I was surprised to learn today, that one of the most prominent newspapers in the USA, the Orange County Register in the Los Angeles area, carried an editorial of which my work was the subject. It is quite a turnaround from the brush off I got last year by their Science Dude blogger who wrote a story on the warming of Santa Ana, CA.
By the way here is what the official NOAA weather station for Santa Ana looks like, note the a/c heat exchanger exhausts:
Santa Ana Station looking North. Click for a larger image
The editorial about my work was published in the OC Register on Monday, June 1st. I’ve reposted it below.
Editorial: Cooling down with global-warming data
U.S. and world temperature records are compromised by monitoring station errors.
If fighting global warming may cost the economy $9.6 trillion and more than 1 million lost jobs by 2035, as the Heritage Foundation forecasts, it’d be a good idea to be sure there’s a sound basis before making such a massive sacrifice.
We’ve noted before that climate change is occurring as it always has, but the claim that man-made greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic temperature increases is based on questionable science and projections. Man’s contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule. There are some theories but no convincing proof that increased emissions cause increased temperature.
Now another serious doubt has been raised concerning how much of the 1-degree centigrade increase over the past century allegedly caused by escalating emissions has even occurred.
“We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data,” said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado.
The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings were alarming.
They found 89 percent of stations “fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements” that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
“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,” Mr. Watts reported.
Many stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.
At one location, Mr. Watts said when he “stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone . . . and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry.”
These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Mr. Watts said. Moreover, the research revealed “major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors.”
These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, “The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”
Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right.
[snip way off topic, wrong thread, we are talking about weather stations]
If it were not for the dedicated few like yourself, who work tirelessly for truth and science, we would fail to know how biased the AGW “concensus” is. Lay people like myself gratefully read your posts and try to educate ourselves, often muddling through data as best we can. I thank you for your service to the betterment of humanity whose future lies with a peer reviewed advancement of science and not a regressive manipulation for a political end.
Kenneth Slade
Several months ago when I was looking ahead to the new year, I concluded this might be the year that new media begins to turn around and start looking at both sides of the story.
I based that on the media discovering the true cost of CO2 “mitigation” schemes, continuing anecdotal cold weather events (some with semi-decent empirical backup), and more information supporting the other side, especially the SurfaceStations project in the US.
So far things are working out pretty well and maybe just in time. I spent a little time reading that Climate Progress thread and was blown away at the vitriol direct toward Anthony and the WUWT posters. Clearly they see Anthony as an important source and conduit for expanding our side of the story.
And in that, I fully agree with them. I wonder what CP thinks of an editorial in a major newspaper in the “greenest” state with the largest economy in the nation that refers to arch enemy #1. How can they possibly ratchet up their vitriol another notch?
I wonder if we can get Jon Stewart to take notice?
69% of all the Surface Stations surveyed are out of tolerance by ≥2°C: click [CRN=4 + CRN=5].
That calls into serious question any data based on the Surface Station network. There has undoubtedly been some natural warming [due to the planet’s emerging from the LIA], but reliance should be placed only on satellite data, not on Surface Stations, which Anthony has shown are unreliable and skewed to the high side by 2° – 5°+.
Maybe one of you could leave a comment to the original publication leaving the WUWT link and the link to the original PDF.
(And thank them for this very rare unbiased publication)
I tried to leave a comment but it did not work.
Probably because I am logging in from outside the USA.
Tallbloke, it helps people to understand why I may be a bit reactionary. Many, such as RFK Jr. and David Suzuki have called for the deniers to be imprisoned. This is a very slippery slope for anyone in a supposedly free society to be talking about. Do these people even realize what that represents? To be imprisoned for your ideals? I like to believe in the goodness of human nature, but given the ability to abuse power in a system like socialism, is fraught with danger. A couple of generations pass and everyone has forgotten the horrors of a world war. Humans seem incapable of learning and are doomed to repeat history. It is this what will be the ruination of a once great and free nation? We are being led into the forest by those who claim to want to protect us.
Excellent notice of your outstanding (not to mention tedious and frustrating) project! Many thanks to you and your extensive crew of volunteers. I can only hope that some of the California congressional representatives might read it and at least listen; perhaps hesitate in their race towards forcing overreaching regulations on our crippled economy. Thanks again, Anthony.
regards, Andy
Great work , Anthony et al. You have amazing tenacity and seemingly boundless energy !! Is it possible that Hansen and Schmidt and the rest of them are kicking themselves for having made such grandiose predictions based on such faulty data? ” Dang, we should have looked closer at the data source!!!” Methinks they have traveled too far down that road to get back home. Anecdotal moment: woke up to snow on the ground, but that is not alarming, as it is Calgary, after all. Well within natural variance.
