SO, how does the sort of data collection described below affect the reliability of the output of the global mean temperature database? Can sophisticated statistical tricks FIX this sort of ropey data from the USHCN to one tenth of a degree C over the whole world over a century?
The following are EDITED EXCERPTS ONLY from a Fox news item reported on Roger Pielke Sr’s Blog here http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20....ry-critics-say/
------
...reports [are] sent in by snail mail from volunteers whose data, according to critics, often resembles a hodgepodge of guesswork, mathematical interpolation and simple human error. “It’s rather archaic,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who since 2007 has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations that make up the US Historical Climatology Network.
The network relies on volunteers in the 48 contiguous states to take daily readings of high and low temperatures and precipitation measured by sensors they keep by their homes and offices.
Requirements aren’t very strict for volunteers: They need a modicum of training and decent vision in at least one eye to qualify. And they’re expected to take measurements seven days a week, 365 days a year.
That’s a recipe for trouble, .. less scrupulous members of the network often fail to collect the data when they go on vacation or are sick. He said one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town.
...and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Volunteers take their readings at different times of day, then round the temperatures to the nearest whole number and mark down their measurements on paper forms they mail in monthly to the NCDC headquarters in Ashville, N.C.
“You’ve got this kind of a ragtag network that’s reporting the numbers for our official climate readings,” said Watts, who found that 90 percent of the stations violated the government’s guidelines for where they may be located.
Poor placement of temperature sensors has compromised the system’s data. Though they are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, many of the stations are potentially corrupted by their proximity to heat sources, including exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, seas of asphalt — and even a grave.
What it boils down to is that some of the world’s top climate scientists have been crunching numbers that were altered by their immediate surroundings, rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC if there was insufficient data, then further adjusted to correct for “biases,” including the uneven times of day when measurements were taken — all ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than the raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect.
------
Some of us have been following the cataloguing of the USHC Network herehttp://www.surfacestations.org/ for a long time.
It’s been a voluntary effort on behalf of a lot of interested amateurs of weather observation across the United States co-ordinated by weatherman Anthony Watts of WUWT. Have a look. See how the data, some of which end up in the GISS and CRU global mean temperature statistic are sourced.
The survey is about 80% complete by now but is aiming for 100% coverage eventually which will constitute a sample of unimpeachable integrity.
The following are EDITED EXCERPTS ONLY from a Fox news item reported on Roger Pielke Sr’s Blog here http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20....ry-critics-say/
------
...reports [are] sent in by snail mail from volunteers whose data, according to critics, often resembles a hodgepodge of guesswork, mathematical interpolation and simple human error. “It’s rather archaic,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who since 2007 has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations that make up the US Historical Climatology Network.
The network relies on volunteers in the 48 contiguous states to take daily readings of high and low temperatures and precipitation measured by sensors they keep by their homes and offices.
Requirements aren’t very strict for volunteers: They need a modicum of training and decent vision in at least one eye to qualify. And they’re expected to take measurements seven days a week, 365 days a year.
That’s a recipe for trouble, .. less scrupulous members of the network often fail to collect the data when they go on vacation or are sick. He said one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town.
...and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Volunteers take their readings at different times of day, then round the temperatures to the nearest whole number and mark down their measurements on paper forms they mail in monthly to the NCDC headquarters in Ashville, N.C.
“You’ve got this kind of a ragtag network that’s reporting the numbers for our official climate readings,” said Watts, who found that 90 percent of the stations violated the government’s guidelines for where they may be located.
Poor placement of temperature sensors has compromised the system’s data. Though they are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, many of the stations are potentially corrupted by their proximity to heat sources, including exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, seas of asphalt — and even a grave.
What it boils down to is that some of the world’s top climate scientists have been crunching numbers that were altered by their immediate surroundings, rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC if there was insufficient data, then further adjusted to correct for “biases,” including the uneven times of day when measurements were taken — all ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than the raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect.
------
Some of us have been following the cataloguing of the USHC Network herehttp://www.surfacestations.org/ for a long time.
It’s been a voluntary effort on behalf of a lot of interested amateurs of weather observation across the United States co-ordinated by weatherman Anthony Watts of WUWT. Have a look. See how the data, some of which end up in the GISS and CRU global mean temperature statistic are sourced.
The survey is about 80% complete by now but is aiming for 100% coverage eventually which will constitute a sample of unimpeachable integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment