New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

By Anthony Watts

A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Read the rest at Watts Up With That

  • Rob N. Hood

    Another study shows that roughly half the American public are gullible, selfish, and superficial.

    • NEILIO

      And that study you mention, that we are supposed to just take your word that it exists because you don’t post a link, is supposed to be relevent how?

    • NEILIO

      You know this study, the one I posted above that people should comment on, is a real study done by people who care about the issue and have the proper scientific background for it. And it is pretty damning of the current state of temperature data collection sites. It really brings into question a lot of things about temperature records. One thing I am curious of is if all these recent records that have aledgedly been broken, really been broken? Or is it just a matter of them correcting the temperatures upward because of poorly sited stations? Another question it brings up is has this been accidental, or deliberate? What do you think?

  • Rob N. Hood

    From past experience, you really don’t want to know what I think. Nice try though (he posts, as crickets chirp in the background, and a lonely wind noise blows a single tumbleweed across the sad old website…)

    • NEILIO

      I don’t want to know what you think about things that are unrelated. I really would like it if you would comment on what you think about posted stories, but as I expected, you are only willing to be your charming hate filled, sarchastic, leftist self. No surprise there.
      And as far as the lack of comments lately I’m not worried about it. A little disappointed, maybe, but I’m shure people have their reasons for not commenting. If they hated my posts I’m shure they’d let me know. Take yourself for example, you didn’t make any comments for 2/3rds of July. I really don’t know or care why, but I’m shure most others have things to do other than comment on my posts right now. Maybe with this horsecrap economy people are working a lot of overtime, like I have been, and just don’t have time, or are otherwise engaged in summertime activities. Where were you for 20 days? (That question is rhetorical, I don’t care what you were doing.)

  • Rob N. Hood

    And your hate-filled response is also no surprise. Good luck with your new endeavor. People (and rats) usually jump from a sinking sink, not onto one.

    • NEILIO

      Hate filled? C’mon you going to lapse into the old “I know you are but what am I?” Lame.

  • Joe

    Forget the I missed you, you missed me. Bottom line you are both off subject. Shake hands and make up? Will you both “Cut to the chase” and comment on the subject at hand? I have my own opinion, what is yours?

    • NEILIO

      Give me a break Joe. I want to talk about the posted subjects but I’m not so rigid that I won’t tolerate some diversion. We all have freedom of speech. If you don’t like it you are free to bypass anything you don’t want to look at. I have been going back and forth with RNH for years now, and I’d like to think that I have gotten better at not flying off the handle, and trying to steer it back to the topic at hand. But it is also a personality trait of mine that if I am insulted I respond. Sorry.

  • NEILIO
  • ashley

    Wow dude, I have a link to the outside where it has been intolerably hot for the last two summers, and hasn’t rained for the past two months. Also it is rigid without a middle ‘d’. I don’t understand how anyone could possibly think that the amount of fuel used in manufacturing and vehicles in the last hundred years for the first time in existence couldn’t have an effect. I’m guessing in addition to spelling and science you opted out of the “consequences” lessons as well.

    • You know it’s funny that when we have cooler than normal temperatures, we’re told by the global warming true believers, like yourself, to not confuse weather with climate. But when it’s warmer than normal it’s absolute proof of AGW. Here is a story from 06′ http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2655929&page=1 in it says this:

      “So what happened to global warming?
      Scientists who study climate say they get that question every time there’s a cold spell. Their answer: It’s important to keep in mind an important concept.
      Weather is not climate.
      Weather, as we all know, is what we see in the day-to-day, often unpredictable fluctuations in local temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind.
      “The fact that we had a couple of cool months doesn’t say anything at all about long-term trends,” said Mark Serreze, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “It’s just a clear example of natural variability on the climate system. The long-term averages are decidedly toward a warming planet.”-”

      So I would suggest to you Ashley that a couple of years of hot, dry weather doesn’t say anything at all about long-term trends.
      Also, looking at weather history for Little Rock, (I picked Little Rock because it is in central Arkansas, and you said you live in the middle of Arkansas), July had 2.7″ of precipitation. And August so far has had 1.57″ of precipitation. It may not be very much, or enough, but I wouldn’t call it nothing.
      Another thing too is that no one has claimed that there has been no effect from emissions. What the controversy centers on is to what extent that effect is, and to what kind of feedback will work toward strengthening the effect, (positive feedback,) or diminishing the effect, (negative feedback). AGW skeptics believe that the effect is very small, and there is a lot of scientific evidence that would suggest that this is true. Such as the diminishing effect of saturation in the IR bandwidths in the heat absorbing properties of CO2. There is also historic data that clearly show that there were periods in history that had higher temperatures with less CO2, and cooler temperatures with more CO2 than there is now.
      As far as misspelling words, I spell rigid with a “d” in it because I am a service technician and every time I see that word it is on a hand tool. And the company that makes those tools is named Ridgid. They use a “d” in their name. So excuse the heck out of me for spelin uh wurd rong. We don’t judge people on their spelling ability, or lack thereof here. Nobody is perfect.

    • NEILIO

      There are also some interesting facts about CO2 and temperature that you are obviously not aware.

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html

      “Temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first 50 years of this time period.

      Carbon dioxide (CO2) has also increased over the last 100 years– from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest.

      Independent data from orbiting satelites have been continuosly measuring global temperatures since the 1970’s and indicate that over the last 25 years there has actually been a slight decrease in overall global temperatures.

      Assuming that at least part of the source of CO2 additions in the last 50 years is anthropogenic (man-made), the likely scenario is (at the level of additions involved) that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are an effect of temperature– not the other way around. The perturbation of CO2 equilibrium has not had the proportional effect on temperature that greenhouse activists predict.”

      Also, you should know that part of my degree program at the technical college that I attended was an environmental sciences class. I got an A. And just from that class alone, and my teacher was a raving Liberal BTW, I can tell you that half of the things you think you know about the environment and atmospheric processes are just plain wrong. That class, more than anything else, opened my eyes to just how many lies, and misrepresentations are out there that people like you accept as us unassailable fact.

    • NEILIO

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html
      Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Humans are quite likely the cause of a large portion of the 80 ppm rise in CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and from a distance, it looks possible that increasing CO2 may cause atmospheric temperatures rise. However, on closer examination it is seen that CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes– confirming that CO2 is not the primary driver of the temperature changes.

      The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up. If global warming is occurring from an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2 additions by humans the temperature of the middle troposphere should be warming faster than Earth’s surface (1,2). However, the opposite has been happening– which suggests either the surface temperature records are in error or natural factors, such as changes in solar activity, may be responsible for the slight rise in surface temperatures (approximately 0.6° C, globally) that appears to have occurred over the past century.

  • ashley

    And I live in the middle of damned Arkansas, far away from any “urban influences”

  • Rob N. Hood

    “Take yourself for example, you didn’t make any comments for 2/3rds of July. I really don’t know or care why, but I’m shure most others have things to do other than comment on my posts right now. Maybe with this horsecrap economy people are working a lot of overtime, like I have been, and just don’t have time, or are otherwise engaged in summertime activities. Where were you for 20 days? (That question is rhetorical, I don’t care what you were doing.)”

    That ain’t love brother. Call it what you want though, denial and self-rightousness are an awesome thing for the hypocritical. chrip chirp

    • NEILIO

      Well I wouldn’t call that hate. You said call it want you want, so I want to call it apathy. You certainly have some absurd interperetations of what I say. Ridiculous, yet quite worthy in their entertainment value alone. That’s awesome.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Well, you have referred to my postings as hateful, when they really aren’t. But like I said you can pretend you are clean as the driven snow, as usual. It also ain’t apathy either on your part- apathy would be not mentioning me in the first place, or responding to me at all. But I know you will disagree with this assessment also. Because that is what you do. However, I guess we do agree on something- that is I play a role here one way or another, have for a long time, and without me this site was and is IMO pretty darn dull, and lacking in activity too. Now that you have more than a bystander’s obsessive role in it, I may do the worst thing I could do and not come back ever. And so please enjoy this comment to the fullest, for your own personal entertainment if you will, also- because it could be my last one. What’s that I hear? chirp chirp

    • NEILIO

      You are entitled to your opinion.

  • Rob N. Hood

    chirp

    • NEILIO

      What do you want from me? I can’t really mix it up with you like I used to, sorry. I have been given an oportunity here to post stories and I feel like getting into arguments with you is just not appropriate for me to do anymore. My comment on Aug 5 was pushing it. I should probably apologize for calling you hate-filled. So just say what you want to say, and move on if you want to. I don’t really care. The business here is to expose the fraud of AGW, not to get into a pissing contest with you on every post. Iv’e been given a little bit of power here, and I can’t abuse that. I can’t even give the impression that I might abuse it. So if you come here and argue with me about everything and nothing, then I’m sorry to say that’s all over now.

  • Joe

    Neilio, You are getting there. Cut the cord from the troll. I did, what say you?

    • NEILIO

      Snip!

  • Joe

    About time my friend.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.