Why do AGW proponents continue to use surface station measurements?

Question

Especially GISS to demonstrate the warming trend over the last 30 years, and more specifically to identify rate of warming and show that warming has continued unabated 1998.

Surface station measurements are contaminated by countless flaws and inaccuracies, whether its improper positioning, UHI effect or poor quality sensors. The whole of the Earth is clearly not entirely monitored and certainly not evenly or with an equal quality. Geographical constraints make it very difficult to get data for many areas.

Satellite data are far more accurate, cover the whole globe, land and sea evenly and are free from locational biases.

So why, then, do AGW proponents continue to use surface data, when they are clearly less accurate? Is it maybe because GISS and HadCrut averaged show marginally more warming than RSS and UAH averaged? Or because GHG theory says there should be 1.2-1.5 times as much warming in the lower troposphere than at the surface? Or because the satellites show no warming since

Answer 1

I am not sure.  Here is an interesting source for information about temperature sensors placed next to a/c outlets, etc.  

www.surfacestations.org

oops! I am linking you to the info you linked to.  I love that site.  Of course even with the photo evidence the enviromentalists say you don't know what you are talking about.

Answer 2

Bob,

If you had actually read your study, you would know that Peterson et al studied UHI, while Watts also looks at urbanization (different from UHI), land use changes, calibration issues, and siting issues in general (over concrete, under trees, by ACs, etc.). It doesn't really sound like Peterson was "refuting" anything Watts has done.

And I don't think that NCDC thinks Watts' work is "nonsense", as they recently invited him to their headquarters to give a presentation on siting issues. He is likely one of the reason that NCDC is updating their temperature stations. Yeah, real nonsense.

I doubt that anyone would call the surface temperature record high quality data, but it is what we have, and it matches reasonably well satellite data, so we go with it.

And Bob, you keep saying that the NAS agrees with this and with that, mentioning all 1800 of them as if the all agree. A NAS statement doesn't mean that all the members agree, but rather the board members agree. While I am sure that a majority of NAS members would agree with the statements, you can't use it as proof that all 1800 agree.

Alex,

it is funny to note that the vast majority of temperature stations in the U.S. are CRN4. Real high quality stuff. That isn't even mentioning the temperature data from outside the U.S.. Too bad there aren't more people like Watts--I think everyone (except maybe Bob) would agree that he and his volunteers are doing a great thing for climate  and weather related sciences (and science in general), regardless of his views on GW.

Edit:

Bob said:

"EDIT - The stations that Watts criticizes are overwhelmingly urban, those he likes are overwhelmingly rural. The study is directly on point. End EDIT."

Watts and his volunteers have surveyed over half of the U.S. temperature stations. The vast majority of them are poorly sited, even out of the rural temperature stations. The stations that he criticizes are poorly sited under CRN standards. Many are in urban areas, but many are not. The Peterson study hardly "refutes" his work.

"EDIT - The NAS doesn't issue anything most all of it's members don't agree with."

Like I said: a majority of members likely agree with the statements, but a statement by itself isn't proof that all of its members agree.

"To support a guy with the scientific credentials of Watts over them is nuts."

I support Watts' work on assessing surface stations, and I don't know why you wouldn't. Do I take his word over NAS? No. Does that mean NAS always knows better than Watts? No. Do those with better scientific credentials always know what is right? No. Should scientific credentials decide what is right? No.

Did NAS say that there were no problems with surface temperature data? No.

Like I said above, the fact that NCDC invited Watts to give a presentation on siting issues should be evidence enough that what he is doing is not "nonsense".

Answer 3

Your underlying assumption is wrong. There are instrumentation issues with any measurement system,  including satellites.  Several studies were reported in the late 90's and early 2000, based on now known flawed data (not properly accounting for orbital drift) from satellite temperature monitoring.  Fortunately, that was discovered through the scientific process and we have increased confidence in the data now.

Any scientists worth his salt, uses numerical analysis and statistic methods to detect and filter out bad data. This isn't something new to climate science, so your inference of tarnished or untrustworthy data from surface stations is simply false.

Since we didn't have satellite measurements before the 70's, no long term temperature analysis can be done using that data.  Trying to jump from one data set (pre-1978) to another (post 1978) adds additional problems of it's own. So clearly, it's necessary to continue using long-running surface station measurements (GISS, HadCRU, or NCDC) to monitor climate change.

Here's a nice analysis that shows just how consistent (increasing confidence in the data) the different land-based datasets of temperatures are:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

Answer 4

Because it's been repeatedly verified that it's good data.  Better, actually, than the satellite data.

Watts has a lot of pictures, and nothing more.  If he could prove his case with actual TEMPERATURE data, he would.  He can't, so he doesn't.  There have been many peer reviewed studies refuting his nonsense, such as:

T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C2941:AO...

EDIT - The stations that Watts criticizes are overwhelmingly urban, those he likes are overwhelmingly rural.  The study is directly on point.  End EDIT.

The more reputable skeptics (like Lindzen) don't question the temperature data.  And the National Academy of Sciences supports it.  That's 1800 of the countries best scientists, selected by their peers.  Getting elected to the Academy is like winning the Oscar in science.  Watts doesn't bat in their league.

EDIT - The NAS doesn't issue anything most all of it's members don't agree with.  To support a guy with the scientific credentials of Watts over them is nuts.

EDIT 2 - NCDC invited him to speak, because they have an open mind.  When they saw he had nothing but a bunch of pretty pictures (no TEMPERATURE data to support his case) they went about their business.

Answer 5

It's all about the carbon tax .

Answer 6

No,  the weather sensors are ventilated and maintained in areas for the best possible surface temps.  UA soundings and Rawinsonde data are accurate and don't support your contentions.

Alex -  you know nothing about the equipment.  I've used them.  you are totally wrong about their accuracy.