Over 500 USHCN Climate Stations Now Surveyed

The survey project continues to move forward, even in these cold and snowy winter months. I’m pleased to announce that we have just passed the 500 mark for surveyed stations. Now with 41.1% of the network surveyed comprising 502 stations surveyed so far, that leaves 719 to go out of 1221 stations nationwide.

Some stations have recently become catalysts for larger investigations, such as the station in Lampasas TX, done by Julie K. Stacy which has brought out questions from a number of other bloggers. This prompted a review of stations previously surveyed, such as Cedarville, CA, which then prompted a larger investigation in the satellite city nightlights methodology used by NASA GISS. A whole new avenue of exploration has now opened up not just for US stations, but worldwide thanks to new features of Google Earth.

You never know where curiosity and serendipity will lead you. Thanks to Atmoz for starting the ball rolling. I also want to thank Barry Wise and Gary Boden, our early volunteers, whose help on this project has been indispensable.

Recently, this project got a significant endorsement from Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado in Boulder in his weblog. I and all the volunteers appreciate the recognition.

Here is the latest breakdown of USHCN stations that have been surveyed, and their site quality ratings:



We could really use some help this spring and summer in the following states:

Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Alabama, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota,  South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas.

If you think that you can help with this project by surveying a station near you, please visit the www.surfacestations.org website and sign up. We’ll provide instructions and help on locating stations in need of surveying.

You may also wish to consider signing up for the national flower and foiliage survey to help track climate change which is prominently mentioned on Dr. Roger Pielke’s weblog.  You can double your fun!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Evan Jones
February 25, 2008 9:27 pm

Well, we see a very steady and continuing trend, don’t we?
It seems that the Rev’s “cherry tree” bears the most extraordinarily consistent fruit, does it not?
The new CRN estimate average will be upcoming!

February 26, 2008 1:01 am

God bless you and your work Anthony. I am humbled every time I think about what you have done and how important it may be. Thanks.

February 26, 2008 2:34 am

That is a worrying amount of orange.

February 26, 2008 4:55 am

On a similar topic, I have just very recently had a “friend” type these exact words:
“Urban areas are hotter because they are urban. Duh. All that asphalt and concrete reflecting the heat and trapping it in the infrastructure? The temperature read hotter because they are hotter…
So of course they need to be averaged in. ”
I am at a loss….

February 26, 2008 7:38 am

Too much orange, but look at blue and green compared to red. I would argue that those average out to orange.
What a mess.
Anthony, I remember your “Mobile MMST” effort in Indianapolis was canceled due to wind. Have you had the opportunity to try it at home?
REPLY: I did, and recently ran a transect of Sacramento. Also, Warren Meyers’ son, Nicolas, came up with his own version of the project:
Way to go Nicolas!
I’m going to post my results soon.

Joel McDade
February 26, 2008 9:51 am

I can survey a few in Alabama this year — didn’t realize this state was lacking.

Evan Jones
February 26, 2008 10:06 am

So of course they need to be averaged in.
I am at a loss….

You need to explain to him that urban areas are only c. 3% or so pewrcent of the earth’s surface, but far more than 3% of the stations are in urban areas and that urban, suburban, exurban creep (plus microsite issues) are overtaking the surface stations at a far greater rate than they are overtaking the planet. Therefore, it is very likely that there is a spurious increase in the rate of measurement of temperature increase.
And you might remind him that a heat sink exaggerates a slight temperature increase (and that process works in reverse and will undo itself at an equally exaggerated rate in the case of cooling.
(Yes, I know you already know this, but there are words likely to get through. Remember, we are now cast in the role of teachers: We have to find the right words and patiently explain over and over. It could be worse. We could be wrong!)

Evan Jones
February 26, 2008 10:08 am

I can survey a few in Alabama this year — didn’t realize this state was lacking.
Isn’t there some sort of rule against hanging straight lines around here?

Evan Jones
February 26, 2008 10:20 am

Here is the New CRN Manual based ratings:
(1 Rev = 1C “estimated” CRN offset.)
502 Stations Observed
Using Low-end estimates:
CRN-1: 0C
CRN-2: 0C
CRN-3: 1C
CRN-4: 2C
CRN-5: 5C
Offset: 2.0 Revs
Too much orange, but look at blue and green compared to red. I would argue that those average out to orange.
Orange it is.
(1.98, actually, but that would be misplaced precision.)

February 26, 2008 1:16 pm

I just discovered your blog. It’s very important work you are doing. Do you know if there are any similar projects going on in other countries?

February 28, 2008 5:54 pm

I was just wondering if this project was also being done in Canada.
REPLY: Not yet, working on it

February 28, 2008 7:37 pm

I’m willing to help out in Canada (Ontario / Quebec) as well.
REPLY: Ok great, working on a plan as I write this

February 29, 2008 1:07 am

Hopefully your very important and valuable work is picked up by some more mainstream sources. To toil away in obscurity does your efforts a dis-service.
When the average person, and more importantly, young children (who have been brain-washed) can quote some of these facts and distortions of these facts, the sooner we can close the book on ‘Global Climate Change’ for good.
Thanks again for your work!

February 29, 2008 4:07 am
Anthony Rugari
March 12, 2008 1:56 am

Hi Anthony
Just a note from one Anthony to another Anthony.

Anthony Rugari
March 12, 2008 2:18 am

Hi Anthony,
Just a note from one Anthony to another Anthony. I am a retired Physicist, having worked in the microwave field and with laser technology in the 50’s and 60’s. As I look at the above data relative to the errors resulting from the placement of the Stevenson screens, I see that 87% of the screens you have surveyed are located such that their location gives rise to temperature reading errors of from one to five degrees C, Adding to this the instrumentation inaccuracies and the reading errors, which can be large if the instrumentation provides an analog readout, I wonder how one can massage the data to result in temperature differences in the tenths of a degree C. It would appear that the confidence level of these readings would be extremely low, if not zero. Have you ever had the raw data from the NASA GISS program made available to you. It might seem that one can generate random data, using intelligent guesses, which would be just as good. On top of all this, I read that this data is much better than the data generated in other parts of the word, Am I missing something?
REPLY: Nope, you aren’t missing anything, you’ve got it.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights