SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE
The last few posts have been about measuring temperatures and new records. It was noted that while Maine's reading of -50°F was recognized as a new record low for January for the entire state, the -38°F reading in Illinois was rejected by the state's climatologist, Jim Angel, despite the fact that the weather station had be calibrated the day before. Jim had his own rationale.
That does raise the issue... again... about the quality of weather stations. In a recent post at "Watts Up With That?" Anthony Watt provided an update about the survey of surface weather stations [as opposed to satellites]. This survey measures the error built into the readings because of surrounding... artificial heat sources, nearby reflective surfaces, etc. He showed the following graphs [note all of the red and orange]:
Almost 60% of the officially accepted stations have a warm bias of greater than 2°F due to things like air conditioner exhaust, asphalt parking lots or roofs, highways, brick walls, etc. And another 11% have a bias of more than 5°F.
That's about 5 times the increase that has sparked hysteria about global warming!They support the hypothesis, so they are acceptable. Yet a station that was calibrated to correct measurement standards within 24 hours of recording a new record low was rejected. Let's not ascribe political motivations to this. Let's just ask some basic questions: if more than 2/3 of surface weather stations have at least 2°F error, what is the standard for accuracy that is acceptable... and why is that standard acceptable... and why is it reasonable to reject a station with zero bias?
And, further, why are new statewide, all-time, high temperature records not being set?I'm thinking cooling... real cooling... cool!