Christy and McKittrick in the UK Times: doubts on station data

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 14, 2010 6:25 pm

“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.

Jean Parisot
February 14, 2010 6:33 pm

To paraphase a movie: ‘Let’s approach this from a perspective of status. What have we got left in the IPCC that is good?’

February 14, 2010 6:33 pm

They always said that air travel contributed to global warming. I don’t think they meant what this picture shows, however.

February 14, 2010 6:36 pm

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.

David Davidovics
February 14, 2010 6:37 pm

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.

February 14, 2010 6:39 pm

Ah, the aesthetic panaorama of a Stevenson Screen on a freshly-mowed tarmac. The very picture of Spring itself.

Steve in NZ
February 14, 2010 6:47 pm

The article even made it into the newspaper in lil’ ol’ Christchurch, NZ – once a bastion of the concensus view.

February 14, 2010 6:49 pm

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?

February 14, 2010 6:54 pm

Does anyone know the report that Vicki Page mentions?

Kevin Kilty
February 14, 2010 7:13 pm

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.

February 14, 2010 7:15 pm

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.

February 14, 2010 7:15 pm

We now know the origin of the “hockey stick”, the upper part anyway.

rob m
February 14, 2010 7:17 pm

Is any of the $2-3 billion Obama has budgeted for climate the last two years going towards new data stations?

February 14, 2010 7:17 pm

A mention and a link to the D’Aleo and Watts report.
Interesting developments in the UK MSM.

February 14, 2010 7:24 pm

How far could the heat of a jet engine reach? Have a look:

February 14, 2010 7:32 pm

Another look (21 seconds long)

Bill P
February 14, 2010 7:34 pm

timetochooseagain (19:15:21) :
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.

On the third hand… the truth is the truth, even if it inspires ennui.

Al Gore's Brother
February 14, 2010 7:40 pm

Note how they still tend toward AGW at the end of the article. We corrected for the abnormalities of the station data. Nice try!

Charlie A
February 14, 2010 7:42 pm

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.

February 14, 2010 7:49 pm

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.

Keith Minto
February 14, 2010 7:54 pm

That aircraft ‘outgassing’ to the Stevenson screen in the photograph is parked there. Note the cockpit access staircase. The runway is to the right.

February 14, 2010 7:54 pm

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 😉

February 14, 2010 8:01 pm

more from the media
This in bold print on headline at Drudge:

Harvey Puca
February 14, 2010 8:24 pm

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.
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

February 14, 2010 8:28 pm

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…

Harvey Puca
February 14, 2010 8:35 pm

Why should I believe anything said on this site about “errors and misinformation” in the IPCC report, when what I see before my eyes is errors and misinformation from this site.
OMG, there should be an inquiry about this site and this error.
Tit for Tat
REPLY: No error except your opinion that putting weather stations in this situation is OK

barbee butts
February 14, 2010 8:36 pm

The warming Is man-made! Or 747 made?
It has been explained before that the ‘scientists’ are aware that the readings are compromised and thus are adjusted to compensate-or do I have that backwards? Maybe it was explained that the older, i.e.: good data was adjusted to comepensate, thereby becoming more comparable to the poor data we have now. Confusing stuff…
My question about this technique is: How was that adjustment created? How is it tested? Because assuming that the change in topography through urbanization is a gradual almost evolutionary process, how are the rates of adjustment continually modified to compensate?
I see here an modern airport with what appears to be one of our most advanced commercial aircraft wafting it’s exhaust in the direction of the instruments. As I lookat this image, it occurs to me that in say 1960 we didn’t have these exact same aircraft and further, what about seasonal fluctuations in travel? I frequently hear about the ‘busiest’ air travel days of the year and I seem to recall a complete cessation of travel after the 9-11 attack. How are these complex factors taken into account?
And regardless as to whether they are or not-why bother? Why choose such hideous conditions as a base-line anyway? After all, if the fate of all mankind is at stake, why not take the steps to necessary to get better quality data?

Harvey Puca
February 14, 2010 8:40 pm

The picture is a FAKE.
Follow the freaking link yourself.
Lie to me once, and I can’t trust you again.
REPLY: Wrong. 1000 times wrong. the picture is available right here for anybody to see. You just don’t wish to. Follow the link.

February 14, 2010 8:42 pm

“’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.”
Yet despite this, every “adjustment” to the data adds even MORE warming bias. Hmm…….

February 14, 2010 8:46 pm

Sorry. the photo as shown above is very misleading. The jet is parked. That is not the threshold of a runway. Occasionally there might be a runup there, but that’s doubtful, given that there are no deflector fences at the perimeter of the ramp, and cars are parked in close proximity.
The ramp itself will no doubt influence the measured temperatures, but I very much doubt it will be as a result of a running jet engine.
REPLY: The point is, we shouldn’t be having an argument about jet exhaust at all. – A

February 14, 2010 9:02 pm

re: Harvey Puca (20:40:26) :
What are you on about?

February 14, 2010 9:21 pm

Harvey Puca, polluting the thread with claims of a lie is just a waste of your time. In case you don’t fly or deal with airports very often, those lines painted on the tarmac are where the front wheels of aircraft go. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter as much as how close the Stevenson screens are to the tarmac. Is that a lie? Are they actually somewhere else?
Meanwhile, over at the Mail:

Brer Fox
February 14, 2010 9:28 pm

The arrows are put in for explanation. the link is to microsoft hardly photo shopped

Peter of Sydney
February 14, 2010 9:34 pm

Surface temperature data is corrupted due to various reasons. I’m surprised organizations haven’t been taken to court threatened with legal action for presenting historical temperatures in these ways.

February 14, 2010 9:42 pm

Off Topic: Has anyone here seen those allegations that the Wegman Report was cooked?
Has there been any response to that?

Peter of Sydney
February 14, 2010 9:47 pm

The other point is what was there before the airport was built? The difference could significant resulting in an upward bias in recent temperatures far greater than most expect. This is why all thermometer readings taken at or near urban areas, airports, etc. should be excluded. They should only be included if the whole world is covered with man-made structures, and there’s no vegetation left standing, which I doubt will ever occur, certainly not in our lifetimes.. Anyone who doesn’t understand why we should exclude such readings is obviously not thinking. It does not matter what methods are used to try an correct the biases. They can never be trusted.

