How not to measure temperature, part 76

Oberlin_Looking_East

Click for the Oberlin image gallery

This is the USHCN station of record for Oberlin KS. COOP # 145906 It was installed at this location in March 2008.

The idea behind the surface network is to measure the near surface temperature. Unfortunately, this one does it “nearer” to the surface than others.

Thanks to surfacestations volunteer Robert Edward Watson for taking this photo. Here is what he wrote about it in the station survey form:

Height of shelter above local surface: 40″ Last pole broke, curator
is waiting for government guys to come and fix.

The standard observing height is 1.5 meters (~ 60 inches). At 40 inches, this one is ~ 20 inches too short.

The GISTEMP plot for Oberlin has a curious step at the end:

oberline-giss-station-plot

Click for original source graph from NASA GISS

What is really curious about this USHCN station is the number of station move it has experienced in Oberlin since 1998. As indicated by the NCDC MMS database which tracks the location, it seems like this station has been a veritable hot potato:

oberlin-location-history-520

Click for full sized table

I count seven locations since 1996. The MMTS was introduced in 1986 and this one in the photo looks a bit careworn. It kind of make you wonder if they keep cutting down the pole height for some reason with each location, because there is certainly no good reason for the MMTS post to be that short.

As we know, the closer to the ground the near surface temperature measurement is, the higher will be the average between the Tmax and Tmin.

Clearly the data quality is getting the short shrift with this installation and the constant moves. Each move places the sensor in a totally different environment. Sorting out the signal from the biases introduced by each new environment is not an easy task. In fact without knowing this history of each location, it may well be impossible.

56 thoughts on “How not to measure temperature, part 76

  1. At least the BBQs are at least forty feet away from the sensor this time ;-)

    I wonder if they simply cut the pole off at ground level rather than figure out how to extract it from its footing the last couple of times they moved it?

  2. Could they have got it any closer to the building? I guess they are economizing on trenching and wiring……….

  3. Certainly lots of asphalt around. The driveway (where vehicles most likely often park) and the street can not be more that 20-25 feet away.
    I’d say this is yet another sloppy installation – with little regard given to getting quality data.

  4. In the chart, it reads that the station was installed at the observer’s residence. I’d be curious to know if the observer is a renter and moves every year or so, moving the station as well.

    What permissions are required to locate a station on a site? Is it hard to get a person at a site to say “yes” to allow a station? Are stations sited using some form of eminent domain?

    (BTW it looks like there are two BBQ grills in the photo. Is there some yet-to-be-discovered genetic link between charred meat and a person’s interest in weather?)

  5. I think that it is interesting that this was installed just 6 months ago in May 2008. That answers a question I had. Is anybody with USHCN / GISS / NASA worried about this? I was wondering if they would be trying to fix bad stations before they were audited either by cleaning them up or moving them. Obviously not, May 2008 was about 1 year after this project started. They just don’t give a rat’s butt that the quality of their work sucks.

  6. pkatt (02:07:41) :

    I certainly agree with the end about the world needing an open and honest discussion.

    That they say that suggests to me that the writers either:

    a) don’t get it or
    b) think they get it but don’t, or
    c) are planting those words to suggest to the uninformed reader that the skeptics are not open and honest… and not planning for any open and honest discussion.

  7. Being too close to a building is bad enough, but this? I can just feel the heat radiating off the white siding.

  8. Keep pushing Anthony,

    The AGW conspiracy is breaking up slowly:

    Icecap.us
    1. Nov 25, 2008
    Fiery Czech Leader Klaus Poised to Be EU President—Called Gore an ‘Apostle of Arrogance’
    By Dan Bilefsky, New York Times

    2. Nov 25, 2008
    Op Ed Comentary from a Television Meteorologist with a Broadcast Seal
    The dismantling of The Weather Channel Environmental team is as much a public relations statement as it is a material policy shift exacted by General Electric. The timing of this action should be alarming to The American Meteorological Society, academia and other institutions funded by thinly disguised grant money gravy train.

  9. Has anyone from this forum made an attempt to have a real dialog with the Real Climate people about the issues that they bring up in their threads. My finding about them is as follows. If you are a skeptic and you ask a stupid question they will post it and allow their fan club to hit it out of the park. They will allow the local fan club to insult you, but they will not allow you to return the favor. Retaliation will not be posted. If you stick to the issue and if you produce a post that the fan club and the moderators are unable to answer, then they will not post it, no matter how relevant, respectful, and to the point that it is.

    The subject for the newest thread at RC is why people are still saying that warming has recently stopped. The author, Rasmus, presents his take on the dilema. I tried to answer this question for him, and I submitted my response, but it has not been posted – even though many other responses have been posted since mine was submitted.

    Rasmus starts his article, called “Mind the Gap” with this:

    “The misconception ‘the global warming has stopped’ still lives on in some minds. We have already discussed why this argument is flawed. So why have we failed to convince?”

    I tried to answer that question with this:

    Well, Rasmus, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are really interested in answering that question. If that is the case, then the approach that you need to use is not to throw up your own straw men, but rather to address the issues of people that make the claim that warming has stopped.

    To begin with, people who make that claim have a period of time in mind. Most of them believe that there has been no warming since about 1997-1998. And I agree with that claim. So let’s do a little review of the arguments and counter arguments.

    1. If someone wants to convince you about what has been happening for the last decade, it would seem to be very dishonest to use a temperature chart that begins in 1850 such that the area of interest is compressed into a half inch, as your first chart obviously does. It is this chart or a similar one that most of the warming sites consistently use when addressing the issue. The question is, if you are not trying to fool people, then why use a 158 year chart to talk about the last decade? Better to use a chart that covers the time period for which the claim is being made – like this one.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html

    So when you ask yourself, why have we failed to convince, there is one of your reasons.

    2. After the 158 year chart doesn’t do the trick, then warmers typically move on to the next rationalization – “the period is flat because there is a large El Nino at the beginning and a La Nina at the end.” The warmers conviniently leave out the fact that the period is covered by 7 ENSO events, 4 El Nino’s, and 3 La Nina’s. And they leave out the fact that the El Nino of 97/98 was followed by a long La Nina that basically cancelled out it’s effect on the slope of the trend line for the period. Gavin created a data set that did an ENSO correction for HadCrut3. I plotted that data against the uncorrected HadCrut3, and the difference was very little – as you can see here.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

    I also used a seperate method to judge the ENSO effects here.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-effects.html

    So once again, we have a false argument from the warmers trying to justify the absence of warming.

    3. Then we have the statistical significance argument that is generated by people like Tamino. He takes the assumed climate trend due to CO2 forcing and overlays it with noise. Then he shows, that for some period of time, this trended noise can also have flat temperature sections. This argument makes no sense for a couple of reasons. First, there is no noise in climate. Everything must happen for a reason. And when we look at the data after the fact, we should be able to explain the reasons. This is not the case with the absence of warming for the last decade or so. Second, he only uses one independent data set, and he finds the flat areas in that data set. But the flat trend that we are now observing is confirmed by several independent data sources, like the satellite data and the surface temp data. In addition, the information is also supported by the fact that there was no ocean heat content increase for the 4 year period from 2003 to 2006 (Willis et al). Sea level data from the University of Colorado shows no sea level increase for the last three years – and considering the close relationship between sea level and ocean heat content, it seems highly likely that there has been no increase in the ocean heat content for the last 6 years.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html

    So it seems to me that if Tamino wanted to make a real point, he would have to generate three noise data sets and show that they could all have extended flat periods of 10 or 11 years, and that those flat periods could overlap for such a period. Of course he would have to take the first three that he generated. He couldn’t simply generate data sets until he found some that overlapped. Okay, so now you know why many people don’t find that argument convincing.

    4. Then there is the argument that you presented above having to do with temperature extrapolations to the poles. I don’t find that argument convincing because I believe that the increase at the poles should be some multiplier of the increase in the tropics. But over a period of time when there is no increase at the tropics, there should be increase at the poles. X times zero is zero. In addition, temperature readings in the Antarctic do not support the theory at the Arctic.

    5. You can make the argument that GISS temp still shows warming while others do not, but even the GISS temp increase is only half the predicted .2C for the decade. Also, for any number of reasons, and I don’t have time to go into all of them at this moment, many people believe that GISS is an outlier that cannot be trusted. For example – poor coverage of Northern Canada and Africa. Often high Siberian temperatures. While surface temp station quality control in the US is poor at best, how can anyone think that it isn’t even worse in Siberia. Then there are the wide variety of data “adjustments” that always seem to yield warmer results. Etc. etc.

    6. The absence of warming is a problem because there are no natural elements of variation for the period that can explain it. The level of CO2 rose as fast as ever, and without other reasons for the lack of warming, the climate sensitivity number must become suspect.

    7. The last 30 year period that many warmers insist is the minimum acceptable period for defining a significant trend can quite likely be explained by ENSO. This chart shows that El Ninos were hugely dominant for the period from 1977 to 1998 when all of the warming for that period occured. Prior to 1977 you can see that La Ninas were more dominant.

    So, rasmus, there are some of the reasons that you have failed to convice people about warming in the last decade. Hope that helps.

  10. is waiting for government guys to come and fix.

    The government fixes the volunteer stations? Does that also mean that the government installs them? Has the government been doing all these interesting installations? I don’t think so, although some do look like a kind of government work; is there a Civilian Climate Corps?

  11. Ross Berteig: “At least the BBQs are at least forty feet away from the sensor this time ;-)”

    The beat goes on, eh?

    When I was a kid there was a popular children’s magazine called Popular Highlights, which came out monthly. I remember that I would usually gravitate to its “hidden picture” graphic in each issue, especially in doctor’s waiting rooms, where this mindless activity seemed to keep my mind off cold stethescopes, needles, dentists’ drills and other unspeakable torments. In those days, I was often looking for a key, a wagon, a kite…

    Of course, every new photograph Anthony releases here is a new hidden picture challenge for somebody, and an opportunity to revisit childhood anxiety associated with doctors’ waiting rooms, and the anticipation of something not-so-benign about to happen. The only difference is the sort of objects in the picture: a car, an air conditioning vent… and the ubiquitous barbecue.

    The Horror!!!

  12. The price of dissent on global warming

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-7583,00.html

    David Bellamy | November 25, 2008

    Article from: The Australian
    WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

    According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming, I’ve not been allowed to make a television program.

  13. Tilo Reber wrote:

    Has anyone from this forum made an attempt to have a real dialog with the Real Climate people about the issues that they bring up in their threads. My finding about them is as follows. If you are a skeptic and you ask a stupid question they will post it and allow their fan club to hit it out of the park. They will allow the local fan club to insult you, but they will not allow you to return the favor. Retaliation will not be posted. If you stick to the issue and if you produce a post that the fan club and the moderators are unable to answer, then they will not post it, no matter how relevant, respectful, and to the point that it is.

    Take a look at the discussion on the Is Gavin Schmidt Honest? thread at climateaudit (starting at post 441).

  14. First, there is no noise in climate.

    Most of the surface network is noise, as this post and many others illustrates.

  15. And I thought my sister moved around a lot!

    JimB – that drivel is from James Hansen. Your hard earned tax dollars being put to good use again.

  16. Tilo Reber, excellent summary of the main points.

    I gave up reading Real Climate some time ago, because of their pattern of misleading and outright deceptive practices in order to support the climate orthodoxy of the IPCC.

    There is a case to be made that the last 10 years is a cyclical effect (PDO etc) masking the rising temperatures from CO2/GHGs, but that opens up the whole climate sensitivity issue (how much temperatures rise from a certain rise in CO2, such as a doubling). And that in turn, questions the core argument of the IPCC.

    Real Climate only allows debate of issues that do not question the claims of the IPCC.

  17. Thanks to surfacestations volunteer Robert Edward Watson for taking this photo. Here is what he wrote about it in the station survey form:

    Your name on WUWT.

    Congrats, Doc.
    You made the bigtime.

