Anyone who has tailgated in a stadium parking lot on a hot day can tell you about micro-climate. So can roofers. They will tell you it is a heck of a lot hotter up where they are than what the Weather Channel says.
We have all seen this phenomena. We notice as we drive around town that the temperature readings on a bank display does not agree with the display across the street and neither agrees with the "official" temperature.
So how do we know what the real temperature is?
That is a hard question but if you want a reasonable answer, don't measure temperature in the parking lot of a football stadium on a hot day or put your thermometer above the exhaust of your air conditioner.
That's just common sense, isn't it? - but hold that thought.
We know all about Global Warming because NASA periodically reports the average temperature of the earth - with complete confidense, right down to the 100th of a degree.
If you ask NASA what they base this confidence on, they will reassure you the information comes from a "high quality" data source, the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN).
Most people, such as climate scientists, government officials and the IPCC stop asking questions right about there. But if you have read this far, you probably are a little more curious than those people.
If you ask NASA how they know their data is "high quality", chances are they will begin to stutter.
If you ask whether they have a quality control program in place, they will shuffle their feet and look away.
If you ask when they last confirmed the quality of the USHCN or global GHCN networks with site surveys, they might tell you they are expecting an urgent call on another line.
The truth is, NASA knows its data is corrupt and has admitted that what they supply to academics, the IPCC and the public is based on a deteriorating network.
In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS concluded:
"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Program to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."
Ten years later, nothing has been done.
Because of NASA's negligence and bureaucratic foot-dragging, a group of volunteers formed SurfaceStations.org to thoroughly document the state of the USHCN network.
What they found boggles the mind.
But why don't you do yourself what NASA has neglected to do. Eyeball the network and see for yourself what shape it is in.
See SurfaceStations.org Database
Here is what I did.
I live in Minnesota so I started with the town of Ada and reviewed the full list of stations all the way to Zumbrota. Here is a sample of what I found.
This is the station at Ada, Minnesota. Notice how close this data point is to buildings, a satelitte dish and an asphalt street. What do you think it looked like in 1880? Or 1940? So how much has global warming raised temperature here and how much warming comes from the street?
Or better yet, how much does radiant temperature from the street and buildings nudge NASA's annual statistics?
Here is Zumbrota, Minnesota. Notice the parking lot, methane flares, and concrete of the sewage treatment facility. What did this look like in 1880? Or even 1980?
Of course, this one at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota is my personal favorite. Need I say more?
Well, I will, the readings from this station show a 4C jump from about 1999, when the A/C units were placed in this location and that 4C bump is pumped straight into NASA's annual press releases.
Let's continue in alphabetic order.
Albert Lea, Minnesota, notice the buildings equipment, concrete and methane flares.
Fairmont, Minnesota.
Need I mention the parking lot and utility boxes or are you getting good at spotting these things yourself?
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
What's wrong here? Other than the hot jet blasts? Could it be a new runway that radiates heat, day and night?
Saint Peter, Minnesota.
(How are you doing?)
Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Winnebago, Minnesota.
So what can we conclude from all this?
I don't know.
I could not tell you how much the corruption of USHCN data affects the science of global climate change.
But then, neither can anyone else.
=============================================================
A summary of SurfaceStations.org's work to date.
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:
Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."
Here are the results with 534 of 1221 stations surveyed.
Class 1 = 4%
Class 2 = 9%
Class 3 = 18%
Class 4 = 56%
Class 5 = 13%In summary, 87% of the USHCN network surveyed by SurfaceStations.org is reporting inaccurate data.
© Greg Schiller, 2008
Author: Greg Schiller
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 109
Actually, you do know what you have concluded from this, as it is interspersed throughout the article. You have concluded that all government scientists are corrupt, that all climate scientists are both corrupt and incompetent, and that you know that decades of climate change research by scientists all over the world has been faked just so Al Gore could get an Oscar and Nobel Prize (presumably so he would get invited to all the fancy dinners scientists are prone to have when collectively pulling the wool over the eyes of the world).
The facts speak for themselves, however I would not use these facts to conclude that global warming does not exist, nor that anthropomorphic global climate change is a sham, because one cannot conclude such things from these facts.
What we can conclude is the data we are getting is not "high quality" and no one really knows how much the deterioration of the network has influenced the science of global climate change.
But this does raise questions.
The biggest question is why does it take citizen volunteers to address a problem that NASA should have addressed a decade ago?