Darell C. Phillips
February 14, 2010 9:50 pm

Well, if we ever hear the IPCC remark “When in Rome…” we’ll know exactly what they meant, right? 8^)
I also wonder if future historians will sarcastically mark our current period as the second Roman Warm Period based on this article… 8^)

Bernd Felsche
February 14, 2010 9:54 pm

Whoa there! That’s almost a clone of the situation at Canberra Airport as per Warwick Hughes’ article … zoom out from the image on the page.
Have they been siting stations under instruction??

February 14, 2010 10:00 pm

Harvey Puca (20:40:26) :
ace (20:46:02) :
It isn’t possible that there is no influence on the station from the heat of the jet engine when it is on, just idling. And even if it isn’t taking off it is still going to start to taxi and the heat from the engine is going to influence the temp reading even more. Besides that there is heat from the pavement during the day and more so at night.
I don’t see any point in you two saying what you are saying. You are not being objective.
I think you fellows are getting desperate from the constant bad news your side has been getting since November 19. Maybe the Phil Jones U-turn is putting you over the edge.

February 14, 2010 10:09 pm

In the Mail article cited by CodeTech (21:21:59) :
[Quote]Kevin Trenberth said: ‘It is not just temperature records that tell us that the world is warming.We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five times since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40 per cent and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.'[Unquote]
Sea level rose “around five times since 1972” ?!
Arctic icecap has declined by 40% ?! ……… OMG

February 14, 2010 10:09 pm

@ Harvey Puca (20:40:26)
“Inconvinient truth” for you ?

February 14, 2010 10:15 pm

I will continue to claim that the weather station is perfectly sited –
from an aviation safety perspective.
In that it will accurately provide to a pilot the temperature of the artificially heated air above the runway that the wings will be trying to gain lift from, on a hot August afternoon.
Who decided to use the data climate modelling ? For purpose it was never intended.

John F. Hultquist
February 14, 2010 10:37 pm

The airport in the photo is “Ciampino” and you can find it by looking with Google Earth with these coordinates: 41.807883 N, 12.584596 E
The photo is rotated and the area shown is for parking so only someone familiar with the operation could say how often the weather station is bathed with jet exhaust. The location has plenty of parking, roads, and buildings. I’d say it is a good site for an airport weather station. Climate monitoring – not so much!

DJ Meredith
February 14, 2010 10:59 pm

Now wouldn’t it be interesting to see if the correlation between the Hockey Stick and the increase in jet traffic doesn’t give a perfect fit with airport-located temperature logging….

Stephen Brown
February 14, 2010 11:04 pm
February 14, 2010 11:05 pm

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy”
Dr Christy or commentors,
What are your evaluations of other natural phenomena that can be used as indicators of globle change if (as you say) temperature records cannot be relied upon?

February 14, 2010 11:06 pm

Guys, guys,
Harvey Púca is obviously pulling your large rabbit leg!

February 14, 2010 11:10 pm

You’ve also got a good mention in the UK Telegraph today, though bits look copy and pasted from the Sunday Times article.

February 14, 2010 11:19 pm

The google earth image of the site also includes a jet parked not far away.

February 14, 2010 11:30 pm

It is now on the first page of Mondays on line telegraph

February 14, 2010 11:45 pm

In previous comment: Globle = Global
I must stop posting from my Blackberry (bad bad Blackberry). Or maybe I can blame it on being stuck in traffic in the NRT airport limosine bus bound for Tokyo.

Mia Nony
February 15, 2010 12:15 am

EU Referendum: The second front

February 15, 2010 12:34 am

@ Harvey Puca (20:40:26)
Just keep repeating to yourself ‘It’s all a big lie. It’s all a big lie’.
Then look up ‘cognitive dissonance’ in a good encyclopaedia (avoiding Wikipedia as it may have erroneously informed your earlier contributions).

Charles. U. Farley
February 15, 2010 12:34 am

Harvey Puca (20:24:04) :
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.
No Harvey, its absolutely true.
Located at Roma Ciampino aereoporto.
Its even on google maps.
Just follow the link and zoom out a little….planes…tarmac and yes more planes!,12.584952&spn=0.000834,0.001692&t=h&z=19

Graham UK
February 15, 2010 12:40 am

It is quite deplorable and shocking that scientists should have made such fundamental errors of judgement in selecting the sources for their climate data. Even if it is not seen as part of some campaign of disinformation, it does seriously undermine the belief that scientists can be trusted to use plain common sense in coming to conclusions.
It is quite sad that the only thing keeping this burst balloon up are some very committed politicians who discredit themselves as much as they do the whole principle of Global warming.
I’ve just been reviewing the issue of wind turbines, and the gloss is coming off them as you’ll note from this article which demonstrates quite an amazing phenomenon of off-shore turbine creating thei own eco-climate of streaming clouds. Something unforeseen by scientists, along with the incredible fact that no one thought of the loss of efficiency
by each turbine creating its own ‘wind shadow’
Wind turbines generate power on average less than 25% of the time, with varying voltages that can lead to brownouts. Energy experts say that, under these circumstances, “wind is more a nuisance than a source of power.”

Alan the Brit
February 15, 2010 1:23 am

Phil Jones is on record now as stating that the warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940, & 1978 to 1998 was at the same rate. This is the fellow who presented a 1990 paper stating clealry that the Urban Heat Island effect was negligable & irrelevant. Dr Vikki Pope is also on record for stating that many would die by 2100 due to the UHI effects. Well it is either significant or it is not!
Slightly OT, I recently printed off WUWT post by J.Storrs Hall’s of 09/12/2009 “Hockey Stick observed in NOAA ice core data”, on central Greenland ice cores he made up from NOAA data. Just using a scale rule & eyeballing a line through rises & falls in temperature, the rates of rise & fall appear very similar to the naked eye, with no apparent significant change in them at all. Curiously the rate of warming in the 20th century appears to be less than during the 19th century, certainy in Greenland!

Global warrrming!!!
February 15, 2010 1:28 am

NicL (22:15:48) :
I will continue to claim that the weather station is perfectly sited –
from an aviation safety perspective.
In that it will accurately provide to a pilot the temperature of the artificially heated air above the runway that the wings will be trying to gain lift from, on a hot August afternoon
The lift of an airplane depends on the air density, the plane speed and the configuration of the wings, so the temperature is very important to decide speed. Agree with your take on weather station location.

