Why do deniers continue to claim the surface temperature measurements are wrong?

Question

They say that many temperature measurement stations are too close to urban development. It seems "logical" but has no data to back it up.

Study after study has shown that this is not contaminating the data.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/urban-heat-islands.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a.html
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/102322.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/heatisland.html

Deniers cite websites that have examined the stations. Some make pseudoscientific claims, like "rating" the stations from 1 to 5. But the scientific studies show they're wrong.

This graph is considered authoritative even by "skeptical" scientists like Richard Lindzen. Note the size of the green error bars, about one tenth of one degree.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif

Another silly argument that requires thousands of Ph.D. climatologists to be idiots.

jbtascam - It's fascinating. Silly websites with blatantly unsupported assertions are quoted as if they're truth, while a thoughtful discussion of the real issues is savaged.

The bottom line is that, while people disagree how to set the baseline for temperature changes (like at the surface, 5 feet above, etc.), once a baseline is selected we can measure _changes_ in temperature to within a tenth of a degree. So global warming theory is unaffected by the problem.

It's also fascinating that Hansen is quoted as an expert when what he's saying suits someone and dismissed as ignorant when it doesn't. Without any evaluation of what is said other than whether it fits preconceived notions.

Marc G - Thanks.

Last link corrected:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

I'm not saying the data is perfect. I'm saying the error bars in this graph are correct.

I'm awaiting Watts publication to see just what he claims about the inaccuracies in the data.

His Divine Shadow -

Yes, there have been natural warmings in the past. But the data proves this warming isn't natural:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Bottom line:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Tomcat - Climatology says the atmosphere should warm 30% faster. 130% of 0.12 is 0.156. Plenty close enough, well within expected error.

So 0.03 may not do it for you, but it does it for thousands of Ph.D. climatologists. Guess who I'm going with?

Answer 1

I think the answer to this and many similar questions is that some skeptics really don't know what they're talking about and others might know but prefer to distort the evidence to suit thier individual aggendas.

There are for example some people who claim global warming is the result of the urban heat island effect. Here's 10 reasons why they're wrong...

1) Most recording stations are rural. Recording stations are typically found at airports, seismological stations, observatories, military establishments and other locations typically located away from population centres.

2) There are thousands of reporting stations right around the globe - both on land and at sea. It's sometimes claimed we don't record temperatures over the seas and oceans, here's a live plot of reporting vessel locations. As you can see, the seas and oceans are pretty well covered http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml

3) It's the sparsely populated areas that are witnessing the fastest rising temperatures, most notably in Siberia and the Arctic. Here's a useful utility that enables the user to generate their own map of global temperature changes - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

4) The effets of urban heat islands have long been known about and readings are 'decontaminated' to take account of the higher urban temps.

5) Oceanographic and hydrological surveys show the same level of warming as the instrumental records do. Other than Atlantis I'm not aware of any underwater urban areas.

6) For 30 years we've been using satellite telemetry to record temperatures across the globe, from pole to pole and all points inbetween.

7) Comparison of readings taken from rural locations and urban locations shows almost the same level of warming, the difference I beleive is 0.05°C.

8) The UHI effect is primarily caused by steel, concrete, glass etc absorbing daytime solar radiation, the heat being subsequently released at night. There is no stratification in the comparison of day and night temps, something that would be expected if the UHI was of significance.

9) There is no correlation between urban growth and temperature rise. In areas where there is population decline and / or deurbanisation there is the same level of warming as found in areas with population growth and expanding urbanisation.

10) The comparison between long term urban and rural temperature recordings shows that the UHI has an almost negligible effect on temperatures.

Answer 2

The surface temperature is not well known nor is there accurate data of many points on the globe. Most of the Earth is covered by water and there has never been any measurement done of changes on the ocean surface. This is important because the Earth radiates energy as a blackbody does. As the temperature rises the radiation increases by quite a lot. Same thing applies for cooling of the surface so its really hard to see how the overall temperature can ever change reguardless of what some people rant on about.

