Comments on: Over 500 USHCN Climate Stations Now Surveyed

By: Bad Weather Instruments + No Monitoring = Global Warming

Bad Weather Instruments + No Monitoring = Global Warming — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:16:43 +0000

[...] http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/over-500-ushcn-stations-now-surveyed/ [...]

By: Anthony Rugari

Anthony Rugari — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:18:27 +0000

Hi Anthony,
Just a note from one Anthony to another Anthony. I am a retired Physicist, having worked in the microwave field and with laser technology in the 50’s and 60’s. As I look at the above data relative to the errors resulting from the placement of the Stevenson screens, I see that 87% of the screens you have surveyed are located such that their location gives rise to temperature reading errors of from one to five degrees C, Adding to this the instrumentation inaccuracies and the reading errors, which can be large if the instrumentation provides an analog readout, I wonder how one can massage the data to result in temperature differences in the tenths of a degree C. It would appear that the confidence level of these readings would be extremely low, if not zero. Have you ever had the raw data from the NASA GISS program made available to you. It might seem that one can generate random data, using intelligent guesses, which would be just as good. On top of all this, I read that this data is much better than the data generated in other parts of the word, Am I missing something?

REPLY: Nope, you aren’t missing anything, you’ve got it.

By: Anthony Rugari

Anthony Rugari — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:56:03 +0000

Hi Anthony
Just a note from one Anthony to another Anthony.

By: john

john — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:07:22 +0000

Knock yourself out.

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

By: arctic_front

arctic_front — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:07:32 +0000

Hopefully your very important and valuable work is picked up by some more mainstream sources. To toil away in obscurity does your efforts a dis-service.

When the average person, and more importantly, young children (who have been brain-washed) can quote some of these facts and distortions of these facts, the sooner we can close the book on ‘Global Climate Change’ for good.

Thanks again for your work!

By: Denis

Denis — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:37:05 +0000

I’m willing to help out in Canada (Ontario / Quebec) as well.

REPLY: Ok great, working on a plan as I write this

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:54:53 +0000

I was just wondering if this project was also being done in Canada.

REPLY: Not yet, working on it

By: tadcronn

tadcronn — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:16:58 +0000

Anthony, I just discovered your blog. It's very important work you are doing. Do you know if there are any similar projects going on in other countries? Tad

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:20:27 +0000

Here is the New CRN Manual based ratings:
(1 Rev = 1C “estimated” CRN offset.)

502 Stations Observed

Using Low-end estimates:
CRN-1: 0C
CRN-2: 0C
CRN-3: 1C
CRN-4: 2C
CRN-5: 5C

Offset: 2.0 Revs

Too much orange, but look at blue and green compared to red. I would argue that those average out to orange.

Orange it is.

(1.98, actually, but that would be misplaced precision.)

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:08:20 +0000

I can survey a few in Alabama this year — didn’t realize this state was lacking.

Isn’t there some sort of rule against hanging straight lines around here?

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:06:43 +0000

So of course they need to be averaged in.

I am at a loss….

You need to explain to him that urban areas are only c. 3% or so pewrcent of the earth’s surface, but far more than 3% of the stations are in urban areas and that urban, suburban, exurban creep (plus microsite issues) are overtaking the surface stations at a far greater rate than they are overtaking the planet. Therefore, it is very likely that there is a spurious increase in the rate of measurement of temperature increase.

And you might remind him that a heat sink exaggerates a slight temperature increase (and that process works in reverse and will undo itself at an equally exaggerated rate in the case of cooling.

(Yes, I know you already know this, but there are words likely to get through. Remember, we are now cast in the role of teachers: We have to find the right words and patiently explain over and over. It could be worse. We could be wrong!)

By: Joel McDade

Joel McDade — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:51:20 +0000

I can survey a few in Alabama this year — didn’t realize this state was lacking.

REPLY: THANKS JOEL

By: Bob_L

Bob_L — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:38:12 +0000

Too much orange, but look at blue and green compared to red. I would argue that those average out to orange.

What a mess.

Anthony, I remember your “Mobile MMST” effort in Indianapolis was canceled due to wind. Have you had the opportunity to try it at home?

REPLY: I did, and recently ran a transect of Sacramento. Also, Warren Meyers’ son, Nicolas, came up with his own version of the project:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html

Way to go Nicolas!

I’m going to post my results soon.

By: MattN

MattN — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:55:46 +0000

On a similar topic, I have just very recently had a “friend” type these exact words:

“Urban areas are hotter because they are urban. Duh. All that asphalt and concrete reflecting the heat and trapping it in the infrastructure? The temperature read hotter because they are hotter…

So of course they need to be averaged in. ”

I am at a loss….

By: Stef

Stef — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:34:07 +0000

That is a worrying amount of orange.

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:01:45 +0000

God bless you and your work Anthony. I am humbled every time I think about what you have done and how important it may be. Thanks.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:27:10 +0000

Well, we see a very steady and continuing trend, don’t we?

It seems that the Rev’s “cherry tree” bears the most extraordinarily consistent fruit, does it not?

The new CRN estimate average will be upcoming!