(Author notes: Welcome.)

First, I have to give credit to Anthony Watts, whose blog you linked to. He and his hardy band of volunteers record (photograph) surface temperature stations. He archives this data publicly for all to see and for scientists to review.

He has discovered such things as changes from whitewash to paint, which create a shift in the historical record. There is, for example, a downward adjustment for before the days when the stations were hooded. All well and good. But where are the adjustments now?

But the paint issue is the very least of it.

This is the gold seam: The stations are not properly sited. They have been woefully overtaken by urban, suburban, and exurban creep, resulting in astounding warm biases.

Of the 500+ stations (of 1221) observed, over 6 out of 7 have a 1+ degree C warm bias. Over 2 of 3 have a 2+ degree C warm bias. 1 in 7 has a FIVE+ degree C warm bias.

Only 4% of surface stations are properly sited and only 9% more are minimally acceptable (possible bias, but less than 1C).

He is using NOAA’s own published standards and estimated evaluations. When one averages these standards together, the result is a whopping 2.0C degree warm bias in the stations observed so far. Even if the NOAA/CRN estimates of effect are off by a factor of three, well, that’s the entirety the NOAA estimate of 20th century Global Warming then and there.

He is not factoring in Urban Heat Island effect. UHI masks the effects of site violations, but, on the other hand, it seems that UHI effect itself has been scandalously lowballed.

At any rate, many of the worst violations occur with rural stations.

That’s the Offset.

On to the Delta:

If these shocking violations had been with the system from the outset, one might have argued that while the readings were too high, the measurements of the increases were accurate. But this is clearly not the case.

Most surface stations were originally located on the outskirts of cities. Well sited, and away from contaminating factors. But what has been occurring over the decades is that suburban and exurban creep has been overtaking the stations at a rate far greater than it has been taking over the surface of the earth. So this has affected the official rate [sic] of change in the temperature record, especially since 1980.

Heat sinks such as parking lots, roads, shopping malls have severely encroached on the station net. (If you want to warm a greenhouse, all you have to do is add a large rock–the heat sink effect pumps up T-Max and then knocks the bottom off the T-Mins as it releases accumulated Joules at night. Temps are measured by a function of T-Max, T-Min. So the effects are obvious.)

Of especial consideration is the absolute scandal of the MMTS switchover (beginning in the 1980s, note well), which has by the nature of the equipment (which includes a cable) drawn the stations next to buildings. That’s the main reason that over half the stations observed are biased by CRN-4 site violation.

Waste heat, particularly from the Air Conditioning Revolution since 1980, spews in the vicinity of many of the stations which used to be separated and isolated. And exhaust. And heating units. Even Barbeque pits. (The photographs of the site violations are often as amusing as they are shocking.)

All this is particularly sobering when one considers that the alleged temperature increase during the entire 20th century is well under 1 degree C.

We are not talking isolated incidents or cherry-picking, here. We are talking massive and ubiquitous–and mostly recent–spurious warming bias. None of the above is adjusted for. None of it. Until Anthony Watts came along no one had any idea such appalling conditions existed.

Even the (unrelated) UHI adjustment has been called into serious question (most recently by LaDochy et al, 2007), and, as previously stated, many of the worst violations occur in unlighted areas. “Lights=0″ (as per Hansen, 2001) is fast becoming a standing joke.

And a heat sink, by its nature, continually exaggerates a small temperature increase. Waste heat produces a onetime offset. But a heat sink is the gift that keeps on giving. (Also consider that a heat sink will exaggerate the rate of a cooling, as the process “undoes” itself.)

From what I can tell, there has been a modest, real rise in temperatures since 1980, partly due to man, but mostly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation swing, the measurement of which has been exaggerated by site violations introduced since that time.

It is also noteworthy that the US system is considered the cream of the crop and that most foreign systems (even Europe’s) is considered much worse. (Australia’s seems pretty good.) Once the US system has been observed, there are plans to take the show on the road.

And I haven’t even touched on the astounding adjustments that have (and have not) been applied to the raw data. I have looked at GISS and NOAA examples, the former of which adjusts the past records down and the latter of which adjusts the current records up! All I can say (to quote Al Gore), that “everything that’s supposed to be UP is DOWN and everything that’s supposed to be DOWN is UP!”

I am trying to put together some rational semblence of the world temperature records, and compare the semi-raw and adjusted figures. Still a WIP …

So look at the meat of Mr. Watts’ site. Pay particular attention to sections entitled “How Not to Measure Temperature”!

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

“Lights=0″, Out!

You know, I’ve been starting to say this myself lately. Maybe I’ll blog about it. If you’d be kind enough to post your thinking here, I’ll incorporate your thinking into the article and credit you.

There’s also gradualism or we wouldn’t be spitballing over protecting minor subspecies because the populations got split by some river valley or other.

FWIW, I am an atheist (agnostic, I suppose, because what do I actually know for sure?) who is stuck on the two great mysteries: First Cause (which religion doesn’t “solve”, it merely inserts an additional layer) and intelligence.

As for global warming, I don’t think God will protect us. I just think the surface temperature measurements are wrong (for a number of logical reasons). I also thnik homeostasis clicks in or else we’d have “gone Venus” a long time ago.

It breaks the chain of inheritance.

I don’t necessarily think this confounds Darwin; it might possibly provide a means for something akin to Gould’s saltation. But it’s definitely a change, and makes the inheritance tree into something more like a network.

you seem to think your theology provides you with scientific answers. It does not.

I think theology provides me with useful answers. It does. I also think theology provides me with true answers. It sometimes does, when my theology is correct. This is similar to science, which provides me with useful, true answers when scientists have got the facts right.

You seem to confuse “true” with “scientific”. They are not the same thing.

Scientific debates about how steady or gradual evolution is are nothing new. S.J. Gould’s ideas were a new twist on the precise timing of evolutionary change, not the fundamental process.

You have questioned Darwinism because of your theology – okay, good questions come from anywhere at all, not just science texts – but you seem to think your theology provides you with scientific answers. It does not.

Those are easily harmonized, actually. I’m on the right, saying “They’re way to the left of me.” You’re far to the left, saying “They’re to the right of me.” These do not conflict; they’re consistent with the conclusion that most media outlets land somewhere in the moderate-to-left range — which, in fact, is what I think is the truth.

About Darwin, 30 years ago I questioned Darwin for theological reasons. I’ve long since resolved my theological issues — I actually expect, because of my theology, that we’ll discover in the end that the diversity of our universe arose in a continuous process without obvious points of intervention. However, having once stepped outside the neo-Darwinist fold, the level of groupthink and philosophically-based self-protection became obvious. I don’t actually hope that neo-Darwinism will be destroyed; what I hope for is a loosening in the rigidity in evolutionist thinking, the separation of science from Materialist philosophy, and the resulting correction of the scientific process.