I would dearly love to identify a conspiracy here, but I have already poked around meteorology science on the ground in Australia and my conclusion has been that politicians underfund; bureaucrats have departmental and not science priorities; and most scientists are thick as bricks.

An example of the latter… In virtually every damaging cyclone that hits Australia, the wind speed (WS) equipment is destroyed by flying debris. I publicly challenged meteorologists to move their equipment to immediate beach high points, to avoid damage and they simply defended current locations. The result is, official WS measurements are whatever was recorded at the point of destruction. Go figure.

I argued that photographic evidence showed that Cyclone Tracey of Darwin, 1974, showed every leaf, twig and branch stripped off what trees remained standing, and that exposed cars were sandblasted to clean steel, indicating at least 300 KPH wind speed (as every sandblaster is aware). Yet, this irrefutable comparative evidence of wind impact was not evident in other cyclones that scientists claimed had higher wind speeds.

This has horrific implications for public safety, architecture, storm surge and insurance; yet scientists refuse to confront the evidence that commonsense renders apparent.

In terms of anthropogenic global warming I suspect that, likewise, refusal to acknowledge the impact of urbanisation of formerly rural weather stations has distorted measurements, and that banker/corporate conglomerates are exploiting the situation to garner the $3 trillion per year ‘carbon tax’ and further impoverish we mugs.

‘How not to measure’ frontiersmen and women are incisively penetrating the fraud and I believe deserve a vote of thanks from all of us.

REPLY: for the period that the station existed at this location, most likely yes.

I think your mother would be proud.

I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Kaufman’s essay that you linked to. Thanks.

Since this seems to be a bellwether post on the SurfaceStation project could you be induced to begin planning another–to examine CDIAC and their seeming monopoly on CO2 measurement? Beginning with their Siemen’s black box and monitoring station placements they appear to have issues as well.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

REPLY: I’m one man doing this part time with volunteers, while I have a this blog, business to run, a daily radio forecast, a wife and two young children that need my attention. I appreciate the faith in my ability, but I’m not a superhero.

Thanks for being a good sport. There are all sorts of quirky issues between
GHCN, USHCN, and GISS. So have some fun comparing the data. I thought it would be a fun test of sorts. Let the chips fall where they may.

Other thing I wanted to ask was whether you used USHCNv2 or v1?

Also, note that since Anthony Posts his data in an open forum people can check it and find mistakes.

I also posted on post on Lucia ( google “lucia rank exploits)

Watch her tear the fur off the bunnyman eli rabbet.

Here is a challenge for atmoz or others. see if Eli will allow a
link to lucia schooling him in physics.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbett-vs-dr-pielke-sr/

She has an interesting piece ATMOZ . She’s wicked smart so you might enjoy the conversation, Eli will not.

anthony, have you thought of putting Lucia blog roll.

Sorry your post got lost in the moderation queue. It’s visible now. Thanks for the comment, and I’ll be doing a post later today as you suggest.

Atmoz is covering your post and looking at Miles City MT. He notes that you have not rated it yet. I posted this there. Since guys like rabbett ban me,
and since I’m not sure about his policy I will cross post here

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/15/a-surface-station-youll-never-see-profiled-at-climate-audit/

“Atmoz, Good find!

A couple points and then a bet

You highlighted the Miles City site. A fine RURAL site. You wonder why Anthony Watts has not “rated it.” Well, let me speculate and later on I’ll call him and confirm if you like. The Survey was completed on 1/9/08. Typically Anthony will wait until he has a fair number of sites before rating them. Simply, he doesnt rate them as they come in. He does periodic updates, not real time updates. However, you were able to see from the pictures that it was a WELL SITED SITE. So you recognize the value of verifying the noaa
description of the site.

AND, its rural. according to NOAA and according to HANSEN.

One other thing we know. Hansen says that URBAN SITES
are adjusted to match RURAL SITES. The code is posted you
can go see this.

Since this site is rural, The we have a GOOD TEST of GISS Urban adjustments. Correct?

