Skip to comments.Photos of poorly sited weather stations - The global warming racket broken wide open
Posted on 08/12/2007 3:04:19 PM PDT by dennisw
Climatological stations are supposed to meet a variety of quality standards, including the relatively undemanding requirement of being 100 feet (30 meters) from paved surfaces. Anthony Watts and volunteers of surfacestations.org have documented one defective site after another, including a weather station in a parking lot at the University of Arizona where MBH coauthor Malcolm Hughes is employed, shown below.
Figure 5. Tucson University of Arizona Weather Station
Many more photos of idiotically sited weather measurement stations at --->> www.surfacestations.org
Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:
LOL...no wonder they are getting such high readings. That Tucson station should register at least 130 over that hot parking lot in the summer. Doesn’t someone check these to see if they are properly sited?
This has been widely discussed in the right-wing blogosphere and has been acknowledged at realclimate as follows:
I heard on Bortz’s show that within 3 days of notification of these blunders, NASA pulled the locations of it’s weather stations off the internet.
Turns out we can't trust gubbermint data. This is pure sloppiness bordering on conspiracy to jack up temperature readings because it will bolster the AlGore model
This was done intentionally to hype global warming. These people know what they’re doing.
not if they want “different” results
I couldnt believe that NOAA allowed them to use consumer grade equipment. I was sure I just hadnt located the MMTS sensor. It wasnt unitl I looked up the MMS metadata entry for equipment for NB and saw miscellaneous listed for rain and temperature sensors, that I began to get concerned.
There was an uproar so they are back, at least that's what I read. www.surfacestations.org is the main instigator on our side. They and others are checking out each monitoring station
NOAA not NASA I think....... Actually the USHCN has those stations
"But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past data."
Junk science, thug style.
Marysville, CA (close by parking, air conditioners blowing exhaust near MMTS temp sensor, BBQ used by firefighters, cell phone tower base)
Tahoe City, CA (burn barrel, close by parking, tennis court surface 25 feet away built in early 1980's)
Roseburg, OR (MMTS shelter on roof, near a/c exhaust)
Aberdeen, WA ( large heat source: sewage treatment plant - nearby parking, hot automobile radiators )
More photos here: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4658
Lodi, CA (nearby parking, asphalt, dumpster, nearby building, storage container)
Petaluma, CA (a/c units nearby, MMTS strapped to deck, 6' from building, lots of nearby tarmac, prevailing wind UHI effect from SW)
Redding, CA (lightbulb in temperature shelter, nearby asphalt and buildings, lots of airport tarmac)
Hopkinsville, KY Picture at left is most current, others are from years ago. (MMTS sensor close to house, with air conditioning unit nearby, close-by parking, and near new fireplace chimney built into rear wall. Note BBQ also.)
IMO, for routine temperature measurements, the siting was not such a great issue. However, the entire environment of management of this program was not set up to have a uniform and consistent approach over long periods of time. There is the simple question of calibration standards and over time, how do you insure that a simple mercury thermometer in California maintains just as a reliable reading as one in Indiana manned by a volunteer?
Again, this would be almost inconsequential. Who cares if the high today is 81 or 82 degrees? Nobody involved in the design and running of this system over the past decades and even generations had the slightest idea that in the early part of the 21st century people would be trying to reinterpret data that is really plus or minus a few whole degrees for trends that are measured in tenths of degree.
It is just silly and that is exactly why, for example, Jon Daly’s web site (http://www.john-daly.com/) just drives advocates of Global Lukewarming nuts.
If warming is “global”, the effect should be visible in just about any dataset you pick. Yet, it is not.
On his “What Stations Say” page, he has some pairs of stations. In some cases, one station is subject to creeping urbanization, or as we now see, downright compromising erosion of its value as a site because of very local environmental factors, such as turning on a nearby air conditioner.
Daly passed away and that is the reason some charts stop too early.
And example of a city-pair:
from the What Stations Say page at:
Now that Mark Steyn has written about the NOAA/NASA Thermometer-Gate scandal (the coverup is always worse than the original crime), I hope, but do not expect, all the MSM that echoed these alarms will acknowledge this gross error.
Seems to me that its no more subject to “interpretation” than any other type of weather station.
Of course, I’d have to have an eco friendly rock, say one made out of pure carbon?
KEEP IN MIND FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE SCANDAL IS NOT JUST THE LOCATION OF THE STATIONS!!!!
NASA TRIED TO CONCEAL THE DATA ABOUT THEIR LOCATIONS AND THEN CONCEALED THE DATA MANIPULATION!!!!
we need a “ “Gate name for this....Datagate?
LOL! As the road is periodically repaved with fresh black asphalt, the U of A will find that their local climate is cyclical, in a sawtooth pattern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.