A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. It makes one wonder why?
Since global warming research often uses the suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, the accuracy of the entire theory must therefore be called into question as its conclusions are derived from likely false data. Still the MSM ignores this explosive story.
But, it is evident that the so-called scientific community has also ignored the arguments in this story as there has yet to be a weather station moved or its location and/or construction reevaluated.
Anthony Watts has a great website detailing the problems with some of these weather stations, but there are far more out there than the ones that Mr. Watts details. He cannot be expected to catch them all, naturally. So, this report details another problematic station. This one is situated in the Bandelier National Monument Park in New Mexico.

The Bandelier National Monument is a place of great natural beauty with a rich American history going back into prehistoric times. It is 32,000 some acres of amazing nature with indigenous Indian archeological sites like the Anasazi cliff dwellings, numerous petroglyphs to see and caves to visit. The natural awesomeness of the Pajarito Plateau easily impresses with its red earth and cliffs and sporting miles of backpacking trails and picknicking areas. It's a wonderful place and a great natural, American resource.
As it so happens, Bandelier National Monument also sports a weather station. Off the trail (and therefore not legally approachable I'm told) sits a weather station right up against the red cliffs of the Monument.
The placement of this station is most likely a major problem with the data that might be had from the weather devices there, however. The cliffs may be fun to explore, they may be beautiful and they are certainly a great and wondrous place for historical sightseeing but any area right up against the cliffs is a horrible place for a station that measures temperatures.
Consider this: during a hot summer day have you ever walked up next to the solid brick wall of a building exposed to direct sunlight? Have you ever had cause to place your hand on those bricks exposed to the blazing summer sun? If you ever have, you'll have noticed that heat simply radiates in waves from those bricks. In fact, for hours after the sun goes down that brick facade will radiate heat.
This radiation of heat occurs because materials such as brick and rock absorbs heat and holds it for quite a while radiating it back out into the air through the day. In fact, Indian peoples throughout history have used these New Mexico cliffs to keep warm by snuggling up to the great rock edifice to soak up the heat it radiates.
And this heat daily radiating from the cliffs is just the problem here. Looking at the photo of the weather station will show how close this station is to those massive rocks. So, this raises the question: wouldn't the heat constantly radiating from the cliff face cause the temperature devices to measure unduly high temperatures? Might not this temperature data be consistently higher to some degree than it otherwise might be should the station had been placed, say, in the near by meadow which is away from the cliffs?
These are the sorts of questions that need answering about our entire weather station system. The common sense of the construction and placement of these stations needs to be reviewed so that we might be able to assure proper accumulation of weather data.
Of course, a big question must be asked due to the failure to address the situation. Do the researchers who turn this inaccurate data into justifications for global warming theories really want to have proper data? That is the big question, indeed.
But, whatever the case, this particular weather station in the Bandelier National Monument Park needs to be reevaluated for its effectiveness, as do so many others.
What we end up with from the many revelations of the inadequate weather stations across the country is a failure to trust the entire system of weather collecting devices, yet the MSM and the scientific community has failed to highlight this story. Wouldn’t it seem a natural story for the MSM to tackle? It has drama, it has shocking consequences and it has a theme of failure; all things the MSM normally love to explore.
Yet, even as this story broke wide open in the blogosphere months ago, we see no grand stories on a story that cries out for it, no “investigative journalism” from the MSM.
Shouldn’t we be asking why that is?
**WELCOME NEAL BOORTZ READERS**
(Hat tip Newsbuster member sarcasmo)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thanks for posting this story, Warner!
October 1, 2007 - 05:17 ET by sarcasmoWhen one of my brothers spotted this station, I thought of NB. I knew I could not escape politics, even that far out-west! I'd encourage others visiting Bandelier to have a look (we're not professional photographers, obviously!) because the dishonestly-located weather station next to that warm southern wall could have easily been located honestly in a nearby meadow, or in a dishonestly-cold area in a shade next to the creek.
In one pic, the station's obvious, and that was taken from about where the random hikers are standing in the other pic. If you go straight up from the last random hiker, the station is the tiny white spot up next to the wall. You really have to be there and see what the Anasazi did to stay-warm to see just how dishonest this station's placement was, but the bonus is you get to see a lot more than just a misplaced weather station. (For the record, I have yet to spot my first honestly-placed weather station of this sort.)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Usual Argument
October 1, 2007 - 06:44 ET by allanfThe usual argument is that even though the device is not accurate, its error is uniform, so that the difference of two readings negates the error term. Getting clean data will always be next to impossible. One can still make qualitative statements, such that temperature is trending upwards globally. You can also record the data from a weather station as given. If one takes a large set of readings from "independent" weather stations in an area, one can argue that the readings will "converge" to something "more accurate". I just don't see how one can get to an accurate measurement of growth rate of .1º -2º C per decade.
The problem, as I see it, is
October 1, 2007 - 06:47 ET by sarcasmoThat the politically-biased placement error isn't randomly distributed. I mean, right next to the south wall in that canyon, it was a VERY different climate than down among the cottonwoods by the stream. I'd have been annoyed if some biased person had placed it in the shade in the bottom of the canyon for the same reason. An honest placement would have been in the meadow between us and the random hikers, but it's way more obvious if you're standing there.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Placement
October 1, 2007 - 06:51 ET by allanfYou may be correct about the placement of weather stations. Take a look at my post below, which reproduces the abstract of Hansen's paper on temperature measurment. He seems to be fitting the actual data to a climate model.
Looks like AGW guru James
October 1, 2007 - 06:42 ET by chessplayerLooks like AGW guru James Hansen is brushing aside the importance of weather stations in the US, and does`nt seem to care if the readings are accurate or not;
"I asked Hansen by e-mail last week “How important is the data from these (1,221 ground) weather stations in your climate modeling?”
