Climate scientists admit they need more reliable temperature measurements

Posted: March 4, 2018 by oldbrew in Critique, methodology, Temperature
Tags:

Weather station [image credit: UK Met. Office]


Making so-called ‘adjustments’ to existing temperature data, followed in some cases by adjustments to the adjustments, was never going to be a credible scientific method.
H/T The GWPF

A group of prominent scientists are calling for a global network of advanced weather stations that don’t need to go through controversial data adjustments, and it’s vindication for global warming skeptics, writes Michael Bastasch.

Seventeen climate scientists co-authored a research article published in the International Journal of Climatology calling for a global climate station network modeled after the United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN) to use as a baseline for data quality.

“Already after 10 years, the USCRN has been used to validate United States annual surface air temperature anomalies as determined by homogenized standard network observations,” the scientists wrote.

The article, led by Maynooth University climatologist Peter Thorne, argued for a “suitably stable and metrologically well-characterized global land surface climate fiducial reference measurements network.”

For meteorologist Anthony Watts this is a big moment. Watts published research in 2015 that found scientists used “compromised” weather stations to make adjustments to U.S. temperature data that inflated the warming trend by as much as 50 percent.

“To me, this feels like vindication,” Watts wrote on his blog Watts Up With That. “For years, I’ve been pointing out just how bad the U.S. and global surface monitoring network has been.”

“We’ve seen stations that are on pavement, at airports collecting jet exhaust, and failing instruments reading high, and right next to the heat output of air conditioning systems,” wrote Watts.

Watts is a proponent of using the USCRN as a baseline for U.S. temperature measurements. USCRN is a network of 114 climate stations set up by NOAA to provide “high-quality” climate data that doesn’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

Existing weather stations may have been around for decades, but they were set up to make daily temperature measurements that only needed to be accurate within a degree or two.

Stations weren’t set up to study long-term changes in average temperature, and many have changed instrumentation, location and their environment, all of which affect temperature readings.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. Bitter@twisted says:

    Seems a sensible solution, except the corrupt bar stewards who will run this new monitoring system will probably program it to increase temperature readings by 0.2C/decade, thus eliminating the need for all these messy post-hoc “adjustments”.

  2. oldbrew says:

    How will they compare the present with the past, when the past has multiple versions?

  3. Bloke down the pub says:

    I like the comment that “Already after 10 years, the USCRN has been used to validate United States annual surface air temperature anomalies as determined by homogenized standard network observations,” I suspect that there’s some room for debate as to how far the homogenization process has been validated.

  4. ivan says:

    Bloke down the pub, that was my thought as well but I would go further and say that the homogenization should be removed completely.

    Where I live in the mountains there are variations in temperature from valley to valley and the temperature out on the coastal region is totally different. Producing a temperature by taking temperatures from totally different regions is just an excuse to make up a temperature that fits the narrative, not science.

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    What’s the problem with developing satellite tech?

  6. ren says:

    Relation between geomagnetic field and climate variability. Part 2: Probable mechanism
    N. Kilifarska, V. Bakhmutov, G. Melnik

    In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables

  7. Dan Pangburn says:

    Failure to acknowledge that CO2 is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
    Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is science incompetence.
    Changing measured data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice

    Delve deeper into the science with an understanding of thermalization and use of Quantum Mechanics (Hitran does the calculations) and discover why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    I’ve always been amazed at the warmists claiming temperature changes to the hundredth of a degree when pretty much most of their instrumentation has error bars of +/- one degree or more. Talk about unscientific. Makes me think of “fake but accurate”.

    [reply] accountants call it ‘spurious accuracy’

  9. ren says:

    Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.

  10. ren says:

    Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface.

  11. Mjw says:

    By “reliable” do they mean agrees with the climate models.

  12. tom0mason says:

    I wonder what all those weather forecasters use?
    Do climate numpties really need yet more than weather forecasters, why should they need better accuracy or precision?
    If they do, why? Would that be because current (adjusted) temperature data still does not reliably track the climate models?

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    it’s all a scam based on incompetent computer models which have zero hope in hell of forecasting the future climate 100 years from now (or even 10 years).

    Climate is a highly complex system beyond current tech. This from the IPCC itself –
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    To reliably predict something it requires the exact physics/thermodynamics state of everything related to the initial conditions. In and of itself a fools errand. Then if you could actually do that a Neural Network that would require the power of the sun itself to run on a quantum computer the size of our planet would be able to do the job. The beating of a butterfly’s wings. Some day we have that computing power and informational power.

    But not today. Probably not tomorrow either.

  14. ren says:

    “The high energy of GCRs allows these particles to penetrate nearly every material known to man, including shielding on space craft; when the cosmic rays penetrate that shielding, secondary particles are produced that can damage organs and lead to cancer,” said Schwadron.

    Our Sun also erupts energetic matter from its surface, going through cyclical bursts of magnetic activity where it is more or less active. When the Sun is active, the frequency of eruptions increase, and the Sun’s magnetic field intensifies. While this increases the likelihood of dangerous SEP events, the upside is that the magnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation away from the solar system, protecting astronauts from even more dangerous GCRs. Right now, the Sun is emerging from what many are calling the “mini-maximum”, anticipated to be the smallest solar maximum that modern scientists have ever directly observed.
    What Schwadron and his colleagues have found is that the solar activity has been decreasing over the last few solar cycles, and may likely continue to decrease in the next solar cycle. This means that astronauts may face higher levels of radiation than ever before. However, during Solar maximum, the GCR rate drops, and because the overall cycle-integrated solar activity is down, the overall likelihood of SEPs found during solar maximum is also reduced.

    “It is a bit ironic, but the reduced GCRs in solar maximum and possibly fewer SEP events because of the trend of decreasing solar activity suggests that the next solar maximum may be one of the safest times to fly missions to deep space in the last 80 years,”said Schwadron.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-solar-maximum-safest-missions-mars.html#jCp

  15. ren says:

    Why does the increase in galactic radiation have a big impact on the climate?
    GCR strongly ionizes the lowest stratosphere (from 10 to 20 km) above the polar circle.
    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
    This has a direct effect on the level of ozone and the pressure over the polar circle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s