Because gov employees have no incentive to get anything right. They live on tax dollars that are confiscated by force. In the free market they wouldn't last a week before filing bankrupcy.
Because of the reasons you cite, the opposition of many prominent scientists, and the use of spokespersons like Al Gore, I have become convinced that "climate change" is a political campaign rather than a movement based on science.
The next question, of course, is what can be done to get reliable data? Obviously we can't forbid people to build schools, a/c units, etc on their own property just because there's a NASA temperature instrument there...
There are plenty of good sites. All that need be done is for NASA to do thorough site analysis on the entire network and drop the corrupt data points.
Sadly, that is about two-thirds of the USHCN network.
As I understand it, there are about 1221 stations that are enrolled in the USHCN, but there are about 14,000 volunteer sites in the U.S. NASA can simply draw from that pool.
About pretty much everything.
I would not be too quick to pull the trigger on "global warming" because even pristine "high quality" sites measure a rise in temperature over the last century.
The question is not "if", it is "how much" and we need a quality data network to get a quality answer.
But, when I see sudden shifts to "climate change" and a political movement to alter our economy with the government in control because of "climate change", color me skeptical.
Imagine if someone in the financial community had "checked the data points" five years ago. A lot of people would still be working, wouldn't they?
Getting good data would help us filter out what is important.
Let's be clear about that too.
Some of the examples you point out also illustrate our impact on the micro-climate: the large swaths of concrete and asphalt create heat islands, which impact local weather conditions, not to mention the sheer volume of particulate pollutants pumped in the air in many areas.
Certainly the holes punched into the ozone layer by our prolific use of CFC's are or will impact our climate...
In the case of the USHCN and GHCN, you have to conclude that NASA and the IPCC are negligent and are basing conclusions on corrupt data sources.
What this all means in the end? We don't know, but I hope it is not as serious as our lack of good data on the world financial system.
What, you didn't like HICCup? :)
NASA did well with getting to the moon, but I think they let their success go to their heads.
It isn't "Al Gore's science." It is the science of decades of climate change scientists. Gore borrowed it for his presentation.
It seems logical that climate change scientists would have already been tipped off about the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles, and therefore considered them in their analyses.
The "data collection" to which you are referring is certainly not perfect, but again, do you really think someone hasn't already tipped these guys off that some of the ground data stations are in disrepair? Furthermore, do you think climate change experts would rely solely on a bunch of cheap temperature sensors sitting in someones backyard? Wouldn't it make sense that they might have some more sophisticated equipment, much of it aloft, to fit into a huge network of sensing instruments located around the planet (both on ground and in orbit)? Don't you think that the dozens of computer models would be tested and validated so that they can take into consideration variable sensor data? Given that the temperature of any one location can be quite variable from morning to noon to night, with and without clouds, with and without rain, with and without snow, wouldn't it make sense that climate change scientists might be sophisticated enough to know how and/or when to use such variable data?
Never been open for debate? Then you must have missed the thousands of scientific papers, decades of research, hundreds (at least) of scientific meetings, reams and reams of scientific articles highlighting the often contentious debates, and thousands of lay press (and Gather) articles discussing the topic for years.
Just because others haven't been paying attention doesn't mean climate change scientists haven't been debating this thing for decades. Al Gore's presentation may have gotten all the attention, but the slides he presented were take from years and years of debate, analysis, testing, more testing, modeling, model refinement, arguments over model refinements, and then more testing, more refinement, more debate. That's how scientific consensus is reached. It isn't just some guys getting together in their garage one day over a couple of beers with the ball game on in the background suddenly deciding "hey, let's pull a fast one and start a fad that man is affecting the climate." No, that would show a lack of responsible and logical reasoning, wouldn't it?
Read the entire article, David. Pay special attention to the paragraph where NASA's Jim Hansen states " the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."
Then realize that ten years past without NASA implementing a quality control program.
One would think that would be the case, but then one would be wrong. The USHCN and GHCN are the primary tool used to measure global climate change. Satellite data has only been in use since 1979. To get a historic comparison, you have to go back further than that.
Furthermore, no seems to agree on the interpretation of satellite data. The British Hadley Climate Research Unit is frequently at odd with NASA even though they use the same data.
Most of us thought the same about the world financial system too. Then it collapsed because none of the bright people who based their computer models on financial assumptions actually checked the data.
But you need to do some research, David.
