Sciencescience

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 03:49 PM

A 2013 article that shows how dishonest they are

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming

By Maxim Lott Published August 13, 2013

Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
"The question remains as to why they continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations," Watts told FoxNews.com.
'They continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations.'
- Anthony Watts
Watts has for years searched for weather stations that have flaws. And he points to a still-open station at Yosemite park as an example of one with “heat sinks” – objects that store heat, and then release it at night. Heat sinks can cause stations located in or near them to give off useless data -- generally in the form of inflated temperatures not representative of the broader area.
“The heat sinks are a road, a building, and stacked metal pipe and beams surrounding the station,” he said.

After the heat sinks were added at Yosemite, temperature readings show a curious trend: minimum nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime temperatures. Watts says that's because the concrete structures store heat that is released at night, and that such a trend backs up the idea that the "heat sinks" are having an effect.
But the government agency that compiles the temperature data says that such concerns are unfounded because of statistical methods used to adjust the data.
"There is no doubt that NOAA's temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable," NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen told FoxNews.com. "To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects."
Smullen added that the recent station closures, which were made after "an extensive six-month review by all National Weather Service forecast offices," make the system even better.
He said the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data. But Watts says that closures are something of a vindication of a years-long project to identify stations with problems.
Some of the first official notice of Watts’ findings were in the leaked “Climate-gate” emails from 2009, in which the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the NOAA appeared to take Watts’ findings seriously.
“He has a website of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out,” Thomas Karl, the director, wrote in an internal email.
Then the Government Accountability Office -- the government agency which issues reports evaluating other agencies -- looked into the issue of inappropriately-sited stations, interviewing Watts twice.
In an August 2011 report titled “NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” the GAO concluded that “NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy… whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open… or should be moved or closed.”
NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said that the NOAA’s recent review and closure of stations over the last two years is far more extensive than the investigation Watts conducted.
“While some of the 600 sites we targeted for closure may overlap with some sites Mr. Watts has questioned, we understand that his study looked only at siting criteria at a 1,200-site subset of our overall network, while we reviewed the entire network, and siting criteria was just one factor we considered.”
So how serious is the problem of poorly-sited stations for the overall historical climate record? And does it have implications about the extent of manmade global warming?
Watts says it does, and that if one looks only at pristine stations, they show a temperature increase of 1.1° Fahrenheit over the years 1979 to 2008. That is noticeably lower than the government estimate of 1.7° Fahrenheit, which includes readings from all stations, including those with potential problems, which it tries to adjust for statistically.
But many scientists concerned about global warming say that the statistical adjustments work, and they point out that many other measurements of temperature match closely with NOAA’s historical data.
“Watts' analysis is an outlier… Analyses by several groups using global land temps, ocean temps, and satellite-inferred temps (no thermometers there!) show very similar warming rates ,” Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at SUNY Suffolk, said.
Watts says he doesn’t dispute the satellite data.
“I don’t dispute the satellite measurements, but they are measuring temperature of the atmosphere above the Earth, and that includes all cities and populated areas as well as rural open space… My premise is this: if you want to see the effect of CO2 on warming, you need to look in areas that have not been affected by urbanization to find the true signal.”
In other words, Watts says the data show that global warming is due relatively more to increased urbanization than to greenhouse gases. Such a finding would be relevant for whether government should further restrict greenhouse gasses.
“Questions should then be asked about… decisions all the way up the food chain,” Watts said.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html

43 replies, 700 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply A 2013 article that shows how dishonest they are (Original post)
oflguy Sep 2018 OP
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #1
oflguy Sep 2018 #2
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #3
oflguy Sep 2018 #4
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #5
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #6
oflguy Sep 2018 #7
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #8
oflguy Sep 2018 #9
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #10
oflguy Sep 2018 #11
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #12
oflguy Sep 2018 #13
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #14
oflguy Sep 2018 #15
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #17
oflguy Sep 2018 #18
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #22
oflguy Sep 2018 #24
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #26
oflguy Sep 2018 #28
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #29
oflguy Sep 2018 #32
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #34
oflguy Sep 2018 #35
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #38
oflguy Sep 2018 #40
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #41
oflguy Sep 2018 #42
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #43
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #16
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #19
oflguy Sep 2018 #21
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #23
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #25
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #27
oflguy Sep 2018 #30
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #31
oflguy Sep 2018 #33
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #36
oflguy Sep 2018 #37
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #39
oflguy Sep 2018 #20

Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 06:34 PM

1. Watts has a lot of weird beliefs.

Not the kind of person I would care to take advice from about scientific data or anything else.
He'ds like the creationist loons. Doesn't do anything himself, just looks for ways to challenge things he probably doesn't even understand.
Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 06:40 PM

2. Thats all you got?

figures

Tell us more about the meteorologist. I'm curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 06:46 PM

3. Well, he dropped out of university, or failed, not sure.

Doesn't take an expert on thermodynamics to be a meteorologist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 06:54 PM

4. Which university?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 06:58 PM

5. I can't remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 02:56 AM

6. At it again, eh?

He went to Purdue but failed to obtain a degree. He has no scientific credentials. He was a weatherman for Yahweh’s sake!

https://m.

Your turn. Why are turtles green?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 07:51 AM

7. I bet he knows how to determine the temperature of a day

Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 07:53 AM

8. Nope your turn

Why are turtles green?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 07:55 AM

9. I rest my case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 08:01 AM

10. You might as well because everyone is on to your game

Pointless questions designed to drive the conversation down rabbit holes with no content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 29, 2018, 08:02 AM

11. Yep, you are right

Knowing the temperature is pointless

You are FINALLY catching on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 08:15 AM

12. It's thermal energy that counts.

It's thermodynamics in an open system that counts.
These are reflected by temperature readings and the transfer of thermal energy.

If a system can't reject as much thermal energy as it receievs, what will eventually happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 09:12 AM

13. Yeah, you are such an expert

That you fold up like a Rolly Polly whenever somebody asks you a question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:00 AM

14. Never said I was an expert.

I just understand thermodynamics.

I've asked you that question multiple times and you haven't even attempted a reply.
But you think it's relevant to ask me about electrical motors when we are talking about thermal energy.

So, what happens to a system that can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:30 AM

15. Your theory about heat rejection of the earth is based on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:50 AM

17. Thermodynamics.

It's based on thermodynamics.

Unless you can disprove thermodynamics.
Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:53 AM

18. I'll take that as a "I don't have a reference" I made it up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:56 AM

22. Thermodynamics is the reference.

According to the proven laws of thermodynamics, what happens to a system that can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives.
It doesn't have to be the earth.
Any open or closed system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:58 AM

24. Right, you made up your own theory

I get it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:00 AM

26. I didn't make up thermodynamics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:03 AM

28. Its ok, I understand

You are going solo with your theory

I'm not impressed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:05 AM

29. Asking you a question isn't a theory.

Your replies are nonsensical.
Anyone reading this can clearly see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:07 AM

32. I'm being generous when I use the word theory

Saying something with no evidence is just speculation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:08 AM

34. I asked you a question.

I didn't make a claim.
I don't need evidence to ask you a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:09 AM

35. WHAT question, for the third time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:11 AM

38. Holy fuck.

What happens to a system that cannot reject as much thermal energy as it receives?


Pick any system you want.
Not an isolated system though. Isolated systems can't receive or reject thermal energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:14 AM

40. Your assumption that the earth is not rejecting the same heat it receives is pure speculation

Based on NOTHING by your own admission

I told you that already

You don't listen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #40)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:16 AM

41. Pick any system you want.

Doesn't have to be the earth, like I said.

What happens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #41)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:21 AM

42. You are a legend in your own mind

Come up with at least ONE person that agrees with you that the earth is not rejecting as much heat as it receives.

Until then, you are living in a fantasy world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:27 AM

43. Well,

Six years worth of measurements from many satellites determined that it actually is.
Not of just temperature, but heat.

I already linked you that published paper before. You know, when you wouldn't answer the question last time.

Even if the earth was rejecting more thermal energy than it receives, it still wouldn't change my question.

OK how about this.

What happens to a system that rejects more thermal energy than it receives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:37 AM

16. Again no response, no content, only a question

I’m not sure why you’re wasting your time. At least Nolidad tries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:54 AM

19. Yeah. Oh well.

He knows the answer, he also knows what the answer means in regards to the earth retaining thermal energy.
It then leads to why the energy budget is off, which then leads to the greenhouse effect, which then leads to greenhouse gases and so on..
Making shit up about temperature, even if accurate, doesn't change anything else. It doesn't change the rest of the evidence either.
Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:55 AM

21. Blah, blah, blah

SAY something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:57 AM

23. I did. To cold warrior.

What's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:58 AM

25. Another content filled post!

Why are turtles green?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:02 AM

27. I'm sure he'll "rest his case" soon.

After saying I made up thermodynamics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:05 AM

30. There is not a shred of evidence that the world is experiencing man made warming

sorry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:06 AM

31. Who said anything about man-made anything?

It's a question about thermal energy and a systems ability to reject it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:08 AM

33. And nothing to back your pure speculation up

Its ok, I get it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:09 AM

36. The laws of thermodynamics aren't 'speculation'.

So..
No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:10 AM

37. OK then

The laws of thermodynamics back me up

Two can play that game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 11:14 AM

39. Sure they do.

They very well could if the math works out.
It won't though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 30, 2018, 10:54 AM

20. No response to WHAT, silly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience