Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".


Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts' conclusion
While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?
The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites. These MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device, and are consequently limited by cable length as to how far they can be sited from the building housing the indoor readout device. As a result, they are often located close to heated buildings, paved surfaces, air conditioner exhausts, etc. It turns out that these MMTS thermometers have a flaw that causes them to measure minimum temperatures that are slightly too warm, and maximum temperatures that are considerably too cool, leading to an overall cool bias in measured average temperatures. In contrast, only 30% of the "good" sites used the MMTS sensors. The "good" sites predominantly used Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked. Since the poorly-sites stations were dominantly equipped with MMTS thermometers, they tended to measure temperatures that were too cool, despite their poor siting.


Figure 3. Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 temperatures. Temperatures were adjusted to correct for changes in instrumentation, station relocations, and changes in the time of observation, making the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org. For comparison, the data between 2004 - 2008 taken by the new high-quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN, black dashed line) is shown, and displays excellent agreement for that time period. Image credit: Menne 2010.

Independent verification of recent USHCN annual temperatures
Clearly, the siting of many of the surface stations used to track climate change in the U.S. is not good. To address this issue, in 2004 NOAA created the U.S. Climate Reference Network, a collection of 114 stations in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The stations were sited and instrumented with climate studies in mind, and can provide an extremely high-quality independent check on the old USHCN network. Each of 114 stations at 107 locations (some stations were installed as nearby pairs) is equipped with very accurate instruments in a triplicate configuration so that each measurement can be checked for internal consistency. As shown in Figure 3, the USCRN air temperature departures for 2004 - 2008 are extremely well aligned with those derived from the USHCN version 2 temperature data. For these five years, the the difference between the mean annual temperatures measured by the old USHCN compared to the new USCRN was just 0.03°C, with a mathematical correlation coefficient (r-squared) of 0.997. Menne et al. concluded, "This finding provides independent verification that the USHCN version 2 data are consistent with research-quality measurements taken at pristine locations and do not contain spurious trends during the recent past even if sampled exclusively at poorly sited stations. While admittedly this period of coincident observations between the networks is rather brief, the value of the USCRN as a benchmark for reducing the uncertainty of historic observations from the USHCN and other networks will only increase with time". The authors finally concluded, "we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor siting".

Crediting Anthony Watts
The surfacestations.org effort coordinated by Anthony Watts has made a valuable contribution to science, helping us better understand the nature of the errors in the U.S. historical temperature data set. In his talk last week at the AMS conference, and in the credits of his paper, Dr. Menne had some genuinely grateful comments on the efforts of Anthony Watts and the volunteers of surfacestations.org. However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.

I'll have a new post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 79 - 29

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Quoting TampaSpin:


Liberal far Left and Radical far Right comments are for other blogs here please. There are enough of them elsewhere on this site without bringing that to this blog.
Member Since: August 22, 2008 Posts: 12 Comments: 6010
Pretty good sized area of snow on the way:

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
thats why my station on roof of building 30 feet above roof line etended out on vertical metal beam 15 feet so station is in total 150 feet above surface

There are standards for that, such as the NWS COOP, here, which can at times be hard to meet
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Posted by: JeffMasters, 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
"the publication did not undergo peer-review--"

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
January 24, 2010

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


...and see she is not that bad i guess from a distance!..........LOL


LOL happens all too often :P
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting NRAamy:
Maybe they could look at Mother Earth and see she is not that bad i guess from a distance!..........LOL


I hear a Bette Midler song coming on....

( purple hippo clears throat )


Purple hippo, I thought you might enjoy this story about one of your own.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maybe they could look at Mother Earth and see she is not that bad i guess from a distance!..........LOL


I hear a Bette Midler song coming on....

( purple hippo clears throat )
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:
This is a big issue that will change a lot of peoples standing on GW. Even I have moved my weather station around the back yard, trying to get away from the sun and the heat coming off the house.