Another crack in the facade. Congratulations Mr. Watts. A good, intrepid soul. In the OCR comments section I followed a link to a GISS article about Hansen’s methodology for global temperature tracking:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature.php
Embedded in this article are the roots of Hansen’s global warming theory. The first of which is his training as an astronomer with a fundamental interest in the atmosphere of Venus. The obvious source of his conviction that CO2 is evil. Strangely, he acknowledges terrestrial meteorology e.g. Rossby waves at high and mid latitudes; but refuses to see the potential for error in scaling local meteorological data to obtain global mean assumptions. The article describes his weighting of station data as follows:
They gave greatest “weight” to the station closest to that point; for all other stations within that radius, they let the weighting fall off linearly with distance, all the way to a weighting of zero for stations 1,200 kilometers away or farther. “Again, our objective was not to determine the precise temperature of individual stations, but to produce a global-scale map of temperature change,” Hansen emphasized. “
Clearly, if 80+ percent of the weather station data is inaccurate as the Watts study demonstrates, this weighting process does nothing more than average those inaccuracies. Additionally his method of “cleaning” anomalous station data assumes that the vast majority of nearby stations are sited in compliance with the National Weather Service standards. But they are not, as the Watts survey evidences.
One might think that an astronomer would rely on more non-local data (i.e. satellite) to estimate a planet’s average temperature. Instead, Hansen attempts to use data from an entirely different discipline, one he has no training in, as the source of his studies. The problem with Hansen and GISS interpretations of global temperature, is this subterranean training in planetary physics. Earth’s atmosphere and the physics of our climate, is vastly more complex than that of Venus. His subliminal assumption that thermal runaway on Venus is the model for runaway on Earth, informs his every pronouncement. His belief that the man-made 3% of our atmosphere’s .0385 percent trace CO2, is the cause of uncontrolled thermal runaway, makes him the perfect instrument of alarm.
But should we allow a planetary scientist and his global warming theory rule our economic future? When daily good, prominent scientists announce their disassociation with AGW? It seems far, far fetched at best.
Adam Gallon (01:51:00) :
“I know not what size the “OCR” is, but I’d guess it’s a local/regional paper, unlikely to be staple reading at the breakfast tables of Washington or New York.”
Here is a profile of the holding company that publishes the OCR. It is likely that the idea presented in the editorial will get more print and air time.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/about_us/
Freedom Communications, Inc., headquartered in Irvine, Calif., is a national privately owned information and entertainment company of print publications, broadcast television stations and interactive businesses. In addition to the television group, the company’s portfolio includes 33 daily and 77 weekly newspapers, including The Orange County Register, magazines and other specialty publications, plus news, information and entertainment websites to complement its print and broadcast properties. Freedom’s newspaper publications have a combined circulation of more than one million subscribers. The broadcast stations – five CBS, two ABC network affiliates and one CW affiliate – reach more than 3 million households across the country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pierre Gosselin (01:38:38) :
“…U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,”
Maybe not. Interesting comment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANTHONY
1. “ . . . it is a seasonal data adjustment to account for meltwater. . .”
Great patience, Anthony. Still, classroom teachers sometimes have to answer the same question two or three times in a 50 minute period.
2. The OCR piece is a great start. I hope it “snowballs” or whatever analogy is in this week. Your Stevenson Screen Paint Experiment project certainly grew to fill an important empty space in this global warming debate. For those who haven’t read the material under “Projects” on the WUWT site surely should.
3. They say good work is its own reward but I’ll continue to click on two or three ads on each site visit just to juice the reward a tiny bit. Some of the darn things are actually interesting.
Via the Australian Greenie Watch web site http://antigreen.blogspot.com/:
More repositioning
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml
“…or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming. “
From the abstract, it appears important that these cooling periods were found in the computer simulations, confirming the real world data!
Jim Papsdorf (05:27:43)
Actually these are not weather stations in the sense of making observations. They use the data fed in from around the country to help mitigate weather delays or reroutes. Whether they really need to be at the Centers (and your talking about operations that cover large areas anyway) is arguable. They’ve already centralized or automated a number of other operations such as Flight Service for General Aviation pilots (AFSS) and actual weather observations at airports (ASOS).