The USHCN does adjust for known variability such as time-of-day and cloud cover, but no statistical method can adjust for a parking lot that it does not know is there.
Let me ask you this.
After seeing the world financial system collapse because it was built on statisitical data models that made assumptions without actually checking and monitoring the data - how can you make such a statement.
Here you are with visual data (otherwise known as hard data) that confirms the USHCN network is inadequate. Here you are with statements by NASA itself about inadequacy of the network......
...and you still say "trust the experts".
I think we tried that and a whole lot of people are out of work
How about instead insisting we "trust the experts" you demadnd the experts "get the data right!!!"?
Do I trust the scientific process and decades of research by people that know what they are studying more than I trust some ex-television weatherman and some random folks writing a blog without knowing how to interpret the information? You betcha.
Nice try, but this simply accentuates the lack of logical analysis. The financial system collapsed due to computer models? LOL. There are a lot of reasons why the financial system collapsed, including lack of sufficient oversight, greed, and some sleight-of-hand that resulted in the equivalent of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater along with "get your refunds at the door on the way out." It had nothing to do with some computer model.
But then you know that your whole reason for introducing a wholely unrelated canard its to deflect from the weak, ney, no existent, case you've provided to refute climate change.
I know we don't agree on a lot of things Greg, but if we're collectively going to deal with the important issues this country has to face - financial, social, environmental, business, and otherwise - we have to stop playing the games.
Greg - Now you're just trying to be silly. You suggest that decades of research by qualified scientists who have debated the issue and reached a consensus is "religion" and yet you willingly extrapolate a few random photographs off someone's blog as "proof" of your opposite contention?
Come on.
There are people who believe the world is carried on the back of a turtle. I would not disrepect them by showing them a photo of the world without a turtle.
I am not here to undermine your faith, merely to speak to those who want to form their own opinions.
Believe what you feel you must believe
Sorry for the repost, I was correcting a typo.
David, believe what you have to believe. Whatever gets you through the day.
I quoted NASA's Jim Hansen on the inadequacy of the network. He is one of the experts you believe, but apparently he is not to be believed in this instance because believing him does not buttress your faith.
I provided visual evidense from the survey of my own state documenting the condition of the network. I cannot make you believe what you do not want to believe. And I don't want you to believe anything other than what you feel you need to.
In the big picture, I admit that climate science is not going to convince a certain segment of society of which you are a member. No, I do not advocate delaying action to combat climate change until every last human on the planet, including Exxon employees, jumps on the bandwagon. I can't even get everyone on Gather to agree that handing a loaded gun to an 8 year old is foolish, so why should this be any different.
I agree to disagree, because total agreement here is not going to happen.
What we have to do is demand that NASA and the IPCC get the science right. Correcting the USHCN and GHCN networks is not difficult. All it would take is 50 grad students, one in each state, with 2 weeks, a GPS, a car, a camera and a notebook.
Once a thorough survey is taken, the corupt stations can be eliminated from the network and the historical record corrected.
I do not think that is too much to ask and I have to wonder why it was not done ten years ago.
As already said, you provided photographs of some temperature sensing stations. But are they the stations used to input data into the models? Which data points from those stations are used in the models? How many other data points from other stations are input? How many satellite and other remote sensing data points are input? How does the model deal with daily/hourly natural flutuations in temperature at any sensing station due to clouds, rain, snow, someone hanging their coat on it, birds building a nest on it? There are at least a thousand other questions that need to be answered before you can interpret a photograph of a sensing station and extrapolate somehow to "scientistis are corrupt" and climate change is a fad.
Scientists are trained to question everything. It is not a matter of "believing what they feel the need to believe," it is the continual hypothesizing and testing of said hypotheses until you reach a point where the vast majority of researchers are confident that they have reached a consensus of opinion. And even then they continue to collect new information, test and retest the hypotheses, adjust models that are too variable, input new data, and debate the meaning of any outputs.
But then, if you want to believe in the turtle theory, I wouldn't want to disrespect you by showing you photographs of the world from space. You can believe in whatever you feel the need to believe in. Just don't expect the rest of us to define public policy based on the lack of ability of a small minority to understand consensus.
Jim Hansen has driven a lot of good people out of NASA because they did not agree with his agenda. Given how vocal he is, he can hardly complain about being muzzled.
But you are mssing the point. Hansen acknowledged the network was inadequate then did nothing to fix it.
Yes, these are USHCN network stations. We have covered this groud.