It's sad that they didnt install the weather instruments in better areas, because you better believe there not going to pay someone to move them, even though there worthless, considering the inaccurate data being obtained by the sensor.IMO
thats why my station on roof of building 30 feet above roof line etended out on vertical metal beam 15 feet so station is in total 150 feet above surface
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

Yes. And he did not said climate change directly caused it. This is just a scenario which awaits in one way or another other parts of the world. Flooding, tsunamis, earthquakes, climate pattern out of balance, more intesne hurricanes etc. Anyway back to work ;)


What he meant by what he said could easily be debated, and in fact, has been debated by many. You could take that statement two ways as I pointed out above. Either way, the guys a nut job.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


An Idea....Let's send the Liberal FAr left to the moon to live. Maybe they could look at Mother Earth and say she is not that bad i guess from a distance!..........LOL


Then tell us how how it is there when the sun comes out and how frigid it gets when the sun is not. Theres you some frickin climate change, and there isnt even one that exists.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Did anyone notice, back in the old days (When Floodman was just a teenager), they used wet/dry readings from "Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters" and the readings were taken with a MK I eyeball, everything was going along Hunkey Dorey.

It wasn't until we started to use "Sate of the Art" instruments, with data that could be "massaged" to get the corrected readings... that we started to have a problem?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


A direct quote from your beloved wiki:

Glover said "...the threat of what happens to Haiti is a threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations... they're all in peril because of global warming... because of climate change... when we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens..

Yes. And he did not said climate change directly caused it. This is just a scenario which awaits in one way or another other parts of the world. Flooding, tsunamis, earthquakes, climate pattern out of balance, more intesne hurricanes etc. Anyway back to work ;)
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting evilv:
Don't worry mate - it's all just hot air anyway.

The main environmental problem on the planet isn't a possible 0.8 degrees c rise, it's the fact that the planet's human population has doubled since 1975!

Cheers



An Idea....Let's send the Liberal FAr left to the moon to live. Maybe they could look at Mother Earth and see she is not that bad i guess from a distance!..........LOL
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
You could take Glover's quote two ways I suppose.

1. Global warming caused the earthquake

2. Inaction at the climate change conferenced caused the earthquake.

Both show he isn't playing with a full box of crayons.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Cane, ignorance is disorder.


A direct quote from your beloved wiki:

Glover said "...the threat of what happens to Haiti is a threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations... they're all in peril because of global warming... because of climate change... when we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cane, ignorance is disorder.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Don't worry mate - it's all just hot air anyway.

The main environmental problem on the planet isn't a possible 0.8 degrees c rise, it's the fact that the planet's human population has doubled since 1975!

Cheers

Quoting BahaHurican:
I'm not sure if u are being facetious with this....

On a serious note, the findings of this latest research seem to highlight a more serious problem; if our data is biased (whether too high or too low) how can we be certain our readings are accurate, and thus our findings? Would properly sited, properly functioning instruments be showing even MORE warming than we are currently seeing?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
59. BahaHurican 12:08 PM PST on January 25, 2010
Sometimes I think 1/2 the problem with pple is they don't read / listen carefully enough.


ya think?!

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
Well according to Danny Glover, global warming caused the earthquake in Haiti.


The fact that Danny Glover is nuttier than elephant poop should surprise no one. But now, he's even topped himself, as the washed-up actor blames the Haiti earthquake on the response to the climate change conference.

They're all in peril because of global warming; they're all in peril because of climate change. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I acted in a movie and have money so MY IDEA IS IMPORTANT. What an Idoit.

nuttier than elephant poop Theory
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
No he did not said this, read his wiki again.


You sure do use wiki alot. No thanks.

By the way, that is what he said. I'm not sure how you can deny it. Google it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sometimes I think 1/2 the problem with pple is they don't read / listen carefully enough.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
Well according to Danny Glover, global warming caused the earthquake in Haiti.
No he did not said this, read his wiki again.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
See second law of thermodynamics. Or see uptake in regional conflicts (i.e. Dr Masters africa blog a few days ago).



