The diagnosis of the future of the planet cannot be gloomier. To the numerous elements that damage the environment, we must now add others, like the direct consequences of turning food into fuel, established as the economic policy guideline of the United States, designed and defended at all costs by the US president.

The issue has been presented on many occasions as a warning of the potential danger that, if continued, will affect the indispensable conditions for the life on the planet. Evidently at the service of the large transnationals, which produce 25 percent of the contaminating gas emissions, the White House has justified its position and has systematically refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The inhabitants of the planet are required to act urgently. Maybe it’s not too late.

Carlos Menéndez
http://www.creditomagazine.es

Management of Change is a sometimes tedious, frustrating, and time-consuming process. While there are good reasons for it, the primary motivator is Federal regulation.

Is this yet another example of Federal agencies not being bound by Federal requirements?

Above, below, and at the frost line. Minimum.

Same for the oceans.

Let the earth do the averaging.

From that and satellite measurements it ought to be relatively easy from first principles to figure out what is going on.

Climate Science Needs To Go Underground.

Which will be the topic of my next post.

I agree with your concern regarding the data quality of the Weather Underground personal stations. I didn’t mean to argue that we should use their data. I was trying to say that the technology exists that anyone can monitor data from remote stations real-time and on a nearly continuous basis. The cost is low and the reliability is reasonable, yet we still use archiving methodolgy dating back to close to the Civil War. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Check out the personal weather stations at weather underground in “rapid fire” mode. The data is updated every 3 seconds continuously and available online. Yet NWS continues to use a data collection and reporting model based on 19th century technology.

Regarding Karls list my first thought is “practice what you preach”. It is a good list that would absolutely raise data quality if stridently practiced. Unfortunately, the attempts to follow it look half-hearted at best. It looks as if the goal was to appear to be doing it as opposed to methodically implementing the steps, using performance metrics and fine-tuning as needed.

***NOTE:The blog software did that when the entry was split into main and extended parts for space. I’ve moved it back to full size and the probelm disappeared and numbers returned.

Say 100 times an hour reported once a day by modem? Either land line or satellite.

On the order of 100K bytes to 1 Mbyte per day per station.

Why are we still doing it the 1898 way?