You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings
2010-02-16
Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.

The findings are set to cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal.

The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings.

Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

Rising temperatures around the stations, which have been in use for 150 years, could also have been caused by urbanisation, the study claimed. One weather station at Manchester airport, which was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields, is now surrounded by heated buildings.

The IPCC used data from the weather stations to back up claims that greenhouse gases had already caused a 0.7C rise in temperature, and gave warnings that further warming of up to 6C by 2100 could have devastating effects on civilisation and wildlife.

But the panel has been mired in controversy since the leaking of emails from the climate change unit at The University of East Anglia, which appeared to show that data used to bolster the IPCC's claims had been manipulated.

Four major errors have also been uncovered in the second of the panel's four reports on the state of global climate change, published in 2007.

Most embarrasing for the IPCC was the inaccurate claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than other studies suggest - which was not backed up by any research.

The damaging new findings by Mr Watts, whose study has not been peer reviewed, are backed by Professor John Christy, a former lead author on the IPCC who specialises in atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Prof Christy has published research papers examining the effects of local factors on weather stations in California, Alabama and east Africa, which he believes drastically undermine the reliability of global temperature records.

"The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the local weather stations, such as land development," he said.
Posted by:Fred

#7  The fact that this is considered "new" is the biggest fraud.

The only thing new in this fraud is the motives of those involved has now been revealed:
excerpt from Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet

Despite the string of calamities that have befallen the UN since the Climategate scandal first broke last November, the UNEP FI consortium is feverishly demanding that governments impose higher fuel duties and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand. Thus this profit-chasing unholy alliance of conspirators will still be able to cream off some of the loot for their green pension scams. The losers in the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time are western taxpayers and Third World poor who will likely suffer starvation and disease due to the increased costs of food and essential medicines.
The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:
“The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
Yes, you did read that correctly: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”
The BBC is in the chair of this carbon trading driven investment scheme. Now you know why the BBCÂ’s thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years.
UKIPÂ’s Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UKÂ’s fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said:
“The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship.”....Those British organizations tied into IIGCC who may have a conflict of interest when they communicate with you include the following:
Baptist Union of Great Britain
Bedfordshire Pension Fund
BT Pension Scheme
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
Corporation of London Pension Fund
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Kent County Council
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
London Pensions Fund Authority
Merseyside Pension Fund
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
The Church Commissioners for England
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
United Reform Church
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund



Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2010-02-16 12:18  

#6  I mentioned Watts to my meteo-PhD boss last night, and he scurried back to his office to show me an early-Eighties vintage report he had co-authored, wherein he and a ton of grad students did something similar to what Watts is doing now, back in the days before the Stevenson shelters were replaced by the electronic doo-hickeys. His conclusions (and data!) was pretty much similar to what Watts is finding now - the vast majority of stations have always been crap - affected by creeping UHI, poorly sited, badly maintained, indifferently monitored.

The boss blamed "Reagan-era cuts" for a lot of it, though. He said that they used to send guys out periodically to do maintenance on the weather stations, until that got cut. A lot of the people the stations nominally belonged to thought that the grad students showing up to evaluate their stations were the long-overdue maintenance guys, who never were going to come again.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2010-02-16 12:16  

#5  Hey, let's not jump to conclusions here. We have to peer review those pictures and the regulations of the weather service about siting of stations.

dum de dum de dum...............

Okay, I'm a peer and have reviewed it. THIS DATA SUCKS JUST LIKE ALL THE REST OF THIS FRAUD!!!

The fact that this is considered "new" is the biggest fraud. All this was known, as has been mentioned, years ago.
Posted by: AlanC   2010-02-16 08:08  

#4  Indeed, gorb. And we got it from posted links to Mr. Watts' site, which some Rantburgers follow. Our weather professionals have shared their own pithy observations over the years as well.

/Rantburg: sometimes scooping the MSM by days, sometimes by years. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-02-16 08:03  

#3  UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings

Finally admitting it. Saw this here years ago.
Posted by: gorb   2010-02-16 01:48  

#2  There is a site which looks at where weather stations are located

Here's another site.

Some of the locations (surrounded by parking lots, right next to an airport tarmac, 9 feet from an air-conditioner outlet....) makes you wonder if any if the data collected is worth anything. It can't help but to be skewered.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-02-16 01:31  

#1  "The damaging new findings by Mr Watts, whose study has not been peer reviewed"

Hard to get a "peer review" when you are kept out of the publications by the warmists.
Posted by: tipover   2010-02-16 00:54  

00:00