I've had a strong predisposition, based on my understanding of the chemistry and dynamics of weather, to suspect that any global warming could not be attributed to human activity, at least not in a significant way. I'll speak to that at length in later entries.
In my post doc work I had to include temperature in the ecosystem models and then develop instrumentation and siting standards. From the beginning of the global warming controversy I have wondered whether or not the surface temperature metrics might be compromised by the placement or change in instrumentation.
I found the following data to be compelling to the argument that the temperature record itself is unreliable. The data are found in the document "Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" Click on the link and judge for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
89% of the 850 stations in this survey failed to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements. All that failed were sited such that the temps recorded are higher than if they followed the siting requirements. Furthermore, the data aren't correctly maintained, and corrections made for missing data err on the high side. And further furthermore, the advocates of global warming use these warmer sites in their data; they throw out the "cooler" sites, which happen to be the ones that are sited according to the NWS standards.
ReplyDelete