Ext User(B0NZ0)
17-04-2008, 11:11 AM
Uncertain Accuracy Of Surface Temperature Records
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_evidence.pdf
The IPCC claims that global average surface temperatures have increased
in relatively consistent fashion since the mid 1970s. This is based on
the data reported by 3 agencies, Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
and the two US agencies GISS and USHCN.
Recent investigations in the USA by http://www.surfacestations.org have
indicated that an estimated 25% of observations stations are positioned
in such a way that they will be directly impacted by their proximity to
the man-made environment (e.g. buildings, paved roadways, discharge from
air-conditioning units). In the majority of circumstances these
influences will cause an increase in temperature in the immediate
vicinity of the observation stations and give false impressions of the
extent of temperature change. Whether this is true in other developed or
developing countries is unknown but investigations seem warranted.
As well as the problem of station positioning there is the question of
the impact of man-made changes to the local environment. These changes
include both urban areas (e.g. buildings, roads, local heat generation)
and rural land-use changes where vegetation has altered over time. Any
local heat output or changes to the local natural heat cycle can easily
distort the local temperature record. The apparently widespread
temperature
increase might be largely an artefact of the proximity of recording
instruments to man-made environments, and of course this corruption will
extend into average temperatures on a global and hemispheric basis.
Britain's CRU claims that it does not know which observation stations
supplied the data used in its monthly and annual calculations, but it
does tell us that the data coverage if the Earth's surface varies each
month.
This variable number of unknown weather stations makes it impossible to
properly audit the data to check for possible contamination by man-made
changes to the local environment.
The "Climate Audit" website (http://www.climateaudit.org) has recently
attempted to audit some of the data from the USA and has reported both
errors and inconsistencies in the data. One such error forced NASA to
recalculate certain temperatures and this resulted in the 1930s being
declared the warmest decade on record, not the 1990s as was previously
claimed.
None of the three agencies has allowed an independent audit of its data
and methods so we cannot be confident that these issues are properly
addressed. The only published papers that discuss the accuracy of the
methods for calculating the average temperatures are those written by
the respective organisations themselves, a situation that would be
deplored in most other fields.
Many scientists believe that the satellite-based measurements of lower
tropospheric temperature are more reliable and comprehensive than
surface temperatures measured by thermometer. The IPCC rejects this by
citing a publication that claimed a similarity in the trends of the
surface and lower tropospheric temperatures.
That publication has never been peer reviewed and the authors have
failed to disclose whether those trends continue to match after a very
substantial natural event, the 1998 El Niņo, is removed.
The data for the lower tropospheric temperature is available only since
1979 and it shows oscillations about a mid-point, a peak during the 1998
El Niņo, a substantial drop immediately afterwards and then an
oscillation about a slightly higher mid point since that time. It
suggests step-wise changes with periods that vary about a certain level.
This is in sharp contrast to the surface temperatures that show a
near-continuous increase
since 1977.
The IPCC claims the latter is correct but provides no evidence to show
that the observed symptoms of warming could not have been caused by a
step-wise increment rather than the consistent increase reportedly in
surface temperatures.
Even if the widespread warming is not entirely due to data corruption by
man-made changes to the environment there is no good reason to
automatically associate it with man-made emissions of carbon dioxide as
the IPCC have done.
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_evidence.pdf
The IPCC claims that global average surface temperatures have increased
in relatively consistent fashion since the mid 1970s. This is based on
the data reported by 3 agencies, Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
and the two US agencies GISS and USHCN.
Recent investigations in the USA by http://www.surfacestations.org have
indicated that an estimated 25% of observations stations are positioned
in such a way that they will be directly impacted by their proximity to
the man-made environment (e.g. buildings, paved roadways, discharge from
air-conditioning units). In the majority of circumstances these
influences will cause an increase in temperature in the immediate
vicinity of the observation stations and give false impressions of the
extent of temperature change. Whether this is true in other developed or
developing countries is unknown but investigations seem warranted.
As well as the problem of station positioning there is the question of
the impact of man-made changes to the local environment. These changes
include both urban areas (e.g. buildings, roads, local heat generation)
and rural land-use changes where vegetation has altered over time. Any
local heat output or changes to the local natural heat cycle can easily
distort the local temperature record. The apparently widespread
temperature
increase might be largely an artefact of the proximity of recording
instruments to man-made environments, and of course this corruption will
extend into average temperatures on a global and hemispheric basis.
Britain's CRU claims that it does not know which observation stations
supplied the data used in its monthly and annual calculations, but it
does tell us that the data coverage if the Earth's surface varies each
month.
This variable number of unknown weather stations makes it impossible to
properly audit the data to check for possible contamination by man-made
changes to the local environment.
The "Climate Audit" website (http://www.climateaudit.org) has recently
attempted to audit some of the data from the USA and has reported both
errors and inconsistencies in the data. One such error forced NASA to
recalculate certain temperatures and this resulted in the 1930s being
declared the warmest decade on record, not the 1990s as was previously
claimed.
None of the three agencies has allowed an independent audit of its data
and methods so we cannot be confident that these issues are properly
addressed. The only published papers that discuss the accuracy of the
methods for calculating the average temperatures are those written by
the respective organisations themselves, a situation that would be
deplored in most other fields.
Many scientists believe that the satellite-based measurements of lower
tropospheric temperature are more reliable and comprehensive than
surface temperatures measured by thermometer. The IPCC rejects this by
citing a publication that claimed a similarity in the trends of the
surface and lower tropospheric temperatures.
That publication has never been peer reviewed and the authors have
failed to disclose whether those trends continue to match after a very
substantial natural event, the 1998 El Niņo, is removed.
The data for the lower tropospheric temperature is available only since
1979 and it shows oscillations about a mid-point, a peak during the 1998
El Niņo, a substantial drop immediately afterwards and then an
oscillation about a slightly higher mid point since that time. It
suggests step-wise changes with periods that vary about a certain level.
This is in sharp contrast to the surface temperatures that show a
near-continuous increase
since 1977.
The IPCC claims the latter is correct but provides no evidence to show
that the observed symptoms of warming could not have been caused by a
step-wise increment rather than the consistent increase reportedly in
surface temperatures.
Even if the widespread warming is not entirely due to data corruption by
man-made changes to the environment there is no good reason to
automatically associate it with man-made emissions of carbon dioxide as
the IPCC have done.
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen