(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bug, or a feature–skewed NOAA data

 We all knew this, but the NOAA data showing warming trends is bad to the tune of 90% crap data.

Anthony Watts from the Heartland Institute actually went out to check where the weather data stations are located.  What he found were that these stations that used to be in country, leafy, areas are now surrounded by concrete and asphalt.

In order to produce accurate temperature readings based on NOAA’s own published standards, thermometers are supposed to be in natural,  “pristine” locations like fields, forests, hilltops, etc. But Dr. Watts’ research has revealed that more than 90% of NOAA thermometers are in inappropriate places. 96% are in parking lots, on buildings, against brick walls, or in other artificial environments. The bricks, asphalt and other human construction materials used in these environments artificially trap heat, leading to a “warming bias” in the collected data. Thermometers placed in natural settings register lower average temperatures.

 But NOAA data is used to gin up climate change hysteria and the present placement of those stations definitely feeds the agenda of the alarmists.

So I’m guessing that NOAA won’t be correcting for heat island effect or will be moving the stations to appropriate places in order to have more accurate data.



  1. And don't fail to mention that many of those stations that once existed no longer do, and their measurements are now generated by “Interpolated” data..

    Like

  2. The “Bad data” is only part of it.Back a few years they “Homogenized” the data and out right adjusted the 30's-40's DOWN to make an upward trend.F'n liars and cheaters

    Like

  3. When I worked in research we had saying when we got data we didn't expect. Take the data you got and multiply it by the John Doe Constant to get the data you want. There was a researcher's name attached to the constant but it's been 40+ years so I'll should let it go. You see the constant used all the time in funded research on Covid, global warming and economics.

    Like

  4. This has been 'known' and ignored since the 70s… sigh

    Like

  5. Anon–True.Matthew–Yep, hence the 'hockey stick' that has been debunked.Gerry–When the data doesn't match the agenda, make it match the agenda.NFO–Yep. And now it's the basis for world domination.

    Like

  6. In 2004, Micheal Chrichton wrote “State of Fear” about radical environmentalists and the use of skewed data to implement an agenda. He specifically discussed placement of weather stations and the impact on the data collected. Good book. Recommended read.

    Like

  7. often papers claim''We have found.'' meaning their computer model shows such and such-not real data

    Like

  8. Neal Boortz was talking about this twenty years ago.

    Like

  9. And don't fail to mention that many of those stations that once existed no longer do, and their measurements are now generated by “Interpolated” data..

    Like

  10. The “Bad data” is only part of it.Back a few years they “Homogenized” the data and out right adjusted the 30's-40's DOWN to make an upward trend.F'n liars and cheaters

    Like

  11. When I worked in research we had saying when we got data we didn't expect. Take the data you got and multiply it by the John Doe Constant to get the data you want. There was a researcher's name attached to the constant but it's been 40+ years so I'll should let it go. You see the constant used all the time in funded research on Covid, global warming and economics.

    Like

  12. This has been 'known' and ignored since the 70s… sigh

    Like

  13. Anon–True.Matthew–Yep, hence the 'hockey stick' that has been debunked.Gerry–When the data doesn't match the agenda, make it match the agenda.NFO–Yep. And now it's the basis for world domination.

    Like

  14. In 2004, Micheal Chrichton wrote “State of Fear” about radical environmentalists and the use of skewed data to implement an agenda. He specifically discussed placement of weather stations and the impact on the data collected. Good book. Recommended read.

    Like

  15. often papers claim''We have found.'' meaning their computer model shows such and such-not real data

    Like

  16. Neal Boortz was talking about this twenty years ago.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *