According to surfacestations.org, the main reason by officials for not performing up to date surveys on questionable sites is due to costs and meager budgets. What a surprise!

Thank you for highlighting this crucial fact.

It leads to a fundamental question:

Do the critics who proclaim these concerns propose to increase or decrease funding?

For example, JP has often written about the shortcomings of our current observation network. He has also offered an estimate of the cost to correct those shortcomings -- my recollection is that it was several billion dollars.

If JP and the similar critics propose to fund the effort needed to correct these problems, and cite their criticisms in support of that funding, then I wholeheartedly agree.

If, on the other hand, the real intent is to disconnect them, discount their data, and further bury our heads in the sand about the world around us, then I think they are not only wrong but dangerously so.

The dubious quality of this observational data is surely one of the motivations for the statistical corrections, adjustments, and normalizations that so many of our contrarians/denialists criticize so loudly. Perhaps even our contrarians/denialists will agree that better observational data collection technology will reduce the need to manipulate the resulting data once it is gathered.

So let me offer it as a direct question to our contrarians, especially JP:

Do you support or oppose the increased funding needed to correct the problems in our observation network?

The nearest historical weather site for myself was established shortly after the Civil War and run by soldiers. A few years later it was moved to a downtown building and the thermometer was placed on a window sill for convience. The thermometer was in the sun during the warmest parts of the day!

Around the 1870's or so, a record high was recorded of 101F. Within a few years, it was decided to move the thermometer away from the window and temperature records have been no where near as high ever since. We hit soemthing like 97F this past summer.

The current location is in the observers back yard with huge trees providing all types of shade. So, his temperatures are very cool compared to what most of the surrounding country side of open farm fields.

Reply: the problem with all those trees is the fact that they will act as a canopy at night, trapping more of the day's warmth, leading to a higher low temperature reading than you would normally get in an open area. Brett

So, some skeptics may look at the stations data and wrongly claim that there has been cooling of the climate. However, the site is also near a Lake Ontario. Over the last decade very little ice has formed during the winter. Back in the 1800s, the lake would freeze all the way to the horizon. In other words, a clear sign of warming.

Anyhow, while there are problems with instrumental records, there are other sources of data throughout the world like ice cores and sediment cores that show how much the world has warmed.

In addition, satellites are used to measure tempearures now, much more accurately than anything else.

Hi Brett,

Let us not forget that a lot of places use to old mercury thermometers and they have a accuracy of +/- 0.5 degree C. Also most temperature readings prior to the 1970's used these instruments.

While there are certainly many microsite issues, some important points must be noted:

1) If a site is consistently 2 deg C higher, it will still measure a trend accurately. Reply: true, but these errors usually change over time, and even short periods of time, which will alter the trend.

2) There are also many sites with cooling biases. Reply: true again. Central Park, NY and PHL come to mind, especially with their high temps.

3) Sites are adjusted for homogeneity, which helps to eliminate bad data.
4) No one has been able to show that poor sites differ in their measurement of trend. In fact, analysis shows no difference between good and bad sites in terms of trend. Reply: maybe so, but I still do not think this is acceptable
5) Data from satellite measurements are nearly identical to surface measurements for the satellite era (1978-present). This holds true for global temperatures AND US temperatures.

In short, whatever effect there is from microsite issues, the trends are unaffected.

Hansen's whole story is based on about 0.6 degrees. Seems fairly apparent that is within the standard deviation of error.

AKA - bad science

Meagers budgets? AGW is a multibillion $$$ a year industry - why don't they spend some of that $$$ on getting good data before they begin their speculations upon it?

AGW has things exactly backwards - science MUST begin with good data.

No wonder the science isn't settled.

Brookline Tom-
Obviously it is due to lack of funding that the data stations often provide inaccurate data. This has nothing to do with the bad data though. You can't use false data under any pretense and certainly using data, proven to be quite inaccurate to support a theory is ridiculous. The data, which is stated to have ranges that end up several degrees high or low, is to inaccurate to use in definitive predictions. We are talking about warming of less than a degree celcius, and the +/- of the data is not sufficient to prove anything. Before any "consensus" or proof is to occur, there needs to be an accurate way to read temperatures, and to factor in all the other factors. From what I understand we are incredibly far away from that.
Yes I think funding should probably be increased, but it has to be taken away from something else. There is absolutely no reason to raise taxes to fund stations further, the money is already in the government. Though I could see that as a rationale to raise taxes by some global warming advocates like Boxer. Editing bad data, does not make it useable, bad data is just that, bad, and needs to thrown out. At most the data that is recorded can be used to support a HYPOTHESIS which is what the human caused global warming idea is. It needs to be stated as such, instead of as fact.

Andrew-
The idea of using thermometers is to have everything set to a scale. These were upgrades to looking at a pond and deciding how much more or less it froze in a given year. Looking at natural phenomenae such as that is wildly inaccurate. Your other point about temp. stations being in cooler places now, such as under trees and away from windows is also questionable. A bigger issue, I believe has been the urbanization of areas around older reading stations. The greater prevalence of concrete buildings and pavement, allow for a large increase in temperature over time. For example at the Detroit Metro Airport temperatures trend about 3-5 degrees cooler than those in Detroit city (5-10 miles away) during both the day and night. Even if you average the two together the number will be at least two or three degrees above the actual temperature. It's called the urban heat island effect, and it is real, an it definetely throws off temperature trends in those areas. Also the record high temperatures are unimportant. It is the average that we are concerned with. Last year in South Lyon, MI we only topped 90 three or four times, as opposed to several days over a hundred several years ago. This is not a sign of cooling, as the average temperatures have been almost exactly the same, and certainly over the last few decades.

Elliot

Bad science indeed.

Bad data + bad models = bad science.

Boris - the burden lies upon the AGW crowd to examine the data thoroughly and clean it up before any analyses can be performed. It is not the responsibility of AGW skeptics to prove the bad data creates biases in AGW analyses. All scientific 'research' involving this data should cease immediately until data QC is done.

An email quote from a climatologist friend. Location removed to protect the innocent.

I am in charge of the (location removed) weather station so I know the data here intimately. It is one of very few stations in the western U.S. that has maintained the same instrumentation and same time of observation through all of history. However, until about 1960 our setting was very rural and in the past 45 years the city has grown up around us and buildings and pavement have encroached upon the station. Most of the observed warming is simply the creation of a "Urban Heat Island" which is very common in developed urban areas.

“Ten years ago the Conference on the World Climate Research....concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating.”
Translation: we have been inputting garbage into our models, all our papers, and we expect everybody to believe us. Couple that with “No prior reviews of forecasting methodology for climate models” and the AGW crowd wonders why people question their religion?
Folks that isn’t science….it’s a combination astrology, a Quiji board which is then written in dreadful English prose using multisyllabic Latin words to sound knowledgeable and confuse the mass of people who trust you.
Just making up numbers and calling it “adjustments” to suit your ideas is unconscionable. When questioned the AGW crowd says, “Math Error” and that is to supposed to mollify dissent. It doesn’t! It makes a mockery of the term “science”. Let’s be honest, the AGW people are just guessing.
How can somebody who is mentally competent and works in a scientific field, acknowledge all these issues and still believes this nonsense?
Again this whole “science field” is just people using scientific instruments (badly) and then making a guess using NO scientific methodology.
Instead of spending billions on remedies that we still don't know it needed, we update and correct the places where we get our data from? Spend a few million to get accurate information? What a novel idea in this "science".
Maybe then we can actually have a scientific discussion....or is the AGW religion AFRAID of what it may be found without "math errors" and "adjustments"?
LOL You folks keep me laughing! Have a great weekend.

Brookline Tom

I do not support or oppose increased funding. I do fully support precise and accurate measurement of critical weather and climate data. If more money is needed fine. If tighter controls are needed than do so.

I am still pondering your statement on reducing the need to "manipulate the resulting data once it is gathered".

What is this need you are referring to? The need to fudge the data in a certain direction to get the answer you are looking for?

Boris et al;
Bad siteing will indeed show a trend in temperatures. Agreed.
Unfortunately the trend is often no more than the UHI increase as population grows added to the normal background warming.
BT: I would most definately support spending the money to fix these stations. It would likely show ultimately that the gradual slow warming comming out of the LIA has been steady and not ACCELLERATING OUT OF CONTROL.
We could then make allocate resources to resolving real problems in the world instead of wasting them on chasing fantoms.
Good suggestion.

BT & Andrew
At least you are admitting a problem with the data.
I put this to you ... why are most of Hansen's adjustments up? I know the answer, do you?
Also, this is the US data which I suspect is the best & yet everyone keeps commenting on the ROW data as if the African data or the Chinese data etc is likely to be accurate ... what a joke!
Andrew the satelites were showing no warming until it was determined by the GLO-BULL warmers that they too must be adjusted ... is anyone surprised that now they show warming?
Andrew the satellite data base is too short to yield statistically meaningful data .... but of course that isn't a problem in this field of science is it? The best work is done with bad data that needs the most fudging .... I mean correcting.

Have a great weekend folks,
Rick.

I believe that the old computer expression, "garbage in, garbage out" applies to this topic. Climate models are notorously unreliable. Two articles of interest are linked below. The first is from Climate Audit and illustrates a bad site for collecting temp data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2090

The second article is from World Climate Report (Sept. 21, 2007) and discusses the lack of soil moisture data in climate models and the important role they play in "predicting more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes, more glacial melting, more sea level rise, more species extinctions, more anything you can possibly name (assuming what you name is potentially catastrophic)."
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Call me a skeptic or a denier or whatever you like, but if I ignore information like this and simply follow the AGW true believers and their endless excuses for why their theory doesn't hold up then I am a fool.

Obviously, if you just have a very small percentage of poor sites, then it is probably not too much of an issue, but it seems that the problem is bigger than that.

Brett the problem is not huge, I went through the slide show bearing in mind that only 27% of the sites hd been inspected. I do not remember how many sites there are in total but rest assured the US is well covered with hundreds of stations where by now there is barely any room left to squeeze another one in. Perhaps its time to think about urban consolidation instead of looking for more real-estate.

I began to notice that just about every site shown in the slide show had something wrong with it. There were issues of shade caused by natural formations and architectural encroachment, there were unnatural ground cover, aircon vents too close to boxes, even the wrong paint used to make the boxes white and even more worrying white boxes in jet black tarmac car parks.

The huge problem is that there are few places that are actually suitable, something is always not quite perfect for a box, but what always remains the same is that the conditions inside the box will be the same in that box day after day. consequently the day to day measurements taken inside that box will still maintain an accurate reading of the temperatures and conditions of the box itself and isn�t that really all the box is useful for?

Once the measurements are all bought together, how each box affected the temperatures taken no longer matters because a decrease or rise in the overall temperature of the entire continent will still be evident.

There is no such thing as time Brett, the only way to really really know what time means is to wait for a bus. Temperature depends on how you measure it, what you use, when it�s done and where you are. Therefore to get a good indication of average national temperatures use a scatter gun , get lots of data do it often and compare the results.

and that is exactly what they have done.

Tom said:

"Boris - the burden lies upon the AGW crowd to examine the data thoroughly and clean it up before any analyses can be performed."

Yes, and that is exactly what they did. But if you don't like the ground based temps, you can look at satellite trends, which show the same trend.

Gary said:
"Unfortunately the trend is often no more than the UHI increase as population grows added to the normal background warming."

UHI has been studied extensively. It has only a small effect, and is adjusted for in GISS. Arctic temps are increasing the fastest, and there aren't many urban areas in the arctic.