Oh ok
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well according to Danny Glover, global warming caused the earthquake in Haiti.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Manufacturers maybe getting paid on the side to adjust themometers upward a degree or 2 as well to play the role of global warming. You never know. You know thermometers are not calibrated worth a damn because one says a certain temp and the other always says something different.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:


Huh?
See second law of thermodynamics. Or see uptake in regional conflicts (i.e. Dr Masters africa blog a few days ago).

Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
His [Watts] study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.


That settles it, the poor site arguement has been debunked--bogus.
I'm not sure if u are being facetious with this....

On a serious note, the findings of this latest research seem to highlight a more serious problem; if our data is biased (whether too high or too low) how can we be certain our readings are accurate, and thus our findings? Would properly sited, properly functioning instruments be showing even MORE warming than we are currently seeing?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
The spread of heat increases disorder.


Huh?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The spread of heat increases disorder.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Portlight haiti relief work
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
Thanks, Dr. Masters.
The truth is a wonderful thing, indeed!


Who's?
Its GIGO gone nuts
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh, boy.

Okay, let's talk in-situ temperature measurements.

Something someone posted in Rood's blog: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

I cannot say if true/false/some mix/intentional/not.

But I can say that some of this is tough to be incorrect about...or D 'Aleo (sp?) would look dumb in a hurry.

For example:
"In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half."

The metadata about the available stations would be tough to be wrong about. And the significance of trying to gauge a long-term trend with such a change in measurement environment and coverage is huge. Such a trend analysis, given the above, would be highly uncertain and have questionable validity.

For example, what if I had 2 weather stations on one acre for 10 years, one among a stand of trees and another next to a driveway. Then I remove the one in the trees, would you ascribe any meaning to the results of a trend analysis? (Boy, I sure hope not).

If accurate, the points in the linked pdf need to be addressed, too. The effect of "filling in" around the Arctic with stations that have a moving physical trend towards lower latitudes and/or elevations is rather obvious...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Hurricane Season 2010: Tropical Cyclone Olga (Southern Pacific Ocean)
01.25.10


January 25, 2010

The Multi-functional Transport Satellite (MTSAT), managed by the Japan Meteorological Agency captured an infrared image of the low formerly known as Olga, on January 25 at 1330 UTC (8:30 a.m. ET). heading west toward the Northern Territory. Credit: JTWC/JMA > View larger image
The Multi-functional Transport Satellite (MTSAT), managed by the Japan Meteorological Agency captured an infrared image of the low formerly known as Olga, on January 25 at 1330 UTC (8:30 a.m. ET). heading west toward the Northern Territory.
Credit: JTWC/JMA The Brief Life of Tropical Cyclone Olga

Olga was a tropical cyclone that formed in the southwestern Pacific Ocean on Saturday, January 23, and crept toward Cairns, Australia. Olga made landfall in Queensland and weakened to a low pressure area.

Ogla made landfall on January 24 at Port Douglas as a category 1 storm. Its center came ashore at around 2 p.m. Australia local time near Cape Tribulation bringing gusty winds and rains.

Today, January 25, a Cyclone Watch continues for the southern Gulf of Carpentaria coast and islands from Port McArthur to Burketown. The low pressure area formerly known as Olga is located in the northwestern part of Queensland, Australia. At 10:00 p.m. Australia Darwin Local time (7:30 a.m. ET) Ex-Tropical Cyclone Olga was estimated to be 251 miles (405 kilometers) west of Georgetown and 93 miles (150 kilometers)southwest of Karumba, near 18.3 degrees South 139.7 degrees East.

Olga the low is moving west at 27 mph (44 kilometers/ph) across the base of Cape York Peninsula towards the Northern Territory/Queensland Border.

It the low moves into the warm waters of the southern Gulf of Carpenteria it could re-intensify into a tropical cyclone, but the Joint Typhoon Warning Center does not currently expect that to occur. Meanwhile, forecasters will keep an eye on the low as it brings rainfall into the Northern Territory
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2010/h2010_Olga.html
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting latitude25:
30. StSimonsIslandGAGuy 7:00 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
Latitude25, weren't you citing Chinese communist party officials as support for your anti-global warming last night?



