Archives

As they say with computers, Garbage in Garbage out.

I ran across this article on weather stations in the U.S. and how unreliable they are for collecting air temperatures across the U.S.. So bad is the information they are recording that any data collected has be looked at as junk. I've said before and I stand by my opinion that Global warming is a huge scam to relieve people of more taxes.

These people are finding that many of these stations are being pretty much rigged to show higher air temperatures by several degrees than the actual air temperature in the area around them. There are rule of where and how far away from other heat emanating buildings they are to be located.

Based on their date 90% are not even close to being with in compliance of government regulations.

The web page is Surface Stations.org/ (http://www.surfacestations.org/)

The smoking gun is their report on the locations of these temperature monitoring stations that should raise everyone's eye brows.
Surface Station Report (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf) This is a PDF file and runs 31 pages

This was as bad as when people found out that pollution collection stations in Pittsburgh were located at heavily used bus stops in downtown Pittsburgh. One was hung right above the exit of the Greyhound Bus Station.

One of the thermometers was placed in an old corn field many years ago.

That thermometer has seen a drastic increase in temps.

Oh yeah, since it was placed they built the Chicago Airport around it...

Almost all thermometers that saw an increase in temps also saw an increase in urbanization.

Like I've mentioned before, changes in the native ranges of plants and animals are a much more reliable indicator of changes in climate than thermometers scattered about the country. I'm still waiting to see any northward movement in the native range of the local critters and plants. Haven't seen it yet.

I'm agnostic in respect to Global warming, but I never believe conspiracy theories. No doubt there are folks planning to make $$ of Global Warming but don't see that as proof that there a world wide Lefty conspiracy has invented Global warming and gotten 95% of all the usually pretty contentious academic types to sell their souls for a Commie Type cause.

My question- why shouldn't increased CO2 in the atm raise the atm temp? It absorbs in the range the earth gives off. More of it should mean more radiation in that range being reabsorbed instead of just zipping out into space?

Global warming is plausible just based on the absorption spectrum of CO2. Of course lots of gases absorb in the range just longer than light-H20,methane,N20, and climate is complicated.CO2 certainly isn't the gas that absorbs the most outgoing infrared-H2O is- but we don't really control the release of H2O gas into the atm-except by raising the temp, if we are doing that with the CO2.

So why do you find CO2 caused Global warming to be so implausible?
Do you have something OTHER than" climate and the earth just isn't well enough understood to make the claim, and long term climate prediction has no track record?"

Charlie
PS I agree; it is very hard to actually measure all the heat in the atm and the oceans.Markers like plant movement, ice melting , earlier growing seasons-last frost will be more useful than 100,000 thermometers spread out over the world. Folks have probably documented last frost of the season for 1000 years.

I'm too tired to summarize, so a link that explains why these criticisms don't shoot any holes in global warming: linky goodness (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/).

Here in the Pacific Northwest, over the past few decades we've seen a definite migration of plantings of grape varietals to climates previously too cool to grow them.

Grapes like Shiraz that used to only grow in eastern Washington (our warmest growing region in summer, because it's on the desert side of the Cascade mountains) and Southern Oregon can now be grown successfully here in the Willamette Valley. It used to be difficult to grow anything commercially in the Puget Sound area, but we're now seeing success with cooler weather varietals like Pinot Noir and Muller-Thurgau.

And they are currently producing wine commerically in the south of England, which they didn't used to be able to do. England is at the northern fringes of possible viniculture and it suitability for growing wine grapes has waxed and waned through the centuries as the climate changed. The Romans introduced wine grapes to England and grew them there while England was part of their empire. English viniculture faded out during the Dark Ages (climate or cultural upheavals?), but was reestablished when the Normans brought their wine making culture with them in 1066AD. It again faded out during the "mini Ice Age of Europe during the 1400's through the early 1800's, but got established again following WWII.

Hey, the Brits need that wine to choke down what passes for food in England.
Charlie