Just saw something bizarre. This site made a radical change from yesterday.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

I refreshed the page from Sept. 19 to Sept. 20 and it was completely different. One thing they changed was the scale (switched from one degree to two degree intervals.) but what didn't make sense was that the ratio of above normal to below normal temperatures went up dramatically. Particularly in areas like Arizona which have been having cool weather recently.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFLG/2007/9/21/MonthlyHistory.html

I wonder if NOAA is changing their methodology?

The NCDC reports global average temperatures every month and has a data set going back over 100 years. Here is a link to the sceintific paper on how they do it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-Reynolds-dataset-2005.pdf

If anybody has some criticism with their techniques, then please share it.

rick,

I do not even know if what you post about Hansen (GISS) is true of if he has anything to do with the NOAA and the NCDC reported temperatures. Satellites have been in place for a while. Hard to believe it has not been enough to establish a trend.

Accordng to the NCDC data, there has been a very significant warming over the last 30 years and we also know that record melting occured in the arctic this summer as well as sea levels that are continously rising as well. Similarly, just about every land based glacier is in serious retreat. There is also plenty of proxiy data (tree rings, ice cores, sea floor sediment and coral borings) that points to record warmth in recent years.

rick said:

"Andrew the satelites were showing no warming until it was determined by the GLO-BULL warmers that they too must be adjusted"

It was only the UAH satellite record that was revised, the RSS record has always shown warming. Everyone in the scientific community--even skeptics--accepts the corrections. So are you proposing a conspiracy theory?

And yes, the satellite trends, even though they are short, are statistically significant. Did I mention that GISS matches extremely well with satellites on both the global and regional US level?

Another Rick said:

"Climate models are notorously unreliable."

Quite untrue, as anyone who has looked at the GCM's hindcasting and their prediction of the global response to Mt. Pinatubo knows full well.

Boris - uhhh, no they haven't QC'd the data, never mind corrected it. Why else would Hansen change his 'adjustments' daily. The AGW crowd has been caught with its pants around it ankles. AGW is a house of cards which is crumbling down.

Simon - the problem with trying to extract an AGW signal from this data is any signal could be due to many things, such as the gradual encroachment of civilization upon what were once rural stations and thus an increasing trend caused by UHI.

Boris;
UHI has been studied extensively. It has only a small effect, and is adjusted for in GISS.

Thanks for that. We are all painfull aware of the adjusting that is going on at GISS. I believe the term Fudging would be more accurate.

Concensus Question:
What do any of you think would be the reaction of the AGW industry if a Skeptic were to use similar data and fudging methods in preparing a research paper?
Does anyone think it would stand a snowballs chance in greenland of getting published?

Opinions?

It's funny to keep watching our resident deniers talk about their wild conspiracy theories. I guess they have no other recourse since their arguments have not only been discredited, but torn to shreds.

Satellites have confirmed the lower tropospheric warming over the past thirty years. And I'm sure the rapid ice loss in the Arctic this year was due to the "urban heat island signal" at the North Pole. Right.

Keep denying, keep cherry picking, it's all a part of the denialist noise machine.

Andrew;
Accordng to the NCDC data, there has been a very significant warming over the last 30 years and we also know that record melting occured in the arctic this summer as well as sea levels that are continously rising as well. Similarly, just about every land based glacier is in serious retreat.

The significant warming may just be bad data and biased fudging.
Arctic melting records may have more to do with Siberian labor unrest than global warming.
Not all Glaciers are retreating; Here is a very interesting anomoly. A mountain situated where NATURAL el nino and la nina can't affect it.
Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

"...Satellites have been in place for a while. Hard to believe it has not been enough to establish a trend..."

You can have 1,000,000 years of data and if there's no trend in the data, it isn't going to establish one.

Boris - hindcasting? How about some successful FOREcasting or cross-validation? Using data to build a model and then the same data to validate it is no validation at all.

"...Satellites have been in place for a while. Hard to believe it has not been enough to establish a trend..."

You can have 1,000,000 years of data and if there's no trend in the data, it isn't going to establish one.

Boris - hindcasting? How about some successful FOREcasting or cross-validation? Using data to build a model and then the same data to validate it is no validation at all - if these models are so accurate, have them give us precise predictions for 1,2,3 years from now.

""Boris - the burden lies upon the AGW crowd to examine the data thoroughly and clean it up before any analyses can be performed.""

"Yes, and that is exactly what they did"

No, they haven't - else their adjustments wouldn't change daily. The problems with the HCN appear to have caught the AGW crowd entirely off-guard. Their only response is to claim the data problems don't create a bias in the data, but they haven't established this.

AGW on hold until data can be QC'd. No wonder the science is not settled.

BT,
Of course more money should be spent in gathering weather data. I might add that during the last several decades the Weather CO-OP program in North America has exploded. It is at these site where most of the clean-up should be spent. Aviation fields have Federal Guidelines which are implemented via the FAA through the FMH-1B manual. Federally certified weather observers man these stations; thier equipment is maintained via federally funded eletronic technicians and instrumentation specialists. Their job is aviation safety, but thier data is the most complete, and thier sites are well documented.

The problem with CO-OP stations are site placement, power. Most of the CO-OP stations are automated. Power provisioning precludes many stations being placed in open, remote areas free from buildings, and parking lots, autos, etc... Audits have show consistenly inconsisent microsite effects. A one size fits all adjustment cannot be done and render an accurate trend. IMHO, most site should be in rural, open fields away from both forests and buildings. To overcome power problems, lithium battery packs could fill the void. The CO-OP volunteers should be made to inspect the stations, and money should be made available for batteries, parts etc... The volunteers should also report any microsite changes such as building construction or the growth of nearby trees or other vegatation.

The total cost would be close to a half a billion dollars when all is said and done -about the same cost as the bridge to no-where. Of course this doesn't fix the ROW (rest of the world).

