There's no stifling this unsettling doubt
by BradfordUnsettling the Settled Science is a blog entry of the American Enterprise Institute. NASA and other climate research organizations use data collected at the Marysville, California, temperature monitoring station to track temperature trends. From the blog:
The Marysville temperature station is located at the city’s fire department, next to an asphalt parking lot and a cell phone tower, and only a few feet away from two air conditioning compressors that spew out considerable heat. These sources of heat amplification mean that the temperature readings from the Marysville station are useless for determining accurate temperatures for the Marysville area.
This seems so stupid it is difficult to believe the station was placed there accidentally. Incompetence or something worse?
Indeed, the Marysville station violates the quality control standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius. That is not the only shortcoming of the Marysville data; it turns out that daily data were missing for as many as half the days of any given month. Either the device failed to self-record, or no one recorded the daily data as procedure requires. NASA simply filled in the gaps in the data by “interpolating.”
The Marysville station is only one among the more than 1,200 weather stations scattered throughout the United States from which NASA and NOAA generate data for their climate research, and is one of the key data sources for the claim that the planet has experienced a 0.8 degree Celsius increase in temperature since the beginning of the 20th century. But a survey of more than two-thirds of these stations reveal that the Marysville station is not an anomaly.
The writer goes on to say that "89 percent of the 860 temperature stations surveyed fail to meet the National Weather Service’s site requirements that stations must be located at least 30 feet away from any artificial heat source." Wow. More wows at the linked site.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:28 am
This is why the alleged temperature increase is well within the margin of error and can be attributed to noise.
Comment by ID guy — March 30, 2010 @ 7:28 am
March 30th, 2010 at 11:31 am
This post is timely in that American rulers will soon seek additional taxes on business (in a severe recession) ostensibly to save the planet. In reality the objective is to enhance the power of the federal government and squeeze more revenue out of the private sector to sustain a growing and piggish public sector. The scary stories behind all this are predicated on catastrophyism. That in turn is linked to questionable data and dubious theory.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 11:31 am
March 30th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Noise from fire trucks?
Comment by Mung — March 30, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
But this doesn't have to be stupidity or incompetence.
What matters is not that there are nearby sources of temperature fluctuation, but whether these an established control or baseline.
What if the goal isn't an accurate temperature reading, but relative or average readings?
Comment by Mung — March 30, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
This is why the alleged temperature increase is well within the margin of error and can be attributed to noise.
No, from the sound a falling tree doesn't make…
Comment by ID guy — March 30, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Then the last thing you want to do is place your sensor near a large heat capacitor like an asphalt parking lot. And you definitely don't want to be near a heat generator like an AC unit.
Comment by chunkdz — March 30, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Exactly! The conjecture Anthony Watts posts on his site has been so throughly debunked I don't understand why some folks are so in love with him and his dubious analysis.
For example in considering the Marysvile site how does the data from that site correlate with data from other stations located in the Central Valley…say Orland or any other such site even Yuba City which is the sister city to Marysville. The answer if anyone bothers to look at the data is that the Marysville data lines up nearly exact with that of other stations in the Central Valley which is no surprise since the atmosphere of the Central Valley is quite homogenuous given the wind circulation patterns and topography. Given Watt's tenure as a weatherman in Chico one would think he would have learned that simple fact.
In any case here is an example of the level of compentence that Watts and his minions bring to the table:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...
I'm leaving shortly for a trip back to the mountains so this might just be a drive by posting.
Comment by Acipenser — March 30, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Someone explain why one would situate a sensor near an artificial heat source when you do not have to?
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I doubt that the fire station, cell tower, and likely the AC units ass well were around 100+ years ago when the station was established.
It was also common to place these stations at locations such as fire stations so a warm body could record the data everyday.
Did you compare the temperature results from Marysville with other Central Valley data collections sites to see how they line up?
Comment by Acipenser — March 30, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
With trillions of dollars at stake we can afford to invest in better systems than this.
No but I gather you have. Is the 89% figure accurate?
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Which of course costs a great deal of $$ which no doubt some will complain about spending.
yes, Bradford, I have looked at the data (as well as lived in the Central Valley for too many years) and the data lines up quite well with no sign of devestating temperature deviations noted.
I've not looked into the 89% claim but given its source I would not be surprised to see that the claim is false as many of those found at Watts site. Can you imagine Anthony Watts supporting an analysis of data where the data was actually plotted upside down and then when the error is pointed out jsut ignoring it…..me neither which begs the question of why Watts supports such nonsensical analysis in the first place.
Comment by Acipenser — March 30, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I'm a fiscal conservative. When I raise a cost issue I do not play favorites. Bush spent too much. Obama's even worse. But I've also looked at the price tags attached to carbon programs and think they would dwarf whatever price tag this relates to. But if it is deemed unnecessary by those working in the field so be it.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
I'm sure that our (USA) climatologists would jump at the chance to have funding to update all the weather stations in the world with the best technology available as well as adding a few more stations to increase coverage. However, that will cost a lot and will do nothing to enhance the long-term data sets that currently exist are are invaluable to the science. Would upgrading just the data stations in the USA make any difference in the overall quality of the global data set? I think we would have to advocate for global upgrades to start the generation of a long-term data set.
I also don't think it prudent to take a picture of a data collection site and declare ipso facto that the data collected at that station is worthless. A better method is to look at that data and compare it to data collected at nearby sites and in the case of the Marysville station there are many that you could use for comparison. In this case it works out that there are neglible differences in the data from the Central Valley stations. I would not go to the extreme of claiming that this would hold for all analagous stations.
Someone named Lucia who is/was favorable to Watt's position conducted some of her own analysis of the data and found that Watt's claims do not hold up and her results agreed with Menne et. al. and she managed to not even get one data set plotted upside down!
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
One thing researchers have also found was/is a bias in the data depending on which type of sensor recorded the data.
Comment by Acipenser — March 30, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
This is kinda embarrasing.
I mean, really, how hard is it to accurately measure the temperature?
We have "hockey stick" graphs, we have IPCC emails flying all over the place, we have a scientific "herd mentality" writ large — and we have an extremely weak hypothesis that man, collectively, is causing this 1 degree temperature increase.
Based on this, we're supposed to completely restructure our economic way of life? I mean, I hate oil companies just like the next fellow, but this makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, I promise to start riding my bicycle more often and resume my old stinky compost bin in the backyard. But, in the meantime, will someone please explain why so many smart people are so emotionally invested in this global warming?
Comment by David S — March 30, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Well, I may not be a big fan of oil companies, but here's someone who apparently is: President Obama
From Reuters:
Comment by David S — March 30, 2010 @ 11:38 pm