  18. Jonathan:
    “Take a look at the discussion on the Is Gavin Schmidt Honest? thread”

    I think it’s pretty evident that Gavin runs a rigged game at RC. The example that I gave above isn’t the first time that I’ve had such a problem. And the contributers at CA now confirm that this kind of thing is standard practice at RC. In Gavin’s house, the house always wins, no matter what they have to do to make that happen.

    When I go to a blog I expect to follow their rules – as long as they are the same for everybody. But in Gavin’s case, selective censorship is simply a tool that allows him to run his site as a propaganda source while maintaining the illusion of free discussion.

  19. Robert Coté (10:08:03) :

    Is that Aluminum siding?

    Looks to me like an inexpensive brand of Vinyl siding (who knows what it’s covering up?).

  20. Philip_B
    “There is a case to be made that the last 10 years is a cyclical effect (PDO etc) masking the rising temperatures from CO2/GHGs, but that opens up the whole climate sensitivity issue (how much temperatures rise from a certain rise in CO2, such as a doubling). ”

    Philip, one of the links that I gave shows a comparison of ENSO corrected HadCrut3 data compared with non ENSO corrected HadCrut3 data. There is very little difference in the trend line, and the ENSO corrected data is still basically flat. On another one of my visits to RC I presented Gavin with that chart. I told him that I was ready to accept that elements of natural variability could override the CO2 signal, but I expected him to be able to tell me what those elements of natural variability were. Clearly, using his own data, it wasn’t ENSO. And the PDO cycle is only thought to have shifted to the negative in the last year or so. The answer doesn’t seem to be volcanoes. And the warmers claim that the effect of solar cycles is minimum. We were looking at historical data, so it should have been possible to isolate the cause. Gavin ran away from the question, refusing to give a plausible element of natural variability that could cause the flattening of the trend. So you have to ask, if he doesn’t have enough knowledge of natural variability to explain what has already happend, then does he have enough knowledge to model the future, or to extract a climate sensitivity signal from a set of natural variations that he doesn’t understand.

    Once again, in that situation Gavin cut off my posts after he figured out that he was trapped without an adequate response.

  21. In response to Tilo

    The fact that Real Climate doesn’t make any attempt to allow honest debate is very telling. I sometimes wonder if they believe their own “theories”. Or is it all just for show and for a political agenda.

    I hate to be so mistrusting, but if they really believed that carbon dioxide was likely to cause the type of troubles they pretend to believe in, wouldn’t they be fanatically in favor of nuclear power plant development? How much would replacing all fossil fuels in power plants with nukes cut CO2 emission world wide? About half? and at a net economic and environmental benefit which can’t be said of wind solar or any or the other ones I like to play with.

    I can’t help it, if someone wants to “stop climate change” but doesn’t want to support nuclear power it makes me strongly suspect that they don’t really believe their scarry warming stories.

    Ok, I seem to have wandered a bit off the point of the thread haven’t I but after all I am just … Wondering Aloud

  22. Tilo Reber, point well taken about being unable to isolate the cause of the post-1998 lack of predicted warming.

    The PDO did change in 1998, although it wasn’t a classic warm to cool phase shift.

    See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

    Natural climate variability is poorly understood. Both its mechanisms and effects on temperatures. You can’t model something you don’t understand. Hence, Gavin, as a spokesperson for the modellers at NASA (which models in turn form the basis of the IPCC’s case), must deny the natural variability of the climate (sufficient to have caused the post-1998 temperature trend). And hence the need to maintain (the fiction) that temperatures have continued to rise at a similar rate to pre-1998.

    “Oh what tangle webs we weave, when first we practiced to decieve”

    BTW, natural variability can be invoked to explain much of the post-1975 warming.

  23. Tilo Reber “one of the links that I gave shows a comparison of ENSO corrected HadCrut3 data compared with non ENSO corrected HadCrut3 data. There is very little difference in the trend line, and the ENSO corrected data is still basically flat.”

    This brings up that very interesting phenomenon that the modelers don’t want to discuss and just brush under the rug as noise, ENSO. They have been occurring since forever roughly every five years plus/minus three years but no one can predict when they will occur, how big they will be , or how long they will last. In any other field of science this would be a signal to be explained not “noise” to be discarded.