“It has no effect on modeling,” Hansen replied. “Of course we compare modeling results with observed temperatures. But the observational analysis is based mainly on measurements at places remote from human influence."
“The large observed warming’s are in remote regions, e.g., the Arctic, Siberia, Canada -- the warming is clearly real, as verified in many different ways, as described in our papers. At any given station there can be significant problems, but the uncertainty in global temperature change is rather small.”
"I also asked Hansen if he was confident that these weather stations were "providing accurate/reliable temperature readings or readings that can be accurately tweaked/adjusted to take into account any heat-island effects or poor site placements.”
“We have enough reliable stations to get a reliable temperature change for the U.S., which covers only 2 percent of the globe,” Hansen answered.
"Noting that Watts has found many sites whose readings are clearly compromised, I asked Hansen if that concerned him “about the long-term reliability of the temperature readings.”
“No,” Hansen's e-mail said.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=18E47A61-B9EC-407B-812A-A6150DDAB5C8
If these weather stations do
October 1, 2007 - 06:47 ET by Warner Todd HustonIf these weather stations do not figure into any useful research... then why do we have them at all? And how do we KNOW that they aren't used to influence globaloney figures?
You misunderstand...
October 1, 2007 - 07:34 ET by c5thenThe temperature stations were very usefull in developing and refining the computer model. Once that was tweaked with Fudge Factors to show what was desired, the temperature stations are now not important at all (least they tend to disprove the all-knowing and all-powerful climate model.
All hail the climate model.
Pay no attention to those pesky satellite temperature readings behind the curtain, they are flawed.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
"Pay no attention to those
October 2, 2007 - 08:54 ET by danbo"Pay no attention to those pesky satellite temperature readings behind the curtain, they are flawed"
No we can adjust them by using a corrective factor taken from a land station on the roof of a building. Or next to a south facing rock clift. Or better yet under the air conditioner.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Hansen
October 1, 2007 - 06:48 ET by allanfBelow is the abstract of Hansen's paper on temperature modelling:
Note that he fits the data so that " Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three-dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability"Well what a suprise - he fits the data to his model.
Hansen (continued)
October 1, 2007 - 06:56 ET by allanfI also want to point out that the work of Hansen should not be taken as the gospel in temperature measurements. Reproduced below is the abstract of a 2002 paper which contends these methods will cause temperature to trend upwards.
Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database
Robert C. Balling Jr.
Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Public policy should not be based on a paper measuring temperature growth rate of 0.5-0.7°C in the past century. Nor should it be based on a thirty year warming trend.
the raw temperature records
October 1, 2007 - 17:38 ET by dahliatraversthe raw temperature records in the USHCN are adjusted substantially to account for a variety of potential contaminants to the dataset.
Is this the state of data accumulation in science today?? This is not acceptable, especially - your point, allanf - as the basis to create such impactful policy.
This is where the battle will be won
October 1, 2007 - 06:59 ET by PopularTechThanks to Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre we will hopefully in a year have an accurate temperature record from non-biased stations. I suspect what we will find will look nothing like the hockey stick.
To see some preliminary results:
A First Look at the USHCN Quality Classification
Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
You can clearly see the stations that fail basic quality control standards trend warmer and show reduced 1930-40s temps. Eye-opening indeed.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
And so the obvious
October 1, 2007 - 08:43 ET by 10ksnookerThis is peer reviewed science? Excatly how? This is wide open to anybody, in this case the George Soros funded Hansen, applying fudge factors to achieve the output that is desired for political reasons.
If this were real science, the data would all be laid out, the photos of all the HCN weather stations would be on file, the process used to fudge the data would be public, and the review process would be open. Any qualified scientist could reproduce the results, real peer review. But, like what was done with the infamous hockey stick, the software was hidden from view hopefully long enough to cement public opinion that the lie was true. This is just part two of the same lie, after the failure of the hockey stick.
Peer review, consensus, Hah.
And how about this, see anything wrong with the same crew that produced the hockey stick lie continue with the same investigation. Nothing wrong with that, right -- Sure there isn't, anyone heard of fool me twice?
The way the current data and software was introduced to the public is in line with the funding 'Soros' supplied through his politicization of science foundation, it's a con job with the warming bias built in. How else do you explain the zero news stories around the NASA acknowledged y2K data error. Sure it was an error, any bets?
You want real science, real data, and real results? Fire the whole crew at NASA and hire on a new group of investigators, and do all work in public on the Internet. Then and only then will you get real answers. This we should demand, before the first tax is passed on to the public.
Now about that ozone hole. Sigh, looks like more of the same ...
Posted todat
October 1, 2007 - 09:10 ET by chessplayerPosted todat at climateaudit.org
Hansen in France
"Demesure has sent in some interesting comparison of “Hansen data” to KNMI versios of European series and comments as follows:
"Adjustments aside, Hansen has decided to keep the data that make an upper trend and discard those that don’t.
For Wellington, he deletes hot temperatures before 1940. For France, he keeps low temperatures before 1940 that even Meteo France considers NON reliable. That’s not cherry picking, that’s banana picking!"
"I’ve compared GISS and the European database and this data massaging is eyes popping (graphs of the 9 stations common to the 2 database are here, note also the inexplicable GISS’ 1990 jump on nearly all stations, jump that is absent in the European database)."
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2134#comments
How Dare You?
October 1, 2007 - 16:11 ET by Wildcatter1980How dare you? How dare you smear the anthropogenic global warming crowd with common sense and logic? ;-)
Keep up the good work! :-)
Just my $0.02