More Bogus Warming Data

I’d guess almost one-half a degree in bias in data prior to 1965 for this latest example from Anthony Watts; not greatly different from #51 to the layman.  Apparently, there is a systematic bias in this data which has been used to decide how and where to spend tax dollars.  It seems to me the half-degree is equal to the entire claimed anthropogenic warming effect!   

Naturally, Jim Hansen is up to his eyeballs in this excremental information.  What a bowl diver!

 Watt’s Up With That #52/

As is typical when an MMTS sensor gets installed by NOAA/NWS to replace the traditional Stevenson Screen, it got closer to human habitation, and in this case, a LOT closer. Too close I’d say:


In a comment on the subject, Steve Mosher offers an explanation:

In Hansen 2001 Hansen says he uses nightlights to determine
if a station is Rural in the US and population everywhere else.
Miles city population is less than 10K which makes it rural,
BUT, nightlights ( satellite imagery taken in 1995)
indicates a brightness factor for Miles of 26! effectively making it urban.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: