The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) has responded to the excellent report
Watts, A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? 28 pages, March 2009 The Heartland Institute [hard copies available from The Heartland Institute 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago Illinois 60603]
which I weblogged on at “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” By Anthony Watts.
The NCDC “Talking Points” released on June 9, 2009 are available at
Talking Points related to: Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?
Unfortunately, the author of the NCDC Talking Points cavalierly and poorly responded to Anthony Watts report. They did not even have the courtesy to cite the report! {UPDATE 7/3/09: They have now cited Anthony’s report, but retained the original date of the Talking Points of June 9 2009).
Below, I comment on their response.
NCDC Talking Point #1
Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. The National Weather Service has station siting criteria, but they were not always followed. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network, with excellent siting and redundant sensors. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/uscrn/. Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network, though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest. Managers of both of these networks work diligently to put their stations in locations not only with excellent current siting, but also where the site characteristics are unlikely to change very much over the coming decades.
Climate Science Response
Their answer confirms what Anthony Watts and colleagues have carefully documented. An obvious question is why did not NCDC elevate this as a priority sooner? Moreover, if the current sites can be “adjusted” to be regionally representative, why does NOAA even need the new Climate Reference Network? The answer to that is that they have recognized for years that there is a problem with the siting of the surface stations, but deliberately attempted to bury this issue until Anthony Watts and colleagues confronted NCDC with the issue.
NCDC Talking Point #2
Q. How has the poor siting biased local temperatures trends?
A. At the present time (June 2009), to the best of our knowledge, there has only been one published peer-reviewed study that specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station siting: Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. Written by a NOAA National Climatic Data Center scientist, it examined only a small subset of stations – all that had their siting checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends. The linear trend in adjusted temperature series over the period examined was nearly identical between the stations with good siting and the stations with poor siting, with the stations having poor siting showing slightly less warming. The following questions address implications from that paper.
Climate Science Response
This is blatantly untrue and the author of these talking points know that. Tom Peterson, for example, was even a reviewer of the Pielke 2007a and 2007b papers, and was aware of the Pielke et al 2002 paper.
Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, L. Schell, W. Parton, N. Doesken, K. Redmond, J. Moeny, T. McKee, and T.G.F. Kittel, 2002: Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: An example from eastern Colorado, USA. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 421-434.
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007b: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
In the second paper, we wrote
“Peterson’s approach and conclusions, therefore, provide a false sense of confidence with these data for temperature change studies by seeming to indicate that the errors can be corrected.”
The decision of the NCDC Talking Points to ignore these papers illustrates the state that NCDC is in with respect to Climate Science. NCDC, as led by Tom Karl, is not interested in an inclusive assessment of climate science issues (in this case the multi-decadal surface temperature trends), but are only interested in promoting their particular agenda and in protecting their particular data set.
NCDC Talking Point #3
Q. Does a station with poor siting read warmer than a station with good siting?
Not necessarily. A station too close to a parking lot would be expected to read warmer than a station situated over grass far from any human influence other natural obstructions. But a station too close to a large tree to the west, so that the station was shaded in the afternoon, would be expected to make the afternoon maximum temperature read a bit cooler than a station in full sunlight. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature – whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass – but how that temperature changes over time.
Climate Science Response
The answer correctly reports on the variety of issues that affect surface temperatures. However, where we disagree is that the multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies also depend on the details of the observing sites and how these details change over time.
This can be illustrated from our 2007 BAMS paper, where the set of relatively closely spaced stations shown in Figure 10 (reproduced belw) have significantly different long term trends, as summarized in Table 5 (reproduced below) from that paper. Despite being relatively close together, the variations in both the local enviroment and the station exposure result in distinctly different trends [Using the categories in the Watts, 2009 report, the stations had the following Trinidad (3); Cheyenne Wells (1); Las Animas (5); Eads (4) and Lamar (4)]. 
Even sites that are locally in a category 1 class, such as Cheyenne Wells, however, also have issues with the landscape in their local surroundings, as we documented for locations in northeastern Colorado in Figures 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of
Hanamean, J.R. Jr., R.A. Pielke Sr., C.L. Castro, D.S. Ojima, B.C. Reed, and Z. Gao, 2003: Vegetation impacts on maximum and minimum temperatures in northeast Colorado. Meteorological Applications, 10, 203-215.
Depending on wind direction, the air that reaches the observing site can have a different temperature. Changes in the wind directions over time can result in temperature trends that are due to this effect alone.
This local landscape variation as a function of azimith can be seen in the photographs for the Cheyenne Wells site in
Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations – implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504,
where depending on the wind direction and time of year, the air that the temperature sensor monitors may transit a dirt road, crops, or other land surface varations, each with a different surface heat budget., before reaching the temperature observing site.
The NCDC Talking Points ignore informing us why all of these local landscape effects on multi-decadal surface temperature trends would be random and average out.
NCDC Talking Point #4
Q. So a station moving from a location with good siting to a location with poor siting could cause a bias in the temperature record. Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?
A. A great dealof work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s NationalClimatic Data Center are at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and siting. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard siting. At the time that paper was written, station site evaluations were too incomplete to conduct a thorough investigation (that analysis is forthcoming). However, they could evaluate urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the 30% most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations.
Climate Science Response
The failure of NCDC to correct for all of the recognized biases has been documented in
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229;
a paper NCDC has chosen to ignore [another surface temperature analysis group has been open to scientific debate, however; see].
NCDC has also ignored
Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652,
where we document a bias in the use of a single level surface temperature (the minimum temperature, in particular) to monitor multi-decadal surface temperature trends.
The NCDC talking points also mention the Menne et al (2009) paper, which, unfortunately, perpetuates the NCDC failure to adequately consider all of the biases and uncertainties in the surface temperature record. The Menne et al paper was weblogged in
Finally, we have several other papers in the review process, and look forward to communicating them to you when accepted for publication.
NCDC Talking Point #5
Q. What can we say about poor siting’s impact on national temperature trends?
A. We are limited in what we can say due to limited information about station siting. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown.
However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.
Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yetthe two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.
Climate Science Response
This is a cavalier response. In order to show that there is little effect on surface temperature anomalies due to station siting, they need to assess the anomalies over time in the same region for each category of station siting. A national average which includes includes large regional variations (e.g. see Figure 20a in Pielke et al 2007a ) tells us little about the quality of the data.
Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier
in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.
Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.
Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. It is available from http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf.
Climate Science Response
Their claim that temperatures have been “rising rapidly” over the past 50 years is based on the surface temperature record in which there are reported warm biases; e.g. see
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
NCDC also is misinformed with respect to the other climate metrics. For example, they write
“Plants are blooming earlier in the spring.”
However, a new paper in press (see)
White, M.A., K.M. de Beurs, K. Didan, D.W. Inouye, A.D. Richardson, O.P. Jensen, J. O’Keefe, G. Zhang, R.R. Nemani, W.J.D. van Leeuwen, J.F. Brown, A. de Wit, M. Schaepman, X. Lin, M. Dettinger, A. Bailey, J. Kimball, M.D. Schwartz, D.D. Baldocchi, J.T. Lee, W.K. Lauenroth. Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982 to 2006. Global Change Biology (in press),
writes
“Trend estimates from the SOS [Start of Spring] methods as well as measured and modeled plant phenologystrongly suggest either no or very geographically limited trends towards earlier spring arrival, although we caution that, for an event such as SOS with high interannual variability, a 25-year SOS record is short for detecting robust trends.”
IN CONCLUSION
NCDC would be a much more valuable resource in the climate community if they worked to be inclusive in presenting all peer reviewed perspectives in climate science. Currently, they are only reporting on information that supports their agenda and not communicating real world observational data that conflicts with that agenda. The fault for this failure in leadership is with Tom Karl who is Director of NCDC.
Robert van der Veeke (12:17:41) :
Completely OT: An advertisement for the Scientology Church?
That’s why I call them “climate scientologists”.
Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. The National Weather Service has station siting criteria, but they were not always followed. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network, with excellent siting and redundant sensors. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change.
I think the last sentence says it all. NOAA/NCDC now assumes “climate change” is happening (and human-caused by implication), and will henceforth design all their measuring and computational systems to make it so. I’m not a scientist, but even I have a built-in BS sensor.
[snip – full of ad homs and inflammatory language. While NCDC, like any government entity has its troubles, the language you used is neither fair nor factual – Anthony]
Bill: To claim the records are all useless one should have the facts to prove it?
Is that what Anthony’s report is claiming — that they are all useless? Really? Perhaps, just perhaps, he is claiming that the temperature record cannot be relied upon for forming absolute conclusions about the temperature record. And perhaps, it follows logically, that is would not be very good public policy (this data mishmash would never survive the scrutiny standards in other sciences) to make major and potentially economically devastating political decisions based on such questionable input.
And yes, John F. Hultquist’s statement about the actual topic of this entry is correct. It is about the state of Climate Science professionalism — or what passes as professionalism — and science — today.
bill (17:55:20) :
I was commenting on your example of a station being located in a “frost hollow” and not regarding altitude. If you have any questions about altitude, you should contact the NCDC.
Of course as you know, there is a solution to the issue of using a consistent altitude throughout the network. Satellites have been used since 1979 and here is what they can report regarding lower troposphere temperatures-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
Jack Hughes “There is danger in painting NCDC into a corner…”
Jack, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The AGW crowd is in a state of mild and growing panic. Hit them now with every fact available, drive them from their positions, replace them as the climate cognoscenti. Steal their politicians from them and ultimately achieve the budget you want to do real science. This is a time for action, not discussion. Is there science that disproves the AGW position, or is there not? If there is such science, storm the ramparts and put an end to this nonsense.
jae (20:44:58) :
Uhhh, moderator? Where art thou?
[REPLY – Anthony has attended to it. See? We even defend NOAA sometimes. Compared with other blogs we have a fairly light finger on the snip trigger. (But sometimes, snip we must.) ~ Evan]
bill (15:10:56) You obviously haven’t looked at how the surface station temps are adjusted. Hansen likes to raise the modern UHI temps and lower the past, less urbanized readings. See: http://i42.tinypic.com/vpx303.jpg
Also, there were just too many of those pesky temperature stations, especially since their readings can be inferred by super-dooper computing. See: http://i44.tinypic.com/23vjjug.jpg
Thanks Anthony. I agreed with some (not all) of that poster’s points, but it was a little over the top. Maybe you (jae) could tone it down some and try again?
bill (20:11:34) :
About that very pretty thermograph, yes I would expect the MMTS enclosure to read cooler. I would expect that the heating of the enclosure due to IR radiating from the wall to be slight. The issue here is the effect of the air in the microclimate. Surface air heats by contact with surfaces initially heated by solar radiation. The wall must heat the air in contact with it if that air is at a lower temperature.
How would that air get into the MMTS enclosure? The simple answer is wake turbulence. Heated air around a structure can be mixed into surrounding air within the turbulent zone around the structure created by the wind. I have had first hand experience of wake turbulence when landing light aircraft near farm buildings on bush strips, even with low cross winds. The basic message is that the sensor shown in the pretty thermograph cannot be rated CRN-1.
@ur momisugly bill (20:11:34) :
I am assuming that you are referring to Figures 7 thru 14 on pages 9 and 10 of Anthony’s report. First, Figures 9 and 10 show a transformer that a disinterested observer would probably agree was UNDER the MMTS sensor for all practical purposes. Would you grant that? Second, Figures 13 and 14 show a concrete sidewalk about 50cm away from the base of what I am assuming is a 2m tall MMTS sensor. Again, a disinterested observer would probably agree that the concrete sidewalk was UNDER the MMTS sensor for all practical purposes. Would you grant that also?
Third, Figures 11 and 12 show what I am assuming to be a 2m tall MMTS sensor between a concrete path and a concrete wall. Again, the concrete path looks to be about 50cm away from the base of the MMTS sensor. Would you grant that the path and the wall would show similar temperatures on your infrared camera and that a disinterested observer would also agree that, for all practical purposes, the concrete path was UNDER the MMTS sensor?