February 15, 2010 1:37 am

From Times Online:
[Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”]
The recent excessive snow has caused some bafflement. Some warmists were quick to point out that all that snow is a sign of warming because warming leads to more humidity in the air, ergo heavier snow.
Trenberth says snow cover has declined. Wouldn’t it follow then that that decline is due to less humidity and actually a sign of cooling?
The warmists can’t have it both ways. In the warmist scenario less snow and more snow are both signs of warming.

Philip Thomas
February 15, 2010 1:48 am

Some Labour Days temepartures could soar to over 500 degrees C!

February 15, 2010 2:05 am

Be fair David Davidovics, it’s over 104 metres from where the plane is parked, probably has no heating effect whatsoever, in fact the gentle breeze from the engines causes evaporation, lowering the temperature which has to be compensated for, upwards. They keep telling us heating causes cooling don’tcha know.
P.S. And Joan of Arc died of frostbite.

February 15, 2010 2:24 am

Harvey Puca (20:24:04) Reply: Did they also photoshop Google Earth? have a look for yourself, and believe the TRUTH and not the make believe world you live in.

Denis Hopkins
February 15, 2010 2:28 am

Also an article on your stations report anthony in the daily telegraph this morning

February 15, 2010 2:32 am

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100…

Since the major greenhouse gas is water vapor, and without it this would be a very chilly rock, I think the rise has been considerably more than 0.7 deg C.
Going with a charitable reading, that they are referring to the “excess” emissions of mankind up to the present age, that means over the next 90 years we will see an average rate of increase between 7.1 and 8.6 times greater than anything seen before.
And they wonder why people are not taking them seriously?

Green Sand
February 15, 2010 2:50 am

Re: Graham UK (Feb 15 00:40),
Thanks for the link, very interesting. In a “previous life” I was involved with a mechanical engineering design company working in the wind turbine industry.
During this time I attended a number of conferences, at which the most verciferous questions always came from the operators and their financial backers, and it was “how do we keep these things operating?” Apparently not only was the efficiency of the downstream turbines affected, but they also suffered from a greater amount of down time.
My involvement was a few years ago, things may have changed.

Alan the Brit
February 15, 2010 2:51 am

Forgot to ask, this is OT. Can someonedirect me to information on the “4%” CO2 contribution by humans, where I can find out what is meant by “4%”, is this gross over 150 years? Or is it relative to something else. I am aware that it was a rough calculation but that it is not significnatly disputed. I just want to tighten up my arguments.

stephen richards
February 15, 2010 3:20 am

Alan the Brit (02:51:31) :
Its now§ Look at the top of the page. There is a widget on CO² it shows 388.08ppm. = approx 0.04 ppm x 100 = 4% approx

[0.04% of the atmosphere by volume. RT – Mod]

stephen richards
February 15, 2010 3:21 am

150yrs ago it would have been (maybe) 288ppm = 0.03 = 3%
[0.03% of the atmosphere by volume. RT – Mod]

February 15, 2010 3:51 am

Re the danger zone behind the 737-600/800:
“Operating jet engines on the apron outside XXXX hangar is only allowed at idle power.
To use the Boeing 737 as an example, the danger zone behind the aircraft is then 100 ft or 30 meters.
If the aircraft is going to taxi, a “break away” burst of power is needed, this will increase the safety distance to 510 ft or 155 meters. This burst will come without warning.
At take off power the distance is 1900 ft or 579 meters.”
Sure seems to hit the temp shack squarely.

Chris Wright
February 15, 2010 4:12 am

The Telegraph report is also in today’s printed edition. In the past the Telegraph’s climate change coverage was completely biased and one-sided, and they would never even mention the names of sceptics. Merely to see the names of Watts, Christy and McKitrick in a Telegraph report is quite amazing. How things have changed….

February 15, 2010 4:21 am

Alan the Brit (02:51:31) :
I saw the figure of about 7% of the total natural annual flux (emission and absorption) in a New Scientist article about a couple of years ago. The figures I recall were about 430 GT naturally emitted and absorbed and 29 GT emitted by man. The assumption was made implicitly that the system was at its limits of absorbing power and so the anthropogenic stuff just stayed there and added cumulatively to the overall concentration, a view I find highly improbable.
In addition, while all governments tax all fossil fuels and therefore the 29 GT figure is probably OK to 3-4 times accuracy, given the problems of accurately measuring the actual natural emissions I wouldn’t trust the 430 GT figure to better than an order of magnitude, if that.

February 15, 2010 4:39 am

This post at John Graham-Cumming’s blog questions the accuracy of the airport Stevenson Screen photo above:
Maybe he’s on to something here? Can this be verified?

February 15, 2010 4:59 am

There are stacks of poorly situated surface stations. If anyone’s got a list of UK stations, i’d be happy to donate an hour of my time to take a few snaps of my nearest one and I know many others would too.
I’m convinced that most, if not all are going to be subject to heat island effects.

February 15, 2010 5:04 am

Phil Jones has told us 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.
The flawed 1960 Jones Wang China paper which the IPCC rely on indicates minimal UHI effect within the Global temps, this we know this is wrong.
Take away the warming bias from 1970 to the present caused through land use change and UHI effect and the current warming is significantly less than the earlier warming trend .
The IPCC have endeavoured to keep the UHI effect to a minimum and looked for any study no matter how old that supports this. It has been shown that UHI can account for 50% of the warming shown by ground stations and most of that since the end of the second world war. How do you show catastrophic warming when the warming of the latter part of the century is considerably less than the first part, the link to CO2 would be tenuous to say the least.

Peter Plail
February 15, 2010 5:11 am

Just to emphasize the point, you are referring to a DANGER zone, the effect of lower level heating would extend considerably further under low wind conditions. As we know, fractions of a degree are significant!
Also I understand (from a retired 737 captain) that when engines are started they must be run at idle until working temperatures are reached, so it is not just a quick blast when the aircraft parks or starts up.

