Surfacestations.org volunteer Gary Boden writes in with this contribution:
I’ve attached a Google Earth KML file for all of the USHCN stations with the CRN ratings you assigned as color-coded symbols. Colors match the Excel spreadsheet scheme (CRN-1 = blue, CRN-2 = green, CRN-3 = yellow, CRN-4 = orange, CRN-5 = red) and closed stations with no rating = white. All unsurveyed stations are marked by a symbol (question mark in a circle). A click on the icon shows the USHCN number and name of the station. As far as I can tell it represents the data correctly, but you might check a few
stations.
My sincere thanks to Gary for this effort, it will make finding the unsurveyed stations easier.
You can download the Google Earth KML file here.
Along the lines of the surfacestations project, the Fall 2008 NOAA Cooperative Observer Newsletter has been published. (PDF) And it is chockfull of station and observer photos. Perhaps someone can take a moment to cross check and see if any of the featured stations are USHCN?
Sorry for all the colored dots lately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
These Mushrooms are good for you
(Are you sure you don’t want a submit link or email?)
So the next question is if you used only the blue and green surface sites, CRN 1 & 2 which would denote quality measurement sites free from manmade bias, to create temperature records – How would this compare to the alternatives?
The dots are definitely concentrated near urban (or newly urbanized!) areas.
What’s more troubling of course, is that Hansen’s 500 km “averaging” of every nearby thermometer means that cooler stations (those NOT significantly inside every heat bubble of every county seat) are “averaged up” because other stations ARE hotter by 3-7 degrees F. And no stations are ever “below average” to compensate.
So, with cooler stations reported as hotter, and even hotter stations still biased even more by being badly sited and surrounded by new interferences, aren’t satellite temperatures the only accurate ones?
Oh. Wait. Thiose don’t show global warming, do they?
(Are the latest Oct 2008 satellite temperatures out yet?)
Re NOAA Coop observers: Nice to see all these observers getting awards for (in some cases) decades of service.
Re Color-coded map: Gary, good job! Do I have to have Google Earth to use your map? Never had much luck downloading that on my 2000 o.s.
Pssst
Don’t show this to NASA and James H.
Great work!
LOL… from looking at the map one will immediately see most of the red dots are in urban or near urban areas. Little wonder why the temperatures are climbing from UHI. But to hear it from Hansen and his researchers CO2 is the culprit.
Ooops! Should have added “…red dots are in urban or near urban areas, poorly sited and not per specification.”
Thats a lot of orange and red!
“A click on the icon shows the USHCN number and name of the station.”
I assum that icon refers to the station location marker. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but nothing happens when I click on any marker.
How are these stations averaged? Most seem to be in industrial or urban areas, which ususally show greater increases. Ten stations near a UHI don’t tell you a lot more than one station there.
With large areas ‘unstationed’, how do the powers that be interpolate the results?
Not a very uniform spread across the country. Vast areas with nothing and some areas blanketed. You’d think they could have done something to have a uniform spread of high quality stations – or perhaps you wouldn’t.
Phillip,
It looks like a lot of black markers (?) of stations that haven’t been surveyed. Other than Texas, it seems there is pretty decent coverage. I think when more stations are surveyed, we’ll see more red dots.
So if we just used the blue and green (with no weird manipulations of the data), what are the results and how does it compare to the whole network’s supposed result given by Hansen?
Harold K McCard (09:30:01) ” … nothing happens when I click on any marker.”
I downloaded the KML file and opened it in Google Earth. It worked as advertised.
Great work! I should get off my a** and plan a road trip with this as a guide
What has happened to the October temperature data?
Following up on a recent comment of mine…
Looking at the KML, I see the coastal Maine station at NASB is not listed.
The NASB station is the main NOAA/NWS site for south coastal Maine.
Talking with the public affairs officer at NASB will confirm these facts. He
says the live streaming buoy data is about 1000x as dense as the data
feed from the NASB station. I do not know about the buoy data, but he
seemed sure there was a great deal of it.
Great idea!
Works great.
We use google earth and street a lot.
I hope this map will inspire more volunteers to get out there and survey stations, especially folks in the heartland.
The colored pins are the stations rated by Anthony as of mid-September. I’ve done several of the closed stations since then from historical data and have been in contact with people and organizations associated with more closed station sites. There’s much that can be done electronically to chase down this information.
Anthony – one of the 75 year award stations is in Kingston, RI. It’s a CRN-2 rated station and has had a very stable history.
OT and therefore you may want to delete; but I thought this article on the British naturalist David Bellamy might interest you. A warning to any scientist on the perils of not singing the party song:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
The BBC is nothing if not consistent: their Michael Crichton obit yesterday stated that:
“his reputation suffered in 2005 when he was chided by members of the US Congress for his scepticism over climate change.”
If 60% of Brits really are GW sceptics, the blame certainly won’t lie at the BBC’s door.
Simply amazing, and the network seems to stop at the water’s edge, and the Canada and Mexico borders; and this is supposed to be a scientific sampling of the entire planet.
No wonder so much faith is placed in what shows up in ice cores from Vostock Station, where the “climate” is so non typical, and about as close to outer space as you can get, with both water and CO2 snow falling at times. Now that has to be a good location to monitor what is happening all over the globe.
Which about sums up why I maintain that Hansen’s GISStemp Anomaly Graph, is a graph of GISStemp anomalies; and should not be construed to mean anything that is related to anything that is not plotted on that graph. It doesn’t have a temperature scale, since nobody knows just what the zero anomaly temperature was either since it its the average of “some sort of measurment” over some time frame of a number of years.
It is too bad that the lay press, and the general public, and politicians, somehow imagine that this is actually a graph of the mean global temperature; or even the mean global surface temperature; or the mean global lower atmophere temperature or any other actual connection with the real planet.
No point on the graph was ever measured at any actual place by anyone at any specific time; it is all computer generated numbers from some presumably measured input data set; to which some secret algorithm is applied. It’s a ritual that has kept Hansen and co in cheeseburgers at taxpayer expense for who knows how many years.
But if you ever have a use for a GISStemp anomaly number; you know who has some, and comes up with a new one for the public at least once per year; and what is his annual budget for his department that performs this meaningless ritual.
Even if you actually could measure the global mean surface temperature; which you can’t, it is still a meaningless ritual, because it isn’t linked in any useful way to heat flows into or out of planet earth; and each different type of terrain, has its own set of important thermal processes that relate to local temperatures in completely different ways.
Heck even the part of the globe that is the surface ranges from sea level (about 73%) to minus a few hundred metres, and as high as more than 8 km, which isn’t exactly stratosphere, but isn’t really lower troposphere either.
Honorable Sir Anthony Watts;
You can superimpose the two maps?
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/state-map-display.pl
To Gary Boden,
Some of the stations in Kansas have survey data at surfacestations.com but are not rated??: Saint Francis, Oberlin 1E, Norton 9SSE, Hays 1S, Anthony, Coldwater, Ashland, Minneapolis. For what it is worth, Larned was surveyed two months after it went inactive and Medicine Lodge has been inactive for a while.
To Gary Boden
Just to be sure you have way more information than you wanted, There is also a St Francis (as opposed to Saint Francis) It is a rain gauge a few miles NW of Saint Francis, Ks and Saint Francis station. There is also a weather station west of Norton Kansas, located beside a ranger station in a state park.
To those complaining of the urban located weather stations being hotter due to some mythical idea of UHI.
This is conclusive proof of Human Caused CO2 global warming. The facts are these:
1. More human beings in a smaller space = more CO2 exhaled
2. More cars, trucks, busses and other vehicles pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. More pets in a smaller space generating CO2
4. More garbage decomposing in small areas called dumpsters generating the pollutant
5. More power plants spewing CO2
I could go on but the proof is there.
Cue announcer with deep voice who says quietly….
The person writing this was not harmed in any way by critical thought during its production.
Mike