Comments on: Finding well sited weather stations is becoming more difficult

By: Tim Lindt

Tim Lindt — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:01:36 +0000

Anthony,

if i had the time i could, ” spill white wash ” on the black tar parking lots at these stations and, tada! green house (paved lots) warming fixed!!!!!!!

good greaf

we are all in trouble folks.

By: Earlw

Earlw — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:55:19 +0000

http://www.surfacestation.org s/b http://www.surfacestations.org

By: Steve Keohane

Steve Keohane — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:38:33 +0000

Evan, I come up with a minimum of 2.259 °C, of error for the population, not a big difference. Adding the absurdment, I mean adjustment, and converting to °F we get a nice warm delta of 4.8°F for the US. Close or ignore 2/3rds of the global measuring stations, and estimate like hell wherever one can and tada! anthropomorphic climate change. It’s all in the numbers. All this time I couldn’t bring myself to believe in AGW, and there it is.

By: old construction worker

old construction worker — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:50:24 +0000

The same people who adjust the land surface temperature are the big supporters of the “CO2 drives the climate” theory.
The adjustment have never been independently validated or verified.
Conflict of interest, you bet.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:13:38 +0000

David: In case you are interested the results are, according to NOAA/CRN standards, using their low estimates, the temperatures are running almost exactly 2.0°C warmer than they should be.

But have no fear. The NOAA adjusts for this. (They add over 0.4°C to the raw numbers. Yes, add. No, you didn’t read that wrong, I did say add. Yup, add.)

By: Cindy

Cindy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:57:37 +0000

Thanks to Hyon for hiking in to give us the details and thanks to Frank Perdicaro for making the inquiry. It is nice to know some people want to set things right.

By: Bill in Vigo

Bill in Vigo — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:28:13 +0000

fred (01:55:10) :

Its obvious and shameful that without this prodding the agencies involved would never have cleaned up the network

They haven’t cleaned it up they have just continued to stonewall and claim that they can correct for the short falls. The fallacy of this position is that they have no idea what the shortfalls are or what impact they have on the measurements. I often wonder how we ever let our science get in this mess? Perhaps when we allow agenda to overcome sensibility this happens.

Our leading authorities seem to be more involved in promoting an agenda than anything else.

Keep up the good work Anthony and your traveling volunteers.

Bill Derryberry

By: INC

INC — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:23:55 +0000

David, I agree it would be good to see a running tally at the top. You can find the info you want at the home page for Surface Stations. It has a map and pie chart on it. (See the right side bar under Blog Roll). Near the top you'll see: USHCN Station List HTML and XLS files have been updated as of 4/18/08 Click on the link and you go here for details. Scroll down to the bottom for total numbers. Of the 534 out of 687 stations surveyed, these are the results currently posted: CRN=5: 70 (13%) CRN=4: 289 (55%) CRN=3: 96 (18%) CRN=2: 48 (9%) CRN=1: 23 (4%)

By: David

David — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:27:40 +0000

I am amazed by the results of you enquiry! It would be nice if you kept a scoreboard of the number of
CRN 1
CRN 2
CRN 3
CRN 4
CRN 5
Not evaluated
This would neatly summurize your work up to date to everyone, and keep us on our toes for the following results. Keep up the good work!

By: AnyMouse

AnyMouse — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:59:48 +0000

If weather stations are thought to be more important, they’ll get more funding. They might get better siting, but eventually someone will think their importance and inconvenient location require a driveway and sidewalk. Can’t have the important weather repairman take proper care of the instruments without being able to park the important repair truck nearby, and safety requires the important repairman not be walking around on wet grass.

By: George M

George M — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:44:03 +0000

And again, as per my last post, what’s science got to do with it? Brett_McS (23:42:20) nails it right on with the computer jockey comment, and fred (01:55:10) winds it up with the disconnect between the “scientists” and the data sources. This is sure not the way we did it way back when I was a practicing physicist for a living.

By: Stan

Stan — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:44:44 +0000

It’s actually a moral issue.

Climate alarmists demand that billions of people suffer degraded living standards over the next 50-100 years. The impoverished will continue to die prematurely from hunger and disease, if the policies promoted by the alarmists are enacted.

But the alarmist “scientists” can’t be expected to actually check the data or check each other’s work. They are too busy telling the billions that they have to die early. Aren’t they special?

By: fred

fred — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:55:10 +0000

I am struck by the apparent observation that nobody else seems to have such emphasis on quality control of data as do you.

Its actually worse than that. On AGW blogs like Rabbett or Tamino, the whole project of taking a physical look at where the evidence is coming from is ridiculed. It is a really weird state of mind that these guys are in. If we ever are going to get to a proper account of surface temperatures, this will have been a very valuable and necessary stimulus to it. Its obvious and shameful that without this prodding the agencies involved would never have cleaned up the network.

By: Brett_McS

Brett_McS — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:42:20 +0000

Real scientists are skeptical of data quality. I wonder if the large number of computer jockeys aka ‘modelers’ moving into the climate field has degraded the level of skepticism about data. Computer modelers have in general struck me as being too focussed on what comes out of the computer, rather than on what goes in. GIGO.

By: Bobby Lane

Bobby Lane — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:24:32 +0000

Minor correction.

With about half, not over half.

Sorry.