Go to the website I linked above and read.
Dude, these stations violate USHCN minimum criteria for a site.
What part of that do you not understand?
You are spinning like a top and looking very foolish. Spin all you want but you cannot spin good data out of a hot parking lot.
Give it a rest, join the rational side of this issue. Demand that NASA do what it acknowledged it must do, and tell the IPCC to get the data right.
I feel like Darwin presenting his drawings of birds to a creationist. Look at the freak'n pictures. The pictures tell a story.
I am not trying to convince you that your God does not exist. You may feel that anything that challenges theology does exactly that, but it doesn't.
You simply have to find a way to incorporate the facts of the world into your view of the world.
LOL! David does not look at hard evidence. He is above that sort of thing.
If we design for 100 years flood condition in an area that is active, we are going to pay more insurance because it has a very high possibility of flooding. If we are the designer, our calculations have to take into account this weakness if we want to get insurance at reasonable cost.
To me, it is what may happen to my coastal home while I still live there. Or what chance I will need to design on my connections to be flexible enough to allow bending during an earth quake. Our governments need to think further because they have much more involved. Will their new city fail or flood and kill thousands? Some one has to bet on what will happen and this is the insurance companies.
Science needs to think beyond our needs because it is possible for mankind to destroy our world life system. This should not be a debate, but a deep discussion of which way we are going and do we have enough time to do anything about it.
Ah, you're on to something Greg. Pictures can tell a story. But what story do they tell? That perhaps that less than 1% of the data input might be inconsistent? Or is it 0.01%, or 0.001%? Or is it 0%? In order for a few temperature sensing stations to have any significant impact on the climate change discussion they would have to invalidate all of the other data (the 99%, 99.9%, 99.99% or whatever) that isn't flawed. But shouldn't these guys have thought of that and figured it into their calculations? Why are thousands of climate researchers working for decades smarter than an ex-television meteorologist/blogger and yourself and see how your photographs invalidate the consensus? Why is your meteorologist/blogger not presenting this evidence to the IPCC and others for incorporation into their analyses? Or has he? Perhaps he has shown them all the photos and they have told him exactly why they don't affect the results? Perhaps they have taken his data, and the data of thousands of other meteorologist/bloggers and incorporated it into their calculations?
This is science. It asks questions, and asks questions to the answers to those questions. It craves information, and readily embraces information that is apparently contradictory to see if it changes their assumptions, or if there is something wrong with the old data or the new data. And yet, scientific consensus rarely tosses out a theory that fits 99.99% of the data just because 0.01% of the data don't fit quite so well.
Meanwhile, non-scientists see no compunction in taking that very same 0.01% of uncertainty and blinding following it to the conclusion they want to see based on presupposition or denial, all the while accusing scientists of "following their religion" because they reach a consensus supported by 99.99% of the data.
"I am not trying to convince you that your God does not exist. You may feel that anything that challenges theology does exactly that, but it doesn't."
Huh? We're talking science here. Preponderance of data. Scientific consensus is built on the preponderance of data. Religion is believing something based on faith, i.e., without any possible way to prove or disprove. No way to test. We have ways to test our assumptions and our models with climate change. Are we 100% sure? Of course not.
"You simply have to find a way to incorporate the facts of the world into your view of the world."
What facts of the world are you talking about? The facts that scientists have been collecting for decades? Got those. Or the "facts" that some small minority of folks who would prefer a different outcome have decided supercedes all of the actual scientific facts?
Part of the problem here is rational perspective. Plot a million data points on a graph and if there is a pattern you should be able to see it. Plot one data point on a graph - and you got nothing. Consensus is a million data points.
"Ah, you're on to something Greg. Pictures can tell a story. But what story do they tell? That perhaps that less than 1% of the data input might be inconsistent? Or is it 0.01%, or 0.001%? Or is it 0%?"
LOL@David, I know you struggle to connect the dots, so let me help you. Scroll up and read Hansen's quote again. Even HE says there is a problem.
As David K. pointed out, this is an international concern with scientists around the globe studying it. We are an embarrassment among industrialized nations. We put out close to the highest amount of emissions in the world and yet we are doing the least about it and have consistently refused to cooperate with other countries.
Two thirds of the surveyed sites fall outside minimum requirements.
You keep mentioning consensus, as if consensus is science. It is not. It is precisely the opposite of science.
Perhaps this is the problem. Of course "consensus" is not science. That would be silly. Consensus is a term used to communicate that the vast majority - sometimes all, but not necessarily all - agree with whatever they are agreeing on. There can be a consensus on any topic, or if you ever participated in a board meeting, perhaps on no topic. Consensus essentially means "we have thought about and discussed this and done our homework and this is the conclusion that can be drawn." Consensus just means agreement.
In the context of the climate change discussion, consensus means that the vast majority of climate change scientists, i.e., those people who actually study this stuff, have come to the agreement that climate change is real and that man has influenced it in recent times.
So, scientists are in agreement that climate change is real and influenced by man.
So to ignore consensus is to ignore the conclusions of those people who have researched it the most for decades.
The last part of your comment is baffling....that consensus "is precisely the opposite of science." What exactly does consensus mean to you? You seem to be suggesting that consensus, i.e., the agreement of scientists that climate change is real, is diammetricallyl opposed to reality? That despite decades of work by thousands of scientists, you and the ex-meteorologist/blogger know that climate change is not real? That your measure for reality is to find out what the consensus is and then "know" that the truth is the opposite? That the more scientists (or anyone else for that matter) agree on a particular issue, that means they must be wrong?
That one you're going to have to explain.
While you're at it, you mean take a crack at explaining what you mean by this one. What facts are being ignored? You seem to think that the photographs are the only "facts" that exist and everything else done all these years by people who actually study it are "not facts?" You also seem to think that the evidence you and your blogger uncovered is "new" and "being ignored." But to conclude this presumes an understanding of how the data from those sites may or may not be being used. Can you describe how they are being used? Start with the simple part - given that any sensing site, whether properly maintained or not, can have a wide range of temperature fluctuations during any given day, night, and weather patterns, how do they incorporate that data into their models and calculations? If you know the answer to that you will understand why your findings 1) have already been considered, and 2) do not change the conclusions.
Few people would disagree with that statement. I certainly do not.
You seem to think that if only you can "say something" or "say anything" that the facts of the quality problems at USHCN will magically go away.
The problems will not "go away" until the problems are fixed.
The USHCN data set accomidates normal variations in daily temperature. A parking lot, an air conditioner, and a south facing slope or wall are not "normal variations in daily temperature".
If you had bothered to read what constitutes minimum requirements for siting, you would know that - but you are just desperately trying to come up with something, anything to say to refute an incovenient truth.
Maybe you should just climb on board the "consensus" at NASA and admit the network is flawed.
One would think hiring a handfull of grad students armed with GPS's, cameras and notebooks to survey the network would not be "rocket science".
;-)
But, I do envy your little trip across Minnesota! Stopping in a bunch of little towns, maybe eating a the local diner, or sitting at a park bench in the town park underneath the water tower. Looked like summer, watching the crops grow, the kids playing baseball on the local field, oh, the smell of some naturally fertilized fields!
There are 18 distinct groups of polar bears, only 2 show any sign of stress and no one has been able to link that stress to climate change or a variance in the sea ice extent, which in the last year is recovering quite well.
Let's try to distinguish between propaganda and science.
As for me, I tend to trust people who live in the arctic and actually study polar bears.
Northern News Service: Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait
Remarks by Secretary Kempthorne on Polar Bears Listed as Threatened Species 2008
Remarks By Secretary Kempthorne, Press Conference On Polar Bear Listing, May 14, 2008
Today I am listing the polar bear as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act.
In taking these actions, I accept the recommendations of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Lyle Laverty, and the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall. I also relied upon scientific analysis from the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, Dr. Mark Myers, and his team of scientists.
Today’s decision is based on three findings. First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future.
Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future - in this case 45 years.
I have accepted the science presented to me by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. I have also accepted these professionals’ best scientific and legal judgments that the loss of sea ice, not oil and gas development or subsistence activities, are the reason the polar bear is threatened.
[It's clear by his comments that it kills him to have to actually take scientists' advice and do his job, which shows just how convincing the data really are.]
The report from the U.S. Geological Survey was never submitted to a peer reviewed journal, for obvious reasons, it was garbage. Here is a reveiw of the report.
There are hundreds more pictures, each providing hard irrefutable evidence, in the SurfaceStations.org database.
And yet he clearly cites how persuasive the science was in the decision.
I'm sorry, but you are citing a professor from a business school (Wharton is a top notch business school, but we're discussing science here, not business) as a valid critique of the Department of Interior's report? A report that combines the expertise of the USGS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and a host of other relevant experts?