February 15, 2010 5:20 am

Harvey Puca (20:24:04) didn’t believed the station picture from Roma Ciampino – here is the Googlemaps>
Anyway it doesn’t much matter whether the thermometer station is directly behind the possible jet engine thrust/exhaust path (although surely it would then produce anomalous reads).
The contemporary jet engines have thermal output at order of magnitude as 100 million Watts (don’t confuse with Anthony Watts 😉 in the take-off mode – then if one considers there are usually two such engines per jetliner one can come to the conclusion that such a thermal power output is comparable with the total radiative solar input at several hectares of earths surface. And how many jetliners start normally at international airports…How many are taxiing…how much CO2 they produce…
Or, yes, if on considers CO2 thermal forcing be 1,4 W per sq. meter, then just one jetliner in takeof mode has a thermal output equivalent of more than 100 square kilometers of the CO2 thermal forcing.
Anybody can recount it for himself – it’s a ground school math.
That’s maybe why some take-off to speak about the AHI (Airport Heat Island)…

February 15, 2010 5:23 am

See also Monday’s Daily Express:
It’s front-page news there!

Douglas DC
February 15, 2010 5:26 am

Dear Mr. Puca. I have about 11,000 hr. of flight time. a little under half that in Douglas DC-6’s and 7’s most of the rest as an Instrument Flight Instructor,Flight Instructor, and Part 135 Air taxi and Charter pilot. Night, IFR, AirFreight, Commuter,and the last 10 years of my 28 year career, was as a Airtanker Pilot defined as:” Dropping slimy red mud on burning trees from antique aeroplanes. I was a NOAA certifed Weather Observer set up several SAWRS (Now ASOS and all automatic) Weather stations,I have scientific training, (BS-Biology)-No brag, just fact.
Now,I have been in the cockpit of a twin B-99 Commuter Airliner, as a DC-10
departed ahead of me, the ’10 was able to take off with less visibility than my
Beechcraft. Near 0-0 conditions at Portland Or. Airport(PDX) The Tower
Said;”Col Pac 25, RVR (runway visibility) is now 1800 ft-cleared for takeoff-hurry!. ” The Jet Exhaust warmed the air enough to raise the Visibility enough to depart. Yes I am _convinced_ that the Rome airport is a _real_ picture;
and yes the jet could indeed have a real effect on the temperature.
Denial cuts both ways here and Denial ain’t a river in Egypt,Pard…

Pete H
February 15, 2010 5:29 am

Al Gore’s Brother (19:40:58) :
” We corrected for the abnormalities of the station data. Nice try!”
Would you lot stop it with the sarcastic comments! My laptop keyboard can only take so much coffee/beer (its been a long day!) liquid in one day!

Alan the Brit
February 15, 2010 5:42 am

stephen richards (03:21:20) :
150yrs ago it would have been (maybe) 288ppm = 0.03 = 3%
[0.03% of the atmosphere by volume. RT – Mod]
Thanks. That’s what I thought. I wanted to make sure of my arguement when I said this to my Met Office friend the other day. I got the impression that although they are ALL on message, there is a degree of disjointedness in the camp – he was not aware that global temps had gone down over the last few years for example, he doesn’t deal in those measurements, but in certain aspects of modelling, etc I suspect they are all a bit like that!

Pete H
February 15, 2010 5:49 am

By the way Dan (03:51:09) :
Re the danger zone behind the 737-600/800:
I so wish NicL (22:15:48) : had stood that close to a Vulcan (UK Bomber) when it revved up to begin taxing! The power needed just to get moving was immense!
Okay, modern aircraft are lighter than the old stuff but there is absolutely no way the station could not be affected and as for saying it is perfectly placed for an airfield……..well, the guy (“I will continue to claim that the weather station is perfectly sited –
from an aviation safety perspective”) has absolutely no conception of a pilots main concern…wind sheer!

February 15, 2010 5:51 am

Engines are typically started from the APU, which is an engine in the tail. So figure 1 minute to start the APU from batteries, then running for a few minutes before starting the engines (running checklists in the meanwhile). Engines are started one at a time from APU bleed air, and it takes a minute or so each.
Warmup is required before takeoff thrust (5 minutes for a cold engine), but it is not required for taxi.
So assume that a parked aircraft will be emitting exhaust (with thrust) for no less than 5 minutes from beginning of APU start, to when it starts to move. 10 minutes would be more common.

Pete H
February 15, 2010 6:00 am

Sorry, missed out typing my main comment (Sorry A!)
Harvey Puca (20:40:26) :
“Lie to me once, and I can’t trust you again.”
I think that is were we sceptics have been coming from for some time now!

Bill Yarber
February 15, 2010 6:01 am

My sincere thanks to you and your helpers in uncovering the problems with the US temperature measurements and for this wonderful blog. I believe that you and your associates have played a major role in spotlighting the errors in the AGW thesis (and religion). Kudos to all.
Bill Yarber
New Smyrna Beach, FL

February 15, 2010 6:12 am

There are also unbelievable gaps in the station datasets. Chiefio announces further dying of the stations:
And I must confirm it – just check, how many monthly data are missing in the GISS station records for 2009. You barelly find there a station record without some 2009 data missing, sometimes 4 months are missing, but the annual mean – guess what -is there…
And not just that year…
The classical example for me is the station Praha Klementinum – one of the world’s oldest instrumental temperature record (and thus extremely valuable), having uninterupted measurements since 1770ies -courtesy of an old monastery – till present.
And what the “scientists” from GHCN, GISS and CRU did with this very valuable instrumental record?
They raped the record cuting the pre-1850 (or GISS even the pre-1880) values, then cut it again in 1940, leaving the whole 40ties out and then “connected/renamed” it to another station of Praha/Ruzyne (largest czech airport with the station just 0.44°C and thus if one subtracts UHI and compares decade 2000-2009 with decade 1790-1799 then one finds out the post LIA warming during last 200 years in Prague was less than 0,25°C/century!!! –
I don’t know if there is a “catastrophic warming around the globe”, but in Prague, central Europe, surely not. We have instrumental proof.
BUT what is maybe even more interesting -is the phenomena which one can call perhaps “PHANTOM DATA”.
– I’ll explain: Courtesy of the Phil Jones declaring the CRU raw datasets “missing” the CRU subsequently contacted among numerous others the Czech Met Office (CHMI) to send them the Czech datasets again. The Czech Met Office climatologist then was ?clever or dull? enough -so he asked CRU whether the CRU can send them (to CHMI) the data they (in CRU) have.
So the CRU (amazingly) sent them the data (even they before declared the data “missing”, “lost during moving”…)
Meanwhile I (and others) wrote in Czech some popular articles about the global temperature data manipulation in NOAA, GISS – sourcing information from Chiefio, WUWT, ICECAP and own research. The Czech Met Office climatologists then hastily published counter-articles, trying to prove the CRU didn’t manipulate the Czech data.
But with their articles they also published the Czech data the CRU have sent to them -together with the data the Czech Met Office has -in one xls file.
You can download here: -and see the differences.
And now it comes: I was then looking to this CRU datasets published by CHMI and immediately discovered they have there some data for stations Cheb, Brno/Turany, Ostrava/Mosno from 50ties -data which even the Czech Met Office (CHMI) doesn’t have (for their own stations).
A whole decade of data!
Subsequently I discovered even more amazing thing: the CRU has the 1953 data for the station Cheb – that’s for the PERIOD BEFORE THE STATION WAS EVEN FOUND! (late 1954) Subsequently, of course, I asked the Czech Met Office climatologist (I sometimes discuss with him at the internet) where the 50ties data come from. He was quite reluctant to react to my questions, but after some pressure in public forum he confessed the Czech Met Office has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA where the 50ties data come from and subsequently promised me to find out what’s going on.
So far – even after several weeks – no word from him.
So that’s why I call it the “phantom data”.
And I’m considering to publish the whole story.
Did CRU fabricated the data? Are there more phantom data in their datasets? Is this the reason why the CRU doesn’t want to publish the data and rather declared them “missing”? (to avoid selfincrimination?) Or the data come originally from NOAA/GHCN and were fabricated there and CRU just tryies to help whitewash the whole thing?
I would think this question of phantom data maybe should be posed not in the Czech Republic (most probably the Czech climatologists have nothing to do with it), but at the British parliament inquiry into Climategate under the question 3…

