Another supplemental to an upcoming post.
Some of the ‘most reliable’ temperature data used in ‘climate science’ is land based surface station data. Meanwhile, Global Warming Alarmists don’t like to talk about something known as Urban Heat Island Effect. Combined, surface data is deeply flawed. Hold your breath for some photos of actual surface stations, but first note UHIE:
Now on to surface stations. A key issue is that with these stations its up to a person to walk out every day of the year, for the history of the station, and record the high and low for each day, and then eventually send the data to NASA. The irony is that US station data is widely considered one of the more reliable large scale sets of temperature data. Would you trust Russian data more, for instance?
From there the key issue is the locations of the surface stations, many of which have had urbanization expand around them for many decades. SurfaceStations.org is a open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:
Before seeing some flawed data sites, first observe a properly scientific one:
And now for the nasty…
From surfacestations.org’s “Odd Sites” list:
Marysville, CA:
Forest Grove, OR:
Tahoe City, CA:
Roseburg, OR:
And there’s plenty more like that found in the database.
IIB, you may want to check out this post:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week-the-great-petition-fraud/ The 3rd one is on the city heat.
Dear Lo,
That did include an impressive photo comparison of the same lake. I’d really like the references of that data, as should you, on the specifics of the ? satellite(s) used to make those images. If done with different instruments then the color scheme is garbage. Lack of precipitation could account for the water levels. But moreover, how are we to know what time of year / season the images were taken? Something like that could easily be done manipulatively: even the TIME OF DAY is at issue with their images.
I’ve been studying how they go about the proxy methods, and it turns out that not even the satellites measure actual temperature. Instead they measure radiances, and attempt to use math models to figure out the actual temp / climate changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
As I’m about to expose, there lies virtually no truth in any of the different proxies and ways that temp. is measured. The historical record is a fraud. Pictures like ‘yours’ can have meaning, but we must have data to be able to ‘recreate’ the results. That is the scientific process, of which Climategate has undoubtedly proven the head hanchos of global warming alarmism have proven to be all out against.
Which brings us back to my original words, except now we must trust in NASA. “Trust in NASA”… do you see an oxymoron there?