33% of the USHCN network has been surveyed

I’m pleased to announce that 33% of the USHCN network of 1221 weather stations has been surveyed now by www.surfacestations.org volunteers. With 404 stations surveyed so far, 817 to go. The Midwest is filling in, and distribution of surveyed stations is more balanced than before. See the map below to see the distribution:

I’d like to give special recognition to five volunteers; Bob Thompson, Eric Gamberg, Russ Steele, David Smith, and Don Kostuch, whom turned summer travels into survey expeditions. Don Kostuch has surveyed more stations, and covered a broader geographic area than any other surveyor. Thanks to all who have helped make this possible.

Trends related to station siting and station equipment that started emerging in the early stages of the survey have held through 20%, 25%, 30% and now 33%. Given that, I feel confident enough to release some preliminary tallies which illustrate those trends and to keep a running trend tally on the website.

The tabulation method and output is currently under review for any errors, and I expect to be able to release it in the next 2-3 days. Once released, it will remain on the www.surfacestations.org website and will be updated regularly.

Now for those whom will likely say that “the USA only has 2% of the worlds area, so it really doesn’t matter”, I’d point out this graphic from NCDC which shows the distribution of weather stations that have mean temperature records going back to 1900. The USA makes up the lions share of the weather stations in the world with complete data sets spanning 100 years.

GHCN mean temperature data back to 1900

GHCN stations with mean temperature data from present to the year 1900.

The USA data clearly makes up the bulk of the last century’s worth of mean temperature data. And there are few candidates that span 100 years in many continents. More detail described in this NCDC report:


One of the most true and revealing statements in that NCDC report on the worldwide GHCN data is this:

“Because most instrumental networks were established to monitor local weather and not the long-term climate, there are practical problems in using these data to study climate change.”

In the next couple of days, I’ll be highlighting some of the new “practical problems” that have been discovered in the USHCN network in the United States.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 10, 2007 9:43 pm

At last!
I cannot wait to see the results.
I cannot wait actually to compare them with the raw and adjusted data.
Rev, my field is history, not science, and I have a question I have never gotten an answer to:
Is it possible that the 1940-75 cooling was a direct result of World War II?
Consider that a hundred German and Japanese cities were bombed (over half heavily firebombed), the results including several godawful firestorms (Dresden, Hamburg, Kassel, Cologne, Tokyo, Osaka, to name just a few). Not to mention Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and several hundred aboveground hydrogen bomb tests.
All that plus frantic full-war production on the part of the US, UK, the Sovs, and (finally) the Germans.
That must have kicked up a heck of a lot of particulates, and I guess it must have taken a lot of time for it all to rain out. Do you think that this might have caused a “World War Winter”?

September 11, 2007 6:06 am

All of us at catholicfundamentalism.com are not just appreciative, we are IN AWE, of what you and your fine volunteers have done.
Searching out and exposing lies is better than big game hunting, and you are to be congratulated for doing such a fine job for truth!

September 11, 2007 10:09 am

At CA I recently wrote that Waldo is in the Arctic Ocean. In addition, he may also be in the UK, Germany and Japan.

September 11, 2007 11:25 am

>>All of us at catholicfundamentalism.com are not just appreciative, we are IN AWE, of what you and your fine volunteers have done.
And so are the liberal apostates like me!
>>better than big game hunting, and you are to be congratulated
Well, in the immortal words of LBJ, the Rev has brung home the (oh, forget it. Political Correctness prevents the completion of the quote.).
I’d still love an answer (even a speculation) about “World War Winter” (1940-75), though.

M. Jeff
September 11, 2007 12:32 pm

After reading the Anthony Watts comment #72 under Hansen Frees the Code, Sept 8, 2007, at climateaudit.org, concerning the adjusted versus unadjusted GISS data for Walhalla, SC, I checked the Walhalla info at surfacestations.org.
To better visualize the differences for my own edification, (not being a mathematician and not having the inclination to make my own spreadsheet charts), I merged the two graphs using photoediting software. The differences between the two versions were quite obvious.
However, now I’ve tried to find the graphs on the GISS web site and all I can find is a different adjusted Walhalla graph. I could not find the raw GISS graph. The new GISS graph has no values higher than 16.5 deg C, whereas the original graphs did. And the differences in the graphs evidenced by merging the latest graph image with the two original ones suggest that a different algorithm is now being used.
Has GISS changed their algorithm, is the raw information no longer available, or is the original information still available at some other web site?

Steven Mosher
September 11, 2007 7:21 pm

Surface station Vols…
you guys rock! Now we have to cover the center of the country.

Steven Mosher
September 11, 2007 7:28 pm

M jeff.
Giss raw for walhalla
Let me caution you against drawing any conclusions. The adjustments Hansen makes are “complicated” and their PURPOSE is to create a Smooth global record, rather than an accurate local record.
I’m being too fair to him so I will shut up and get back to reviewing the code.

September 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Or maybe a little bird is listnening in?
(Bite my tongue!)

David Walton
September 11, 2007 8:16 pm

Excellent, Mr. Watts.

September 12, 2007 10:24 am

Nobody beats the Rev!

%d bloggers like this: