Wednesday, May 15, 2019

This is why I don't believe in global warming.

Finally, some official NOAA numbers to go with the photographic evidence.

I've been saying for years that surface temperature measurements (and long term trends) have been affected by encroachment of urbanization on the placement of weather stations used to measure surface air temperature, and track long term climate. In doing so we found some hilariously bad examples of climate science in action, such as the official USHCN climate monitoring station at the University of Arizona, Tucson:

USHCN weather station in a parking lot. University of Arizona, Tucson

I have published on the topic in the scientific literature, and found this to be true based on the science we've done of examining the USHCN and applying the siting methodology of Leroy 2010.

In Fall et al, 2011 we discovered that there was a change to the diurnal temperature range (DTR). It decreased where stations had been encroached upon, because of the heat sink effect of man-made materials (asphalt, concrete, bricks, etc.) that were near stations.

With regard to this example of U. Arizona, there's an interesting thing that one notices down in Phoenix and Tucson at night. After the sun goes down, if you drive (or walk or bike)  under a bridge, you can feel the heat radiating from it. This phenomenon lasts a couple of hours at least. The desert gets cold at night, but a concrete bridge will stay warm half the night. Everyone who can see lightning and hear thunder knows this.

Therefore the siting of the official NOAA thermometer in an asphalt parking lot in front of a brick building is not accidental.

Small Dead Animals ran a long series of pictures like this one many years ago. Hundreds of sites on parking lots, roofs, next to air conditioning outlets, all kinds of arrangements clearly made to increase the temperature reading.

Hanlon's Razor says  " Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Stupidity could account for maybe 5% of official scientific instruments being set up completely wrong, despite all the management and supervision such things are subject to. If pressed I might go as high as 10%, because government. Unionized public employees, you know.

The number of sites not meeting official NOAA standards is more than 10%. You get up over a third, stupidity isn't an explanation anymore. That's a deliberate campaign. Its corruption.

Now, some people (and one camel) seem to think that my objection is that the surface temp numbers are not accurate, so obviously I should be satisfied by satellite data. That is because some people are IDIOTS who should not be let out without a keeper.
The surface temperature monitoring system has been corrupted by agenda-driven ideologues. It no longer reports the actual temperature, it reports what they want it to report. Propaganda, not science. That much is obvious.

But the surface monitoring system does not exist like an island, whole and complete, isolated unto itself. The same organization that allowed so many surface temp stations to be corrupted also controls all the other monitoring systems, and the record keeping as well. Do we actually know what the temperature was on May the 15th 1927 in Topeka Kansas? Or did they corrupt the records too? Did they corrupt the satellite data?

I think yes, they probably did. Clear, blatant and LONG TERM corruption in one part of any organization is an indicator of corruption throughout.

I don't believe anything that comes out of climate science these days, whether the numbers indicate global warming or not. Because liars lie.

The Phantom


Anonymous said...

I believe I have heard this before. The name "Anthony Watts" comes to mind. Seems he initiated a survey of all weather stations. Wonder what ever became of that?

The Phantom said...

The survey revealed most of the NOAA sites, as in over 50%, did not meet NOAA standards. That was in the 2000's.

What's new today is numbers are associated with the siting bias. The experiment measured how large the bias is.