I have to ask this question, though. Why do the officials who gather data, when confronted with obvious “oops” situations, then devise some unproven and often controversial adjustment without ever running some simple experiments to prove their validty?

AnonyMoose points out a little portable USB measurement stick. Leaving aside the unit-to-unit absolute accuracy (probably +/- 2 or 3 degrees C, but a simple all-at-once calibration would bring them all into line), one could buy a few of these portable devices, and place them in the various locations (on the flag pole, on the roof, on the lawn, on the building, etc.), gathering simultaneous data points at different locations. Gather the data, then actually SEE the temp deltas.

Instead, we have these fiats from some obscure, anonymous hack with zero data to prove the assertions. If you question one of the government nazis, then you’re “a denier.” Stop guessing and take the data! After all, isn’t this about “science”?

What am I missing?

REPLY: Continuing of funding and job security

It more or less corresponds to experience that recent weather is warmer and milder than (say) the fifties. In addition, it shows a degree of warming which is milder and more reasonable, and more in line with balloon and sat data, than the ROW records.

So how come, if there are all these warming biases built in, that it does not appear to greatly exaggerate the warming? And why does it do so, if it does, so much less than the ROW station data? Or do you take the view that, absent these biases, the US record would actually show static or cooling temps? Seems implausible.

REPLY: I haven’t taken any view on this yet becuase I’ve been waiting to get a majority of the stations in USHCN surveyed so that we have both spatial distribution and significant quantity of CRN1 and 2 rated stations to analyse

On the other hand, maybe Jim was already contracted for the birth/death model
numbers within the unemployment data by the BLS. On a Richter scale of meaningless statistics it tops GISS by far.

Just a suggestion to perhaps compare an analysis of the GISS surface temp data to Satellite data and the NOAA US surface temp data to Satellite temp data.

If I recall correctly, doesn’t the RSS data have numbers for the Continental US? How easy would it be to compare that to the US surface data from the NOAA for the same period..

It would be interesting to see if there is a significant correlation between troposphere temps and US surface temps, to possibly demonstrate how far out of whack the GISS surface temps are.

The NOAA/CRN is supposed to do just that. It goes on line in a few months. We’ll have to wait and see. (They have photoed all the stations. We’ll have to see if those photos are available to the public.)

You mean like the politicians?

To add support to your theory regarding the instrument change in 1986, the NCDC station history file lists the instrumentation as CRS and MN, MX from 1900 through 8/29/1986. It then switches to MMTS on 8/30/1986.

That squares with the info from NOAA. It also confirms your assumption that a Stevenson Screen was used prior to 1986.

Also on the NOAA MMS page under the updates tab for Winfield Locks it states “EQUIPMENT MOVED 100 FT N, 10. SHOW LAT/LON TO SECS, CHG REMARKS” under the date of 9-22-1999.

They sure do make it difficult to piece this info together.

This is a great site but those little pop up boxes that come up when you mouse over them are a royal pain in the rear.

Mark

REPLY: You can disable them, just click on the little gear icon in the popup for options

These are essentially US rules for reporting weather, mainly at aerodromes. Although generally not used because of Urban Heating, these are quality observations, hardly like the USHCN product.

Appendix C of this manual is Titled “Sensor Standards.”

For temperatures in what I will call the “normal” range, -50C to +50C, the sensor accuracy is specified as plus or minus 0.6C with resolution to 0.1. Accuracy beyond this ‘normal’ range is plus or minus 1.1C with resolution remaining the same.

THEN, the temperature and dew point is reported in whole degrees Celsius! Unless the original log is available, this .1C is then available to the rest of the world rounded to the nearest whole degree!

These sensor standards of course apply only to US observations but the reporting standards apply world wide. I have no idea what sensor standards are required of the ROW, nor how much ‘policing’/quality control and/or calibration is routinely done.

Still it has always struck me that is absolutely absurd to calculate a mean temperature of our earth to .1C using such crude input.

Then to adjust the basic readings according to some canned formula adds, I think, insult to injury.

Rant over!

REPLY: Only if you keep the same site, as you can see from my previous post on the USHCN upgrade, they are choosing new locations.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/what-the-modernized-ushcn-will-look-like/

“Guest Weblog by Dr. Kiminori Itoh

Dear Readers of Climate Science,

It is an exceptionally great pleasure for me that I can introduce to you my recent book “Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs” (in Japanese unfortunately),” in this weblog, Climate Science, which I believe to be the most prominent in this field……
We have described many topics in this book, including inaccurate temperature measurements (e.g., A. Watt’s work), “observations” of climate sensitivity, many climate forcings such as colored-aerosol and vegetation (based on 2005 NRC report as Roger has so many times pointed out), and the effect of solar magnetic activity (including my own work). To discuss these topics I largely depended upon information provided on Climate Science. I really appreciate Roger for his continuous effort to keep the weblog at a high academic level.”

REPLY: Thanks, I had no idea they were paying any attention in Japan. -Anthony

I think one only starts to understand the ruse of AGW when the full picture is presented…

Because someone would forget to change the batteries? Because power cables have to be run to the MMTS anyway so data cables may as well also be used? Because the radio signals don’t travel well into the industrial buildings which are often used at government sites? Because they can’t trust that data won’t be lost when later other radio devices are installed which interfere?

REPLY: Your argument is weak. Small solar cells run these for years even in cold climes like Alaska.

http://www.weathershop.com/davis_vantage_pro2.htm

this would also work:

http://www.weathershop.com/USB1_temperature_logger.htm

Given that observers are required to read once a day, I think they could be trained to keep this equpiment running. If they can’t be relied upon to replace a battery or check for operation once in awhile, then they probably can’t be relied upon to get the measurments.