The other problem I believe is how the raw data is gridded (1.5km square grids). Climate scientists apply so many adjustments to compute a mean average temp for any type of grid cell, that in the end, who know what the trend is. I'm not saying the methodology is necessairly incorrecct, but when you consider the adjustments made to the raw data, and then the set of adjustments made to the gridded data, it is difficult not to wonder what you actually have as an end result. Surface weather data is not generated in a lab, and we think we can overcome this by adjusting the heck of the raw data.

One big step would be to locate or relocate most of the CO-OP stations into rural areas (at least as many as possible). This would reduce the need to adjust for microsite UHI. The other would be to correct as many existting rural stations as possible based upon audit results.

Like I said, the costs of doing this amount to the cost of a dozen Stryker Combat vehicles, or any number of earmarked pork projects.

Let’s see out of the 331 surveyed stations or 27% of the total stations only 48 had an error The rest had and average error greater than 3.28 degrees (mean greater than 2 degrees).
Oh yeah and Hansen had to add more of a fudge factor to this junk just to get his 0.6C world rise in temps?
Remember the US data is considered to be the best in the world. What a joke.
Folks, in a real science discipline the use of this data would negate any hypothesis about warming or cooling. If this data was presented to me for use EVEN as an UNDERGRAD thesis, once I stopped laughing, my ex-student would quickly be out the door finding another project for fame and glory.
This clearly shows the basic data on which all is predicated and used by the AGW crowd is just plain garbage. What makes it worse is we in the USA pride ourselves on being the best at making these records.
Are you really ready to spend billions on the boogeyman when the boogeyman was born out of this data?
If the world falls for the AGW scam maybe the human species should be renamed from homosapiens to Mindless hapless sapiens

"Keep denying, keep cherry picking, it's all a part of the denialist noise machine."

Uh Mark? Try "Keep Pushing taxes and funding, keep cherry picking, it's all a part of the AGW noise machine"

Opps. forgot to post the link to the Mountain that refuses to melt.
Here it is:
A mountain situated where NATURAL el nino and la nina can't affect it.

http://cbs13.com/seenon/local_story_246185155.html

JP wrote:
Of course more money should be spent in gathering weather data.
...
The total cost would be close to a half a billion dollars when all is said and done -about the same cost as the bridge to no-where.
...
Like I said, the costs of doing this amount to the cost of a dozen Stryker Combat vehicles, or any number of earmarked pork projects.

I'm glad to see that JP and I are on exactly the same page here.

On another topic, typified by:
I believe that the old computer expression, "garbage in, garbage out" applies to this topic.

In the portion of the real world where I've spent my own professional career, scientists and programmers have had to mine real data from garbage for years. The days when "GIGO" was accepted as an excuse for ducking a problem are long gone.

Real clinical data, for example, is chock-full of noise -- it is often "garbage". The endeavor to sequence and then map the genome is an excellent example of using very sophisticated statistical techniques to extract solid data from very noisy sources. I believe that we saw similar accomplishments in the development of nuclear physics, especially in sub-atomic particles.

As the impact of particular challenges is perceived to be more and more important, the desire to dig more deeply into the bag of such tricks increases.

Error bars, constant revision of prior analysis in light of new techniques, and simple error correction should be and are an integral part of good science in any contemporary field. Surely climatology is not nor should be exempted from this reality.

The stakes of global warming are very high. Being falsely pessimistic about the impact of GW or AGW is very expensive. Being falsely optimistic about the impact is even more expensive -- most sources say compellingly more expensive.

It seems to me that old-fashioned risk management practices lead to the same result. Make up a matrix -- in the rows, put "Is real" and "Is not real". In the columns put "Analyze and mitigate" and "Do nothing". Fill in the four cells with the expected net present value/cost of the strategy. When you're done, look at the probability needed to make the row totals come in balance.

Then ask yourself how that probability compares with your assessment of the current state of knowledge.

I know where I land. Your mileage may vary.

"No, they haven't - else their adjustments wouldn't change daily."

The data are continually monitored and quality controlled, yet you use this as an excuse to say the data are not quality controlled? Amazing.

Now, I find it quite telling that no one here who questions the GISS record wants to talk about the extremely good match with satellite records.

What's the story, folks? Are the satellites in error by the exact amount that GISS is (nice coincidence, huh?) or is RSS taking its socialist marching orders from Hansen in his black helicopter?

Boris:
If you read the IPCC section on climate models and their evaluation you would find disclaimer after disclaimer about model accuracy. They claim to be making progress in their simulations but many problems persist; they acknowledge this.

Mann's Hockey Stick, which the IPCC used extensively in its earlier report was fatally flawed.

Sorry Boris, but climate modelling is not a reliable climate forecasting tool. A clock that has stopped working is correct twice each day - that's more than can be said for climate models.

So, Brett, yet *another* post on surfacestations.org and you still haven't talked to anyone at NOAA/NCDC? You know, the people who've been collecting this data? Eighteen years in the weather biz and you don't know where to find them? Let me know if you need Tom Peterson's phone number.

Also, you mention *instrument* problems. What does that have to do with photographs?

Reply: the instrument issue is from what I have personally observed over the years. Equipment doesn't last forever and needs to be kept in working order. I have seen many instances where equipment was faulty, giving bad data, and it took long periods of time to get it fixed due to whatever reasons. Brett

Mann's Hockey Stick, which the IPCC used extensively in its earlier report was fatally flawed.

Mann's results are cited because his results have been validated and his conclusions reaffirmed over and over. I've posted the citations here at least twice in the last year. Minor errors in aspects of his statistical calculations have been corrected, as any reputable scientist does when his or her own errors are uncovered.

The contrarians and deniers are called "contrarians" and "deniers" because they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the peer-reviewed science that has confirmed Mann's work. Instead, they repeat the same lies and canards, over and over.

Lies like this are still lies, no matter how often and how loudly they are repeated.

Rick Resseler,

Actually Manns hockey stick graph has been reproduced over a dozen times including work by the National Academy of Science.

