by Anthony Watts
PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.
Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide.
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.
This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.
The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:
I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.
The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues. This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S. General Accounting Office investigation and report titled: Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network
All three papers examining the station siting issue, using early data gathered by the SurfaceStations project, Menne et al (2010), authored by Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC, Fall et al, 2011, authored by Dr. Souleymane Fall of Tuskeegee University and co-authored by Anthony Watts, and Muller et al 2012, authored by Dr. Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) were inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century.
Lead author of the paper, Anthony Watts, commented:
“I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didn’t properly quantify the effects.
The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.”
Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.
Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.
Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.
Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.
Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:
· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
By: marc1921
In: Politics
Tags: Climate, change, lies,
Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 1356 | Comments: 17 | Votes: 3 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
Advertisement below
|
|
| Liveleak on Facebook | |
|
LIKE Liveleak.com |
-
Al Jazeera Broadcasts Astonishing Attack on IPCC “Climate Change” Proponents
-
MTV Joins EU to Push Climate Change Propaganda
-
John Howard's Climate Change appeal
-
Mann-made climate change atheists & agnostics: COP15 is political church, not scientific
-
Bankers against climate change
-
China vows to tackle climate change
-
White House edits report on risks of climate change
-
Climate Change, and what America is not told
-
"My Say" on Climate Change
-
CLIMATE CHANGE IN OUR WORLD!
-
Al Jazeera Broadcasts Astonishing Attack on IPCC “Climate Change” Proponents
-
US backs down over climate change in Bali





"The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward."
Opps! Caught fudging the data again!
Posted Jul-31-2012 Bymarc1921 (1458.56) 
marc1921 View Channel Send Message
(4)
@marc1921 There is nothing like getting the government involved.
They can't collect and deliver the fucking mail never mind pick the best sites to monitor temperature trends.
NOAA, another well intentioned idea ruined by the multitude of useless government bureaucrats hired to do nothing.
Posted Jul-31-2012 Byaussite (1797.30) 
aussite View Channel Send Message
(2)
@aussite "NOAA, another well intentioned idea ruined by the multitude of useless government bureaucrats hired to do nothing"
You said it brother,along with nasa.Breaks my heart to see it.
Posted Jul-31-2012 Bymarc1921 (1458.56) 
marc1921 View Channel Send Message
(2)
Al Gore is gonna have a heart attack!
We all knew the entire global warming scare was a libtard agenda..
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByDiverdanm (393.52) 
Diverdanm View Channel Send Message
(4)
LOL @ libtards fudging data
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByJihadKiller1s1k (9387.08) 
JihadKiller1s1k View Channel Send Message
(3)
Excellent post, Marc. Voted.
Here's some pics of measuring stations where data is screwed up by adjacent equipment.
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/02/23/wacky-weather-stations/#slide=1
Posted Jul-31-2012 Byjoe prole (1636.10) 
joe prole View Channel Send Message
(2)
@joe prole thanks Joe.
Posted Jul-31-2012 Bymarc1921 (1458.56) 
marc1921 View Channel Send Message
(3)
@joe prole Great link. Gee it's almost like they were trying to find the warm spots!
Posted Jul-31-2012 Bymarc1921 (1458.56) 
marc1921 View Channel Send Message
(3)
Global warming has had it’s 15 minutes and more. Time to give this shit a rest. Gore has milked his money from it. Isn't there a new strain of bird flu to scare us with ?
Posted Jul-31-2012 Byicehole666 (635.10) 
icehole666 View Channel Send Message
(1)
There isn't anything anyone can do about it. We must burn fossil fuels to survive, even though we know it's killing us.
Posted Jul-31-2012 Bytarzan (44.52) 
tarzan View Channel Send Message
(0)
and in other news, the us government Blew up the world trade center with thermite after leaving chem-trails in the sky in the pattern of the Illuminati logo.
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByNinja_SBD (307.70) 
Ninja_SBD View Channel Send Message
(0)
I grew up watching that asshole Anthony Watts.
Chico is in Northern California not Washington.
Posted Jul-31-2012 Byhorny devil (217.10) 
horny devil View Channel Send Message
(0)
Ah, so this is a press release and not an actual news story.
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByTanngrisnir3 (358.64) Tanngrisnir3 View Channel Send Message
(0)
I still don´t get why we have to disprove a theory that only the leftist NWO liberals are peddling. The burden of evidence is on them, not on us.
This is just a "tax and ship more jobs overseas" theory like everything else the liberals come up with.
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByKongored (151.90) 
Kongored View Channel Send Message
(0)
ulterior motive, hidden agenda, fodder for the tin-foil hat glitterati- when will we sheep wake up, and arrive at the realization that if the man and the dog seem to be working together, it might look like a conspiracy, BUT IT COULD POSSIBLY WELL BE TRUE.
global warming, fast and furious, chem trails, GMO foods, dream act, the derivatives scam, the bankruptcy, destabilization, and massacre of entire nations.
these are all expressions of a cabal whose single intent is ownership and absolute c More..
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByYogsoggoth (815.90) Yogsoggoth View Channel Send Message
(0)
LOL
All govt has to do is regulate the piss out of every thermometer and wala! Global warming!
What a mess
Posted Jul-31-2012 ByXyBerFuNK (1202.40) 
XyBerFuNK View Channel Send Message
(0)
Wow... midwest really jumped. Must because of the booming industrialization going on there.................... end sarcasm.
There is soooo much involved in the crap it's almost useless trying to figure it out.
Posted Aug-1-2012 Bygammyland (508.42) gammyland View Channel Send Message
(0)