Why do AGW doubters continue to question the surface station data?

Question

This is really starting to get old. Look, here's all the data proving that the surface station data is reliable.

Here is a plot of the supposed "good" stations (red, CRN12), "bad" sations (green, CRN5), and GISS data, originally linked by EnragedParrot:

http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/crn12_crn5_giss.gif

A discussion of surfacestations.org data and deception:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/

A graph of surface and troposphere temperature measurements, the latter taken by satellite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

And a discussion of the mistaken assumptions in questioning the surface station data courtesy of RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

The denier argument consists of - "look, this temperature station is next to a garbage can. That must be bad!"

Can the AGW doubters please drop this ridiculous argument now? It just undermines your position.

Answer 1

Well said Dana. I've been wondering how long it would take them to realise that they're trrying to refute global warming by quoting a source that confirms it.

I guess the reason it's cited by some skeptics is that they THINK it substantiates their arguments without actually understanding what it is that they're referring to. It's a mistake to do this but it's a mistake all too frequently made by some of the skeptics (and some proponents as well)

I think it's fair to say that no-one objects to a reasoned debate on the subject of global warming and welcomes input from people who know that they're talking about. The debate tends to collapse when one side insists on introducing meaningless data and consistently relies on long refuted sources.

At the end of the day the surface station records clearly show that global warming is occurring and the data is consistent with that from other surface stations around the world and from the data obtained from other measuring techniques.

Answer 2

Speakeasy - where does your data come from? Research shows that it's wrong. Not even the "skeptics' claim the Earth was several degrees warmer 1000 years ago. Here's the peer reviewed data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Watts (a "broadcast journalist") is just a tourist with a boring slide show. He has pictures, but no data. The actual data shows he's wrong. Study after study shows there is no difference in the data between indisputably well situated sites and those which are questioned by Watts.

Parker, D.E., Large-Scale Warming is not Urban, Nature 432, 290

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found THOMAS C. PETERSON, J. Cimate, 2003

Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106

etc, etc.

(Vladoviking - are these any more credible for you?)

Vladoviking (2) They didn't do it because of Watts (one study is 2003). They did it because they thought it might be a problem, and they wanted to check and be sure it wasn't. That's the sort of thing scientists do, and why the "gotchas" of the skeptics are almost always things the scientists have long ago thought about, measured, and rejected.

Also see:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

Answer 3

Yea I read some of your last source one just before. It does look kinda cherry picked for just the two pics and graphs that he could lambast. Then he comes with that update update update and says they modify the data from a site nearby that conforms. So who is gonna know what is real anymore?

Not really Bob if they all wasting so much time refuting a simple TV weather head who ain't even published and just got pic's. Seems like the poor fool has stirred a big pot if all them Official Scientists is after him.

I was just browsing the NASA site ( don't ask me to find it cause I was looking at solar minimums and sunspot prediction and got all lost) Bob at the bottom of one of them long winded pages they up and said no way should anybody believe them homemade weather stations period They got satellites. I'm inclined to agree as I knew the drunk in my hometown who ran one,
O'course on another page they said TOM's satellite was broke and tumbling in space but they had corrected all the data like yall tell me all the time.

Answer 4

Dana, unfortunately you are using old data. I answered your comment on my question but will do so again. John V made a contribution in Comment 86 when he pointed out the need for geographic distribution. His comment was dated Sept 14, 2007. The McIntyre post I linked to was dated October 4, 2007. McIntyre had more stations to use, better geographic distribution and the better data confirmed that good quality stations warm less than poor quality stations.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2145

The skeptic's argument consists of "look this weather station is located on top of a parking lot!," it must have a warm bias. Can you actually argue against that? Of course not. Asphalt soaks up the sun's energy much more than a natural environment would and constantly feeds it back to the weather station. It will increase both Tmin and Tmax. Nothing could be more self-evident. Please stop this flailing around to try and save the current temp record. It makes you look silly. Oh, and regarding RealClimate, the website is owned by a public relations company. The Ph.Ds who write for it have no more credibility than guys like Steve Milloy or Patrick Michaels on the deniers side.

Trevor, what do you mean skeptics are " trrying to refute global warming by quoting a source that confirms it?" If you are referring to the global temp record, we are pointing out that it is deeply flawed. I still do not understand how people can point to the Peterson and Parker papers on UHI when they have been so thoroughly refuted by Pielke and his co-authors. I have trouble understanding how Dana, Bob and you can be so loyal to a temp record when you know 85% of stations do not meet the minimum requirements of NOAA. Just using your common sense for a minute, can you not understand how locating a weather station on top of a parking lot would introduce a warm bias? I cannot imagine that you fail to see the problem here. Then why are you trying to resurrect the obviously flawed temp record? Why not join with Watts to get better data? The scientists at UCAR did not have this attitude.

BTW, I am not saying temps have not gone up. I am only saying that the surface temp record exaggerates the amount of increase. Christy keeps the satellite record and he admits the atmosphere is warming, but it is not enough for him to think any catastrophe is coming.