February 15, 2010 6:19 am

Peter Plail,
Exactly what I meant to say.
In the danger zone you risk being blown over, obviously the hot exhaust will travel further, depending on wind of course.
In summer there will be natural hot “blasts” of air heated by the tarmac. Not insignificant, I would say.

Doubting Thomas
February 15, 2010 6:22 am

” Harvey Puca (20:24:04) :
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.”
Where’s the lie Harvey? Took me a few minutes to pull it up on Google Earth – According to the Google Earth’s ruler function the station is 96.4 feet from the edge or the tarmac. And it just so happens that there is a twin engine jet parked in the spot numbered as #11 – the ruler function says that the distance to the tail of the plane is 332.8 feet from a spot centered between the two instrument sites. Spot # 10 (using the plane parked at #11 as a guide) would be 285.4 feet away. Unless you think Google Earth “photoshopped” it.
Location Coordinates are 41 48′ 42.69N 12 34′ 58.23 E
So are you going to “man up” and admit you were too ready to accuse someone here of fraud? Or in reality you are not just an average person trying to check the facts – but a troll? Apologies are accepted anytime – live and learn.
Stick around you might learn something. But if you come and post on this site, you better be accurate either pro or anti AGW, you will see both opinions- and each side, debate passionately and with facts to support their opinions.
If you are horrified that you have been told that global warming is a fact and just can’t believe that the temperature measurements rely on such poorly sited weather stations you are really not going to like

February 15, 2010 6:24 am

I have wondered for a long time how weather stations were affected by jet exhaust – the sign of the effect can only go in one direction. HOWEVER
The example you show in Rome is actually a jet parking lot where the planes are TOWED.

Bridget H-S
February 15, 2010 6:32 am

Interesting that the article in today’s Daily Telegraph has EXACTLY the same quote from Trenberth as the Sunday Times article – must be a press release or the Telegraph has just lifted it from the Times story. And who is Heidi Blake, the author of the article? Probably not Georffrey Lean’s or Louise Grey’s best friend, I would wager!
BUT, great to see the article in the paper and for Anthony and Co to get mentioned – keep it up, lads!!
“richard (04:59:13) :
There are stacks of poorly situated surface stations. If anyone’s got a list of UK stations, i’d be happy to donate an hour of my time to take a few snaps of my nearest one and I know many others would too.
I’m convinced that most, if not all are going to be subject to heat island effects.”
Richard, I have asked this several times before but Anthony has replied that we are likely to get ourselves arrested – for security reasons – if we try it. I am almost tempted anyway. I’ve said that I am close to Hern airport which is one of the UK stations used for recording temps and bearing in mind that it is now known as Bournemouth International Airport (LOL) and usage of these regional airports is increasing , one would expect warming to have increased temperatures there because of it. I was going to say because of UHI but perhaps we need to introduce a new tag – perhaps AHB (Aircraft Heat Blast) might be more appropriate. I also said the same of Stansted Airport which started off life as a runway built by the Americans during the war – now look at it!

Tim Clark
February 15, 2010 6:46 am

So, we have two Stevenson screens located close, but in somewhat different temperature regimes. One is directly behind the exhaust, the other further away behind a building. Then we have an automated weather station very close to Stevenson screen #1, in the same general environment from a temperature standpoint. Which Stevenson screen is being used or is the automated one the official miscreant?
Is the raw data from all three of these instruments available? Although not a rigorous experiment, it could give some insight into Stevenson vs automated stations and/or stevenson screen 1 vs stevenson screen 2. I would be very interested to see that data. Anyone else?

February 15, 2010 6:59 am

Weather stations were designed and sited for the monitoring/reporting of local weather on a day to day basis. They fulfilled this requirement well, considering the limitations of past science and technology and still make a contribution today. They were never intended for climate monitoring, local or worldwide.
With the advent of satalites, able to read and record atmospheric and sea surface energy emmisions directly, the use of ground-based thermometers are no longer appropriate. After all, temperature is a proxy for heat. How ridiculous it is that we employ worldwide thousands of weather stations, many of them as we know inapproriately sited, in order to compare anomalous temperature variations against a hyperthetical global temperature base! No wonder the AGW disaster Sci-fi took off so easily – easy enough for an idiot to follow, yet sufficiently convoluted to be difficult to disprove.
Measurement of atmospheric and SSL heat energy emmissions should be conducted by satelites, with limited monitoring by surface stations. The satelites should transmit unajusted, raw heat energy data, not transduced to meaningless regional averages.

February 15, 2010 7:02 am

Any journalists reading? The fraud is easily exposed by even a 6’th grader.
Just have a look;

February 15, 2010 7:11 am

John Whitman (23:05:31) :
“What are your evaluations of other natural phenomena that can be used as indicators of globle change if (as you say) temperature records cannot be relied upon?”
If there has been no warming since 1995, what is the problem?
Why should anyone come up with a theory?
Natural causes, yet to be explored.

