Using composition fallacies to argue against global warming

[bascule]

This was an interesting blog:

 

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

 

He finds weather stations which clearly give erroneous results. Some of them are quite humorous, such as this one:

 

 

Here's a station positioned within approximately 5 feet of a barrel used by a janitor to burn trash.

 

Having written the data collection software for a 50+ station network, I can certainly attest that such stations occur frequently. I've heard similar horror stories about some of the stations in the network.

 

However, I'm guessing many of these photos were taken by network administrators who noticed anomalous readings. That's generally how all the "horror stories" in our network came about: the network administrator noticed an anomalous station, asked someone to check it out, and lo and behold there was some funny business going on. I'm guessing many of the pictures in this blog come from similar accounts.

 

However, the blog is laced with anti-global warming rhetoric. It's using these particularly bad stations as part of a composition fallacy which argues that because some of the stations clearly have external influences affecting the temperatures they're recording that the entire dataset must be biased.

 

Some of the stations aren't even questionable, such as the Edinburgh Royal Observatory:

 

 

This is a Google Earth satellite photo of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh. The weather station, at 55°55′22.71″N 3°11′17.69″W is the white box in the middle of the grass circle. Of concern is not just the nearby roads, but also the buildings. It appears the station is almost completely encircled by tall buildings.

 

This means that the heat from the buildings will significantly bias the temperature, and reduce wind which adds further bias.

 

You’d think top scientists would know better?

 

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

 

I mean, yes, no doubt the air conditioners and fire barrel within 5 feet of a station will most certainly influence its readings. The Edinburgh station is completely fine, and it sounds as if this guy is completely unqualified to assess station placement.

 

Furthermore, he doesn't mention which stations are in the Global Historical Climate Network. While I collected data for a 50 station network, none of our stations were in the GHCN. If our stations were placed poorly, that matters not for climate change research, because our data isn't used for that.

 

All in all, this blog serves as an example of the typical fear, uncertainty, and distrust lodged against the climate science community, entirely based on specious reasoning.

[Dak]

iirc, temperatures are, on average, 3C higher in cities than in the surroundings, so 'being surrounded by buildings' does, kinda, alter the temperature.

 

I'm pretty sure that anyone capable of getting a research grant to buy a weather-station is aware of this, tho.

 

i'm not going to go on another windge, but it really does amaze me how people can assume that no-one's thought of what they managed to notice in one second without any training or knowledge (or, often, IQ).

[bascule]

iirc, temperatures are, on average, 3C higher in cities than in the surroundings, so 'being surrounded by buildings' does, kinda, alter the temperature.

 

That's the Urban Heat Island effect, and certainly extends beyond being "near buildings".