Answer 5

With all due respect to the professionals working on surface station data, they are missing critical data that affects the accuracy of their measurement. That flawed data is the science missing for the governments to get more excited about global warming. It is the science Gore, Clinton, every state, province, country, presidential hopeful, UN and the entire world is missing.

I appreciate the intent but even the garbage can is capable of having an impact on temperature measurement.

They need to put the surface temperature devices on buildings, pavement, green areas and everywhere to get better temperature influences.

The methods being used for measurment are very limited and old. Hydrologists and forestry management use the same idea for fish management, they put data loggers in the water to record stream temperature.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/groundwater to see an advanced temperature application to give biologists a visual from the air.

In regards to the surface temperate measurement, we are missing critical data. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see the actual temperature performance of buildings.

Other very important information is missing on Urban Heat Islands because we are generating extreme heat before they become UHI.

Why do we cover our skin from UV? It burns us because it is a fast moving wavelength causing excitation. Go to the link above and see UV causing absorbent building material to generate heat close to boiling temperature. Is todays surface measurment even discussing this?

They couldn't see it. I participated in 17,000 hours of work advancing temperature measurment by taking it outside the calculator that every university uses.

Buildings are generating extreme heat close to boiling temperature and we are treating the symptoms with air conditioning which is refrigeration that causes ozone depletion. The electrical waste is in the gigawatts and we aren't discussing EVERY new building is performing like this.....because we couldn't see it in our calculator.

Go to the link and see what functional landscaping does or lighter colors. This proble can be addressed, we couldn't see it.

I would look forward to any surface measurment professionals contacting me so we can help them expand on the application. When we generate heat close to boiling temperature it means one thing. We are warming the globe while we react to symptoms.

Imaging this, all that needs to be done is to ask a builder what finishes they have used to ensure no heat generation, Low e finishes and coatings, functional landscaping. This is the developers responsibility, we couldn't see it.

Answer 6

Forget about weather stations and look at satellite data and isotopic temperature records from the ice caps, co2 from icecaps and fossilized plants and you still get the same answer. The earth is warming but even when we are sitting in Antarctica in our bathers the skeptics will still be talking about natural cycles and how last week end it was the coldest day they can remember and how gore is a rich fat wannabe president and how some dude from the middle ages told them that it was warmer 1000years ago.

Give up on the manority of skeptics and oil sponsored scientists. Most governments have recognised the threat and are starting to change slowly.

Answer 7

We just have to ignore these deniers of AGW, Waste of time really. I don't know why they are so fond of arguements when evidence of AGW is everywhere, billions of cars spewing deadly CO2 into the atmosphere, smog covering the cities are not imaginery. I am glad to say that most governments are taking notice and Hongkong"s law makers are passing a law which makes it an offence for any vehicles to have its motors running after 3 minutes of the car being stalled, This is mainly for taxis waiting in que for customers or for buses waiting at terminals or for people waiting for their spouses to come out from the markets or supermarkets.

Answer 8

Many temperature recording stations are placed in urban areas that continue to grow. That has a rather predictable result.

Global warming is real and has been for 10,000 years. The glaciers have retreated 2,000 miles and the oceans have risen hundreds of feet in that time. No doubt about it. Nothing new.

1,000 years ago, the Earth was several degrees warmer than it is today. Then, a cooling spell occurred, disrupting the ongoing warming trend. Only now is Earth regaining the heat (and land) lost to the encroaching glaciers during that recent cooling period. Perhaps soon Greenland will be farmland again like it was a thousand years ago. The Vikings gave it that name because they farmed there.

What is suspicious is the 'spike' in temperature readings coming from urban-sited sensors while rural sensors do not show it.

Even more interesting is the warming of other planets in our solar system. Perhaps those SUVs are more common that previously believed?

More bothersome are the outright efforts to deceive the young and insufficiently wary, for example by switching the labels in the warming vs co2 correlation charts. Naturally, CO2 rise FOLLOWS the warming cycle. Inconvenient truth, so a lie is propagated...

To understand the actual purpose of all those scare tactics, one need only follow the money and the quest for power. Al Gore created "Generation Investment Management Corporation" to receive carbon payments and has been trying since 1982 to get Government to coerce those payments out of us. Then, there's the global government movement as described in this first link...

"A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period."

Answer 9

I agree with Ron, also the criticism of Watts is a little unwarranted, he is doing important field work and to my knowledge has not made any conclusions about global temperatures derived from the surface station network.

The urban heat island effect definitely exist, and while it may be accurately compensated for there are a number of stations that are being integrated into the surface record that have an uncorrected bias. When the survey is complete the truth will come out.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722900004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722930000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
.
.

Answer 10

deniers of Global warming are not here to discover truths
their function is to deny ,
nothing deeper than that .
even if truth sat on the end of their noses
they would cut of their nose rather than
accept it ,because their motives lie elsewhere
.
It make no sense ,to keep trying to convince those ,who have no interest in being sensible
at the risk of going crazy

Skeptics is another ball game they just want to absolve humanity from any guilt ,this is very similar to what the church does ,if you join you too can go to heaven and be loved by your God
even if you have been very naughty.