As you have shown, Professor Armstrong has written books on "forecasting" and therefore is likely to be considered an expert on modeling techniques in general. Which is why when he says that he was "unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated," you should immediately wonder why he phrased it in that way. In fact, he doesn't say the methods are wrong, only that he couldn't find published papers showing the validation. That isn't uncommon, as this was a government report, not a journal article. The government writes tons of reports that it never publishes. That doesn't mean their methods aren't valid, just that they don't normally publish them. And even if they do publish the information, that publication process can take a year or more, meaning that any government report will be out long before any peer-reviewed publications even if they do publish the data.
The funny thing is taking one data point, misinterpreting it either intentionally or accidentally, and then using it as proof of all the rest of the data points that are all closely tied together.
The funny thing is taking one data point, misinterpreting it either intentionally or accidentally, and then using it as proof of all the rest of the data points that are all closely tied together.
Greg, it's obvious you're a smart guy. But can't you see the fallacy in "There are hundreds more pictures, each providing hard irrefutable evidence, in the SurfaceStations.org database."? These photographs are not "irrefutable evidence," they merely show that some data points are questionable. But how many data points? You don't know that. You don't show that.
The truth is you have the equivalent of one data point and you're trying to use it to dispute a million other data points. And in doing so you are starting from the assumption that all of the world's climate change scientists (or at least all but the few minority opinions) haven't looked at the relative quality of data from these sites. Or worse, that they know the data are questionable and somehow have ignored that because they don't care about their scientific reputations (and livelihoods) and just want to "get in good with Al Gore" or some other bizarre reason.
Come on Greg.
The report was not a scientific report, it was like you said "a government report" which is not subject to proper scientific validation and peer review.
It also contradicts the facts on the ground which are reported by scientists who actually work in the field of polar bear research.
Huh?
David,
You are clearly out of your depth. You have been pounding away on your keyboard for two days without doing the basic research required for an intelligent conversation
Read up on the USHCH then come back here with something intelligent to say.
By the way, there are 1221 stations in the USHCN network and this article shows photos of nine stations taken at random from my state alone.
I know they have proposed the possibility of global climat change, due to such actions as deforestation, pollution, and size/design of cities. All which have valid points. But you cannot interchange Global Warming and Global Climat Change as if they are the same thing or even close. They are not.
Last I heard the Artic temp. and sea reseacrch Org. ( I forget the exact name, but an international Organization) has been reporting a 7 degree drop in temp for the past decade, but we had a water temp that stayed warm for most of that time, but now has began dropping which is why the Artic ice is now regrowing.
The artic that the Global warmist like to talk about as a set point they can measure, has never been stable, and has always been changing. History has shown us that if anyone wants to look, and I fail to see why so few of the "experts" do....
Good article here, with a very valid point!
"2.6 TEMPERATURE AND DEW POINT SENSORS.
The temperature and dew point sensors will be mounted so that the aspirator intake is 5 ± 1 feet (1.5 ± 0.3 meters) above ground level or 2 feet (0.6 meters) above the average maximum snow depth, whichever is higher. Five feet (1.5 meters) above ground is the preferred height. The sensors will be protected from radiation from the sun, sky, earth, and any other surrounding objects but at the same time be adequately ventilated. The sensors will be installed in such a position as to ensure that measurements are representative of the free air circulating in the locality and not influenced by artificial conditions, such as large buildings, cooling towers, and expanses of concrete and tarmac. Any grass and vegetation within 100 feet (30 meters) of the sensor should be clipped to height of about 10 inches (25 centimeters) or less."
The above is taken from the following web site: http://www.ofcm.gov/siting/text/e-chap2.htm
From the pictures in this article these requirements are not met. You make the choice as to the proper way to record the official temperature for used in any study, official or unoffical.
The above has been taken from the" Federal Cooridnator for Meterological Services and Supporting Research" at http://www.ofcm.gov/siting/text/a-cover.htm
I just read in the GISS site that 2008 was the coldest year since 2000. They then say that most places around the world experienced unusually hot conditions in 2008!!! Does anyone really know what's going on? If global warming gets any worse, we'll all freeze to death.
Do they? If you claimed to be a "skeptic", like Greg, then you might wonder what, if anything, these photographs actually depict.
