Discussion:
Record Temperature Readings Throughout Los Angeles Caused By Faulty Weather Stations, Meteorologist Says
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2018-07-11 01:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.

“In my opinion, the data from these stations is worthless,”
California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on his blog Watts
Up With That.

That’s not to say Los Angeles wasn’t scorching hot. Temperatures in
much of greater Los Angeles were in the triple digits, according to
the National Weather Service.

On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.





For example, downtown Los Angeles reported a daily record high
temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday. Watts, however,
noted the weather station was on top of a parking garage surrounded
by vehicles. The weather station was relocated to the University of
Southern California (USC) campus in 1999 where meteorologists said
it would be less prone to extreme swings, but Watts said that
station’s had problems in the past.

“The ASOS type station used at USC is notorious for producing false
record highs where there aren’t any. For example, Honolulu and
Tucson,” Watts wrote. “Look at all the service vehicles parked
around it. One wonders recent record high that was claimed there is
just another result of a vehicle being parked to close to it like
the Ice Cream Truck debacle that denied a new all-time record high
for Scotland a few days ago.”

U.K. meteorologists recently rejected a record-high temperature
reading at Motherwell, Scotland, on June 28 because an ice cream
truck had idled nearby with its engine on, possibly contaminating
the reading.

Scotland’s record-high reading came amid what some are calling a
global heat wave, which has produced record readings across the
world. Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, tried to
link the heat wave to man-made global warming.

“No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global
warming,” the Post reported, trying to link summer weather to global
warming. “But collectively, these heat records are consistent with
the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.”

Record-high temperatures were also recorded at the Van Nuys Airport,
the Burbank Airport and the University of California-Los Angeles
(UCLA). Watts took issue with all of these record readings.
(RELATED: Africa’s Hottest Temperature Ever Recorded Was Probably
‘Influenced By Man-Made Objects’)

“It’s another ASOS station snuggled between an industrial park,
runway, road, and taxiway,” Watts wrote of the Van Nuys Airport
weather station, which recorded 117 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday.

As for the Burbank Airport, Watts wrote that “the weather station is
virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft
parking ramps,” which means the “likelihood for the station to get
in the middle of a [400-degree] jetwash is almost a certainty, being
so close to taxiways with turns.”

Airports, like cities, tend to run hotter than surrounding areas
because of runways, jet wash from airplanes, vehicles exhaust and
other non-natural factors that can artificially raise temperatures.

UCLA’s weather station recorded a record 111 degrees Fahrenheit on
Friday. However, Watts pointed out the university’s thermometer is
one the roof of a building, likely being hit with artificial heat.

“UCLA’s weather station is on the roof of the Math
Sciences/Atmospheric Sciences building,” Watts wrote. “Why? there’s
no place else to put it. There’s hardly a free and open space left.”

--
Obama's legacy is President Trump.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-07-10 12:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.
“In my opinion, the data from these stations is worthless,”
California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on his blog Watts
Up With That.
That’s not to say Los Angeles wasn’t scorching hot. Temperatures in
much of greater Los Angeles were in the triple digits, according to
the National Weather Service.
Even the weather has become 3rd world in California.....

What a shithole.
--
That's Karma


https://bigleaguepolitics.com/ig-report-fbi-secret-service-planned-lynch-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
Siri Cruise
2018-07-10 22:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
Isn't that what the thermometers are supposed to measure: the temperature at
that location? The thermometer would be invalid if hot or cool air is blown on
it when that was not true when the thermometer was set in place.
Post by Ubiquitous
For example, downtown Los Angeles reported a daily record high
temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday. Watts, however,
And? The temperature would be lower at the beach, in a leafy park in the San
Gabriel Mountains, or in Little America. But that doesn't make people in
downtown Los Angeles any cooler.

