New Study Shows Half Of The Reported Global Warming In The USA Is Artificial

We’re a little late to the rodeo, but you should go see the big news from Anthony Watt and his team at Watts Up With That?

Watt released a new paper that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started that he started in 2007.

The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues. This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S. General Accounting Office investigation and report titled: Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network.

Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.

Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:

These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.

Other findings include, but are not limited to:

  • Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
  • Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
  • Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
  • Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
  • The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
  • Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

Congratulations to Anthony and his team!

Bakery Owner Declines Biden Appearance Over "You Didn't Build That"
Instapundit Goes Dark For Thousands, Here's Your Fix
  • jim_m

    This has been pointed out for some time now. Whereas it may have been argued that researchers were unaware of the deficiencies in the weather reporting stations, this can no longer be said.

    The continued use of the corrupt data indicates that while investigators may have originally been fooled they now continue to use bad data because it supports their conclusions better than honest data. Investigators using this data without disclaimer are actively and deliberately committing scientific fraud.

    • herddog505

      Oh, they knew, all right. And they “homogenized” and “adjusted” the data to (ahem) correct for urban heat island effects and other problems. These people are SCIENTISTS, after all.

  • Hank_M

    I can hardly wait for the LSM to report on this.

  • Steve Crickmore condemning all us unbelievers in 5… 4… 3…

    • retired.military

      Now you know that Steve is visiting the north pole since Al Gore said that it would have any ice on it this year.

  • Sky__Captain

    So, global warming IS man-made.

    To quote the late Johnny Carson, “I did not know that.”

  • retired.military

    But but Al Gore said is was real. So it has to be.

    • Sky__Captain

      It is real. It is man-made.
      It also helps explain why none of the computer models work. The effect of poorly sited monitoring stations and NOAA “adjusting” the temperature record was never factored it.

  • 914

    “New Study Shows Half Of The Reported Global Warming In The USA Is Artificial”

    The other half is fake..

  • GeraldWilhite

    It’s refreshing to see a study based on real data instead of computer models.