Figure 5. Tucson University of Arizona Weather Station
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:
Bookmarked
Everyone might be interested in the concept of "false precision".
Yes, this is called “microclimate”. The variations can be quite large and quite localized.
thanks,
perhaps the microclimate of these sites can be tested and shown to be false.
I even looked on NASA.gov’s website to find a statement about this and found nothing.
I think the average Joe wouldn't understand it, but when you have modern thermometers measuring to thousandths of a degree and then "average" them with measurements from 1934 taken to the nearest degree, that you can only get precision in full degrees. So today's digital temperature may be taken at 75.08362 degrees and one using a mercury thermometer from the 1930's at 73 degrees, the best "average" you can say is 74. In fact without calibrating the 1930's temps, you could probably only accurately say the average is "in the low to mid 70's" And that's way different from "proving" global warming when you can be off by whole degrees.
because:
1. Turnabout is fair play
2. Reporters lack the brain power to get the message this is a scandal.
Remember the MSM-divas don’t have inteligence we have to know in part to whom we are communicating. So far this is sitting on the internet. The MSM is blacking this out. Much like newsweek or al gore pressure tactics to actually FORBID coverage of anti-environista information.
NASA is even trying to conceal this as an “oopsy” move along.
False precision is when the cops say the suspect was going about 100 mph when he hit the tree and the multicultural reporter for the local paper, obeys their style book and puts the number of km/h in parenthesis down to five significant digits like this: 100 mph (160.93km/h).
If we need a contemporary example of false precision, it is taking over a thousand thermometers, which are documented to be plus or minus at least one degree C, which is closer to two degrees F than to one degree F, and attempt to tease out variations of 1/10 of a degree in their readings.
There are a whole world of biases that will enter into these readings over the decades and generations. Instruments will drift slowly out of calibration until they are replaced or re-calibrated. Huts will get repainted with slightly different paint. Grass around the hut will get watered, or cut, nor not cut, or get replaced with paving. It goes on and on.
It is just magic thinking that this data should be the basis for anything except gross general trends, that is trends in the data that are correlated by nearby stations that exceed the measurement error.
A check of google news shows very minimal coverage. This would be on the cover of Newsweek if it was as scandalous and boosted Global Warming theories
Hopefully Glen Beck has Steve McIntyre on TV and gives this a good goose
What happened to grassy area, away from buildings, five feet off the ground ...
The problem is one of logistics. The locations where these temperatures are being taken are frequently no longer valid. These boxes are supposed to be in rural or semi-rural areas with good airflow and away from sources of local heat. Many are now in urban (or mostly urban) areas, near local heat sources, or unkempt so that overgrowth impedes airflow.
What does this all add up to? Each of those factors (urbanization, local heat sources, lack of air flow) will cause reported temperatures to be higher than they would be otherwise.
An important thing to note is that this is not a US only problem. These recordings have the same problem all across the world. Any box that was set up in the last century is probably in a much more urban environment than it had started, and if not, is probably poorly cleaned and kept.
Over 100 years, this could lead to a significant difference in reported temperatures. In fact, the difference could be large enough to question the government policies based on said data.
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm
It’s even a world wide problem - but scientist who use the data don’t bother to check the data source? I thought global warming was bad science, but thought is was a case of interpretation.
Before retiring I worked with the Preventative Medicine at the local Army fort. Part of my job was monitoring temperature/humidity for heat stress prevention in the summer. I was fortunate to use portable equipment that I could set up well clear of the heat island effect. I was also fortunate that I didn’t need an accuracy of 1/10 degree.
Most cities have some open area. I would cost money to move the equipment, but in the interest of good science shouldn’t it be done? A good start would be to check the ones on the cited web site.
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.