Toasted – but encouraged

I just finished a 150+ mile round trip from Boulder to get Dillon, CO and Cheesman Reservoir USHCN sites in addition to the Boulder NIST/NOAA site.

Cheesman had recently been flooded due to heavy runof from forest fire, the roads were mudpits, and even with 4WD I rented couldn’t get there before sunset. So gave up and returned to hotel at DIA for flight out tomorrow.

Had Vietnamese food with Pielke’s group last night, and that didn’t help my day either. I’m pretty toasted. But it was a heckofa good day even so.

So I’m signing off for a couple days for travel back home and some R&R.

The good news; While driving back on US285 I had another citizen science project idea to disprove Parker’s 2004 and 2006 papers essentially saying “UHI is minimal or doesn’t exist”, which I believe is unsupportable. I think it will work. Got to mull it over. Check back in a day or two. Pictures and presentation coming when I get back to normal schedule.

Anthony out

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Toasted – but encouraged

  1. Man, you are nutso. 🙂 Cheeseman was a bit of a drive even before the fire!
    Well, good thing you made it back ok. Have a great return flight!

  2. UHI is an urban legend, eh?
    Betcha that Parker item never bothered to take a gander at a side-by-side on this-here site!
    If these bazoos don’t believe in UHI (clap your hands), no wonder they don’t think site violations matter.
    And yes, it sounds as if it’d be a relatively straightforward experimental setup.

  3. Well, I hope you enjoyed your trip out to lovely Colorado. As for the site you couldn’t get to… well I’ve been meaning to get up to Cheesman myself ever since you started the surface-stations site. (I live in Colorado Springs.) I’m just waiting for a weekend without one or another of my kids having a soccer game. It’s only about an hour drive for me. I’ll try to do the Canyon City one at around the same time.

  4. Anthony, I can’t imagine why you’d need a little R&R, heh, heh.
    Well done! All of us who seek nothing more than truth and honesty may very well look back on this time as a turning point in the climate debate. The fact that there has been so much enthusiasm and so little negative reaction in the comments section reflects how seriously your project is being taken (assuming, unlike RC, that you don’t edit derogatory comments).
    BTW, your comment to TCO the other day about hiding behind an anonymous screen name got me to thinking. I’ve used the name Retired Spook in posting on political blogs for over 3 years because the discussions can get rather contentious (and because I am a retired Navy Crypie). That would not seem to be the case here, so sign me, Stan Needham

  5. GOOD Lord! And I’ve been addressing a sure ’nuff USN “retired spook” like any common college kid. (How very impertinent of me!)

  6. Evan, I haven’t sensed any impertinence on your part. How does a common college kid address a retired spook? (other than “yes sir, no sir”, heh, heh).

  7. Anthony,
    Great job, it’s good to have you back, and it was nice to read about your travels in the local paper.
    Lon

  8. Though my son and I were able to (find and) visit eight stations in a single day, one or two per day is the more normal yield. Three is a good day.

  9. How about a project to photograph the cars of climate campaigners to see if they actually believe what they say. I know it’s cheeky but skeptics are ritually asked by journalists what they drive. eg. Lindzen has an old Accord, Michaels has a Prius and Svensmark rides a bike. In contrast we have an anecdote via Steve McI that many climate scientists now drive Volvos, Lexus’s and SUV’s. Wonder if it’s true or just hearsay.

  10. Anthony, what would help enormously, if you or anyone else can find the time and energy, is some account of how we ever get from the raw data to the data published as definitive by GISS CRU and so on. What I am looking for is a column of stations, or just a statement like ‘all US stations’, then a statement about who adjusts it, and what is the result called and where its published.
    At the moment, this is totally obscure to a lay reader, though its doubtless entirely clear to you and Steve M and others working with this on a day to day basis.
    So, how many stations are there that make up whatever GISS produces, and who has done things to the data before it gets into IPCC form?
    I am willing to help by the way, just don’t know really where to begin…
    Its not just about US stations either, its also about the ones climateaudit has been writing about in India, Russia etc.

  11. Anthony, that was a great week’s work!
    JamesG, don’t forget that a lot of them frequently “drive” Lears and Gulfstreams, too:-)

  12. It shouldn’t be too hard to disprove the Parker 2006 paper that states, “UHI doesn’t exist”, because the paper doesn’t exist. The Parker 2006 paper is concerned with whether or not the UHI affects estimates of long term temperature trends. It doesn’t dispute its existence.
    Anyway, keep up the good work.

  13. Here’s how I have it doped out:
    1.) UHIE is estimated by taking readings from nearby rural stations.
    2.) The nearby rural stations have been overcome by exurban creep and beset by numerous microsite violations.
    3.) Therefore, the UHIE has been lowballed, possibly seriously.
    RESULT: A Double-Bias suite in the No-tell Motel.

Comments are closed.