The claim: 96% of climate data is corrupted
A July 26 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) claims a study proves climate change data is unreliable.
“Breaking: 96% of ‘climate change’ data is corrupted: Heartland Institute study,” reads the on-screen text.
The post garnered more than 500 likes in nine days.
Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks
Our rating: False
The 96% claim drastically overstates the scope of a study that examined one type of data collected by one agency, then only analyzed a fraction of that data in two groups 13 years apart. No other types of climate data collection methods or environmental organizations were discussed in the study.
Study had limited scope, most data from 2009
The Instagram post references a 2022 study published by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank. It’s a follow-up to a survey performed in 2009. But the group’s analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data wasn’t anywhere near as comprehensive as the study’s title and the post in question claim.
The study examined NOAA’s Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) stations, a network of volunteers who gather and report data on daily temperatures and precipitation. That includes about 5,000 stations that gather climate data.
The 96% figure is based on analyzing the location of those climate stations, said Anthony Watts, the author of both studies. He looked at 1,083 stations in 2009 and another 128 in 2022, then combined the data from both to reach the 96% figure.
Watts said those 96% failed to meet the NOAA’s proper siting standards. These siting standards require the stations to be located 100 feet away from any paved or concrete surfaces and in an openly ventilated area, among other requirements.
But experts say this finding is flawed on a number of levels.
Russell Vose, the climate analysis group director for NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, told USA TODAY the data collected from its thousands of observing stations are monitored and corrected accordingly.
“Data from these stations undergo a battery of rigorous quality assurance reviews as well as corrections that account for historical changes in station location, instrumentation and observing practice,” said Vose in an email. “While some stations may not meet all NOAA standards, the network as a whole provides an accurate depiction of changes through time for the U.S.”
NOAA acknowledged the siting issues in statements in 2009 and 2020. In the 2009 statement, the administration said it had begun modernizing the current network and created the Climate Reference Network, a system of climate monitoring stations that properly align with the siting standards. It also said climate change detection focuses on temperature changes over time at a given location, not absolute temperatures.
NOAA’s 2020 statement also noted its data is quality-controlled and has been peer-reviewed by many other independent scientists.
Robert Lempert, director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition, told USA TODAY sensors placed near human settlements are affected by what’s called the “urban heat island effect.” This refers to the tendency for human structures such as buildings and roads to retain heat.
“This is a well-known effect, and when NOAA reports observed temperature trends it corrects for these effects as best it can,” Lempert said in an email. “Science is never perfect, but there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources that these corrections accurately adjust for the heat island effect.
“In my view, a factually correct scientific critique of NOAA’s temperature sensors would provide compelling evidence that the methods used to correct the heat island effect were inadequate and would show how alternative methods would yield more accurate results.”
A 2010 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research responded to Watts’ 2009 findings, saying the adjusted temperatures “are extremely well aligned” with recent measurements from stations that meet the placement standards.
Studies performed by an NOAA National Climatic Data Center scientist and the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature Project also found minimal long-term effects from the placement problems.
Fact check:Post misrepresents data, understates extent of global temperature increase
Study conclusion overreaches, misleads
Though the study makes a sweeping assertion about “climate change data,” it only examines the subset of NOAA data collection stations. And NOAA is far from the only agency collecting climate data that shows global warming.
A graph published by NASA shows that though NOAA temperature data may slightly differ from the year-to-year data of other organizations, such as the Japanese Meteorological Agency and the U.K. Meteorological Office, the overall warming trends measured by these institutes are the same.
Akintomide Afolayan Akinsanola, an assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago, told USA TODAY the conclusion of the study is “overexaggerated and misleading.”
“First, their total sample is a small subset of the total number of weather stations in the U.S.,” said Akinsanola in an email. “Second, most of the time, we – scientists – intercompare observations in our analysis before their usage … so, if the majority of the weather stations are producing datasets with a large bias as reported, we would have noticed and documented this.”
Fact check: April 1895 v. April 2023 temperature comparison does not disprove climate change
USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
PolitiFact has also debunked this claim.
Our fact-check sources:
- Heartland Institute (web archive), July 27, 2022, MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted
- Heartland Institute (web archive), March 1, 2009, Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
- Anthony Watts, Aug. 7, Email exchange with USA TODAY
- Robert Lempert, Aug. 7, Email exchange with USA TODAY
- Arthur DeGaetano, Aug. 9, Email exchange with USA TODAY
- Akintomide Afolayan Akinsanola, Aug. 11, Email exchange with USA TODAY
- Russell Vose, Aug. 4, Email exchange with USA TODAY
- National Weather Service, accessed Aug. 4, Proper Siting
- National Weather Service, accessed Aug. 9, Cooperative Observer Program (COOP)
- National Weather Service, accessed Aug. 9, COOP
- NOAA (web archive), July 6, 2009, Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable
- National Centers for Environmental Information, Aug. 8, U.S. Climate Reference Network
- National Centers for Environmental Information, accessed Aug. 8, U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)
- Climate.gov, Oct. 29, 2020, Can historical temperature data records be trusted? Haven’t they been skewed by non-climate factors like instrument changes and “urban heat islands”?
- Thomas C. Peterson, Aug. 1, 2006, EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE CAUSED BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS
- Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project, June 5, 2013, Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States
- AGU Advancing Earth and Space Sciences, June 8, 2010, On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
- AGU Advancing Earth and Space Sciences, Oct. 15, 2011, An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network monthly mean temperature data set, version 3
- NASA, Jan. 21, 2015, Why So Many Global Temperature Records?
- Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, accessed Aug. 10, Background: Long-Term Daily and Monthly Climate Records from Stations Across the Contiguous United States
- U.K. Meteorological Office, Aug. 11, Temperature
- Japan Meteorological Agency, Feb. 1, Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies
Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.
Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.
#Study #falsely #claims #climate #data #corrupt