I thought it was interesting that China's senior climate change advisor said that more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made.

Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes
Sunday 24 January 2010

China's most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made

Link
whether you agree, disagree or stand somewhere inbetween it is worth noting that this is a comunist run country with a political agenda for there not to be inherent evidence of man made global warming. Not sayin he is write or wrong, Just puttin all cards on table
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't know how to repost from an earlier blog, so this is just a suggestion -

Watch/Listen to the song "I Am Australian"

The YouTube link is on AussieStorm's Post 959 on the immediately prior blog.

Helps explain his love for his country. Anyone interested in a field trip?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
44. Skyepony (Mod)
OLGA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


He's right.


CaneWarning is your dot red or blue......

Mine is COLT BLUE......LOL!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
Quoting latitude25:
30. StSimonsIslandGAGuy 7:00 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
Latitude25, weren't you citing Chinese communist party officials as support for your anti-global warming last night?



I thought it was interesting that China's senior climate change advisor said that more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made.

Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes
Sunday 24 January 2010

China's most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made

Link


He's right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
30. StSimonsIslandGAGuy 7:00 PM GMT on January 25, 2010
Latitude25, weren't you citing Chinese communist party officials as support for your anti-global warming last night?



I thought it was interesting that China's senior climate change advisor said that more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made.

Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes
Sunday 24 January 2010

China's most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


I guess it makes sense that if you have one sitting next to hot pavement it will end up being warmer when its warm, and then cooler when its cool. Interesting.

I still count myself as one of those individuals that thinks the warming and cooling is natural and not caused by man.
Regardless of a person's belief of man made or naturaul another very vague and controversial assumption is the amount of fossil fuel available to the world. Depending what side of this debate you fall into the sources for this argument are from the same scientific comunity with statistics & statistics and on that note a very interesting proverb comes to mind. "We have not purchased the land from our fathers, we have borrowed it from our children"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Geminer's Rule #14

"Any theory can be made to fit any facts by means of appropriate additional assumptions."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection."

Dr. Masters, are you speaking of the same peer review that the IPCC worked diligently to avoid? You actually made the statement above without laughing out loud? Look out Ron White, competition is out there!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
His [Watts] study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.


That settles it, the poor site arguement has been debunked--bogus.


I guess it makes sense that if you have one sitting next to hot pavement it will end up being warmer when its warm, and then cooler when its cool. Interesting.

I still count myself as one of those individuals that thinks the warming and cooling is natural and not caused by man.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
26. PcolaDan 10:55 AM PST on January 25, 2010
Quoting eyesontheweather:
"On" target, "On" a roll, "On" the mark??????


On Donner, on Blitzen, etc??? :)



On Chulo! On Vato!!!!

;)
The writing is "on the wall" Who-dat OOOOOWEEE
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
26. PcolaDan 10:55 AM PST on January 25, 2010
Quoting eyesontheweather:
"On" target, "On" a roll, "On" the mark??????


On Donner, on Blitzen, etc??? :)



On Chulo! On Vato!!!!

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Latitude25, weren't you citing Chinese communist party officials as support for your anti-global warming last night?


Now that's just funny.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting eyesontheweather:
How does the saying go? There are statistics and then there are statistics! All the data in the world has ways of conflicting but at the end of the day the solar ice caps are melting at never before seen rates in recorded history. Don't know why and don't know if it will correct itself, just know that it is!


It kind of reminds me of when I was doing my junior high science projects...I would always make sure my original hypothesis came true one way or another. If you can't get the results you want, then you create them. It seems many scientists do this today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


I agree. This is one of the reasons I just laugh at statements such as "warmest decade ever".
How does the saying go? There are statistics and then there are statistics! All the data in the world has ways of conflicting but at the end of the day the solar ice caps are melting at never before seen rates in recorded history. Don't know why and don't know if it will correct itself, just know that it is!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 79 - 29

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron