Thanks to our friend Burt Rutan for sending this link (click below to the full report). In the argument over global warming the pros and cons are often confusing as well as conflicting in their logic. How do we determine what is truth and what are lies and what are just plain good old mistakes? The General Accounting Office of the United States just helped to clarify a portion of the arguments. It issued a report in August 2011 relating to the accuracy of US temperature measurements. The report is extensive and covers most US temperature measuring stations.
The report concluded that over 40% of the temperature stations (1,248 larger data collection centers as well as over 11,000 cooperative observers, namely not professional meteorologists, whose measurements are also taken into effect) did not follow guidelines as established by the National Weather Service. Most common failings?
(1) Proper distance from obstructions which might affect measurements, 33%;
(2) Proper distance from concrete or paved surfaces which might affect the measurements, 20%;
(3) Some newer stations are in areas where none previously existed. In these cases the historical data which does not exist was filled in from "composite" data from other stations (i.e. a guess).
The report concluded that over 40% of the temperature stations (1,248 larger data collection centers as well as over 11,000 cooperative observers, namely not professional meteorologists, whose measurements are also taken into effect) did not follow guidelines as established by the National Weather Service. Most common failings?
(1) Proper distance from obstructions which might affect measurements, 33%;
(2) Proper distance from concrete or paved surfaces which might affect the measurements, 20%;
(3) Some newer stations are in areas where none previously existed. In these cases the historical data which does not exist was filled in from "composite" data from other stations (i.e. a guess).
(4) Amateur observers take vacations and often use newspaper or television numbers to fill in the data while they are gone.
What are the standards established by the National Weather Service?
(1) Not to be sited on rooftops;
(2) Must be installed on level terrain;
(3) Must be installed at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or other paved surface;
(4) Be mounted 4 to 6 feet above the surface;
(5) Be no closer than four times the height of any nearby obstruction (i.e. tree, fence nearby buildings)
What are the primary reasons that these stations were/are improperly sited?
(1) Budgetary limitations such as the cost of cable and trenching for the cables;
(2) A preference for station stability and data continuity. Ignores the encrouchment of buildings and the "heat island" effect even though it is acknowledged that this effect distorts the temperature readings upward. See the report for some ludicrous examples.
(3) Preference of the observer. (Far and away most observations are taken by volunteers.) In other words it is inconvenient to change the location since the observer might have to walk farther or get outside in the rain and the snow....even though they acknowledge that the readings are wrong. Observers take vacations and estimates from newspapers and television sources might be (often are) used in their absence.
(4) Limited funding to relocate stations even though you know the data is faulty.
What are the standards established by the National Weather Service?
(1) Not to be sited on rooftops;
(2) Must be installed on level terrain;
(3) Must be installed at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or other paved surface;
(4) Be mounted 4 to 6 feet above the surface;
(5) Be no closer than four times the height of any nearby obstruction (i.e. tree, fence nearby buildings)
What are the primary reasons that these stations were/are improperly sited?
(1) Budgetary limitations such as the cost of cable and trenching for the cables;
(2) A preference for station stability and data continuity. Ignores the encrouchment of buildings and the "heat island" effect even though it is acknowledged that this effect distorts the temperature readings upward. See the report for some ludicrous examples.
(3) Preference of the observer. (Far and away most observations are taken by volunteers.) In other words it is inconvenient to change the location since the observer might have to walk farther or get outside in the rain and the snow....even though they acknowledge that the readings are wrong. Observers take vacations and estimates from newspapers and television sources might be (often are) used in their absence.
(4) Limited funding to relocate stations even though you know the data is faulty.
Click here for a link to the full report.
If the United States has these problems with its huge resources imagine the problems in certain third world countries. Also, add the motivitation to obtain grants from the US and UN for economic development, particularly in the area of green development. Lots of room for error, some deliberate.
If the United States has these problems with its huge resources imagine the problems in certain third world countries. Also, add the motivitation to obtain grants from the US and UN for economic development, particularly in the area of green development. Lots of room for error, some deliberate.
My two cents: Tal Leverett
No comments:
Post a Comment