February 15, 2010 7:24 am

The Boston temperature sensors are just as compromised.
The station is between two primary runways and two taxiways.
Hard to compare this data with the historical data that was taken at the old state house across the harbor.'+38.02%22,+-71%C2%B0+0'+38.02%22&gl=us&ei=D2Z5S9-CI8jj8QbunfnzCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ8gEwAA

February 15, 2010 7:28 am

DJ Meredith (22:59:17) :
Now wouldn’t it be interesting to see if the correlation between the Hockey Stick and the increase in jet traffic doesn’t give a perfect fit with airport-located temperature logging….
they used tree rings

Adrian Wingfield
February 15, 2010 7:31 am

As others have pointed out, Trenberth and Christy now seem to be telling us that the temperature record is not really that important. So don’t waste your time getting all steamed up about station locations, data quality, adjustments, UHI effects and the like, because it is perfectly possible to demonstrate runaway global warming by a host of other means and presumably without going within 100 yards of a thermometer.
Just for interest, it is now 3.30pm in the UK, light snow is falling and my outside thermometer is indicating 2.2C (or have I misread it – should that be 22C!?).
By the way, I just happen to live in East Anglia. Perhaps it’s not snow at all. Maybe they have emptied Phil Jones’ office and what I’m seeing is ash from the bonfire!

February 15, 2010 7:51 am

Somebody ought to go to that site with another thermometer, and monitor for any temperature anomalies that might occur when the engines start up. Surely someone from one of these multi-billion dollar climate monitoring centres would have done that, just to prove that the engines have no effect on recorded data.

February 15, 2010 7:51 am

I am in complete support of the idea that wx stns are sited incorrectly. I completely believe in Anthony’s surface station project.
IMHO that picture of the Roma wx stn has been doctored … I don’t buy the size of the “automated weather station.” What are the “van sized” boxes next to the screens? Because those boxes are not the screens.
Check out the larger version:
The concept is good, that picture is misleading. It looks Photoshopped to me and I’d advise being careful about how it s used.

PeterB in Indianapolis
February 15, 2010 8:09 am

Harvey Puca obviously thinks that any picture showing a weather station in this type of location at an airport must be doctored and photoshopped.
Harvey, the sad truth is that there are quite a few weather stations in many, many locations that are sited exactly like this. Perhaps you should go to the airport in ANY major city, so that you can see for yourself, rather than giving the tired wolf-cry of “DOCTORED! PHOTOSHOPPED!”
It isn’t necessary to doctor or photoshop this. I urge you to go to any large metro airport and use your own eyes. Of course, you may not believe your own lyin’ eyes either, but that would be a different issue entirely.

C.W. Schoneveld
February 15, 2010 8:15 am

As a complete layman am I right in thinking that it had mattered little if the discarding of temperature stations had all taken place in one year, but that it is essential for the tricksters to do it in a gradual fashion, removing some unwelcome stations every year, since only in that way are they able to influence the trendrate over time? And if I am right, has this aspect been sufficiently stressed?

February 15, 2010 8:28 am

“By the way Dan (03:51:09) :
Re the danger zone behind the 737-600/800:
I so wish NicL (22:15:48) : had stood that close to a Vulcan (UK Bomber) when it revved up to begin taxing! ……… (“I will continue to claim that the weather station is perfectly sited –
from an aviation safety perspective”) has absolutely no conception of a pilots main concern…wind sheer!”
It was a very tongue in cheek comment I made intended to highlight the fact that a station recording local conditions and local anomalies for local use may not be totally suitable for inclusion in a larger scale temperature analysis as representative of median conditions within a greater area.
In short. Crap siting.

February 15, 2010 8:36 am

Well Harvey m’boy, if you’d posted an equivalent sceptical comment on Climate Progress or RC you wouldn’t even have made it through the mods. Think about it old son; think about how this blog deals with criticism and the way that differs from the fanatical suppression and denial (hah!) of dissent on warmist sites. And the real issue, as you’ve been repeatedly informed by now, is the positioning of the equipment, not any airplane as such. That kit shouldn’t be there at all. Time to get in touch with reality Harvey mate, welcome to the real planet Earth. The jig is up!

February 15, 2010 8:47 am

Fascinating discovery about the CRU fabrication of temperature records for the Czech republic. Good work! It deserves wider notice and should play a part in the British inquiry into the CRUtape letters and CRU activities. Phantom data for phantom global warming. Cheers!

Brent Matich
February 15, 2010 9:03 am

I live in a city that doubled in population over the last 20 years. The explosion of houses has been incredible never mind apartments and roads. The asphalt shingles, driveways , roads and landscape rocks have replaced what was a grass field. The urban island heat effect in full swing. One of the reasons I don’t believe in AGW is partly because of this and in the 70’s it was global cooling scare bogus! I live on the outskirts of the city and notice my outside temp guage cool down , especially in summer by 3-5 degrees C as I get in the ranch country, very consistantly and very quickly.
I’ve always wondered how they kept temperature records for the last hundred years or so and wondered how accurate they were. I can just imagine some drunk guy in 1899 going out in a drunken stupor and reading a thermometer and writing down the temperature , if he remembered . Never mind the accuracy of it or it’s placement.
Thank God for this site and Anthony’s audit of weather stations in the U.S.
It gives me sanity in the insanity of the political correct world of “The Science is Settled”crap. It’s all a money game with elitist polititions,scientists and UN officials.
Brent in Calgary

February 15, 2010 9:11 am

This is a Met office fact sheet on climate observations – You can see they prefer to use a 747 and not a 340 !
Figure 4. Stevenson Screen at Heathrow Airport.
But note I don’t think Heathrow is used by Cru or Gistemp.

February 15, 2010 9:13 am

Ref – Harvey Puca (20:24:04) :
Harvey you’re too quick on the draw and only slightly correct: the jet probably isn’t taking off, that isn’t the runway it’s sitting on, it may be a Hanger Queen, but might light up and move on it’s own power also. I checked your comment and went to the link below (perhaps you already have too). The whole point of the article and blog is that the site for this “weather station” (and so many others) is pathetic. Again, that’s the whole point. Too many stations today are sited where they do the ‘least’ good and have to have computer generated “climatic and environmental corrections to the raw data” before the “data” can be sent off for inclusion in regional, continental, or global reports. Suggest that when you have a valid “point or observation” to make in future you don’t jump to the nuclear option and start calling people liars from the get-go.,12.584952&spn=0.000834,0.001692&t=h&z=16

Wicket Wystri Warrick
February 15, 2010 9:20 am

I located the station at Google Maps:,12.587403&spn=0.004151,0.009023&t=h&z=17
It doesn’t look like planes would be taking off from there.

Ron Dean
February 15, 2010 9:22 am

A pretty good article over all. However, the obligatory hat tip to AGW is in the last paragraph. Someone HAD to say it’s worse than we thought!

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

February 15, 2010 9:35 am

It is important to have “airport” weather data; people’s lives are at stake and it is a major ingredient to flight ops around the world. But to say that NWS/NOAA or any other agency should only have hot tarmack or runway data as the “best weather” information (or record) for New York City, Kansas City, or Los Angeles, etc., is insane. Weather is local. Weather safety is very local (airports). While something the size of Podunk Oregon may only need one weather station, something the size of Mexico City will need a hundred or more (besides the “one” at the airport).

February 15, 2010 10:41 am

Well, it is an already known fact that THEY made the poisoning recipe by removing cold temperatures sites. Everybody knew about “Climate Gate” and so on, but such as all data point to not warming and no AGW, it is equally true that CO2 has been already considered a pollutant and Carbon Trade and UN’s Global Governance policies won’t be put aside…
What is it needed for you, up there in the “first world” to change things back to common sense?

Pamela Gray
February 15, 2010 11:04 am

Pascvaks, you forget that the food on your table depends on accurate weather forecasts in Podunk, Oregon. Climate zones have been mapped all over the world. These are where temperature sensors are needed (along with airport only sensors) in order to stay on top of plant hardiness. If you want people in Mexico City to know what kind of coat to wear or sunscreen to put on, let them have their own out the back door thermometer. Once agricultural purposes are satisfied within climate zones, the predictive forecasting models that will be generated will be more accurately tuned. The side benefit is of course, better prediction for folks in Mexico City. By focusing on agricultural climate zone areas first and foremost, we all benefit.

George E. Smith
February 15, 2010 11:10 am

Well I would be happy to take off from that airport any time the pilot says it is OK. The Stevenson Screen location seems about perfect to me.
But don’t anyone go sending those readings to any climate researcher, who might decide to use the data to represent some place up in the Dolomites.

February 15, 2010 11:24 am

Can I point out that in the tail of that aircraft is an AUXILIARY POWER UNIT (APU), the APU is a single shaft gas turbine located in the unpressurized tailcone.
Average APU fuel consumption = 115 kg / h (ground) & 90 kg / h (flight)
aviation fuel heat of combustion = 43.5 MJ/kg
energy due to combustion of fuel = 5,000 Mj/hr.

February 15, 2010 11:41 am

What has happen to Harvey Puca ?
I hope that he’s realised alredy that gavin’s “method” does not work here

February 15, 2010 11:54 am

Ref – Pamela Gray (11:04:14) :
“Pascvaks, you forget…”
Been doing more of that (forgetting) lately. Fully agree! I believe there are just as many thermometers in NYC as in Mexico City — if not more.

February 15, 2010 12:19 pm

Gee, ya think that might make temps seem warmer than they are?

February 15, 2010 12:41 pm
Dr T G Watkins
February 15, 2010 12:59 pm

Cardiff, Wales Airport is our local Met.Office station. Like Bridget H-S I’d be happy to participate in a UK station survey, as I posted some time ago. I’m retired with stacks of time and there is only so much golf I can play.

February 15, 2010 1:21 pm

@Andy (12:41:40) :
Located at Roma Ciampino
Andy, just read the posts. There is at least 10 references to the location, with links to maps

February 15, 2010 1:34 pm

Oh no –
for those of you who think the photo was photoshopped,
now it appears that Microsoft’s Bing Maps is in on the deception with Google:
Well, OK, there isn’t an aircraft parked there, but the location of the equipment is the same.

February 15, 2010 1:35 pm

Sorry, that link was bad. Rome’s airport is Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport, and that’s not the airport talked about in this post.

February 15, 2010 2:13 pm

Thanks for your input ML. I take comments in blogs with less than a grain of salt. My point had to do with the post. There is a distinction between “Rome’s airport” and an airport in Rome.
But, again, thanks for your input. You’ve reminded me that I need explain things in excruciating detail or someone will fail to see the obvious point.

February 15, 2010 2:20 pm

Ron Dean (09:22:14) :
Yes, but Vicky missed some keywords. Like “Robust”.
Maybe getting nervous?
Counting sunspots, no doubt.

February 15, 2010 2:36 pm

@ Ron de Haan (09:48:33) :
“Global Warming, it isn’t happening:
Congratulations to Mr Wakefield for this animation. He tried it out here last night. Excellent stuff. I shall show this to my warmist pals (but, of course, they’ll say it’s not peer reviewed, unlike the IPCC). The next step is how to get them through the cognitive dissonance.

February 15, 2010 2:53 pm

I will hate myself for asking this, but in scientific inquiries the questions should be asked regardless.
The jets make for horizontal streams of hot gases. The hot gases rise, and the horizontal stream curves into a vertical column. The column then draws in surrounding air around it, as in at the bottom of the column. With moist ground (has water content), this flowing air will cause evaporation thus cooling of the ground (wind chill).
Therefore won’t jet exhaust directed at the weather station at a certain distance create a cooling effect and lower temperature readings? That should be when the column is roughly between the station and the jet engine, although the column could be some distance to the side of the station and still yield cooling.
There is the possibility that the horizontal stream becomes so diluted by surrounding air that whatever column effect is generated is negligible. But still, this seems a question worth considering.

Bill Parsons
February 15, 2010 3:01 pm

If this is one of the ASOS (Automated Surface Observations Systems), it was created and situated on airport runways by FAA and Department of Defense to keep pilots updated on prevailing runway take-off conditions. these stations also serve as “the nation’s primary surface weather observing network.”
Parked on (sometimes in) a sea of asphalt or tarmac, their readings have to be viewed with scepticism, espectially if their maximum daily temperatue is really just the biggest, most proximate jet blast, and their minimum is just an alloy of local fields with the diffusing heat of the roads and runways around them. This needs repeating.
I guess the question is, can the jet blast effects be seen in the records?

