New study about surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of AGU

cancel2 2022

Canceled
SAN FRANCISO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.

Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)[SUP]1[/SUP] for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement...

A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010)[SUP]1[/SUP] . The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact. Trend differences are not found during the 1999- 2008 sub-period of relatively stable temperatures, suggesting that the observed differences are caused by a physical mechanism that is directly or indirectly caused by changing temperatures...

Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.

The full AGU presentation can be downloaded here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/17/surfacestations-the-punchline.html
 
SAN FRANCISO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.

Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)[SUP]1[/SUP] for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement...

A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010)[SUP]1[/SUP] . The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact. Trend differences are not found during the 1999- 2008 sub-period of relatively stable temperatures, suggesting that the observed differences are caused by a physical mechanism that is directly or indirectly caused by changing temperatures...

Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.

The full AGU presentation can be downloaded here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/17/surfacestations-the-punchline.html

BORBO still pissing into the wind with a " new study" blah blah blah...
Poor BORBO...
 
This is further evidence that using surface temperature readings to determine warming is hopelessly comprised. NASA stated way back in 1990 that satellite temperature readings are by the far the most accurate way to measure the trophosphere. NOAA know that perfectly well yet continue to publish and 'adjust' surface temp readings. Of course the reason why is perfectly obvious as the RSS and UAH readings show no warming for over 18 years so how can you scare the bewildered like that!
 
This is further evidence that using surface temperature readings to determine warming is hopelessly comprised. NASA stated way back in 1990 that satellite temperature readings are by the far the most accurate way to measure the trophosphere. NOAA know that perfectly well yet continue to publish and 'adjust' surface temp readings. Of course the reason why is perfectly obvious as the RSS and UAH readings show no warming for over 18 years so how can you scare the bewildered like that!

Heat contamination of surface station monitors seems like such an obvious reason to rely on satellite data instead. But is it really an obvious reason? Is climate science really that corrupt they would use only surface data since it supports their pet theory?

Honest question.
 
Heat contamination of surface station monitors seems like such an obvious reason to rely on satellite data instead. But is it really an obvious reason? Is climate science really that corrupt they would use only surface data since it supports their pet theory?

Honest question.

Ground data is far easier to manipulate under the guise of 'adjustments', whenever a hottest month/year is claimed it is always the surface readings that are used.
 
Ground data is far easier to manipulate under the guise of 'adjustments', whenever a hottest month/year is claimed it is always the surface readings that are used.

I get that and I'm quite suspicious of it but it seems so bloody obvious. Or it should be to anyone paying attention. I guess I'm looking for an objection to your objection lol.

Even trying to be objective about it I can't think of one. Where are the warmists?
 
Heat contamination of surface station monitors seems like such an obvious reason to rely on satellite data instead. But is it really an obvious reason? Is climate science really that corrupt they would use only surface data since it supports their pet theory?

Honest question.

Yes they are, actually worse than that.
They've gilded that lily even more.
The breadth and depth of the scam is stunning and so obvious. They lie poorly.
 
Yes they are, actually worse than that.
They've gilded that lily even more.
The breadth and depth of the scam is stunning and so obvious. They lie poorly.

I think most climate scientists follow along with the herd, it is a bit like the old saying that nobody got fired for ordering IBM.
 
So it's 'blah blah blah your mother reeks of Elder Berries, deniers suck' and that kind of thing?

Have you ever seen anyone of the warmists ever actually discuss the science, they can't and they won't. Mott sometimes tries to, but quickly reverts to type by waffling on about Big Tobacco blah blah. Not once have I ever seen one of them even attempt to defend the use of surface stations when NASA admits that satellite data is far more accurate and covers the globe 24/7.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top