One thing is beyond doubt. No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports. Now, you can dismiss that, and thereby call into question your credibility, but that's a fact. No scientific organization in the world has taken a position that contradicts the IPCC Reports.
Author of Ross' link above, what'supwiththat blog.
The American Meteorological Association states the following:
"This statement is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U. S. Climate Change Science Program."
"Climate is changing in many ways. Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years, with the six warmest years since 1860 occurring in the last decade."
"Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change."
So, apparently, the author of Ross' linked blog above, "a former television meteorologist, disagrees with the professional organization, which represents his profession. Interesting.
"The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1½ degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring in the past three decades."
"More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists."
What would be more useful is if you could actually do some intelligent research. For example, you could start with something basic like how are the data from those stations used in the analyses. Without any knowledge of how these data, or even if these data, fit into the research picture, you have no way of knowing if they negatively impact the analyses. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that unless all data are perfectly aligned with the stars the analyses are meaningless. Worse, you assume that if you find a few outliers in the plot of millions of data points it means that the conclusions drawn from the millions of data points are invalid. This is not understanding how science works. You seem to think that scientists simply plot the data from these sensing stations on a graph and "voila" they have climate change. This is completely silly. Sensing station data from around the world are vetted for data quality, compiled, and added to the millions of other data points collected by other means, decades of real historical data, centuries and millennia of derived historical data, and so many other data points to address variables you have never even heard of, then put into dozens of computer models that have been tested and retested. These models employ probabilistic methods to ensure vagaries in the data are considered and their impacts on statistical variance are documented. Sources of variances are researched further and additional data collected to refine the analysis. Points of contention are discussed, even argued over, and new data are continuously collected and fed into the analysis to better our understanding.
But you seem not to care about the scientific process of all of this. Apparently all you need is a few photographs and blogger entries to arbitrarily decide that this invalidates all the other research. You don't seem to care that the information you have provided in this article and comments has already been investigated and incorporatated into the analyses - the very same analyses that led IPCC to conclude that climate change is real and man has played a role in the recent acceleration of the problem.
As I've said, and despite your attempt to personally insult me, you clearly are a smart guy. Which means you should be capable of using this information to contribute to the scientific knowledge of this phenomenon. Instead, you choose to use the information to obfuscate. This is truly sad.
Have we not all learned a painful lesson in trusting authority over the last year as the world economy collapsed?
And why did the world economy collapse?
No one checked the integrity of mortgage backed securities.
On one hand, he insists that we trust authority. He insists that NASA knows what it is doing and by the magic of statistics can make parking lots, air conditioners, and walls that they do not know are there - vanish into thin air.
On the other hand, he instructs us to not trust the authority of NASA when they warned us ten years ago that their network was "inadequate" and "deteriorating".
Now we have overwhelming visual evidence that what NASA admitted is true, is indeed true.
So why does David tilt at windmills when all he has to do is accept the authority of NASA and the truth of what he sees?
The answer is simple and straightforward, this is just another example of the sad bi-polar politics our age.
It has gotten to be that some curious people believe that anything that remotely challenges their belief is a threat to their entire belief structure and they go after it like a terrier attacking a rat.
It is an irrational, senseless partisan rage that flies in the face of facts.
It is anti-science.
Have fun with all the Gather points I've added to your coffers.
Best wishes and Happy New Year.
It's true that CO2 and temperature rose during the 20th century, but it's also true that the two don't correlate very well. In fact during the last ten years temperature has stabilized and dropped slightly while CO2 has continued to rise. Manmade global warming theory is mostly supported scientifically by models that are of limited value.
Many scientists who are proponents of manmade global warming theory are cautious in their assessments. Most of what we the public hear are the drumbeats of politics and media hype, both of which have self-serving motives. The science has been masked by the politics since the early 90's.
I think we should acknowledge our lack of understanding of the complexity of earth's climate system and keep our minds open as new data comes in. Clearly temperature has stabilized for the time being so there is no emergency.
But in the mean time we should insist that the data we are producing is valid. Thanks, Greg for pointing out the problems with our weather stations.
Comparing the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine to the scientific organizations I have referred to above is laughable. Got any others?
Yes, I've seen your lists before. Even they don't meet minimum requirements for scientific surveys. Senator Inhofe, whose major constituency is the oil and gas industries, is famous for publishing such lists.
Additionally, there are alot of scientists, who thought the IPCC stated the threat too conservatively relative to the evidence. "Skeptics" seem to get this backward.