Fourth, Figures 7 and 8 show what I am assuming is a 2m tall MMTS sensor in front of a concrete wall. I am assuming this is the photograph with which you have taken the most issue, since the concrete pathway appears to be more than 50cm away from the base of the MMTS sensor. However, if you look at Figure 7, the hood of a car can be seen what appears to be about 50cm away from the sensor. Would you grant, then, that the MMTS sensor in Figures 7 and 8 appears to be close enough to a parking lot that a disinterested observer would agree that the parking lot (and the cars thereon parked in the vicinity of the sensor) appears to be UNDER the MMTS sensor, for all practical purposes?
REPLY: This whole argument over magnitude of effects wouldn’t be happening if the sensors were correctly sited in the first place. We shouldn’t have to untangle the mess from the data post facto. – Anthony
I have been a reader of WUWT from the beginning (Nov. 2006). Previous to that I was introduced to the Surfacestations Project by my good friend George Taylor, formerly Oregon State Climatologist. Hence I have tracked these issues for quite awhile.
I vaguely recalled the posts Mr. Watts wrote about his visit to the NCDC Climate Reference Network offices in Asheville, NC, and so searched them out. It was April of 2008 and the posts are here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/23/road-trip-update-day-1-at-ncdc/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/24/road-trip-update-day-2-at-ncdc-and-press-release/
By that date the Surfacestations Project had already made key findings about dozens of poorly sited weather stations, findings which were raising a stir at NCDC. But the meetings were friendly and the shared concern appeared to be sincere. Mr. Watts wrote:
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Baker, Debra Braun, Grant Goodge, and the entire CRN science team, plus Jeff Arnfield, and Steven Del Greco for answering all my questions and taking such careful time with me. Additionally I wish to thank Dr. Karl, and Assistant Director Sharon LeDuc for hearing my concerns and offering ideas.
Everyone there at NCDC made me feel welcome and appreciated.
Fast forward to last month when the NCDC promulgated an unsigned memo entitled “Talking Points related to: Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?”
That memo failed to even mention Anthony Watts or the Surfacestations Project, although the substance of the memo made it clear, and the internal emails that pushed the memo cited surfacestation.org directly. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
The utter rudeness of NCDC is not lost on me. A year ago they were all smiles and the appearance of legitimate scientific concern. Now they are arrogant and dismissive in a most unscientific and uncollegial manner.
That kind of ugly political game playing is unacceptable coming from a federal agency. A talking points memo? That is prima facie evidence of politics, not science. And to allude to, rather than name, the Surfacestations Project? Extremely classless and unprofessional!
It has now been revealed that Thomas C. Peterson is the author of the memo. However, Thomas Karl, the director of NCDC, is responsible for what goes on in his agency and certainly must have been aware of the memo before it was passed around.
I would like to see Dr. Karl recant the memo and issue a personal apology to Mr. Watts. Absent that, I would like to see Dr. Karl resign or be dismissed. I have lost trust and confidence in Dr. Karl. His judgments in this matter have been atrocious, beneath dignity, lacking in any sort of scientific integrity or common courtesy, and indicate an inability on his part to lead the NCDC.
This is not Dr. Karl’s first foray into political theater. But I am willing to forgive him his indecencies if and only if he exhibits some contrition. If not, then he must go, IMHO.
They’ve had every opportunity, but have simply refused. They helped create this mess. I have no sympathy for them.
It looks like the NCDC has moved into ‘anticipatory’ damage limitation mode. Get your paper out as soon as possible, Anthony, They are probably preparing paper as well. If they get there first they will turn around and say we’ve already addressed the issue.
Thanks Anthony. I agreed with some (not all) of that poster’s points, but it was a little over the top. Maybe you (jae) could tone it down some and try again?
Palin/Jindal 2012
Pielke Sr. for national poet
I do not dispute the classification.
I do not suggest that siting is “good enough”
But I would like to know just how much difference that concrete path @ur momisugly “50cm” makes to the temperature readings and especially how much difference it makes to the anomaly (for climate purposes this is the important factor is it not?).
A simple (dirty – uncontrolled) experiment
Central heating radiator
Thermocouple (0.5mm bead – fast response) inside cardboard tube 1cmx1cm (to isolate from radiation)
Height at level of radiator top
Still Air
50cm 23.8 deg C
10cm 23.6 deg C (convection currents drawing cool floor level air up through tube?
