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:
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 couldn’t believe that NOAA allowed them to use consumer grade equipment. I was sure I just hadn’t located the MMTS sensor. It wasn’t 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.
Forest Grove, OR (air conditioner exhaust blowing directly on temperature shelter, nearby asphalt and buildings)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1493
Marysville, CA (close by parking, air conditioners blowing exhaust near MMTS temp sensor, BBQ used by firefighters, cell phone tower base)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660
Tahoe City, CA (burn barrel, close by parking, tennis court surface 25 feet away built in early 1980's)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=694
Roseburg, OR (MMTS shelter on roof, near a/c exhaust)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1535
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)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=658
Petaluma, CA (a/c units nearby, MMTS strapped to deck, 6' from building, lots of nearby tarmac, prevailing wind UHI effect from SW)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=680
Redding, CA (lightbulb in temperature shelter, nearby asphalt and buildings, lots of airport tarmac)
More photos: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=682
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.)
bttt
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:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/cherokee.gif
from the What Stations Say page at:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
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.
Gage-Gate?
“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.”
I’m sure NASA just wanted to be sure the public wasn’t bothered.
With THE TRUTH!
it would be interesting to lay thermometers in a uniform pattern every two feet from the thermometer to show the variations of the temperature just in the 100 yard radius.
Old Hillbilly saying.
It’s a political agenda of the loony lefty commies. They’ve gotten away with it for yrs...but times have changed ... we’re backing them down faster than they ever imagined...HA HA HA
Global Warming is officially “fake but accurate”
That is the only defense the Environistas have.
Enviro-gate?
Great post...BTTT.
Hey.,.. perhaps I can use my Vantage Pro Weather Station for national “high quality” history...:^) - imagine, good data for only $300...
Fantastic thread!
The false readings from these improperly located climatological stations is an inconvenient truth.
Bumpity, bump, bump, bump.
Weathergate
NRDC and Greenpeace have taught everyone how to FOIA agencies for the data upon which they base conclusions.
CLIMATE-gate!
(because it is about the climate BS)
teamwork cool!
CLIMATE-gate!
(because it is about the climate BS)
teamwork cool!
goregate.
LLS
Every day more and more facts come out showing just what a scam global warming really is.
This is just another example.
More to follow.
They did when I was doing stuff for the NWS.
They were real picky.
At least in NYS (NOT NYC)
see post 39
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
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.
