Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Dec 21 2009 - 13:24:50 EST

Rich Wrote:

>>>>I'd take that 69% number with a grain of salt. For example, when I
>>>>checked the Fort Morgan CO station in the GHCN Google Maps showed its
>>>>location was in the middle of a farm field. The people who are
>>>>cataloging the bad stations can help everybody out if they give the WMO
>>>>station number which would show whether they are in the GHCN list or
>>>>not. If they found something really egregious then these stations could
>>>>be given special attention or dropped. Of the U.S. stations used to
>>>>compute climate change16% of the stations are in areas with more than
>>>>30,000 people and many of the urban stations are in parks. Here is a
>>>>comparison on what the warming looks like when comparing all the
>>>>stations against the rural stations:<<<<

I want again to note that the picture Rich sends us to is comparing
population size not heat source differences. Just because a station is
rural does not mean it is free of heat sources. I have mentioned this before
but get no acknowledgement for my trouble.

Again, here are some pictures of rural stations with heat sources next to
the thermometers. It seems to me that no matter how many times I point this
out, it isn't paid any attention. Population does not equal heat sources.
Ancient cities did not nearly produce as much heat as a modern city does.
Cities started heating up when we started building cement roads. Rural
stations with heat sources below.

Wilber Wa population 878

John Martin Reservoir Colorado a State Park--rural

Happy Camp CAlifornia a state park
There are about 20 ac units out there.

I really hope someone will acknowledge that ACs might bias the temperature

Merely equating population to heat source doesn't do it. One must be sure
that one is comparing non-heated ACs to heated ACs. At least that seems
reasonable to me. Wouldn't you agree Rich?

Now back to the Fort Morgan station:

There are several things Rich which happen. There are lots of station moves
that no one reports to the weather service. Secondly, Can you please point
us to where you got the lat/long for that station? The USHCN only lists 40
deg N, 104 W, which
of course is about a 70 mile by ~60 mile area of territory. No doubt that
the center of that is a farmer's field. Without more digits one can't
locate the precise position by doing a google map search. So, please if you
will tell us the precise coordinates? I am hoping to learn about a new data
source today.

Also you should be aware that for the entire history of the weather service
stations have mostly been within easy walking distance of a building because
no one is going to hike or drive a mile to take the temperature reading. And
now with MMTS available, which require electricity, there are almost no
stations far from electricity, which means few far from buildings. I have a
barn on my ranch about 200 yards south of the house. It does not have
electricity. It would cost $4000 I am told to electrify it. No one is going
to pay $4 grand plus to put a thermometer in a farmer's field. So, unless
you can provide possibly a picture from google earth showing the Fort Morgan
station out in that field,and provide the precise coordinates, I don't think
I will agree that you have actually found the Fort Morgan site.

Now I will, in all honesty confess that I can't find the structure in Ft
Morgan that looks from above like the structure in the Fort Morgan pictures
from the poor quality google maps that I have available to me If I could,
you could be sure I would zap it right out here for all to see.

I would note that just having come back from a government agency trying to
get a new business started, that you have more faith in the government to do
things right and drop bad stations than I do. Below is a picture of a
weather station survey. It violates the siting recommendations, which I
posted last night but will post again.

" Sensors located at
least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as
buildings, concrete
surfaces, and parking lots."
p. 6

The Waterville Washington weather survey form is a bit blurry but can be
read. Enlarge it to 150% and read the last line which says

"USDA NRCS Office within 150 feet E of PO at Waterville WA."

The green arrow represents the lat long on the form and that agrees with
the pictures of Waterville also violating the siting standards. Note that 4
buildings are within 100 ft, contra the form. You can see the 100ft scale on
the bottom of the picture. Note also that one building is within a few feet
of the station.. Here is the picture.

Notice that it is not 100 meters away from concrete surfaces, reflecting
surfaces, or 100 meters away from a building. Note in the picture below that
the station is just next to hot car engines--that will do wonders for the
measurements. This site violates EVERYTHING in the siting list above.

So, Rich, please explain if the government will get rid of bad stations like
these, why they didn't get rid of this one? The climatologist of Washington
State dutifully surveyed it and entered its bad siting into the form and
nothing happened.
The climatologists know of its badness but do nothing. Why?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 21 13:25:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 21 2009 - 13:25:01 EST