And guess what?

They all look pretty much like hockey sticks.

See page 55 of the attached link.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

Anybody enjoy Global Warming Cartoons?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=04042006

Rick,

You are misrepresenting the IPCC report, which does talk about weaknesses of GCMs-primarily weaknesses associated with regional climate variation. From the IPCC:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."

What's more, you are apparently unaware of the literature on hindcasting and the accurate prediction of the Mt. Pinatubo response. You should also check out the performance of Hansen's 1988 model runs--just make sure you don't look at the wrong scenario like Dr. Patrick Michaels did (oops!).

No hurricanes hit US in 07 or 06! What an embarassment to the global warming alarmists! The debate is more than not over. It exposes the true agenda of Gore and those who follow this warped attempt to control the US people. All changes are within normal flucuation levels until proven otherwise. PROVE IT!! Paul

Reply: Humberto was a hurricane at landfall near Texas/Louisiana this year. Brett

As an observer and frequent reader of this forum, I appreciate the seemingly expert comments, evaluations and references of what something does or doesn't mean. It is clear however that all competing posts become circular and eventually redundant. Facts get lost in emotions. I submit that one only has to "follow the money" to better understand one side's position. Can anyone present and fair and "complete" representation of ALL the facts? or has science been de-graded down to a bureaucratic effort that the IPCC is peddling and from which too many scientists are trying to dissassociate themselves. Frustration could be relieved if a REAL scientific body with as few political affiliations as possible, would pronounce on ALL sides of the debate with theories based on honest and complete facts. Until then, I'm afraid we will all be chasing our own tails .........and arrogantly claim that we are making wind that will change the climate!

Facts get lost in emotions. I submit that one only has to "follow the money" to better understand one side's position.

Yet another contrarian/denier apparently claims that the entire mainstream scientific establishment is corrupt, while asserting that noble fact-seekers (typified by folks like Tim Ball or Steven Milloy) are free of any influence from evil money.

I suppose the funding from individuals like Richard Mellon Scaife, organizations like The Heritage Foundation, and corporations like Exxon/Mobil have had no influence whatsoever on these white-hatted heroes and those who publicize them.

I find it particularly ironic that the same right-wing political faction that so loudly trumpets the advantages of unfettered capitalism so quickly sounds discordant cynical notes about financial corruption -- "follow the money" -- when it suits a particular limited purpose in an argument like this.

I wonder if PaulB is as eager to, for example, "follow the money" in Iraq -- Halliburton and Blackwater come to mind -- as he claims to be when discussing climatology.

Organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and their peer-reviewed journals such as Science Magazine, are about as close as the world gets to "a REAL scientific body with as few political affiliations as possible".

PaulB apparently feels that "junkscience.com" is preferable, or perhaps "ClimateAudit.org". Perhaps PaulB will share what HE defines a "political affiliation" to be -- so that we can, for example, compare the funding sources and affiliations of his favored sources with AAAS and their companions.

"Frustration could be relieved if a REAL scientific body with as few political affiliations as possible, would pronounce on ALL sides of the debate with theories based on honest and complete facts."
Well, take your pick. Here are the REAL scientific bodies who have issued statements that support the consensus IPCC position:

National Acedemies of the US (and the other g8 nations)
Royal Society
AMS
NASA
AGU
EPA
NOAA
NCAR
and many more

In other words every scientific body that studies the climate agrees that humans are causing the current warming. Hope this helps.

every scientific body that studies the climate agrees that humans are causing the current warming.

Boris,

Organizations are made up of individuals, each with their own opinions. You posted a list of organizations who receive a massive amount of funding to study AGW. Not surprising that on balance many would like to see the research continue.

Few people doubt that man influences the climate. The concept of an "Urban Heat Island" is by definition a human influence. Adding greenhouse gases undoubtedly impacts the earth's climate. Pollution undoubtedly influences the climate.

The questions are : how much? what can be done about it? is it worth worrying about?

I once saw a denialist on national TV.

A very large lady who worked as some sort of analyst for gasoline prices. In other words, in the employ of big oil.

She said that she did not believe the earth was warming and even if it was would not believe that it was due to greenhouse gases and even if it was would not believe that driving automobiles had anything to do with it.

In other words, this lady was saying that her mind was made up like a bigot and she would continue to do and say what ever she wanted to.

Thanks Tom! You just confirmed my point!
Lighten up and stick with the facts. I presume you agree that there are "questionable" facts out there ....on BOTH sides of this "debate" and I use the term loosely.

Boris: You just confirmed my point!
Just follow the money my friend .........

Don't forget that Bush's own climate change panel also agreed with the IPCC's conclusion about AGW.

Andrew,

I cant actually believe that anyone would think there was accurate temperature measurements 100 yrs ago. I would have a hard time believing any data from anyone back then, 90% of the u.s didnt have indoor plumbing and we are to believe Temp. data..

Patrick,
I do love that chart you had on temp anomolies, it shows the northern california with above average temp. That facts are far from that, this was totally fabricated.. We have been below average for the entire summer, This is in fact the coolest summer in 60yrs.

Wow i guess there are alot of people who just need to believe in something, I just thought the average person was smarter then that.

BT,Andrew, Mark:

Face it, the media is on your side for whatever reason. However the fact that Antartica is at it's highest ice levels in what 27 years of data proves that GW is a farce at best. Earth has a way of balancing out in terms of weather and always has. The media jumps on any spoonfed GW story they can get but when it is on the cold side it is downplayed or not reported at all. Can you say they obviously have an agenda? At best you could say regional warming may be occuring which blows the CO2 theory out of the water. There are other causes at work which are merely natural cycles at play. Man doesn't have the ability to predict the weather yet with 100% accuracy nor does he understand with his best science how it truly works, if he could the science would be settled like you like to say. Sorry but I could care less about big oil, politics, etc. Just stating the facts. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

Want to see just how bad the land based data and manipulations are? These three NOAA graphs show the difference between their land and satellite based measurements of the troposphere.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

The UHA satellite shows almost no troposphere warming for the last 30 years and a steep cooling trend since 1998. The land based data (tortured by zealous post-processing) shows a very different story.

The stratosphere has been cooling as well.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jul/rss-channel-4jul-global-land-and-ocean-pg.gif

And before anyone starts with the "ozone hole" explanation - remember that there is no ozone hole in July.

I cant actually believe that anyone would think there was accurate temperature measurements 100 yrs ago. I would have a hard time believing any data from anyone back then, 90% of the u.s didnt have indoor plumbing and we are to believe Temp. data..

It sounds as if "mark l" is young enough to believe that 1907 was ancient history. His "argument" appears to be something along the lines of "If they couldn't do something as easy as indoor plumbing, then they couldn't possibly do something hard like measure temperature accurately."

In his zeal to promote his contrarian/denier bias, mark perhaps unwittingly demonstrates another favorite tactic of the right-wing's assault on reason -- conflating two utterly independent concepts.

In this case, mark's two conflated claims are:

claim a: "[100 years ago]90% of the u.s didnt have indoor plumbing (sic)",

and therefore (apparently):

claim b: "we are [not] to believe Temp. data.."

Let me offer an analogous but perhaps more obviously false claim:
"I can't actually believe that anyone would think that railroad locomotive wheels worked 100 years ago. I would have a hard time believing that anything about railroads worked back then, 90% of the U.S. didn't have indoor plumbing."

I'd like to observe that the question of how a steel railroad wheel interacts with a steel rail is at least as challenging, in the sense that mark implies, as accurately measuring temperature. Yet most of the physics and engineering required to make railroads work was, in fact, old and established by 1907. The needed cross-section of a rolling steel wheel, for example, was described in this 1889 Driving Wheel Patent (free registration required) more than a decade before mark's "1907" date.

Reasonably accurate mercury thermometers were invented in the first half of the 18th century (see this and this). The technology was almost 200 years old by 1907; surely it was mature enough to make reasonably accurate temperature measurements.

This bogus conflation of unrelated claims is just another example of how extremist right-wing contrarian/denialists continue their relentless assault on reason.

Tom: Went to Junk Science as you mentioned ..... wow ... besides appearing to be grossly underfunded, they are just as single-minded as all the other internet sites around this debate. Can't figure out why you use this site to support your position??

"The data are continually monitored and quality controlled, yet you use this as an excuse to say the data are not quality controlled? Amazing."

Boris - simple question: why are the adjustments continually changing? Why is Hansen adjusting and readjusting already adjusted data if the QC is so solid?

It isn't, of course - as this survey of HCN stations shows.

"Mann's results are cited because his results have been validated and his conclusions reaffirmed over and over. "

Wrong - his results and conclusions cannot be validated because his method was wrong. The hockey stick was a laughable fraud, the joke being the ignorance and conceit of the man who produced it.

"What's more, you are apparently unaware of the literature on hindcasting and the accurate prediction of the Mt. Pinatubo response."

And you are apparently ignorant of the principles of model validation, and of the difference between interpolation and extrapolation. Using data to build a model and then the same data to 'validate' a model is no validation at all.

easy solution.

Just find the sites that are not urban heat islands and use that information. There are too many sites dotted around and more than enough exist which are suitable therefore without any expense or the need to improve sites an accurate figure can still be achievable while closing the unsuitable sites will save funds.

Bob,

There is a very good reason why the media is on my side. It is because Global Warming due to Greenhouse gases is a fact.

That does not mean there will not be various people running around with their own opinions, but hopefully you know what they say about opinions.

Anyhow, the extent of sea ice in Antartica is not at a record high. It is only very close.
Furthermore, there is no trend in Antarctic sea ice extent. Just look at the data to see it for yourself.

Sea ice extent is also affected by calving of ice burgs and the collapse of ice shelves. So, the relative stability of the sea ice could be due to those causes as much as anything else.

PH:

"The UHA satellite shows almost no troposphere warming for the last 30 years and a steep cooling trend since 1998. The land based data (tortured by zealous post-processing) shows a very different story."

I don't think you're looking at the LT channel. UAH shows a .14 deg C/decade trend. This is the set that has been in error, so I'd go with the more reliable RSS. At least get your numbers right.

"The stratosphere has been cooling as well."

Funny that you pontificate about global warming when you don't even know that stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint of CO2 surface warming. Before the strat was found to be cooling, denialists pointed to it as proof that the warming was not CO2. The models predicted strat cooling before it was detected, yet another validation.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between surface and mid-troposphere is quite telling.

"There is a very good reason why the media is on my side. It is because Global Warming due to Greenhouse gases is a fact."

I thought we had this discussion before in another thread? Something like Chris Matthews is a moderate and media outlets are unbiased and report the "facts"(except for Fox News of course.)

Patrick,

I see that someone has already eloquently noted your lack of understanding of the difference between the mid-troposphere and the surface. But I'll reiterate: mid-troposphere is about 15,000 feet above the surface.

All three of those graphs show a warming trend. Yes, if you cherry pick and start from a record El Nino year, 1998, which is a common denier tactic, then you'll find slight cooling. Some of us like to look at all of the data, however.

Stratospheric cooling is indicative of a warming climate caused by increased GHG. Yet another facet of climate science which you don't seem to understand.

Stratospheric cooling is indicative of a warming climate caused by increased GHG.

Mark,

Really, then why do the two most recent cooling periods of the stratosphere follow volcanic eruptions and why is the stratosphere warming now as CO2 levels still increase?

Yet another facet of climate science which you don't seem to understand.

Do you? Perhaps you can explain in your own words how "Stratospheric cooling is indicative of a warming climate caused by increased GHG."

You imply you know this "facet" of climate science :) show us your stuff! If I find anything wrong I'll let you know about it. Careful, I have a physics book :)

Awaiting patiently,

Steve

My prior comment and Brett's response:

"So, Brett, yet *another* post on surfacestations.org and you still haven't talked to anyone at NOAA/NCDC? You know, the people who've been collecting this data? Eighteen years in the weather biz and you don't know where to find them? Let me know if you need Tom Peterson's phone number.

"Also, you mention *instrument* problems. What does that have to do with photographs?"

"Reply: the instrument issue is from what I have personally observed over the years. Equipment doesn't last forever and needs to be kept in working order. I have seen many instances where equipment was faulty, giving bad data, and it took long periods of time to get it fixed due to whatever reasons. Brett"

I don't doubt that for a moment. I will stipulate that instrument problems and microsite problems are widespread. But recall what you said in the main post:

"(T)here is a lot of work to be done in order to get many of these reporting stations up to par. The slide shows clear examples of poor siting, which can greatly alter temperature readings. If the siting of an observation station is poor, how can you trust its data output. Obviously, if you just have a very small percentage of poor sites, then it is probably not too much of an issue, but it seems that the problem is bigger than that."

You make some huge assumptions. Recall first that the issue (at surfacestations.org) isn't the utility of the data from a given individual station, but rather whether a reasonably accurate signal can be extracted from the entire network. What you argue is that the individual station problems are so widespread that such a calculation can't be done. In fact it can be done, and the NCDC folks would be happy to explain to you why and how that is the case if you would just pick up the phone and call them. Please do so and then blog on the results. The call isn't strictly necessary since the methods are throughly documented, but it would be a lot faster than reading through the source material.

BYW, see here for a discussion of what happened when an initial comparison was made between the "high quality" USHCN stations (as identified by surfacestations.org) and the NASA GISS dataset. They're pretty consistent, it turns out. The article makes it clear that the main objective remains attacking the global data. See here for some additional history on this issue.

Finally, you said:

"Ten years ago the Conference on the World Climate Research....concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

And then what happened? A post on the Climate Reference Network might help explain.

Mark,

Nice try. If warming is due to trapped LW radiation in CO2, the pattern of the mid-troposphere should exactly parallel lower elevations.

The reason why it doesn't is that the surface records are dominated by UHI effects and data manipulations.

So the stratosphere is cooling. The mid-troposphere has been cooling for the last ten years. The oceans have been cooling for the last ten years. Polar bear populations have quadrupled over the last 50 years. Must be time to raise taxes.

Hi Anonymous Mike,

The AGW theory of convenience is that the stratosphere is cool because the troposphere is warm. Normally in the natural world having a warm body nearby will cause you to warm too, but not when there is funding dependent on breaking the rules.

Nobody breaks the laws of thermodynamics in this house
Homer Simpson (spoken to Lisa)

Anyway, according to both satellites the troposphere is cooling quickly over the last ten years, so Homer is happy.

Gee, have you just now figured out that your science is flawed? One pole melts while the other grows! Looks like normal ebb and flow to me! Global warming is the hoax of the century! Those who think group believe! Those who think individually realize this is a farce! Deniers! Sure I deny that the earth is flat too!

"Really, then why do the two most recent cooling periods of the stratosphere follow volcanic eruptions"

AGW Steve, sounds like you don't have much understanding of climate science, either. The stratosphere actually warmed after the Pinatubo eruption, especially near the equator. This is what we expect, at least initially. The aerosal haze layer reflects some sunlight and results in a warmer stratosphere. This is what we expect, and this is what occurred, yet another validation of the models, by the way.

" and why is the stratosphere warming now as CO2 levels still increase?"

Where is the stratosphere warming?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jul/rss-channel-4jul-global-land-and-ocean-pg.gif

"You imply you know this "facet" of climate science :) show us your stuff! If I find anything wrong I'll let you know about it. Careful, I have a physics book :)"

It's been explained so many times on this blog. If you actually opened your mind, you'd be more receptive to it. Very simple explanation: GHG trap heat, keeping more heat in the troposphere and allowing less of it to escape to the stratosphere. Ergo, warmer troposphere, cooler stratosphere. The details are much more involved, which I won't go into here.

"Nice try. If warming is due to trapped LW radiation in CO2, the pattern of the mid-troposphere should exactly parallel lower elevations."

LOL. Exactly parallel? Who says they have to "exactly parallel?" The surface data isn't perfect, but the trends are very similar with the mid-troposphere, thus verifying that the Earth is warming. Face it, Patrick, your lack of understanding was exposed in that particular post, and it seems that you're scrambling just to save face.

"So the stratosphere is cooling."

Yes, indicative of GHG induced warming of the troposphere, thanks for proving that point.

"The mid-troposphere has been cooling for the last ten years. The oceans have been cooling for the last ten years."

Keep picking those cherries, Patrick.

more heat in the troposphere and allowing less of it to escape to the stratosphere

Mark,

AGW modelers love this fatally flawed argument you just parroted.

On average, the amount of energy leaving the troposphere has to be identical to the amount coming in. The presence of absence of greenhouse gases does not change the laws of thermodynamics and physics.

It is astonishing to me that college educated scientists and programmers can be so fundamentally deficient in their understanding of basic science.

Mark,

I stand corrected, I quickly and errantly misread the data. There is much conflicting data out there. A graph in here made it look as though warming was occurring. Interestingly, the temps seem to follow Ozone levels more than anything else. You are correct, the volcanic events warmed the stratosphere.

If you care to look, temperatures in the Stratosphere pretty closely follow ozone levels. In fact, temps go up in the summer when Ozone is high, and temps go down in the winter when Ozone is lower.

A closer look shows that temps were significantly higher in 79 when Ozone's levels were also higher.

GHG trap heat, keeping more heat in the troposphere and allowing less of it to escape to the stratosphere. Ergo, warmer troposphere, cooler stratosphere. The details are much more involved, which I won't go into here.

So is it more GHG's in the troposphere or less Ozone in the stratosphere causing this cooling? Do not forget about convection. Most of the energy radiating back into space first takes a short journey to the top of the troposphere via convection. This energy is not trapped at all. You need to remember that GHG is a misnomer, Greenhouses trap heat by preventing convection.

I will be very willing to "go into detail" offline if you'd like. I think you are wrong and think you are looking at this through someone else's eyes as I did errantly before.

Regards,

Steve

PH

The energy coming in is of a shorter wavelength than the outgoing accounting for the greenhouse effect. You have a fundamental lack of comprehension of the science. The greenhouse amounts to an impediment, not a trapping of heat. The outgoing radiation is slower to escape with more ghgs.

Patrick,

On average, the amount of energy leaving the troposphere has to be identical to the amount coming in. The presence of absence of greenhouse gases does not change the laws of thermodynamics and physics.

Agreed that the laws of thermodynamics have not changed recently. But your above comment about energy transfer in and out of the troposphere assumes that the temperature of the troposphere is constant. This just so happens to be the topic of dispute. Presumably increased levels of GHGs create a positive imbalance by retaining more heat in the troposphere, cooling the lower stratosphere (at least in the short term...). If the stratosphere does not cool, either there is some other energy source present, or the aforementioned laws of thermodynamics have been violated. But that is my own understanding of the argument....

Here's a question I pose to AGWers, NGWers, and anti-GWers alike, and I'm interested to hear the responses:

How would the temperatures of both the troposphere and stratosphere react to increased levels of solar radiation? To increased levels of GHGs? (Note--are the effects different?) How would these effects manifest themselves over a long period (years or decades) of time?

Travis,

The heat flux through the troposphere is massive. Temperatures can change 60 degrees between day and night. The tiny change Hansen is claiming (0.6 degrees over 100 years) is completely lost in the noise by many, many orders of magnitude. You can't use that small change in temperature as part of the heat balance argument.

If there was any measurable imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation we would see massive changes in temperature over very short time periods.

Anonymous,

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Sunlight in that it has a much broader spectrum than visible light. The same wavelengths that are radiated from the Earth also come from the Sun. The GHG's are getting it from both ends.

You say that outgoing radiation is slowed because of more greenhouse gases, but you seem to forget or are unaware that convection is the primary method of cooling. The higher temps you have the stronger the convection, ergo more energy "escaping".

Travis,

It depends :) Ozone is the primary means for heating the stratosphere and water vapor in the troposphere. Are you talking about these GHG's or CO2 and CH4?

One of the flaws in the "stratosphere cooling because of GHG's in the troposphere" hypothesis is that these people are ignoring the fact that the Sun radiates infrared in the same bands that the Earth radiates.

Sunlight does not passively go right through our atmosphere in short waves and then get re-radiated back to space as long waves. Long and short waves are absorbed incoming as well.

Regards,

Steve

Travis:

"How would the temperatures of both the troposphere and stratosphere react to increased levels of solar radiation?"

The stratosphere would warm if TSI increases, as would the troposphere.

PH:

"On average, the amount of energy leaving the troposphere has to be identical to the amount coming in."

Except when the system is in a state of perturbation, which it is. Also, the radiation imbalance has been measured by satellites.

I was wondering, has it been cooling since 1999, how bout 1997? 1996? 2000? 1991? 1987? 1992-1995? 1975? 1988-1990? 2001?

Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by cherry picking.

Patrick,

I was speaking in general terms and was not attempting to embark on a pro-Hansen crusade. In that light, your anti-Hansen crusade is quite annoying. I do submit that small, seemingly "immeasurable" changes can have a measurable impact over time, which from my understanding is an important part of the GHG theory.

You continue to dance around my arguments and supplant them with your own. If you would like to address the questions I posed above, please do. If not, I do not see any reason to continue this particular discussion.

NGW Steve,

Ozone is the primary means for heating the stratosphere and water vapor in the troposphere. Are you talking about these GHG's or CO2 and CH4?

All of the above.

Travis,

GHG increase:
Assumptions; Solar radiation constant, Aerosols constant, GHG start level at pre-Industrial revolution, GHG increase equal to increase since IR except Ozone as it has depleted.

Increasing Ozone will heat the stratosphere. Increasing CO2 and CH4 will do little to the stratosphere or troposphere from what I have seen to date.

Solar Radiation increase:
Assumptions; GHG constant, Aerosols constant, GHG at today's levels except Ozone is also constant.

Increasing Solar Radiation will heat the troposphere and stratosphere.

Solar Radiation has increased .15% over the last 3 decades, bur ozone has been decreasing over the same period and we have seen a decrease in temperature in the stratosphere.

It is important to note that while there are increases and decreases in temps in the stratosphere the total energy is quite low compared to the troposphere because there is so little matter in the stratosphere compared to the troposphere.

Heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction is the most efficient, convection is second, and radiation the third. If a system cannot conduct the heat it will convect it until it not longer can, and then will radiate.

This is very important because you see very little mention of convection in AGW models or studies. Convection is what transfers most of the energy from the surface to the tropopause. Radiation then takes over.

Regards,

Steve

Thanks for the response NGW Steve.

The rules of anonymous-

"If a system is in a state of perturbation, it is exempt from other physical law"

"If I don't understand the discussion, my intelligence is being insulted"

The rules of anonymous-

The "rules" of Patrick Henry: when somebody confronts me with facts, attack them. An analogy to the rules of libel is perhaps helpful: the truth is an effective defense against a charge of libel. The complaint about PH's cherry-picking is, quite simply, true.

Just to be sure the smoke and chaff emitted by PH doesn't obscure the question posed, let me repeat it:

I was wondering, has it been cooling since 1999, how bout 1997? 1996? 2000? 1991? 1987? 1992-1995? 1975? 1988-1990? 2001?

How about answering the question, PH? When did it start cooling?