California USHCN station surveys are complete

California USHCN Stations

I’m pleased to announce completion of USHCN station surveys for California’s USHCN stations.

There were some challenges in completing some surveys. Some places were inaccessible, such as the famous Tejon Ranch, which would not give me access despite repeated requests.

Similarly, Fairmont in Southern California was a Los Angeles Dept of Water Resources reservoir which was fenced in and visitors were considered a terrorist threat.

Fortunately, between B44 forms provided by former State Climatologist Jim Goodridge, Google Earth and Microsoft Live Earth, I was able to complete these surveys which would have been impossible otherwise.

There were some challenges with stations that were at the homes of private observers, such as the one in Fort Bragg, which Russ Steele surveyed after getting permission.

Of course NOAA did just about everything possible to prevent access, including pulling the station observer database last summer from public view. When I pointed out that NOAA/NWS published pictures of observers standing in front of their stations, along with their names and location, and that they publish a national quarterly newsletter with the same information, they changed their mind and put the database back online.

I understand the NWS wanting to protect privacy of observers, as they are volunteers. At the same time it would just be a lot easier if the NOAA/NWS would simply pitch in and help rather than throw out roadblocks. The goal is not to exposure observers, or their locations, but rather to accurately record the current (and past if possible) station measurement environment. That can be done without compromising privacy.

In fact it can be done far easier if NOAA/NWS would simply help. But given the questionable condition of some USHCN stations, I’m sure they view the project as an embarrassment. But it is our tax dollars at work, and the public right to know such information should supersede any government agency’s concerns.

 I wish to thank the many, many, people who volunteered as surveyors and made this completion possible. Now, on to other states.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 8, 2008 9:43 am

Ellen and I were please to help with the survey. Will you do a stand alone analysis of the California sites? It would be interesting to compare the California site ratings with the LaDochy Study results, that show increased warming. We have a list of the sites in the shape file he sent. I note that Watts Up is listed in the new climate change site, Climate Debate Daily, under the Skeptical Blogs.

January 8, 2008 11:19 am

Anthony – Congratulations on this very important accomplishment! Roger

January 8, 2008 2:27 pm

We can now ask the person who made the overall quality map to make a “blowup” of Calif, showing the quality of the state (if he has time).
This also allows others to start some work of their own (comparing it to other data, like the “rural vs non-rural” sites etc).

January 8, 2008 5:29 pm

Congratulations on prevailing in your efforts.

January 8, 2008 5:41 pm

It’s funny that those who believe AGW are classified as “unskeptical”. That should be a red flag to those scientists who believe, they’ve lost their natural skepticism.

Bill in Vigo
January 8, 2008 5:46 pm

Well done Anthony,
I am afraid that you are right in that the findings of your survey is an embarassment to the powers that be. Of course as is repeated by several of the bloggers in another blog I coment on, “You don’t have to have a picture to know there is a bias just compare with other similar rural stations.” I guess that would work if we knew that they were quality stations.

Evan Jones
January 8, 2008 10:02 pm

What BiV said. What Russ said.

January 9, 2008 1:37 pm

I look forward to having Steve Mosher and John V revisit things, incorporating these data. Then later, there can be a revisiting with complete CONUS.

Verified by MonsterInsights