Thursday, March 12, 2009

Hot Bare Feet on August Cement

I grew up in a hot part of the country--southern Oklahoma. I lived for 26 years in an even hotter summer place--Dallas, Texas. While Houston is cooler than Dallas, one thing remains constant. If I walk across the bare cement in August, my feet will get very hot. Indeed, standing on hot cement can give one 2nd and 3rd degree burns, depending upon how long one stands there. The lesson one learns from living in the hotter parts of the US is don't stand on concrete.

Well, supposedly the US weather service knows this lesson. That is why when they wrote the siting recommendations for a new temperature net work they said this about cement


"Class 5 (error ≥ 5ÂșC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface." Climate Reference Network, Site Information Handbook, p. 6

Found on line at here

Note that the error due to siting a thermometer on top of cement is greater than or equal to 5 deg C--for those who don't know, that is equal to a 9 degrees Fahrenheit temperature increase. For global warming hysteriacs, who seem not to understand math or physics, that means that if you put your thermometer on cement, its reading will be 9 deg. F higher than if you put it over the proverbial grassy knoll.

So, NOAA knows that putting a weather station on hot cement will make it appear too hot by more than 10 degrees.

So, why then, does it allow thermometers to be placed on hot cement? One can only cite utter incompetence as the reason that they don't fix these stations. Below is the station from the University of Arizona which is in the middle of a parking lot. This station is maintained by the University of Arizona's Meteorology department!!! Maybe the professors there don't know that standing on hot cement is bad, but my bare feet know that standing on top of hot cement is bad.



(picture from here)


You can see this thermometer in the middle of a parking lot on Google Maps by going to Tucson, Arizona and placing the intersection of North Santa Rita Avenue and 4th Street in the upper right corner of a Google map (http://maps.google.com/) and zooming in as big as it will allow. The cross hatched area of the parking lot contains the weather station. Tucson being hotter than Houston and possibly Hell, one would expect that the temperature there would be 9 degrees F. hotter than on the grass a few feet to the north.

Ft Morgan Colorado's station violates several of the recomendations listed above. It is above cement, next to a building and next to an air conditioner.




Fort Morgan is part of the US Historical Climate Network which ludicrously says this about itself.

"The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (U.S. HCN) was compiled in response to the need for an accurate, unbiased, modern historical climate record for climate change research" source

Unbiased???? Next to an AIR CONDITIONER? Are they serious? An air conditioner won't bias the TEMPERATURE????

They also say

"The new revision 3 (Easterling et al. 1996) data represent the best available data from the United States for analyzing long-term climate trends on a regional scale and may be used for studies attempting to determine the climatic impacts of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. " source

The best we have to offer to climate research are thermometers next to air conditioners???? Get real.

So, what do the genius' at NOAA do to correct for this situation? Well it is similar to a story I read about Canadian health care years ago. It seems that a guy in Manitoba needed an MRI for his brain cancer. Because Canada had too few MRI's he was told he would have to wait several months. About this time he took his pet into the vet and the vet recommended an MRI for the pet. The guy laughed and said that it would probably take several months to get that MRI. The vet said "No, we can get it done tonight if you can take the pet to the local clinic." The man was in shock. he couldn't understand why Fluffy could get an MRI and he couldn't. He registered as Fido and got his MRI at night. When he went public with this and the news media made a field day of it. The Washington Post did a story on it. The politicians did what good politicians do. Instead of making it easier for humans to get MRI's, they outlawed MRI's for pets. Don't believe me? Here is a residual report on that issue from 2001.

"Manitoba struggles to end "hallway medicine" where crowded hospitals place beds and patients in hallways because of acute space shortages. Canada has only as many MRI scanners per capita as Colombia. Canadian MRI owners were earning money by renting out their facilities to veterinarians in the evenings. Because of canine envy, Canada has halted evening MRI pooch elite usage. England permits evening cross-species health care. If your name is Spot, you move to the top of the MRI queue." Marianne M. Jennings Patient's rights and the Valley of Death Jewish World Review July 6, 2001/ here

You can also find information on this idiocy at here


Now, the 'real' scientists at our climatological centers have done something very similar to this. They make a station historical correction to the data. They describe their procedure as follows:

"Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half." source

I emphasized a part of the post above. Moving a thermometer to a grassy area makes it give out a cooler temperature. And that is what the guidelines say should be done.

Anthony Watts gives a brilliant example of how moving the thermometer off the roof top of a parking lot lowered the temperature of Los Angeles by about a degree and a half. found here The chart of LA's temperature clearly delineates the station move to a cooler part of the city merely across the street to a grassy park. Below is that temperature chart. Note that the cooling caused by merely getting that thermometer off the cement parking lot roof top is greater than the warming caused by global warming.



Now, Los Angeles is not part of the Historical Climate Network, but it illustrates what moving off a roof top will do for the earth's temperature. Clearly the PAST POORLY SITED STATION WAS GIVING TOO HIGH A TEMPERATURE.

Well, when faced with bad data one has two choices. One can believe the data from the improperly sited stations and adjust the new stations up in temperature (which seems idiotic), or one can believe the new, cooler data taken on the grassy areas (which fit the recommended siting criteria) and adjust the old data down in temperature. That is all the choices one has. The chart below shows the two options which can be done to match the discontinuous station temperature stream



How did the climatologists at NOAA deal with these formerly too hot stations which were on cement and rooftops? They didn't do what logic would seem to require. They didn't lower the past erroneous temperatures. The ADDED degrees to the now properly sited stations!!!!! Yes, no MRI's for Fido and no admission that the temperatures measured by stations sited on hot cement were too hot, even though that cement would burn your feet. The NOAA climatologists RAISED the temperature of the properly sited stations so that they would be hotter and match the old bad data!!!!!!! One must wonder why in the hell did they bother to move the stations at all if they were going to act as if the station hadn't moved?

Don't believe me? Re-read that first sentence again.

" Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980." source

Yet they said " During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites." source

Isn't this just wonderful! The logic used at the government climatological center holds that cooler readings are BAD BAD BAD and must be adjusted EVER UPWARDS by the use of a "Station History Adjustment Procedure" resulting in a higher temperature!!!! Your government at work again.

Lets take two phrases and reverse their order. "This [the movement of thermometers to cooler places] often resulted in cooler readings..." followed by "Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures..."

Cooler temperatures can't be allowed to stand. They must be made to appear hotter than what is actually measured.

Don't believe me?

Here is the picture of the correction made for moving a improperly sited station which gives too hot a temperature to a site that gives a realistic but much cooler temperature. It is the yellow line in the picture below.




Note that they are ADDING heat to thermometers that are properly sited, acting as if the improperly sited stations of the past are the gold standard of climatology. As I said, this is no different than the no MRI's for Fido edict, and we are supposed to believe their consensus on the science. All but one of the corrections are adding heat to the present temperature measurements. It seems that the USHCN can't get any of the thermometers to measure the hot temperatures properly so they edit heat into the system.

We will make the cool stations hot rather than make the bad hot stations cool. Why? Why? One can only speculate, of course, but keeping the public panicked about global warming helps keep the taxpayer funding coming. But whether or not that is true, one always gets ridiculous approaches to problems when the government is involved.

So, what about that consensus? We are told that we should believe in anthropological global warming because of the scientific consensus. Consensus can be wrong. If, when we move a station to a new, cooler and properly sited location, the consensus is that we should raise the temperature of these cooler stations, then that consensus is not only wrong, it is insane.

Science is replete with examples of science having erroneous consensus's. In my last post I mentioned that the consensus of science in the 1920s was that continental drift was impossible and ridiculous. They were wrong and everyone rightfully condemns and laughs at the folly of that previous generation. But, they never think that it is possible that they could be involved in another, equally egregious case of group-think.

Another case of consensus science going awry. In the early 1900's the consensus view was that light was a wave. Hadn't Maxwell shown this? It was, at that time, stupid to believe in the existence of photons--particles of light. That was the scientific consensus. Anyone who believed in the photon was a nutter!

Rosenblum and Kuttner write:

"Millikan was not alone. The physics community received the photon postulate "with disbelief and skepticism bordering on derision." Nevertheless, eight years after proposing the photon, Einstein had gained a considerable reputation as a theoretical physicist for many other achievements and was nominated for membership in the Prussian Academy of Science. Planck, in his letter supporting that nomination, felt he had to defend Einstein: "[T]hat he may sometimes have missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light quanta, cannot really be held too much against him. ... "

"Even when Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922 for the photoelectric effect, the citation avoided explicit mention of the then seventeen-year-old, but still unaccepted, photon. An Einstein biographer writes: "From 1905 to 1923, [Einstein] was a man apart in being the only one, or almost the only one, to take the light-quantum seriously."
Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 60
© source where applicable

Beware of consensus science. That is what sheeple use so that they don't have to actually THINK.

3 comments:

  1. Oh, and for that figure where you show two options, one to "make the grassy temperature warmer" and one to "make the historical readings cooler": again, because these are _anomaly_ measurements, the two actions would be IDENTICAL as far as contributing to a long term temperature trend.

    The potential problem here (and not knowing the site history, I can't evaluate how big a problem it is) is whether in the old historical data the cement was _added_ at some point, thereby changing the trend. If the cement had always been there, then the trend would be fairly accurate, and therefore can be easily corrected by matching the end of the old data with the start of the new data.

    To try this is simple terms: let's say you have two measurement spots. The "hot spot" is at 10 degrees in 1900. The "cool spot" is at 9 degrees in 1900. In 2000, the "hot spot" is at 11 degrees, and the "cool spot" is now at 10 degrees. Now, I happen to measure the "hot spot" from 1900 to 1950, and in 1950 I move my measurement to the "cool spot".

    Since for climate change, I don't care what the absolute measurement is, I just care about the trend, I can _either_ change my old data so that my trend runs from 9 degrees to 10 degrees, or I can change my modern data so that my trend runs from 10 degrees to 11 degrees. The two choices are EQUIVALENT for climate purposes.

    Again, the only way this would be messed up is if I had two "cool spots" at 9 degrees, and in 1930 I built a parking lot next to one "cool spot" warming it to 10 degrees without correcting it. If in 1950 I then switch my measurements to the 2nd cool spot, I will carry this spurious trend along if I try and make corrections.

    So, if you are going to criticize the temperature collection methods, at least criticize them for the right reason please!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha! Finally "signed in."

    Burgy

    ReplyDelete
  3. For some reason, my reply last night didn't make it.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>Oh, and for that figure where you show two options, one to "make the grassy temperature warmer" and one to "make the historical readings cooler": again, because these are _anomaly_ measurements, the two actions would be IDENTICAL as far as contributing to a long term temperature trend.<<<

    GRM:This is not so. It isn't identical even in so far as anomalies are concerned. Why? Because there was little urbanization in 1900 and lots in 2000. The error seen by the sudden movement of the LA thermometer to a grassy region gradually developed. It wasn't a 2 degree difference in 1900. It was zero. It wasn't a 2 degree difference in 1950, but was probably around .75 deg. It wasn't 2 degrees in 1980 but probably something like 1.7 degrees. The error gradually grew and must be removed not by taking off 2 degrees from 1900 to 2000 but by gradually removing the effect that gradually grew.

    GRM:Because of this, the anomalies will NOT be identical. The monthly basis upon which the anomalies are measured must be gradually decreased backwards through time.

    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>The potential problem here (and not knowing the site history, I can't evaluate how big a problem it is) is whether in the old historical data the cement was _added_ at some point, thereby changing the trend. If the cement had always been there, then the trend would be fairly accurate, and therefore can be easily corrected by matching the end of the old data with the start of the new data. <<<<

    GRM: So you are going to try to contend that in 1900 there was a 3 story automobile parking garage on that site when there were practically no automobiles? It is illogic like that that makes it hard to discuss global warming problems.


    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>To try this is simple terms: let's say you have two measurement spots. The "hot spot" is at 10 degrees in 1900. The "cool spot" is at 9 degrees in 1900. In 2000, the "hot spot" is at 11 degrees, and the "cool spot" is now at 10 degrees. Now, I happen to measure the "hot spot" from 1900 to 1950, and in 1950 I move my measurement to the "cool spot".

    Since for climate change, I don't care what the absolute measurement is, I just care about the trend, I can _either_ change my old data so that my trend runs from 9 degrees to 10 degrees, or I can change my modern data so that my trend runs from 10 degrees to 11 degrees. The two choices are EQUIVALENT for climate purposes.

    Again, the only way this would be messed up is if I had two "cool spots" at 9 degrees, and in 1930 I built a parking lot next to one "cool spot" warming it to 10 degrees without correcting it. If in 1950 I then switch my measurements to the 2nd cool spot, I will carry this spurious trend along if I try and make corrections. <<<<

    GRM:That is a fascinating question all by itself--how do you know what temperature to correct the thermometer given that no one is even trying to make individual station measurements to ascertain what quantity a given locality's temperature is perturbed. Just waving magic words over the problem in an act of faith, won't actually tell you the precise temperature perturbation TODAY vs TOMORROW's or YESTERDAY's temperature.


    woox0LAVhIhtvEOQoeAC7D7Bm6_eesOdZg-- said...
    >>>So, if you are going to criticize the temperature collection methods, at least criticize them for the right reason please!<<<

    GRM:I would ask the same of you--please try to understand that the error is not a bulk shift but a tilt to the measured curve. That will alter the anomalies all over the place.

    ReplyDelete