On episode 106 of The Climate Realism Show, we look yet again at the sad state of the U.S. Surface Temperature network, as host Anthony Watts has done yet another trip across the heartland of United States to get a fresh look at how these stations are setup.
In 2009, and then again, as a follow-up, in 2022, detailed inspections with station location data and photographic evidence the problematic stations were done. Stations providing official climate data that were sited in locations where surrounding surfaces, structures, and equipment radiated stored heat or emitted heat directly biasing or driving the recorded temperatures higher than were recorded at stations in the same region, uncompromised by the well-known UHI (that is widely ignored by alarmists and official government agencies).
Of the sampling of hundreds of stations across the country Watts and his volunteer team documented in 2009, 89% were out of compliance for proper measurement practices. In 2022, with the second inspection, that number rose to 96%. The trip last week, while taking a smaller sample than the two previous efforts, approached 100% as out of compliance.
Join host Anthony Watts, and The Heartland Institute’s usual climate crew of H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, to talk about the new findings and also the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.
Watch LIVE (or recorded later) HERE
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But you don’t understand.
Any problems can be taken care of in post-production.
/sarc
Anthony, can’t thank you enough for your endless work exposing the dark underbelly of the temperature measuring stations.
Best to you and yours,
w.
Too bad most of the world doesn’t notice this work.
But does the USG report that the majority of their reporting stations are not fit for purpose and, therefore, a waste of the taxpayers’ money, as is using the data for policymaking?
Oh, but those stations are just for show, because any “out-of-line” temps will be “interpolated/massaged” to fit “the approved narrative”, supported by their “settled science”
I know I bang on at every opportunity with my opinion that global average temperature is a nonsense construct, but my opinion is rooted in the fact that the probity and provenance of the temperatures readings are woefully suspect.
Then atmospheric temperatures products are also suspect as they are basically within error margins of the surface record.
The calculation methods are something to examine closely. ave = (max-min)/2 does not account for durations at interval temperatures and therefore the average is erroneous. In fact, the average could be too low.
That’s the problem.
Who tf knows?
Tavg is more that inadequate, it is a screwy metric. I don’t know who chose it or why, I have looked, but I suspect someone wanted something they could use in telling the public what yesterday was like. It is not a scientific by any means.
We have going on 40 years of second by second, minute by minute, i.e., some small increment of time for temperatures. There is no reason that can not be simply numerically integrated into a daily degree-day value. Measurement uncertainty would still need to be calculated but that could be evaluated on a per station basis and more easily combined.
Go doooooood, don’t talk about it, do it! However, don’t spill the porridge.
Baseline Av_T-data are (Max+Min/2).
So … like long-term trend?
I’m sure you can find a way. Otherwise ask Karlo.
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
All of those temperature measuring stations should be banned from the internet and from social media for spreading misinformation.
I am positive that the Google Safety Engineering Center for Content Responsibility will get right on that!
As above – then so should the likes of UAH TLT.
Wrong.. UAH is regular, even spaced and scientifically combined.
Validated against balloon and other data.
UAH shows no warming periods summing to 36 years of the 45 years.
The only warming is at El Nino events.
The El Nino Nutter strikes again
The sum of El Ninos and La Ninas is temperature neutral in the long run
Both are temporary regional heating or cooling events that cause temporary warming or cooling. They do not cause a long term rising or falling trend
They did not cause 1940 to 1975 cooling or 1975 to 2024 warming.
They do make you sound dumb, however.
The rising temperature trend since 1975 is boosted temporarily by a El Nino and flattened temporarily by a La Nina
The El Nino peaks are more visible on an anomaly chart than La Nina troughs, so that’s all you see to create your silly El Nino Nutter theory.
Poor RG,
Still can’t read and understand data.
Still doesn’t understand El Nino and La Nina.
Still doesn’t have any evidence of CO2 causing warming.
The rising land temperature since 1970 is purely due to urban warming, which you also choose to be ignorant of.
The only warming in the atmospheric data is at the major El Ninos, between them, trend is essentially zero.. a total of about 36 year out of the last 45.
Don’t be a data-denying AGW-lukewarmer nutter… it makes you look very, very stupid.
Your choice, I suppose. !
It’s OK. There’s an algorithm for that.
/sarc (In case you didn’t get it)
Guys, it looks like the explosions, fire, and jets of fire on the highway are due to “A truck, loaded with gas cylinders, is seen speeding past at the 24-second mark.”
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/explosive-video-gaslights-electric-vehicle-drivers/
I saw that video years ago … it happened 11 years ago, and they were not electric vehicles… why would WUWT post this as something that just happened???
Here’s the full video of those explosions near Moscow in 2013:
Sorry, How do I delete that ? … let me try again:
If the data the hypothesis is based on can’t be trusted, how trustworthy can the hypothesis of AGW be?
A tree ring told me?
With Tree Rings On Their Fingers
The only way the ClimDiv data could possibly match USCRN is by deliberate matching.
So yes, they can “adjust” for the horrendous siting of their surface stations.
Just match their result to USCRN.
Peter Green… extra decimal place added…
should be 0.04% current and 0.02% plant problem level.
Anthony,
The video showing the “EV truck” exploding is not an EV it’s a speeding truck carrying gas and happened in Moscow in 2013.
From a different angle:
The poor weather station siting ONLY TELLS US NOAA does not even try to appear to do honest climate science
It does not tell us if the US warming trend is excessive or actually smaller than claimed. We are at the mercy of having to trust whatever NOAA tells us.
More important:
Predictions of CAGW are unrelated to any historical climate data. So even if the US average temperature statistic was perfectly accurate, CO2 would still be a leftist boogeyman and CAGW would still be predicted.
CAGW predictions began in the late 1950s and got a lot of publicity in 1979, just four years after a global warming trend began in 1975. The global warming CAGW boogeyman was alive before there was much time to create a fictitious warming trend.
The US Gov. claims the planet is now a frying pan, but the gov. will not pay to collect quality data to support this claim. At the same time the gov. spends billions to endlessly kill people and blow things up all over planet frying pan.
“We are at the mercy of having to trust whatever NOAA tells us.”
Or the UK Met Office. Or Japan. Or Norway. Or Australia. Or any scientific institution in the world.
There, fixed it for you.
Anthony Watts has long claimed he was going publish a scientific paper debunking claims that the earth was warming at a fast rate.
So where is Anthony’s paper? Has he submitted it to quality scientific journals, eg Nature or Science? Or did they reject his paper?