Answer 3

I take it that you are refering to the work by Anthony Watts? That has been bouncing around the internet for a little while now?

That psuedoscientific 1-5 rating system you reference can be found here:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

2.2.1 Classification for Temperature/Humidity

Class 1 – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19º). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25
centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5º.

Class 3 (error 1ºC) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error ≥ 2ºC) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error ≥ 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating
source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

He didn't "make up" the ratings system, he is using the one published by the agency nominally in charge of the station sites.

He has brought to the attention of everyone that the data being relied upon for surface measuerments may not be as solid as previously assumed. There is nothing wrong with that.

This does not require 1000's of PhDs to be idiots. It means that the data they were using may not be as good as it was believed to be.

Watts has two websites he uses, I am sure you are familiar with surfacestations.org.

His other site is:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Watts spends more time here making his arguments regarding S/N ratios and the difficulty of pulling a small signal out of a large background. Thus I do not need to go into a long discussion of it here.

Answer 4

Most people I know who are "deniers" aren't denying that climate change isn't occuring, just who is responsible.

The planet's climate has changed significantly since its formation of a stable climate. And most of these changes had nothing to do with humankind, since they, only fairly recently geologically speaking, developed the ability to burn fossil fuels.

Personally, I think that advocates of global warming can have just as much of an unethical agenda as "deniers," like promoting stupid concerts and "documentaries," "green industry" inventions that probably don't do a dam thing to help the Earth, and the furthering of scientific and political careers. Remember, if it turns out that global warming is proven to be a totally natural occurence, that will be a lot of scientists out on the street and a lot of politicians with egg on their faces. Don't think that capitalist and political interests have a stake in just proving global warming false, the door swings both ways.

Edit:
Thank you for the information, but all it illustrates from what I see is correlation, not causation. And the fact that you could suggest that data can "prove" any hypothesis to be true makes me only more reluctant to believe that you have any formal training or expertise in how science operates, much less how it works for this particular subject.

Answer 5

The "Big Lie" strategy--repeat a falshood long enough and some people will be gullible enough to believe it.

You have to remember that the "deniers" have an agenda. Depending on which ones you're talking about (and to be fair, excluding the followers who are just parroting stuff), its either economic or religious.

The economic agenda is simple--special interests--particularly some of th eoil companies--continue to spend a lot of money spreading misinformation to try to deflect changes. You only have to look as far as Exxon's profits to see why.

The religious motive is equally simple. The religious right does not value science--and consider it a threat. So they attack various aspects of science that they think they can discredit by disseminating false information.

Answer 6

My question for you Bob is why do AGW advocates continually post surface temperature graphs as proof that AGW is a reality? In order for AGW to be true the Mid-Troposphere has to warm considerably faster than the surface, in order for AGW to be the cause of the surface warming trend, but that did not happen.

A Delta T. of .03C / Decade doesn't do it for me Bob.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/sfc-radiosonde-jan-dec-pg.gif

If you actually look at the data you would see that the surface and the atmospere are out of sync, but whatever the admiral says, right?

.

Answer 7

Why do proponents of man made global warming continue to use the language of religion instead of that of science?

Answer 8

you know the reason why bob.

you just wish to muddy the waters so the agenda is furthered.

funny thing is, people are starting to dig into this "theory" and are coming to the conclusion that global warming is caused by all the hot air environmentalists are blowing trying to get people to "believe".

and can we get some fresh quotes?
i'm tired of the admiral. thanks.

Answer 9

Yes I saw someone make this argument again earlier today. It does get tiring seeing the same old arguments repeated time and time again, when just a little bit of research would show that they're invalid points.

As usual, deniers see something which could be construed as undermining the evidence behind anthropogenic global warming and don't bother to research it beyond reading the headlines. Global warming denial is akin to intellectual laziness.

Answer 10

I maintain a NOAA station and there has never , ever been a "climatologist" come and even look at the station. Let alone examine the thing...lol.