
- Greenland may not have reached highest recorded summer temperature in late July (washingtonpost.com)
- Greenland soars to its highest temperature ever recorded, almost 80 degrees F. (washingtonpost.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would anything even close to a retraction have been forthcoming without your numerous tweets and emails?
Once again, your efforts pay off, and are sincerely appreciated out here in the blogosphere.
THANKS!
So is it “hard to comply with WMO siting standards in the Arctic” because, a) the Arctic region has been paved over with parking lots and tarmac, or b) it is too dang cold to site the station any farther away from offices and civilization to be practical?
I live in a the DC area and am a regular follower of Capital Weather Gang, the weather/climate blog of the Washington Post. I’d like to applaud both Mr. Watts and Mr. Samenow for handling the reporting of such a sticky issue as a possible new temperature record with professionalism and courtesy. While it would be nice if unverified records weren’t immediately trumpeted in the press, I’ve liked how wattsupwiththat and CWG have been able to respectfully report on each other without recourse to name calling or disparagement of the others’ views.
Perhaps NOAA might now like to revisit some of their record temperature claims.
Out of 163 claimed all-time records last year, only 14 are at stations operational since 1930, and 3 of these are airport sites.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/us-all-time-temperature-recordsanother-con-trick/
Anthony, you found a bad high temperature record a few years ago in Hawaii but were told it would stand at least the Danes are looking into this.
@mkelly yes that investigation is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/noaa-fubar-high-tempclimate-records-from-faulty-sensor-to-remain-in-place-at-honolulu/
Anthony, it seems that “HotWhopper” reproduced (hijacked) parts of your blog …
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/anthony-watts-visits-greenland-and.html?spref=tw
REPLY: Meh, just another one of my blog children that takes potshots from the comfort of anonymity. Her whole mission is denigration. Not worth worrying about. – Anthony
I did not think “Climate Science” had any credibility left!
The most fundamental facts of the global warming issue are surface temperature data.
These data are known to have quality control problems. See
http://www.surfacestations.org/
In science, if the data are suspect, they must be rejected, not “homogenized” or “adjusted”
There are some surface station data that have been maintained with scientific integrity.
Examine these stations, as some have done, and plot the data.
For example, the four Antarctic science staions, Amunsend-Scott, Halley, Davis and Vostok.
All four show zero warming since the first full year of data, 1958
Conclusion, Antarctica is not warming, therefore the global warming claims are rejected.
Of course, this also brings into question every other temperature recorded at that same station – e.g., the entire Greenland record from that site. Are they also looking into that? Why do I suspect the answer is “no.” And that it will stay “no” unless Anthony or others start peppering them with emails about the issue? And don’t those temperatures wind up going into at least one or more of the official global temperature data sets?
I wish I could go back in time and hand Leif Ericson a thermometer and have him send me its readings for the summer of AD 1000 when he lived in Greenland. It would be nice to have some relevant temperature readings to beat in this modern day.
As a Dane it saddens me to see that such otherwise stalwart institutions as DMI has also been smitten with the CAGW virus. I do hope that they will come out with a statement shortly that takes full account of the circumstances and retracts the “temperature record” as would seem to be the correct course of action in the circumstances.
Anthony,
You see what you’ve done. Now all these criminals in the AGW clan gotta hurry around and get their shit straight. Ain’t that somthin.
Seriously, because of you Anthony, the big scam is off. You are responsible for untold positive influences in this whole charade.
REPLY: For the record, never attribute to malice, what can be explained by simple incompetence. – Anthony
Just to add to my comment above, I offer the addendum…
….or c) they are afraid to site the weather station any farther off the pavement because of the fear of polar bears?
REPLY: that is actually a documented issue at weather stations on the DEW Line, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/fabricating-temperatures-on-the-dew-line/
– Anthony
I’m sorry Anthony, but I must respectfully disagree with this statement- a real journalist would have checked the facts before going into print. It’s this type of churnalism that has caused the cAGW bandwagon to run and run.
test post
Anthony, caught them again! Using the link to the WaPo climate clowns, brought me to one of their trackers. A 90 degree day tracker for Washington, D.C., currently they are looking at 22 days this year. Average is 36, with today being the only chance through 22 Aug for a 90 degree day, this might get added to your list of a ‘year of living dangerously’ claims.
Thanks for the hard work and keeping the alarmist straight!
Brian a skeptical engineer
Resourceguy,
Having worked up at Eureka in 79/80…it was alway a concern…and the weather screen wasn’t all that far from the building. However, once a day we had to hike up the hill to clean off the radiation sensor’s they had up there. If a bear came by at that time…you were done…so as a “try” you called the station dogs with you, but they got smart after a while and wouldn’t go, they stayed in their warm kennels…thankfully, no bears visited us while i was stationed there…
Ok, couldn’t avoid noting the comments from the cheerleaders either … (Pom-pom warning!)
This “blogger” doesn’t seem to have any major problems with UHI, which in this case can be described as AHI (Airport Heat Island).
[Snip. Multiple violations of site Policy. But just so you know, your link was already posted above. The rest of your comment was nothing but a juvenile name-calling rant. Feel free to post again, if/when you have some verifiable facts to share. ~mod.]
I don’t know Samenow and or the Washington Post but his seems to be good journalistic practise.
A mistake was made by a journalist who attributed more authority to the DMI than was warranted in this case. When he was informed there was a question mark over the information that had relayed he went back to the a source to check.
Then he relayed the correction and the question mark.
In fact, I am even willing to suggest that the original message was ignored for the simple reason that it was the weekend. He or she may have been busy.
You don’t get this concern for accuracy from the environment desk of the Guardian.
“REPLY: For the record, never attribute to malice, what can be explained by simple incompetence. – Anthony”
Never attribute to incompetence what is a well documented trilateral collusion.
Phd thesis Javob Nordangard pol sci, history of the CO2AGW scare
and biofuels
GLOBE, founded 1989 , trilateral bunch of all party parlamentarians,
SHARES headquarters with The Fabian Society; same building
some highlights:
TRIGGERING EVENTS for pol initiatives were always oil price hikes;
CO2AGW was used as the argument to sell it to the public
GLOBE is supported by Unilever et al
only 4 % of Friend Of The Earth’s money comes from members
96% come from EU commission
Björn Stigson, boss of Unilever: NGO’s must become part of the cast
(NGO’s all got paid off to help)
Well, to some extent, good for DMI and good for Samenow. And, with certainty, good for Anthony. I’d like it, personally, if journalists include the word “meteorologist” when writing about Anthony. It’s an important fact about him that shouldn’t be skipped. “Blogger” doesn’t quite cover it.
“bw says:
“August 12, 2013 at 11:08 am
“The most fundamental facts of the global warming issue are surface temperature data.”
and
“In science, if the data are suspect, they must be rejected, not `homogenized’ or `adjusted’ ”
– – – – –
That says it all. Good show, bw.
Ready…. shoot. aim!
“REPLY: For the record, never attribute to malice, what can be explained by simple incompetence. – Anthony”
And eagerness to report a new record. Seems to have been handled professionally on both sides. Perhaps they will be a bit more reluctant to rush out with a new record report.