The thermometer in a running car engine will be hotter than a thermometer with
the passengers. That's because you want to know whether the engine is in danger
not whether the passengers think it is in danger.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Bob Casanova
2018-07-11 17:20:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:31:37 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
Isn't that what the thermometers are supposed to measure: the temperature at
that location? The thermometer would be invalid if hot or cool air is blown on
it when that was not true when the thermometer was set in place.
Post by Ubiquitous
For example, downtown Los Angeles reported a daily record high
temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday. Watts, however,
And? The temperature would be lower at the beach, in a leafy park in the San
Gabriel Mountains, or in Little America. But that doesn't make people in
downtown Los Angeles any cooler.
The thermometer in a running car engine will be hotter than a thermometer with
the passengers. That's because you want to know whether the engine is in danger
not whether the passengers think it is in danger.
You're missing the point. Whether correct or not, his point
is that increased average temperature for wide areas is
being evaluated using isolated measurements which don't
reflect the true average over those areas, due to such
effects as noted. Accurate evaluations require consistent
processes, which he is claiming (again, whether correct or
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Siri Cruise
2018-07-11 23:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
You're missing the point. Whether correct or not, his point
is that increased average temperature for wide areas is
being evaluated using isolated measurements which don't
That's what going to happen anyway: we can't put thermometers everywhere. So we
take an accurate sample and surmise from that. If the argument that the sample
is inaccurate, whining about actual temperatures is not going to show anything.
Instead temporarily increase the thermometers at diverse locations and check if
the samples and old samples represent the same population.
Post by Bob Casanova
reflect the true average over those areas, due to such
effects as noted. Accurate evaluations require consistent
processes, which he is claiming (again, whether correct or
Unless someone is doing like putting heaters next to thermometers, the process
should be assumed accurate and consistent. And that temperatures measured are
the temperatures at those locations. If there's a problem, it would be where
they are placed are not representative of the entire area where they are.
Post by Bob Casanova
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
What's irrelevant is questionning the accuracy of a simple device or dismissing
its result because the results are displeasing.


People like transit agencies actually need to know what the temperatures are.
Iron rails warp as the temperature changes, and they can warp far enough to shut
down trains. Tire pressures change depending on road surface changes. Fuel
consumption can increase to keep passengers cool or warm enough.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Bret Cahill
2018-07-12 00:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
What's irrelevant is questionning the accuracy of a simple device or dismissing
its result because the results are displeasing.
People like transit agencies actually need to know what the temperatures are.
Iron rails warp as the temperature changes, and they can warp far enough to shut
down trains.
Or worse they'll keep trying to use the tracks and have a lot of de railed trains.


Bret Cahill
Bob Casanova
2018-07-12 17:33:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:30:45 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
You're missing the point. Whether correct or not, his point
is that increased average temperature for wide areas is
being evaluated using isolated measurements which don't
That's what going to happen anyway: we can't put thermometers everywhere. So we
take an accurate sample and surmise from that. If the argument that the sample
is inaccurate, whining about actual temperatures is not going to show anything.
Instead temporarily increase the thermometers at diverse locations and check if
the samples and old samples represent the same population.
Excellent idea. Then remove the ones with consistent
anomalous temperatures.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
reflect the true average over those areas, due to such
effects as noted. Accurate evaluations require consistent
processes, which he is claiming (again, whether correct or
Unless someone is doing like putting heaters next to thermometers, the process
should be assumed accurate and consistent. And that temperatures measured are
the temperatures at those locations. If there's a problem, it would be where
they are placed are not representative of the entire area where they are.
As he noted, the problem is *exactly* where they are placed.
IIRC, his examples included "official" thermometers in areas
above parking lots and in the exhaust-wash areas of airport
runways, neither of which would be representative of the
area. And that's what I was noting.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
What's irrelevant is questionning the accuracy of a simple device or dismissing
its result because the results are displeasing.
Neither of which I did. The devices in question are almost
certainly accurate (which isn't the same as representative),
and no one is "dismissing" anything. If they installed
thermometers in every car parked in Phoenix and used the
readings of cars parked in the sun as "representative" of
Phoenix temperatures that would be just as wrong, even
though the readings would be accurate.
Post by Siri Cruise
People like transit agencies actually need to know what the temperatures are.
Iron rails warp as the temperature changes, and they can warp far enough to shut
down trains. Tire pressures change depending on road surface changes. Fuel
consumption can increase to keep passengers cool or warm enough.
Of course specific venues have specific needs; airports have
networks of wind sensors around the runway areas to detect
possible windshear problems. But those sensors aren't used
for anything else; the temp sensors should be treated the
same.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bruce S
2018-07-12 21:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:30:45 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
You're missing the point. Whether correct or not, his point
is that increased average temperature for wide areas is
being evaluated using isolated measurements which don't
That's what going to happen anyway: we can't put thermometers everywhere. So we
take an accurate sample and surmise from that. If the argument that the sample
is inaccurate, whining about actual temperatures is not going to show anything.
Instead temporarily increase the thermometers at diverse locations and check if
the samples and old samples represent the same population.
Excellent idea. Then remove the ones with consistent
anomalous temperatures.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
reflect the true average over those areas, due to such
effects as noted. Accurate evaluations require consistent
processes, which he is claiming (again, whether correct or
Unless someone is doing like putting heaters next to thermometers, the process
should be assumed accurate and consistent. And that temperatures measured are
the temperatures at those locations. If there's a problem, it would be where
they are placed are not representative of the entire area where they are.
As he noted, the problem is *exactly* where they are placed.
IIRC, his examples included "official" thermometers in areas
above parking lots and in the exhaust-wash areas of airport
runways, neither of which would be representative of the
area. And that's what I was noting.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
What's irrelevant is questionning the accuracy of a simple device or dismissing
its result because the results are displeasing.
Neither of which I did. The devices in question are almost
certainly accurate (which isn't the same as representative),
and no one is "dismissing" anything. If they installed
thermometers in every car parked in Phoenix and used the
readings of cars parked in the sun as "representative" of
Phoenix temperatures that would be just as wrong, even
though the readings would be accurate.
Post by Siri Cruise
People like transit agencies actually need to know what the temperatures are.
Iron rails warp as the temperature changes, and they can warp far enough to shut
down trains. Tire pressures change depending on road surface changes. Fuel
consumption can increase to keep passengers cool or warm enough.
Of course specific venues have specific needs; airports have
networks of wind sensors around the runway areas to detect
possible windshear problems. But those sensors aren't used
for anything else; the temp sensors should be treated the
same.
I'm not seeing it, so if I'm repeating something already said, ignore
it. Now, with that out of the way, a lot of what I've heard complaints
over regarding the "urban heat island" is that sensors were placed in
locations that were *not* subject to unusual heat, specifically to avoid
this problem, but urban creep has overtaken those locations. You start
with the location in a field, but a few years later that's become the
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Siri Cruise
2018-07-13 01:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?


If it's 108F at location P today, then it is 108F at location P today,
regardless of what P was in the past or the future. If P finds itself in parking
lot, then that parking lot is 108F, and anyone in that parking lot will
experience a 108F temperature.

The question is not whether the thermometer is an accurate sensor at its
location, but whether all the locations accurately sample the area. If the
entire area is no longer paradise, but a paved parking lot, then the temperature
of the parking lot is representative of the area, whether you want to
acknowledge the parking lot is 108F or not.

In order for the thermometer to be wrong it has to be a mechanical failure,
packed in dry ice, subjected to a space heater, or otherwise interfered with.
Accurately reporting the temperature where it is located is not a failure
despite people apparently not liking reports of how hot it is.

What you should argue is the current locations are not representative of the
whole area. This is an old and well understood question of whether a sample
space represents the entire population. And the question has old and well
understood answers. That's completely different from whether sample reading are
accurate.

I don't know where the Los Angeles thermometers are located or whether NOAA or
someone else is vouching they are a representative sample space. If the voucher
is someone reputable, like NOAA, then it's up to you to challenge them with an
actual argument about sampling. If the voucher is a television station looking
at a thermometer outside a west facing third floor window, well, not all sample
spaces are created equal.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Bret Cahill
2018-07-13 02:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?
They want to restrict the "A" in AGW to ACO2.

In reality AGW covers _all_ outbreaks of libertaria, libertard zoning laws, bad land use, etc.
R Kym Horsell
2018-07-13 03:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?
They want to restrict the "A" in AGW to ACO2.
In reality AGW covers _all_ outbreaks of libertaria, libertard zoning laws, bad land use, etc.
If hillbillies would stick to their aree a experize:
- see the squirrel
- shoot the squirrel
- eat the squirrel
then they might get some respeck.

But dey insis on tryeen to dupikate newypapr argyments like:
* most of da worl is ocean
* LA is not an ocean
* so LA is not representative of da worl
* so it is invalid to use temperature in LA to figga how people is
affected by wevva
--
The UAH TLT series reacts so well to El Ninos we can use it
as a crude proxy for a smoothed ENSO index.
The plot of e.g. the v5.6 shows a solid trend. I.e. the super El Ninos
(e.g. 1998 and 2016) are getting warmer:
<http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:13/plot/uah5/mean:13/trend>
Paul Aubrin
2018-07-13 08:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid,
no matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the
location has changed in a way not representative of the overall
averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into
parking lots?
They want to restrict the "A" in AGW to ACO2.
In reality AGW covers _all_ outbreaks of libertaria, libertard zoning
laws, bad land use, etc.
Weather stations are nearly always located in urbanized areas. The land
usage there is not statistically representative. This effect put in
evidence the problem which arises from trying to derive the average
temperature of 509 millions square kilometre with only a few thousand
samples, and very irregularly spaced.
Bob Casanova
2018-07-13 17:25:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:42:03 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?
I don't see that in his post.
Post by Siri Cruise
If it's 108F at location P today, then it is 108F at location P today,
regardless of what P was in the past or the future. If P finds itself in parking
lot, then that parking lot is 108F, and anyone in that parking lot will
experience a 108F temperature.
Correct. And irrelevant to the wide area *average*
temperature.
Post by Siri Cruise
The question is not whether the thermometer is an accurate sensor at its
location, but whether all the locations accurately sample the area. If the
entire area is no longer paradise, but a paved parking lot, then the temperature
of the parking lot is representative of the area, whether you want to
acknowledge the parking lot is 108F or not.
In order for the thermometer to be wrong it has to be a mechanical failure,
packed in dry ice, subjected to a space heater, or otherwise interfered with.
Accurately reporting the temperature where it is located is not a failure
despite people apparently not liking reports of how hot it is.
What you should argue is the current locations are not representative of the
whole area.
He did. So did I.
Post by Siri Cruise
This is an old and well understood question of whether a sample
space represents the entire population. And the question has old and well
understood answers. That's completely different from whether sample reading are
accurate.
We both pointed out that the readings are undoubtedly
*accurate*, so that's a strawman. The issue, as I posted and
as Bruce agreed, is that the locations have become
non-representative due to changes in the local environment.
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't know where the Los Angeles thermometers are located or whether NOAA or
someone else is vouching they are a representative sample space. If the voucher
is someone reputable, like NOAA, then it's up to you to challenge them with an
actual argument about sampling. If the voucher is a television station looking
at a thermometer outside a west facing third floor window, well, not all sample
spaces are created equal.
Precisely the point; they aren't, and it's the job of those
analyzing the readings to account for the non-representative
locations, and relocate the sensors as required.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bruce S
2018-07-14 15:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:42:03 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?
I don't see that in his post.
Post by Siri Cruise
If it's 108F at location P today, then it is 108F at location P today,
regardless of what P was in the past or the future. If P finds itself in parking
lot, then that parking lot is 108F, and anyone in that parking lot will
experience a 108F temperature.
Correct. And irrelevant to the wide area *average*
temperature.
Post by Siri Cruise
The question is not whether the thermometer is an accurate sensor at its
location, but whether all the locations accurately sample the area. If the
entire area is no longer paradise, but a paved parking lot, then the temperature
of the parking lot is representative of the area, whether you want to
acknowledge the parking lot is 108F or not.
In order for the thermometer to be wrong it has to be a mechanical failure,
packed in dry ice, subjected to a space heater, or otherwise interfered with.
Accurately reporting the temperature where it is located is not a failure
despite people apparently not liking reports of how hot it is.
What you should argue is the current locations are not representative of the
whole area.
He did. So did I.
Post by Siri Cruise
This is an old and well understood question of whether a sample
space represents the entire population. And the question has old and well
understood answers. That's completely different from whether sample reading are
accurate.
We both pointed out that the readings are undoubtedly
*accurate*, so that's a strawman. The issue, as I posted and
as Bruce agreed, is that the locations have become
non-representative due to changes in the local environment.
Exactly, with the key word being "become". The nature of the location
with respect to the surrounding area has changed, unless the entire area
has become parking lots and other hot spots.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't know where the Los Angeles thermometers are located or whether NOAA or
someone else is vouching they are a representative sample space. If the voucher
is someone reputable, like NOAA, then it's up to you to challenge them with an
actual argument about sampling. If the voucher is a television station looking
at a thermometer outside a west facing third floor window, well, not all sample
spaces are created equal.
Precisely the point; they aren't, and it's the job of those
analyzing the readings to account for the non-representative
locations, and relocate the sensors as required.
I'd even seen claims that some of the locations had been admitted to be
no longer representative, and were supposed to be no longer used, but
that later were found to still be in use, skewing averages.
Bob Casanova
2018-07-14 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:30:53 -0600, the following appeared
Post by Bruce S
Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:42:03 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bruce S
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Do say. So the overall averages should ignore fields being turned into parking
lots?
I don't see that in his post.
Post by Siri Cruise
If it's 108F at location P today, then it is 108F at location P today,
regardless of what P was in the past or the future. If P finds itself in parking
lot, then that parking lot is 108F, and anyone in that parking lot will
experience a 108F temperature.
Correct. And irrelevant to the wide area *average*
temperature.
Post by Siri Cruise
The question is not whether the thermometer is an accurate sensor at its
location, but whether all the locations accurately sample the area. If the
entire area is no longer paradise, but a paved parking lot, then the temperature
of the parking lot is representative of the area, whether you want to
acknowledge the parking lot is 108F or not.
In order for the thermometer to be wrong it has to be a mechanical failure,
packed in dry ice, subjected to a space heater, or otherwise interfered with.
Accurately reporting the temperature where it is located is not a failure
despite people apparently not liking reports of how hot it is.
What you should argue is the current locations are not representative of the
whole area.
He did. So did I.
Post by Siri Cruise
This is an old and well understood question of whether a sample
space represents the entire population. And the question has old and well
understood answers. That's completely different from whether sample reading are
accurate.
We both pointed out that the readings are undoubtedly
*accurate*, so that's a strawman. The issue, as I posted and
as Bruce agreed, is that the locations have become
non-representative due to changes in the local environment.
Exactly, with the key word being "become". The nature of the location
with respect to the surrounding area has changed, unless the entire area
has become parking lots and other hot spots.
That's why it's a good idea to separate such areas, and not
use strongly non-representative readings as part of the area
averages without using a "fudge factor" to account for the
known differences.
Post by Bruce S
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't know where the Los Angeles thermometers are located or whether NOAA or
someone else is vouching they are a representative sample space. If the voucher
is someone reputable, like NOAA, then it's up to you to challenge them with an
actual argument about sampling. If the voucher is a television station looking
at a thermometer outside a west facing third floor window, well, not all sample
spaces are created equal.
Precisely the point; they aren't, and it's the job of those
analyzing the readings to account for the non-representative
locations, and relocate the sensors as required.
I'd even seen claims that some of the locations had been admitted to be
no longer representative, and were supposed to be no longer used, but
that later were found to still be in use, skewing averages.
Not really surprising.

I'd note that if the number of sensors is sufficiently
large, the non-representative ones will have increasingly
less skew effect; if there are two sensors for the entire
country, one in Manhattan and the other anywhere else, the
effect will be so large as to render the "average" useless,
but with 10,000 sensors evenly distributed the skew effect
will get lost in the noise.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
2018-07-13 17:20:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:34:24 -0600, the following appeared
Post by Bruce S
Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:30:45 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Ubiquitous
On the contrary, what Watts claims is that artificial heat sources
and sinks produce localized heat around weather stations, adding the
few degrees necessary to qualify as records. In general, cities are
warmer than surrounding countryside owing to the urban heat island
effect.
You're missing the point. Whether correct or not, his point
is that increased average temperature for wide areas is
being evaluated using isolated measurements which don't
That's what going to happen anyway: we can't put thermometers everywhere. So we
take an accurate sample and surmise from that. If the argument that the sample
is inaccurate, whining about actual temperatures is not going to show anything.
Instead temporarily increase the thermometers at diverse locations and check if
the samples and old samples represent the same population.
Excellent idea. Then remove the ones with consistent
anomalous temperatures.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
reflect the true average over those areas, due to such
effects as noted. Accurate evaluations require consistent
processes, which he is claiming (again, whether correct or
Unless someone is doing like putting heaters next to thermometers, the process
should be assumed accurate and consistent. And that temperatures measured are
the temperatures at those locations. If there's a problem, it would be where
they are placed are not representative of the entire area where they are.
As he noted, the problem is *exactly* where they are placed.
IIRC, his examples included "official" thermometers in areas
above parking lots and in the exhaust-wash areas of airport
runways, neither of which would be representative of the
area. And that's what I was noting.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Bob Casanova
not) is not being done. If you want to refute his implied
assertions, do it by showing that he's wrong, not by noting
irrelevancies such as how hot people in LA feel.
What's irrelevant is questionning the accuracy of a simple device or dismissing
its result because the results are displeasing.
Neither of which I did. The devices in question are almost
certainly accurate (which isn't the same as representative),
and no one is "dismissing" anything. If they installed
thermometers in every car parked in Phoenix and used the
readings of cars parked in the sun as "representative" of
Phoenix temperatures that would be just as wrong, even
though the readings would be accurate.
Post by Siri Cruise
People like transit agencies actually need to know what the temperatures are.
Iron rails warp as the temperature changes, and they can warp far enough to shut
down trains. Tire pressures change depending on road surface changes. Fuel
consumption can increase to keep passengers cool or warm enough.
Of course specific venues have specific needs; airports have
networks of wind sensors around the runway areas to detect
possible windshear problems. But those sensors aren't used
for anything else; the temp sensors should be treated the
same.
I'm not seeing it, so if I'm repeating something already said, ignore
it. Now, with that out of the way, a lot of what I've heard complaints
over regarding the "urban heat island" is that sensors were placed in
locations that were *not* subject to unusual heat, specifically to avoid
this problem, but urban creep has overtaken those locations. You start
with the location in a field, but a few years later that's become the
parking lot of a shopping mall. That makes those readings invalid, no
matter how accurate they are, because the condition of the location has
changed in a way not representative of the overall averages.
Exactly. The answer is to monitor the locations and move the
sensors which have become non-representative due to changes
in the local environment. I'm sure this is done
occasionally, the Weather Service being composed of
competent professionals rather than agenda-driven idiots,
but I suspect it's a "sometime" thing.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bret Cahill
2018-07-11 06:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.
But adjusting for these heat sources to get meaningful data is part of the conspiraCEEEEE?
R Kym Horsell
2018-07-11 07:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations "compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks," according to a veteran meteorologist.
But adjusting for these heat sources to get meaningful data is part of the conspiraCEEEEE?
Wen a scientis mesyour ay tempychur in a plas non to bee hot
and dey fin it is hot, then it is a commun mistook!
--
Typhoon Maria strikes China's holiday coast
news.com.au, 11 Jul 2018 03:47Z
China's coastal communities have closed shop as the season's first typhoon
raced ashore this morning, threatening up to $222 billion in ...

China Trumped again with $US200 billion in extra US tariffs
ABC News, 11 Jul 2018
The US announces plans to impose taxes on a further $US200 billion worth of
Chinese imports, in retaliation for China's retaliation to America's first
round of tariffs.

Airbus SE
EPA: AIR - 10 Jul 5:36 pm GMT+2
103.34 EUR +3.94 (3.96%) *** up 4% ***

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION
TYO: 7211 - 10 Jul 3:00 pm GMT+9
880 JPY +30 (3.53%) *** up 3.5% ***

Tesla Inc
NASDAQ: TSLA - 10 Jul 11:54 am GMT-4
324.30 USD +5.79 (1.82%) *** up 1.8% ***

Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd
TSE: KML - 10 Jul 11:32 am GMT-4
15.86 CAD -0.020 (0.13%) down

TC PIPELINES LP Common Stock
TSE: TRP - 10 Jul 11:37 am GMT-4
56.75 CAD -0.16 (0.28%) down

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
NYSE: COG - Closed: 10 Jul 4:00 pm GMT-4
23.65 USD -0.070 (0.30%) down

Gazprom PAO
MCX: GAZP - 10 Jul 6:46 pm GMT+3
147.30 RUB -0.70 (0.47%) down

American Outdoor Brands Corp
NASDAQ: AOBC - 10 Jul 11:54 am GMT-4
11.52 USD -0.22 (1.92%) *** down 1.9% ***

ACCC calls for major reset of energy sector to drive down power bills
SMH, 10 Jul 2018 14:12Z
The consumer watchdog has called for a major overhaul of the energy sector,
and for the government to back new electricity generation to drive ...
[Among other things the ACCC underlines the idea of states writing
down the value of the networks. Past over-spending on the poles and
wires now means network fees account for around 40% of power bills to
consumers and small business].

