MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED

Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots

• 96% of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be "acceptable" and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards
• Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA's own standards and strongly undermines the legitimacy and magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States

In April and May 2022, Heartland Institute researchers visited many of the same temperature stations as in 2009, plus many not visited before

• The new survey sampled 128 NOAA stations, and found the problem of heat-bias has only gotten worse
• This new study is evidence of two things: First, the government is either inept or stubbornly refuses to learn from its mistakes for political reasons.
• Second, the official temperature record can’t be trusted
• NOAA continues to use the data from their warm-biased century-old surface temperature networks to produce monthly and yearly reports to the U.S. public on the state of the climate

But GISTEMP is mentioned by media and so far here are the number of adjustments each month for 2022.

• The 2009 surface station study attracted me to this excellent website and this update is great too.
• Historical temperature records are NOT used for the prediction of climate doom
• Climate Howlers call for a rate of future warming at least double the rate of warming in the UAH record since 1979
• They are not extrapolating prior temperature trends because those trends are not dangerous, and would nor scare anyone.
• The adjustments very obviously make the natural, pre-anthropogenic warming of ~1910-40 sharp than it was in the 1970s and ~1980s
• Science + politics = politics
• There are UHI biases built into the newer raw data, as bad or even worse than the old data
• New data should have been adjusted down just as much or more since it wasn't since the 1970's
• Adjustments add up to significant changes

UHI contamination of land-based temperature measurement stations

• Most such station are-for convenience and security and especially for easy access to power and ease-of-maintenance-located in urban areas, quite often at airports near large areas of concrete and/or asphalt.
• GISS handles land (and ocean) temperature measurements derived from orbiting satellite instruments, not land based measuring stations.

Urbanization is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, and adjustments have been developed to handle trend inhomogeneities resulting from it.

• The US has a unique problem, though, in that it has an incredibly dense surface station network that has been entirely run by volunteers

GISS is not only involved in satellite temperature measurements, but also in paleogeology, paleo-analysis, and global models of atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic processes.

• They are mainly involved in climate change prediction in the 21st century
• Can you cite a reference or link that gives the details on these adjustments?
• The reference to Menne and Williams [2009] is flawed in its methodology

Approximately 96% of the temperature monitoring stations being evaluated are incorrectly sited, leading to average temperature reporting on the high side for the overwhelming number of stations.

• Thus, all the "homogenization" corrections offered by the Meene and Williams approach serve to do is to incorrectly adjust the "outliers", in this case the fairly sited temperature reporting stations upward in temperature based on the preponderance of their 100 nearest neighboring station having existing UHI bias.

UHI is fundamentally an oversampling challenge

• We don't want to remove the stations in urban areas from the record, we just want to ensure that they aren't being oversampled
• Homogenization algorithms use the trends of nearby stations to determine if the trend at the target station is significantly different than its neighbors
• Adjust it to some "midway" trend if it is

The claim is that UHI is being oversampled in the surface record, but that claim has not been proven

• UHI results primarily from (1) the increased solar absorption associated with use of concrete, asphalt, buildings, etc. in urban areas compared to rural areas or open water areas, and (2) the concentration of waste heat in urban, rural, or open-water areas.
• Watts' survey merely re-highlights issues that are well known, it does nothing to refute the measures already in place to address those issues.

The climate network seems to be like the story of the little red hen: everyone wants to enjoy the final product but nobody is willing to put in any effort to help produce it

• Take today's technology and add some budget and competent administration and these problems could be corrected

What is the relationship between "poorly sited station" and "station in an urban area?"

• GISS handles land (and ocean) temperature measurements derived from orbiting satellite instruments, not land based measuring stations.
• The corrections indicated in the graph that you provided may not be necessary corrections to adjust for various satellite measurement-introduce errors or calibration factors.

UHI contamination of land-based temperature measurement stations

• This should be a world-wide problem since most such station are-for convenience and security-located in urban areas, near large areas of concrete and/or asphalt.
• However, in the United States, the Hockey Stick doesn't apply because...
• the 1930's are warmer than the present day, unlike your bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

So to my mind, temps records should be considered just on what individual stations record

• Let everyone who is interested work from the same unalloyed set of real recorded data, and make their conclusions accordingly, and leave the "numeric constructs" to those who want to play Excel "what if" games.

Surface temperature records are analytical products, not simple measurements

• One does not have to make any adjustments to the raw station measurements to obtain robust estimates of global surface temperatures
• The adjustments are not "correcting" anything in the data
• They are methods used to take point-level temperature measurements and combine them into temperature fields
• If all you want to know is the temperature at point X on date Y, the raw values right from the station record sitting right on top of that point will do perfectly well
• In other words, you don't need to consider all the ways in which the station might contain signals that are not related to the evolution of the climate but are instead related to station moves, instrument changes, or changes to measurement practices

Bottom Line

• "Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations."

CO2 has virtually nothing to do with El Nino's or heat waves

• The best indicator that CO2 is NOT the "driver" of the Earth's temperature is the period for which we have instrument records for both, from the 1950s when Mauna Loa CO2 readings begin to date.
• CO2 levels have been rising steadily since 1950s, while temperatures were falling, then rising, then flat

Using the context from neighboring stations to help ensure that the target station is as representative of the surrounding region as it can be

• A station situated in an urbanized area is not by default "contaminated"
• Urbanization is a real phenomenon that has a real impact on surface temperature trends
• The challenge with urban stations is that we want any given station to represent a wider area than the single point location where the station sits
• If the station's neighbors are all urban, then we can assume the station’s urban trend accurately reflects the region between itself and its nearest neighbors

UHI biases in data measurements would NOT be expected to be constant, but instead to vary with local weather conditions.

• Given this, I cannot see a practical way to mathematically filter out this, short of doing year-long "calibrations" of each station using a reference not subject to UHI effect at each station location.

Your first mistake was in giving objective credibility to Berkeley Earth.

• Berkeley Earth's founder and current head, Richard A. Muller, stated this to the New York Times according to Wikipedia: "On July 28, 2012, he stated, "[G]lobal warming [is] real.... Humans are almost entirely the cause." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller. Your second mistake is in posting that unsubstantiated claim here without including any supporting reference paper or link to such.

Your third mistake is in not learning from your previous continuum of mistakes

• It was an improperly conducted analysis that failed to account for prevailing winds removing heat into adjacent rural areas.
• Some of the requirements for CRN 1/2/3 are challenging to meet without human assistance outside of arid areas.

Temperature measurements are fraudulent

• Temperature measurement is the most fraudulent aspect of the climate jackals hoax
• It is preposterous to place a device near a source of heat or cold caused by human activity
• If the greens are insisting world policies change to stop global warming, then the method of data collection must be designed to measure temperature with zero temperature influence from human caused activity

There is nowhere in the terrestrial landscape that has not been impacted by human influence

• Over 50% of the global land surface has been directly and deeply influenced by human activity since the advent of gas powered machinery
• Cumulative change to land surface properties not only impacts temperature but the associated pressure dynamics and gradients
• Current strategies pushed by people like Gore and Kerry will continue to undermine environmental restoration and facilitate ongoing degradation of Earth systems
• Scientific reductionism to suit simplistic concepts has been a disaster
• The global indirect solutions for weather hazards cited by the political class and reciprocated by publicly funded academics and subsidized media is net damaging

Bottom Line

• Even with siting issues, adjustments, and perhaps other factors, the daily data reveals that whatever is affecting the contiguous U.S. climate is not explained by slowly increasing concentrations of CO2.
• There must be other strong influences, and they look to me like timed cycles combining and canceling differently by date.

Bottom Line

• Water that would have been sitting just below ground in high water tables has been collected in reservoirs and piped into cities
• The water table has been lowered by farmers pumping out water for irrigation
• On top of that, literally, the soil organic matter has been systematically stripped out by Roundup and Tillage, so there's no water/dampness in the surface layers, to both cool directly and for evapotranspiration by plants

Disappointing, but not surprising

• NOAA/NWS position on weather stations can be summed up in the phrase "good enough for government work"
• Historical data available is mostly poor quality and hopelessly biased
• Temperature by night and by day are always much warmer than the surrounding areas, Heathrow airport is always two to three degrees Centigrade higher than surrounding areas
• Media tend to report any extreme weather event and add climate change as the reason without checking the past records

Back to the dark ages?

• Millions of Britons could be told to switch off the lights and turn down the thermostat to avoid blackouts this winter under emergency plans
• The government is considering launching winter appeals for ordinary people to sacrifice their personal comfort to prevent blackouts
• This comes as EU countries were told to cut their usage by 15% over concerns they will not be able to store enough for winter

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/