Anthony Watt's effort to survey weather stations for quality issues is beginning to pay off... big time. It turns out that "man-made global warming" may have much more to do with GIGO than CO2. Below is from a recent post at Watts Up With That?
Remember as you read Anthony's material that our government is prepared to send $ billions to China to fight global warming as a follow-up to sending our manufacturing capability there... and you get to pay for "science that is settled." It appears that the only thing that was settled was the weather equipment... into the muck.
So, if I splice my weight record over the past few years on to my wife's weight record prior to that, it is ample evidence that she has a serious weight problem... or I better get my data the hell out of there.How Not to Measure Temperature, Part 25
This picture, taken by www.surfacestations.org volunteer Don Kostuch is the Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.
The complete set of pictures is here
From NASA’s GISS, the plot makes it pretty easy to see there was no discernible multi-decadal temperature trend until the A/C units were installed. And it’s not hard to figure out when that was.
And as you know, that curious jump in the GISS record, even though it coincided with the placement of the a/c heat exchangers (I checked with the chief engineer of the radio station and he pulled the invoices to check), it turns out that wasn’t the most important issue.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit saw something else, mainly because other nearby stations had the nearly the same odd jump in the data. That jump turned out to be discovery of a data splicing glitch in the NASA GISS processes joining the data pre and post year 2000.
Way to go, Anthony! How can I ever believe this statement from now on: "Trust us. We're here from the government to help you." Or as one commenter about that post said:
Gary
So how long did they run parallel equipment at old and new spots to compare the difference and at least be able to estimate a bias at the old spot? What, nobody thought of that? Is it stupidity, arrogance, or bureaucratic incompetence? Whatever it is, it isn’t science.