2cm 23.9 deg C
1cm 25.0 deg C
.5cm 39.0 deg C
0cm 42.4 deg C
Just how far will convection heat air away from source if no wind?
An important point is that the temperature record is all you have. It has been measured the way it has and nothing can change this. Correction factors can be built in but these can only provide an estimate of historical temperature. If Anthropomorphic climate change is happening something must be done now not in 50 years when the reference network has provided a definitive record of temperature anomalies.
When dealing with professionals one should remember that their reputation is their bread and butter. Tell one pivately that there is a problem with their results and a sympathetic hearing may be given – their reputation is not harmed. But put it on a blog with many readers as a way of telling them there is a problem hurts that reputation. It must be very difficult for them then to come here and admit problems considering the “abuse” and strident and often irrelevant questioning they have to face if they are defending GW.
Steve Keohane (21:30:02) :
bill (15:10:56) You obviously haven’t looked at how the surface station temps are adjusted. Hansen likes to raise the modern UHI temps and lower the past, less urbanized readings
You and others are suggesting that the changes are being falsified to prove a position.
I have plotted stations taken at random from the noaa site and ploted the adjustments. (somehow I managed to pick many that the adjusment reduced GW effect):
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5114/maryville.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7440/gissrawtemps.jpg
To me the adjustments look like an honest attempt to correct a problem not a deliberate attemp at falsification of evidence.
mbabbitt (21:09:14) :
…he is claiming that the temperature record cannot be relied upon for forming absolute conclusions about the temperature record. …(this data mishmash would never survive the scrutiny standards in other sciences)
The data as it stands is all the evidence you have. On what other data would you suggest making a decision that HAS to be made if AGW is a fact (remember you cannot use this temp record to support YOUR theories)?
I wrote, a few days ago, that NOAA/NCDC would respond to Anthony’s project by arguing that their intent was not to chart actual temperature, but to document “change,” and their response has been to do exactly that. “The observations are flawed, sure, but the trend is unmistakable.”
What is being missed here is that the “arrow of time” assures that the bias will always be in the direction of “warming.” Few weather stations on Earth are immune to this trend: most places they set up stations will be subject to the relentless urbanization of our part of the planet. As pointed out above, the data we should be assessing is that from the relatively uninhabited parts of the planet, such as Africa and South America, where the readings will be less impacted by human activity. This seems so simple as not to require explaination. Otherwise we’re simply monitoring the effects of human activity in our neighborhoods, without any reference to the overall picture, about which we presently know damn little.
Turning this ignorance into “Cap and Trade” is the epitome of folly.
Bill writes:
“An important point is that the temperature record is all you have. It has been measured the way it has and nothing can change this. Correction factors can be built in but these can only provide an estimate of historical temperature. If Anthropomorphic climate change is happening something must be done now not in 50 years when the reference network has provided a definitive record of temperature anomalies.”
Yes, but if you know that a large part of your data set _may_ be ‘knackered’ then the sensible thing to do is a full and proper analysis of that set which is deemed ‘good’. It is a shame that the professional bodies can’t do this themselves and we have to get something so fundamental done by people like Mr Watts (and all the volunteers) off ‘their own bat’ as it were.
Your argument “If Anthropomorphic climate change is happening something must be done now…” is interesting and on the surface (no pun intended) quite a strong one.
However, the huge amounts of money, time and possible detrimental econmic effects that are being talked about with schemes such as Cap-n-Trade make your “If” one hell of a gamble to take – it’s a classic precautionary principle argument and that’s not necessarily a good way to run anything.
By the same argument if we’re told (via modelling, data collection, historical records) that a major earthquake is going to devastate a major city within the next 100 years then we’d better damn well spend a lot of money in moving that city. Oh wait, we don’t do that do we, so the residents of San Fran etc. can go whistle. You can repeat that for Naples and Vesuvius and so on.
I’m not against being nice to the world – I just think we should focus on enviromental causes that we can address; river pollution, smog, disease, clean water, decent crop strains and so on. Just think of how much better we could make the planet for all the people that live on it if we spent a _fraction_ of the money that’s being talked about with Cap-n-Trade. The key difference is we’d be spending it on projects that can make a difference rather than trying the King Canute approach.
Cheers
Mark.
“To claim the records are all useless one should have the facts to prove it?”
So, either the records are “useless”, or they are of such high quality that they are beyond question, and can be used to justify new trillion dollar anual taxes and unimaginable constraints on economic growth unless an unproven new economic model works exactly as expected by a adherants of one particular ideology which has a poor track record on such matters?
bill (02:29:54)
If Anthropomorphic climate change is happening something must be done now not in 50 years when the reference network has provided a definitive record of temperature anomalies.
If.
What a lovely word that is Bill. Welcome to the Word of the Sceptic.
@Bill
“To me the adjustments look like an honest attempt to correct a problem not a deliberate attemp at falsification of evidence.”
Personal opinions speculating about motives isn’t very helpful and actually not necessary, when the facts speak for themselves.
NOAA claims, that it’s temperature record is in accordance with the best climate stations record. The same has been said about GISS. However, NOAA’s trend is approx. 0.7°/century higher than GISS.
Somebody MUST be wrong.
The GISS trend is in much better accordance with the satellite data and HADCRUT than NOAA, so all fingers point to errors in NOAA. Adding NOAA’s untrue statements from their paper, there appears to be something wrong with NOAA’s data and appears to be something wrong at NOAA.
Dig up records back before ubanization began (concrete jungle).
Has anyone any experience with this:
27.5.7 Records of the Division of Station Facilities and
Meteorological Observations and its predecessors
Textual Records: Microfilm copy of a compilation of meteorological reports, 1819-92 (562 rolls), arranged by state and thereunder alphabetically by station, consisting of reports of army surgeons at military posts, 1819-59; Smithsonian Institution voluntary observers, 1840-73; and regular stations and voluntary observers of the Signal Office and Weather Bureau, 1870-92. Daily observations of meteorology at military posts (“Meteorological Registers”), 1819-1916. Journals of daily observations at the Naval Observatory, Washington, DC, 1842-1913. Reports of wind movement, 1872-1904. Reports of wind direction, 1891-1904. Annual station reports, 1888-96. Monthly station reports, 1905-7. Meteorological observations at Mount Washington, NH, 1889-92 (in Boston); Brownsville, TX, 1889-92 (in Fort Worth); and Mount Weather, VA, 1905-14 (in Philadelphia). Summaries of meteorological observations at Woods Hole, MA, 1873-95 (in Boston). Storm warnings, Ludington, MI, 1916 (in Chicago). Missouri precipitation summaries, 1856-1904 (in Kansas City). Observations in Alaska, 1881-92, 1898-1920 (in Anchorage). Reports of observations of Halley’s Comet, 1910.
Microfilm Publications: T907.
Maps: Locations of weather reporting stations, forecast centers, flight advisory weather service units, airport stations, and headquarters, 1944-45 (10 items). See also 27.7.
Two noted people in my own rural area kept records from 1859 to 1894. One of them submitted forms to the US Dept. of Agricultre, Weather Bureau.
Maybe there is more out there that is tucked away.
Reconstructing the picture of alternating periods of warming & cooling 150 years back would blow the doors off of AGW.
I have this sneaking suspicion that a lot of good records are being overlooked/ignored.
A local newspaper had many articles from 1884 on that strongly pointed in the direction of a cooling change. Previously, it had been very warm with abundant rains.
We’ve got a friend at the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
Keep em coming Kimberly!
bill (02:29:54):
“The data as it stands is all the evidence you have. On what other data would you suggest making a decision that HAS to be made if AGW is a fact (remember you cannot use this temp record to support YOUR theories)?”
First of all you can’t even claim that AGW is responsible for ANY temperature changes. There are dozens or more possible causes both known and most likely unknown. Not to mention these little things called satellites that have been measuring temperatures for 30 years and show an anomaly of ZERO. I have no problem using these results. Do you?
Finally, if we can’t determine if AGW is happening or even the degree of it’s impact even if it is happening. Why in the world would we implement costly policies to stop it?