Another editorial. Today, an opinion in the Wall Street Journal discusses the Kofi Annan report that was previously discussed on WUWT: U.N.’s ‘Global Warming=300,000 Deaths a Year’ Report – Kofi Annan implies: “close enough for government work”
From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424567009790525.html
‘Worse Than Fiction’
… Our only question is, if the case for global warming is so open and shut, why the need for a report as disingenuous as Mr. Annan’s? …
Looking good at the Register.
Our local paper (San Gabriel Valley Tribune, circulation ca. 40,000) treats us every Saturday to a full page of green propaganda under the title of ‘Earthbeat.” (www.myearthbeat.com) This material is shared by several S. Calif. papers. I’m not sure if the editors are true believers, or if they are just picking up copy off the current MSM. We need some savvy media type who could create and syndicate something similar that could be picked up by papers across the country, and contain more than alarmist hype. The weekly content of WUWT shows clearly that the material is there.
This is really excellent Anthony! Your many years of untiring work is paying off. I do hope that this rapidly develops into a media landslide of correct understanding.
Thank you for a truly excellent blog. Much of the indepth science is above the head of this old and weary person. But WUWT is really thought-provoking, and tops my schedule of daily Web visits.
Geoff Alder
A good accomplishment, but I wouldn’t pop too many corks. When any program has big $$$ attached, it is very hard to alter it’s course. On the other hand, $600 billion used to be a lot of money. Now we spend that at the drop of a hat. Perhaps we have become immune to big numbers. We can wreck the economy without a climate bill.
To update an old saying:
“A billion dollars? That’s nothing. A couple trillion here and there, now you’re talking real money.”
It’s not just climate change… I came to the realization of the meaning of taking state bailout money and got mad, then very depressed. Barry O is a much smarter man than I thought.
http://animal-farm.us/change/we-are-all-socialists-now-446
I can’t seem to find the Santa Ana station @ur momisugly surfacestations.org
REPLY: Its is not USHCN, it is a COOP- A, still used for climate, but not part of the USHCN subset of COOP stations. – Anthony
OT but thought it might be of interest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/may/29/himalayas-glaciers-everest-changing-landscapes?picture=348304432
Following the UK Met Offices prediction of a ‘barbeque summer’ the Daily Telegraph reported today that snow fell in Cumbria and the north Pennines yesterday. This is the first time snow has fallen in England in June for more than 30 years! I live in north east England where the temprature was 24C on Monday and had fallen to 8C by yesterday.
Congratulations Anthony, now if a mainstream meida outlet would just pick this up…think positive thoughts…..
The Cap and Tax bill as Waxman-Markey really is, has a stated an endgame of reducing GHG’s. From a business perspective, think about the associated “revenue” stream (don’t you just love government financial talk, when they use financial terms but don’t run it as a going concern?) If “we” achieve the stated goals of GHG reduction, what happens to that revenue stream? This is not about carbon – it’s about money, a fear of capping and reducing federal expenditures.
Smokey:
“69% of all the Surface Stations surveyed are out of tolerance by ≥2°C: click [CRN=4 + CRN=5]. ”
I wonder how many are actually used to figure global temps?
For example, I looked for the Santa Ana Station from the start of the post in the list of GISS stations here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt
but don’t see a Santa Ana station (maybe it’s there but with a different name).
What a pleasant way to start the day — a glass of orange juice, a humongous stack of fresh hot french toast (a growing boy’s gotta eat!), and that piece in the OC Register (oh well, I guess newspapers do have their uses now and again, besides lining for bird cages and dog training aids).
Now all that’s left is for Anthony to testify before Congress. Don’t want to be standing in front of that fan when they learn they’ve been spending many hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades for shoddy data which is being used to promote spending trillions of dollars on a non-problem. Would just love to hear Dr. Hansen tap dance around one of Anthony’s blink comparators showing the differences between “raw” and “homogenized” data. Even those people in Congress can smell what’s being shoveled at them when big bucks are involved.
Is it this one, Anthony?
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KSNA.html
I wonder if these are the few stations that are in compliance ?????
On the one hand, seven out of eight CRN1 stations are located in airports. The CRN average in Airports is 1.2 point lower (i.e., better) than non- AP USHCN stations.
On the other hand, airports, themselves, are lousy locations for stations (except for direct AP use) as they have been greatly expanded (and encroached on) over the last few decades, and even have their own mini-UHI bubbles. (There is also the issue of HO-83 sensor error, which tends to exaggerate Tmax.)
When stations they were initially moved to airports, NOAA applied a large upward adjustment, because in those days, APs were cooler. But from then until now, APs stations have, on average, warmed much faster than non-AP stations, the difference being spurious, artificial. But no adjustment for that!