ASOS works non-stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
NWS Office of Meteorology
Site maintained by
Last Update:08/03/99

A minute-by-minute record of temperatures would surely show the spikes of heat from jet take-offs where boxes are situated within range of those blasts.

ASOS detects significant changes, disseminating hourly and special observations via the networks. Additionally, ASOS routinely and automatically provides computer-generated voice observations directly to aircraft in the vicinity of airports, using FAA ground-to-air radio. These messages are also available via a telephone dial-in port. ASOS observes, formats, archives and transmits observations automatically.

If these reports are accessible, could the take-off record be seen?

Douglas DC
February 15, 2010 3:59 pm

Bill Parsons (15:01:09) : ASOS is notoriously unreliable for general weather
information.The Mark I eyeball was better.I rather doubt the spikes would be
shown-but I agree that Airport Changes are important. Portland, Oregon last
summer had a High of 106, last summer. To the delight of Warmists in Oregon
other equally Asphalt ridden Airports in the general did also have near record
highs. Out in Nowhere,Oregon there were no records UHI? hmm…
As an aside, we are having a nice open, winter here in La Grande, Or.
(below 3500 ft.-sorry Pamela.) I am hearing the chortling and mewing of warmists already. They have no idea what it may be like next year…

dick chambers
February 15, 2010 4:03 pm

Those Stevensons screens at Rome Airport seem to be supersized :
about 1.5 metres by 1.1 metres as measured on Google earth (calibrated using the rail tracks at 1.4 metres) – compare them to the width of the euroean cars in the park.
Are these special or are they not the stevensons screens?

John F. Hultquist
February 15, 2010 4:24 pm

Folks, I reported the name and coordinates of the Ciampino airport @ 22:37:03. 18 hours later we now know more about this airport than it deserves. And this is the second time this particular station has been discussed on WUWT and it was identified then.
[ ]
Note the second line of the title of this post, namely “doubts on station data” and think for a second. This is only one of several dozen station photos that could have been inserted under the title. The point really is that with all the issues this place has (or doesn’t have) there is doubt that it is useful for long term climatic investigation.

John Runberg
February 15, 2010 6:43 pm

Looking at this on Google Earth, there are parallel runways. The short one is closed (x on ends).
Speaking as a pilot (Navy P-3). I want to know the runway temperature, especially when the question is can the plane get safely airborne at the planned weight on a hot summer afternoon. Hot air has less lift!

p.g.sharrow "PG"
February 15, 2010 8:12 pm

What is this crap that Anthony Watts and company surface station reports are not “peer” reviewed? Just who in the heck is this wonderful “peerage” that has to validate a report on the facts of surface station sites. A “climate scientist” maybe, like Phil Jones.
These guys use the data in their papers but it’s not “peer reviewed” for general use.
Gr r r r r r…………….

Rick's Cafe
February 16, 2010 2:28 am

Not being a math wizard, but know that they exist…I wonder what amout of ‘adjustment’ is required to compensate for a mass of heat gathering concrete that’s close to the thermometer.

Phil A
February 16, 2010 10:08 am

“It is quite deplorable and shocking that scientists should have made such fundamental errors of judgement in selecting the sources for their climate data. ”
Quite seriously, as with the Mann hockey-stick, I think that if something gave the “right” answer then they promptly stopped caring about looking at it any harder. Once it’s confessed you can stop torturing the data.
One of my first “sceptic” insights was seeing a “popular denialist arguments debunked” list in which item after item data that had seemed to contradict AGW was “subsequently found to have errors”, the removal of which conveniently put it back on message again. And I couldn’t help but wonder whether the data that had supported AGW had been given anything like the same level of scrutiny. (And then later I found ClimateAudit and discovered what had been found when someone did, but that’s another story!)

Phil A
February 16, 2010 10:18 am

“But note I don’t think Heathrow is used by Cru or Gistemp.” – robertM
Not that that stops the BBC, of course:
“The record was initially topped earlier in the day when Heathrow airport registered 37.9C (100.2F), meaning the hottest day since records began about 130 years ago in 1875. ” – BBC News, August 2003
“London’s Heathrow Airport had seen the highest recorded temperatures on both Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday the thermometer there recorded its highest ever reading of 35C (95F). ” – BBC News, July 2006
Or indeed the UK Met Office:
“During the summer of 1976, Heathrow had 16 consecutive days over 30 °C from 23 June to 8 July (its highest number of consecutive days above 30 °C). In 2003, Heathrow managed three consecutive days above 30 °C between 4 and 6 August 2003, and five consecutive days between 8 and 12 August 2003”
If the numbers look “nice”, who cares where they come from?!

David Alan Evans
February 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Small quibble with the jet output.
The jets on a twin as shown, point slightly outwards, the jetwash would probably converge at the Stephenson screen. 🙂

David Alan Evans
February 16, 2010 2:15 pm

I would be inclined to agree with those posters who say that aircraft would likely be towed to that location. However, engine tests are not unheard of at the parked location, it would be interesting to have a log & if the change was enough to flag an inconsistency.
It is also not unheard of for aircraft to taxi from parking due to lack of available towing tractors.

Stephen Skinner
February 16, 2010 3:43 pm

The plane is an Airbus A319 of the Italian Air Force:—Air/Airbus-A319-115X-CJ/1579298/L/&sid=c2e9b502c091a708bccbd2bf93b89d45
You can see the Automated Weather Station etc. to the right. I’m not saying this is the same plane, but the hard standing looks like it’s for the Air Force.
Here is another view.—Air/Airbus-A319-115X-CJ/1353145/L/&sid=c2e9b502c091a708bccbd2bf93b89d45
The apron markings appear to be geared for a plane of this size and no bigger. I don’t see why they would be towed unless it’s to get them in the hanger.
Not sure of the exact engine but perhaps the CFM56-5B7 producing 27,000lbf (not 50,000lbf). These are high by-pass engines which means they will move a greater amount of air at a slower spead. Also the hot air from the combustion chambers as it leaves the exhaust is surrounded by unheated air. Lots of it. The safety distance behind such engines, in fact any type of engine producing blast is more to do with things being picked up and blown back.
Besides that, it is easy to see the weather stations are just going to read hot regardless of whether you have jet engines wafting warm air over.

%d bloggers like this: