Unreliable data and measurement practices cast doubt on some reported temperatures; A “How-Not-To”

{Image courtesy Anthony Watts}
Does global warming diminish with accurate temperature measurements?

San Franscisco CA, USA –  In a recent article in the SF Examiner by Thomas Fuller (Visit Thomas’ Home Page at www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner)

Thomas states:

If we don’t know what the temperature is today, how can we say it is getting warmer? If we don’t know what the temperature was in the past, how can we say it is, umm, getting warmer?

There are controversies brewing about measurements in global warming. Some of them are very new, some of them have been bubbling along unsettled for a while. Let’s review, starting with measurements of land temperatures here in the United States.

If you click here (wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/04/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-89-surface-temperature/) you will be taken to a picture of an official temperature measurement site in Hillsboro Ohio...(seen above)

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist (and principal contributor to Watts Up With That (wattsupwiththat.com), voted Science Blog of the Year), has organised an all-volunteer effort to photograph and classify all 1,221 surface temperature measurement stations.

So far, they’ve surveyed an impressive 80% of the total. Sadly, only 11% meet government specifications regarding which direction to face, how far they should be from heating sources or even walls, etc.

In addition, many of these stations have had cities grow up around them, which tends to raise temperatures more than they should.

Anthony wrote a 28-page paper titled, ‘Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?’ in March of this year.(http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf)

This story doesn’t mean that global warming is not real, only that some of the data used to monitor air temperatures in the USA are subject to some significant errors.

So, if progress in dealing with global warming, or lack thereof, is to be credible, the basis data must pass the simple test of accuracy.

Asking the question: “How accurate is that data?” ( or more precisely: “How uncertain is that data?”) is shown to be a very, very valid request.

It remains in the realm and responsibility of the scientists who massage data with large uncertainties to apply the appropriate tests on it and report candidly, like all competent scientists prefer to do.

Seems like a lot more Measurement Quality Assurance and honesty in reporting is needed.

Thanks Thomas and Anthony. Great work and reporting, indeed!

Now, I wonder when the question of sensor calibration traceability and fundamental measurement capabilities of the 1221 reporting stations will be addressed.

GRP