Its simple. We start with this file:

GISS Stage 1: GHCN + USCHCN adjustments:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.425742300020.0.1/station.txt

That is Miles city data as NASA inputs it from GHCN and USHCN. They INGEST the USHCN adjustments for TOBS, Station moves, and
Filnet. Again, you can go read the source code and see this.

THEN, GISS adjust the data for HOMOGENIETY. Essentially, Urban adjustments. Now, the code for this is available. And papers have described it. URBAN SITES are adjusted to match rural sites within 1000km.

Miles city is Rural as you note. So, do you think it would OK to
adjust its temperature UPWARD based on comparions with nearby
sites? It’s class 1. Its Rural. What would you bet? It’s rural. It meets
standards, you would think that other sites adjust to it. You wouldnt adjust this site one way or the other. You’d adjust the
bad sites.. right?

The next data file to look at is the GISS ADJUSTED. What does nasa do to a class 1 site? Guess?

I dont know. I havent looked at it. It’s a good blind test.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.425742300020.2.1/station.txt

If GISS adjustments for UHI correct errors in URBAN sites, Then
It would be a good bet that this site, since it is RURAL, would undergo no adjustments. After all, What would the sense be in adjusting a Class 1 site.

So, Take the annual temperature averages for Miles City AFTER adjustment and then subtract the Raw+USCHN data. Tell me what you see. I’m curious.

lastly, funny that the site ENDS in 2006.

It’s a good site. Looks like it’s been dropped from the network

REPLY: Normally I do a group of sites about once every month, since it is more efficient to do it that way since I have to have a number of resources simultaneously available to use. I didn’t know Miles City was missing a rating. So its just a simple oversight. I’ll get it with the next batch which I plan to do shortly.

This appears to be the ’smoking gun’ that demonstrates that GISS UHI algorithm can introduce a warming bias at some sites. However, is this site an isolated incident or have you found others where the inadequacies of the UHI correction algorithm can be so clearly demonstrated? I realize that you don’t want to draw any conclusions until the survey is complete – I am just looking for a little more context.

REPLY: A couple of other examples have been found at Climate Audit, and discussed last year, so it is not unique, but I don’t know the frequency of such occurances yet.

Let’s all take a deep breath while we consider the enormity of all this.

I have a bad feeling this is going to be one of those posts where each sentence is its own paragraph . . .

First the NOAA adjustment. THEN, on top of THAT, the GISS adjustment!

GOOD Lord, what a pair of bookends!

First the NOAA adjustment, the one where you stick the thumbtack on the left side of the graph and drag the right side up.

THEN the NASA Adjustment where you stick the tumbtack into the right side of the graph and drag the left side down!

Dr. Right, meet Dr. Left!

Okay, okay, now comes the Final Joke!

Well, the Final Adjustment (it’s the same thing, really).

The previous one was Bisquik, mere Bisquik, folks–farina posing as grits.

Here is the GISS adjustment Recipe from scratch.

1.) Empty Raw data into processor.
2.) Convert NOAA adjustments from F to C.
3.) Grid vigorously, stir.
4.) Lard heavily with GISS adjustment.
5.) Homogenize.

—–NOAA—-GISS—-TOTAL
1900: +0.05C + (-0.8C) = -0.75C
1920: -0.01C + (-0.6C) = -0.61C
1940: +0.00C + (-0.5C) = -0.50C
1950: +0.02C + (-0.4C) = -0.38C
1960: +0.01C + (-0.3C) = -0.29C
1970: +0.07C + (-0.2C) = -0.13C
1980: +0.15C + (-0.1C) = +0.05C
1990: +0.28C + (-0.05C) = +0.23C
2000: +0.29C + (-0.0C) = +0.29C
—————————
20 Century Totals: +1.04C
(Okay! Okay! So it’s really only accurate to 2 significant digits. So sue me.)

6.) Cook thoroughly.
7.) Serve Warm.
8.) Swallow whole.

Just callin’ it like I sees it. (Is it MY fault if it’s also a joke?)

“nobody (that I know of) has been able to get the FORTRAN code released by GISS last year to run.”

It can hide, but it can’t run.

“Adjusted data is no longer data.”

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology . . .We can make it better than it was. Better. . . Faster . . . Stronger . . . THE METADATA, MAN