Anthony, you deserve a lot of credit

Now to see WHERE they put the new stations and HOW the use both sets of data.

It has certainly been going as I would have expected; bringing more awareness and impelling positive action. To better know where we are so as to better know how to get to where we’re going. What I see is some people that are so convinced that regardless of the truth (anti-truthers?) immediate action to prevent some expected short-term catastrophe must be taken regardless of the means by which that goal is accomplished.

We know obviously there has been an understanding of the USHCN and its issues, because the CRN project is here to prove it. Now issues have been broght to the forefront, hardly surprising that the efforts of volunteers is having a positive effect, especially given some of the hearings on the subject, and the actions and reactions of the participants in them, etc.

But doesn’t the same procedure mean that neighboring stations will have their “anomalous” non-warming trends equally adjusted by the warming trends of stations like Marysville? Doesn’t Marysville’s measured temperature end up having exactly the same weight it would have without the homogenization procedure?

Marysville probably does an adequate job of telling whether today is hotter than yesterday, or even the same day last year, all of which is worth knowing. But for climate trend purposes, such stations should just be identified and discarded, not made to look artificially homogeneous.

Anyway, congratulations, Anthony, for your success at getting NCDC to at least recognize that there might be a problem here! Does this mean that NCDC will now encourage local meteorologists to get out of their air conditioned offices and help complete the SurfaceStations project? Anthony’s volunteers have done a terrific job, but perhaps now it’s time to start shaming the pros into doing what they’re paid to do.

REPLY: The data will be public and I believe the source will be available on request. My experience with the CRN team is that they will provide most anything on request.

Was anything said about Surface Sea temperature improvement?

Congrats geoff.

REPLY: Nothing on SST, whole different division.

I think in this case we’ll have to be satisfied with:

“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so anyway…”

I’ll drink to that.
Obviously not before a bath…Sorry couldn’t resist.

Best wishes on a complete recovery, as one who has suffered they can be really painful.
Backs that is, not future funding CONcerned “scientists”.
Hold on, is that a simily, or a pun, or the truth…
LOL.

Best folk remedy for error-prone climate monitoring network: (See above)

REPLY: Thanks for the offer Ron, I just spent the last two days in TN surveying stations along the way, flying out of BNA tomorrow. Sorry we couldn’t meet up.

They do the Anomaly Dance at Fletcher’s now.

I would be less expansive in letting the stewards of the data off the hook, at least not until their suddenly enlightened attitude toward what was really their job in the first place can be supported by their actions.

Money, as it confers power, corrupts. And the entire field of climate science from academia to industry has been corrupted. Gorebots won’t submit to reality easily, if at all. Anthony’s success in establishing a beach-head is outstanding, but just as I am a skeptic on the threat posed by AGW, I am also a skeptic on the sincerity of NCDC’s epiphany. Where is the confession…the mea culpa…that is usually a requisite for redemption?

Well, it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it. After all, SHAP adjustments are UPWARD (if you can believe that). In other words, according to the NOAA, what has been happening to the stations is that they have been undergoing an artificial cooling trend effect of around 0.15C. [Pause to let the laughter die down.]

This is simply bureaucratic ass covering.

I agree with this interpretation.

And “Pigs is Pigs”.

I thought there was no one left in the world who remembered that one. Have you ever read “All Yankees Are Liars”?

REPLY: No you aren’t missing anything, you got it.

Fear of AGW has been hawked since the 80’s. Billions have been spent on AGW research. This should have been a major priority. I am glad someone is finally doing it.

We banned CFCs in the 80’s and only recently has someone measured a key reaction, and found it was an order of magnitude too small to have caused such a large hole. At the same time other researchers showed the Ozone Hole wasn’t healing as fast as the old theories predicted it should have, having banned CFCs. (Note: all research can be overturned, but those two are self consistant, and not having done the measurement at all is inexcusable.)

No one has yet proven that DDT caused thinning of eagle egg shells, but that is why we banned it so long ago. Eagles were protected, so they force fed DDT to other birds to no ill effect. We cleaned up a lot of messes back then, so we also haven’t proved that banning DDT helped the Eagles to recover. Some other pollution could easily have been the culprit. And only recently have we moved towards a sensible plan of banning it in the rich countries who can afford other ways of insect contol, but letting the poor countries use it indoors. Such unreason cost millions of lives.

These bans may yet prove themselves to be right, but it is clear that when we made the bans, we had not yet done the science needed to justify them. Again and again, we face serious accusations that have enough logic behind them to justify testing them, but not enough science behind them to prove them true. And we rush to make corrections before the science is really in.

These things should not be about what the majority of experts think, they should be about what the majority of experts can prove. And nothing makes more sense in proving AGW than setting up a network designed specifically to measure GW and the effects A has on it. Getting the GW measurement part nailed should have been the first thing done.

Maybe I should blame scientific ego. No sexy papers are going to come out of such a project. But politics are heavily involved, even in the science community. And arguing that the present system isn’t good enough to make proper conclusions greatly undermines the political goals. So instead of doing it right, we get inundated with science arguments justifying the old system and the horrendous manipulations that have to be done on it just to knit it into a cohesive whole.

So once again,
Thank you Anthony and volunteers for taking the effort to show that those arguments weren’t based on reality.
And thank you NCDC and NOAA for sticking with it until you finally got approval to set up and maintain a network designed to do the measurement, and fixing some of the old network to make proper measurements.
And since you are sticking your head in, thanks too to Roger Pielke Sr. for sticking to your guns about the incompleteness of the present effort. It should be obvious that increased CO2 is just one thing man is doing that can effect our environment, and it should also be obvious that we don’t know enough about the interactions to be able to make models that can show the effects of increasing CO2 on the water cycle, which is where most of the feared warming is said to come from.