Up to 1 million households could default on their loans by September
ABC News, 11 Jul 2018
That's the warning from one independent analyst if the big four banks do
what many fear they will do and increase their standard variable rates rise
by as little as 0.15 percentage points over the next few months.
[You owe the bank $1mn you're in trouble; you owe the bank $1bn
they're in trouble].

A disease that once sent kings mad is now killing babies in Queensland
ABC News, 11 Jul 2018
A 'medieval' disease infamous for devastating kings has returned in epidemic
proportions in Queensland, and killed six babies in as many years, despite
there being a cheap and effective cure.
[Syphilis].

Typhoon Maria to batter Taiwan, China after making direct hit on Japan's
Ryukyu Islands
AccuWeather.com, 10 Jul 2018 17:55Z
After lashing the Ryukyu Islands, Maria is expected to pass by the tip of
northern Taiwan on Tuesday night. While the typhoon is not expected to make
landfall on the island, it is expected to be close enough to bring
significant impacts to the nation into Wednesday morning.
<https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/f3d376b/2147483647/
resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
2F05%2Fa5%2Fa672efd34fb392d6818372c3155c%2Fmaria-satellite-7-10.png>
Maria is expected to make landfall in eastern China Wednesday morning as a
powerful and dangerous typhoon. Northern Fujian and southern Zhejiang
provinces will bear the brunt of Maria's fury.
<https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/62627af/2147483647/
resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%
2Fa0%2F72%2F1acb5f074587bcaa0b91066a0e1e%2Fmariatrack-7-10.jpg>

Bidding war begins as WA once again searches for workers to fuel a mining boom
ABC News, 10 Jul 2018 22:15Z
During the last mining boom people flew in to Western Australia from all
over the country and abroad to earn the ridiculous wages being offered, but
poaching workers may not be so easy this time around.
[This time they're looking for lithium, among other things].

Anxious allies await more damage as Trump lands in Europe
ABC News, 11 Jul 2018
Donald Trump has repeatedly undercut the nearly 70-year-old NATO alliance,
as allies in Europe fret over what further damage can be done. This week
they might be about to find out, write Lisa Millar and Roscoe Whalan.

Assaad Razzouk @AssaadRazzouk 11 Jul 2018 00:10Z
Scientists found a 36-year #climate change record in Tour de France footage.
Lo and behold, it showed plants started shifting their leaf-outs earlier in
the 1980s and 1990s as temperatures rose worldwide, while whole ecosystems
started to change buff.ly/2L0LN5l #TDF2018 pic.twitter.com/AqHLZAWcZ2
<Loading Image...>

Assaad Razzouk @AssaadRazzouk 11 Jul 2018 05:34Z
The UK's National Infrastructure Commission, set up to provide Government
with independent, impartial and evidence-based advice, says energy from
#renewables could supply 50% of the UK's power needs by 2030 at no extra
cost to consumers buff.ly/2KOYxNm #climate #facts pic.twitter.com/uvYpcQ6cKh
<Loading Image...>
Unum
2018-07-11 14:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.
But adjusting for these heat sources to get meaningful data is part of the conspiraCEEEEE?
Nearly every temperature in LA is being reported by weather stations
in LA! And mysteriously, they all became faulty. You just can't trust
that on-site measurement. What you really need is indirect satellite
inferences of temps several miles up in the atmosphere and at the
equator. Then you can post it to your blog and simpleton denialist
scum will snap it right up.
Bret Cahill
2018-07-11 18:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.
But adjusting for these heat sources to get meaningful data is part of the conspiraCEEEEE?
Nearly every temperature in LA is being reported by weather stations
in LA! And mysteriously, they all became faulty.
The conspiraCEEEE obviously goes all the way back to when Santorio Santorio invented the thermometer.

Neber trust anyone with a repeating name!
Bret Cahill
2018-07-11 18:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Ubiquitous
Nearly every record-high temperature reported over the last few days
in the Los Angeles area are from weather stations “compromised by
heat sources and heat sinks,” according to a veteran meteorologist.
But adjusting for these heat sources to get meaningful data is part of the conspiraCEEEEE?
Deniers certainly have all bases cobered!
Loading...