  24. If Anthony is to organize a “volunteer temp network” which seems to be needed, then his time must be paid for. On the last post I have subscribed $10.00 per month — I will send checks since I will not use PayPal. A drop in the bucket, I know. But, if 100 readers of the blog do the same, Anthony perhaps has a small chunk of time to devote to organization in the service of accurate temperature/climate science.

    PKatt, why no author or date on the Columbia piece? If it truly is a “science” article from the U. of Columbia, then we know why. Columbia U is the most radical left-wing elite university in the U.S. This is where where Obama pal Rashid Khalidi — connected to Palentine terrorists — went from Chicago as the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies. Columbia is also “friends” with Iranian Akhmadinejad (sp) as we all know. Those who are suspicious, like I am — the science is so clear and the sham has been proven in so many ways — might want to look at an essay by a Brazilian Olavo de Carvalho, “What can we expect from an Obama government”, posted on savagepolitics.com today.

  25. Wondering Aloud,
    I believe you hit on a key question. If it’s really all about CO2, why not nuclear as a replacement for coal?
    But if it’s not really about CO2, then what?
    If aggressive mandates cause us to abrubtly dump the burning of fossil fuels and attempt to replace it only with renewables, it will almost certainly create widespread shortages of much more expensive power.
    The choking off of affordable and reliable energy will greatly slow the growth of human development.
    I’m just saying…..

  26. I have no scientific training…just common sense.

    Understand that the measuring equipment has to be away from concrete or buildings and set at a height of 1.5m.
    Quite simple really.

  27. As long as the global aggregate surface station data appears to show the warming that they already know is occurring, NOAA and NASA will assume it’s a valid representation of global temperature and continue to accept it without challenge.
    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  28. As I sit and read this thread I wonder about what happens when the power is shut off. I just sold the timber from my property except about 50-% of the hard woods. I have no doubt that the years to come are going to be hard ones for our planet. Not necessarily because of the use of fossil fuels but because of the cost of those fuels after the restrictive carbon credit system is put in place. I have been cold and do not intend to be cold to misery again. I will heat with wood if necessary and many of my friends will do the same. Some of us already do heat with wood. It is amazing the savings on fuel a good wood stove can create. It will pay for itself in the first year if you have a good source of wood. The shame is that wood is also a carbon based fuel and it was used to power and heat nearly everything prior to the advent of “fosile fuel”. I wonder what will happen when man in his attempt to keep warm using poor materials to keep warm will have on the atmosphere. I think the Global change propisiton is a false statement and the results will be a enviornmental mess. I am truely aftaid that the cure will be much worse than the disease.

    Bill Derryberry

  29. Philip_B:
    “The PDO did change in 1998, although it wasn’t a classic warm to cool phase shift. ”

    Philip, thanks for the link. Is this the reference that you are talking about?

    “1998: PDO index showed several years of “cool” values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4]
    2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[5] ”

    I guess I was refering to the change that they noticed in 2008. Several papers and articles came out about this.

    “Hence, Gavin, as a spokesperson for the modellers at NASA (which models in turn form the basis of the IPCC’s case), must deny the natural variability of the climate (sufficient to have caused the post-1998 temperature trend).”

    Philip, I may have unintentionally misled you on this. When posting with Gavin about the flatness of the trend I didn’t get the impression that he wanted to deny the strength of natural variability. In fact at one point I suggested that the flat trend couldn’t be explained by natural variability and the ENSO corrected data was evidence of this, Gavin came back strongly with the objection that there were many other elements of natural variability that could cause a flat trend. Of course I never disputed this, but none of those other elements that I looked at seemed to be any help in giving a flat trend. It was at that point that I challenged Gavin, telling him that I accepted that there could be other elements, but that I didn’t think that he could identify any for the past decade. It was then that he ran away from the question and finally refused to post what I wrote.

    “BTW, natural variability can be invoked to explain much of the post-1975 warming.”

    Yes, the period from 1977 to 1998 was heavily dominated by El Nino’s.

  30. Opps previous post got ‘fat finger’ posted too soon.

    is there a Civilian Climate Corps? What a great idea. We could give them a uniform, like little brown shirts and San Brown Belts and they could go around stomping out the skeptics.

  31. Regarding Gavin and RC:
    They already have their minds made up. For them the task at hand is to convince people about the need for the reduction of CO2 emissions. Continued debate only gets in the way of taking needed action – they say it all the time.
    We call that advocacy.
    Given the above, why would one expect RC to be interested in open and honest scientific debate? They’re not so much climate scientists anymore as they are highly trained advocates for the green energy lobby.

  32. Wondering Aloud:
    D. Caldwell:
    “If it’s really all about CO2, why not nuclear as a replacement for coal?”

    This is a very important question, and it’s one for which I’ve never had a satisfactory answer from any of the warmer blogs. If you look at the people who oppose AGW, hardly any of them oppose nuclear. So if you can get an energy source that produces no CO2 without any opposition or fight, then why not do it. This is just one of the many things that point to the AGW hysteria as being political rather than real.

    I hate to give any credit to James Hansen, but the one rational thing that I hear from him is support for nuclear. Oddly enough, it’s the one point of view over which the eco cultists bash him.

  33. “They’re not so much climate scientists anymore as they are highly trained advocates for the green energy lobby.”

    ….more machine now than man – twisted and evil. :)

  34. “” Tilo Reber (15:45:51) :

    Wondering Aloud:
    D. Caldwell:
    “If it’s really all about CO2, why not nuclear as a replacement for coal?” “”

    Problem is that it IS all about CO2; and since it is fairly obvious that CO2 has very little to do with climate, that is an issue for people and places that have plenty of coal and no nuclear; like Australia for example that has no nuclear and plenty of coal and gets hammered by the Kyoto fools. In addition because of its vast deserts and low continental rainfall, Australia has a relatively large carbon footprint per capita. A cap and trade scam would cripple Australian economy.

    So it IS important for science to prevail and put the carbon genii back in the bottle where it belongs.

    Then we find that the USA; which actually has NO carbon footprint, is already self sufficient in energy, and simply has to go and get it.

    This CO2 scam is going to be the biggest disaster that science has suffered since the Galileo affair; and scientists who value their credibility had better get with the program, and quit supporting a discredited religion simply because that keeps their grant money coming in.

    George

  35. So it IS important for science to prevail and put the carbon genii back in the bottle where it belongs.

    The falsifiable thesis of the pro-AGW argument is CO2 positive feedback loops.

    If that is disproven, the entire CO2 thesis is falsified. And the AquaSat data (as expostulated by Dr. Spencer) has called that premise into serious question.

    But I still resist referring to this this a “scam”, although I regard it as an error. A “scam” implies malign intent, and I don’t see that as established.

    Yes, the period from 1977 to 1998 was heavily dominated by El Nino’s.

    Note, however, that from 1998 to 2007 there were three El Ninos and only the one La Nina. In 2008, when PDO is said to have reversed, we had a sharp la Nina. Temperatures have risen a bit since then, but have leveled out at a lower level.

  36. I also don’t visit RC anymore as I see it as just a propaganda site. And I think posting comments rejected by RC here is a good idea. Almost deserves it’s own thread. For people who don’t feel confident in working their own way through scientific issues the point becomes “why didn’t they post this and demolish it if they have all the answers?” So RC itself can decide for the undecided. Of course, RC should have a standing invitation to demolish it here. But even then the undecided can ask “why did they wait for it to be posted here to do the demolition?” The answer that they hoped it wouldn’t be posted anywhere doesn’t require a scientific background.

  37. I was browsing the latest Discovery magazine which had an article listing the most influential scientists of this era. They included James Hansen… I nearly puked.

  38. Re: Oberlin

    In September I did several stations in Kansas. The curator of Oberlin Station mentioned it was moved and installed by “government guys”. They apparently moved it with the old concrete anchor in tact. it probably rusted off and the pole broke. the setup you see in the picture was done by the Oberlin curator, then he reported the need for repair to the “government guys”. After Oberlin I began to ask who did the installation. The universal answer was: “government guys”.

    Us Kansans don’t hold with fancy titles.

    The Oberlin curator is a city employee who has been in residence there a few years and took over the station because the previous curator was frequently absent and infrequently monitoring the station. He owns the house and the siding appeared to be metal. I did not examine it to see if it was steel or aluminum.

  39. The explanation for the short pole is obvious. Every time the station is moved, they simply saw it off at the bottom and replant it at the new spot.

  40. @ DocWat (21:36:58) :

    Thanks for answering my questions I asked at the beginning of the comment thread.

    The one that didn’t get answered directly is whether or not the “government guys” (love it!) choose the site or whether sites are chosen because someone volunteers. Looks to me from your narrative that it’s a combination of both, but that a willing and reliable volunteer trumps insistence on a a suitable site.

  41. Not directly on topic, but I’ve been following this subject with great interest for some time and I’m thinking of putting together a temperature website.

    Can anyone point me to the best resource for where the GISS/GHCN weather stations are actually located, what area they are presumed to represent and how to get the current and any previous month’s summary data (mean temp, min temp, max temp)? Would really appreciate the assistance. Thanks.

  42. Tilo:

    Has anyone from this forum made an attempt to have a real dialog with the Real Climate people about the issues that they bring up in their threads.

    Yep, I just tried today, in the GCM FAQ thread. here is what I posted:

    —-

    Physics-based models on the other hand, try to capture the real physical cause of any relationship, which hopefully are understood at a deeper level. Since those fundamentals are not likely to change in the future, the anticipation of a successful prediction is higher.

    There seems to an awful lot of faith in models here, simply because they are physics based.

    It is worth noting that until not too long ago, physics based models had determined bumble bees absolutely cannot fly. And that was for something so simple a bug could do it.

    —-

    Regarding “hindcasting”. Is there any model that given the starting conditions of, say, 1700, and altering the forcings (e.g. changing CO2, sun intensity, aerosols) produces the climate of today?

    —-

    Regarding models and their predictions. I got curious about Alaska’s climate, since it is where I live, and where nearly every minute of 2008 has broken coldest-ever records.

    This fifty year study, performed by meteorologists who could in no way be described as “denialists”, amounts to a coin toss on GCM predictions: the data confirm as many as it refutes.

    Additionally, given the magnitude of the temperature changes, excluding the area immediately around Fairbanks (see Fig 4 – UHI, anyone?), the average increase over 50 years can be no more than 1.6 C.

    And maybe not even that much. The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, put together Alaskan Arctic temperature data for all of recorded history. In other words, 133 out of the last 141 years (the study was finished in 2000).

    From that I learned Arctic temperatures have risen 1.2 deg C, or about 0.094 degrees per decade. Looking only at the 20th century, though, and that increase amounts to all of 0.05 degrees per decade. The warmest interval over the period was in the 1930s and 1940s.

    How can any model, except through post-hoc reasoning, conclude that small amount of change is CO2 driven, instead of the natural variation of a climate that is never static?

    —–

    Which went right into the bit bucket.

    BTW, and I don’t want to be guilty of threadjacking, but while Googling around, I came upon this Upper Ocean Temperature Variability in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Is It an Indicator of Global Warming?

    In a nutshell: No.

  43. I don’t know much about legalities and the technical niceties of the law, but with all Anthony’s work so far plus that yet to come, there has to be some means of prosecuting the agency/agencies responsible for this. Politicians will just brush it under the rug. It must go to court. Think of all the pronouncements and policies that have been made down through the years based on what more and more appears to be a completely unreliable and undecipherable temperature history. This station is just one case study of that apparent fact. Seriously, with all that is being contemplated by the ‘Green’ movement, things like this have to border on criminal negligence or something similar. It is absolutely outrageous. If a DA had a case with the evidence mounting like this, he’d be licking his chops. Once all the data gets in and the conclusions are drawn, and air tight the key ones at least must be, then this ought to be brought before a judge if it is possible. It deserves no lesser stage and no lesser hearing.

Comments are closed.