Via Midwest Chick a while ago, there's a new independent audit of the weather stations that feed daily data to the climate databases. This is a follow up to the 2009 Surface Stations Project. Results are, well, what you'd expect:
- The 2009 report found 89 percent of stations were unacceptable by NOAA’s own standards. The 2022 report found an even greater percentage of stations—approximately 96 percent—are sited unacceptably. The official U.S. temperature record, which was shown in 2009 to be heat-biased due to poor siting issues, appears to be even more biased in 2022.
- Of the 128 stations surveyed, only two were found to be a Class 1 (best-sited) station: the Dubois, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Farm, and the St. Joseph, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Farm.
- Three stations were found to be Class 2 (acceptably sited).
- The remaining 123 stations were found to be Class 3, 4, and 5, and therefore considered unacceptably sited in accordance with Leroy’s classification system and NOAA publication 10-1302.
- The 7 percent increase in unacceptably sited stations from 2009 to 2022 seems to be in line with the Gallo and Xian study noting the increase in ISAs near USHCN stations.
- Based on the sample, it appears that waste-water treatment plants (WWTP) comprise approximately 25-30 percent of the entire COOP network. It is difficult to get an accurate count because NOAA / NWS does not discern between WWTPs and other stations in the HOMR database. WWTPs are a poor place to measure data to detect climate change because they grow with population, and the industrial processes they perform (sewage digestion) generate substantial amounts of heat, creating a heat sink effect.
- In some interviews with observers, it became clear NOAA / NWS personnel are aware their station siting does not adhere to NOAA standards, but they do not have the means or the time to take corrective action. A prime example is a Class 5 USHCN station in a radio station parking lot in Grants Pass, Oregon, where the radio station engineer recognized the problem, but the local NWSFO refused to address it—even after multiple requests to relocate the MMTS sensor.
It's like they want lousy data, as long as it shows things hotter than they really are.
UPDATE 10 JULY 2023 14:04: Chris Lynch finds this, which is worth remembering. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) shows climate over the last 10,000 years or so:
I blame SUVs for all the warming during the Roman Climate Optimum ...
2 comments:
I mean we know it's not about scientific principals at all right? It's only about the "Approved Science"
The old tripe about the Scientists and Political beasts that support this fly around to global confernces that enrich them, make the rest of us miserable all the while doing it in luxury most of us can't imagine still does apply.
And if you try talking to someone that's swallowed that entirely you can present facts to them or even the mockery of their heros flying around in private jets. You will get the following. 1. YOUR NOT A SCIENTIST, 2 if you post them some links THEY ARE NOT THE SCIENTISTS APPROVED. and 3 They will just say their sources are as valid as yours. Even when you show them proof they are not. Why would anyone be surprised the data we have is either faked or so outragously twisted that it's meaningless?
Don't forget that WWTPs have some other points against them for accurate data:
1. They are almost exclusively owned and maintained by local governments, meaning who knows how well maintained, properly sited, or calibrated the data is (if, of course, it actually exists - I would be surprised to NOT see gaps in their data from power outages, accidents, etc)
2. Not only does their heat throw off readings, I suspect their CO, CO2, methane, and other emissions also do. Most people don't realize how sensitive sensors are to interference from emissions they aren't looking for.
One example I know from mining: almost any amount of CO will make methane detectors give inaccurate readings (usually low, but not always)
Post a Comment