Surfacestations.org volunteer Gary Boden writes in with this contribution:
I’ve attached a Google Earth KML file for all of the USHCN stations with the CRN ratings you assigned as color-coded symbols. Colors match the Excel spreadsheet scheme (CRN-1 = blue, CRN-2 = green, CRN-3 = yellow, CRN-4 = orange, CRN-5 = red) and closed stations with no rating = white. All unsurveyed stations are marked by a symbol (question mark in a circle). A click on the icon shows the USHCN number and name of the station. As far as I can tell it represents the data correctly, but you might check a few
stations.
My sincere thanks to Gary for this effort, it will make finding the unsurveyed stations easier.
You can download the Google Earth KML file here.
Along the lines of the surfacestations project, the Fall 2008 NOAA Cooperative Observer Newsletter has been published. (PDF) And it is chockfull of station and observer photos. Perhaps someone can take a moment to cross check and see if any of the featured stations are USHCN?
Sorry for all the colored dots lately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ashby Lynch (12:03:31) :
The only one out so far is RSS .
Coolest October since 2002, according to this source.
Note that RSS is now working on version 3.2. If you use the link on the “Resources” page (see tool bar at top of this thread), it will take you to version 3.1, which only goes to September. You can get to the new one simply by replacing the “2” with a “1” in the URL.
Anthony, if you see this, you might want to change the link on your Resources page.
FWIW, I did a comparison for each month between 3.1 and 3.2 since 2000. It does not materially change the trend from there. I didn’t check form 1979, although according to RSS’s web site, there shoudn’t be a big difference starting from there either.
Whoops, make that, replace the 1 in the old URL with a 2.
OT but within the theme of this blog. I found this on Drudge Report. Probably Anthony has already seen this himself, or been told of it, but I thought I would post it. This is on the ‘record low cyclonic activity’ in the Pacific and Atlantic basins of the Northern Hemisphere. The graphs use ACE as a measurement. 2008 NH ACE was 73% of average. So much for Al Gore’s claim of Global Warming causing more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
I’m not statistically inclined or anything of the like, so those of you who are (including Anthony) it would be interesting to see a post and/or comments on this.
Actually, nevermind on that last one…I see Anthony or someone has already done something on it. That just tells me I should look before I post. I’ll just read that! LOL Sorry!
So, what does Hansen’s magic formula do when it reaches the “edge of the world”?
Forget specific siting distribution inequalities, and the complete lack of data coming from MOST of the American continent’s interior.
Assume that the various thermometers are actually recording temperature accurately,
and assume that records are taken at the same time every day,
assume that Hansen is actually using all of the data he gets – rather than throwing out measurements he dislikes.
Clearly, he is using the cooler (more accurate!) used-to-be-farm-and-woodlands thermometers around each city and town (BTW, what is the minimum size of town that produces a .25 degree heat “islet”?) to “average down” the center of city/center of airport measurements.
But, he IS concentrating his measurements in the East Coast (ME-all-the-way-to-Florida) regions, the Great Lakes region (mostly south of Chicago!), and two small regions around Baton Rouge and Houston. Out west, a belt down through Denver, Colorado Springs, north AZ, NV (Las Vegas is picked up) down to San Diego. The last belt goes right down the west coast – picking up every heat source from Vancouver through San Diego.
And every erg we create is ultimately rejected as heat. (Coastal nuclear plants are the only energy source he does not measure, since Hansen ignores the ocean where they discharge 65% of their total heat load. Even the energy in gasoline ends up as a heat load: air friction, brake friction, engine heat, exhaust heat, or radiator heat. )
Which brings up the boundary question:
If a mid-continent thermometer in a cornfield in KS is averaged out by 15 nearby thermometers, we get a very accurate “background” trend for that one station over time. No problem.
If that cornfield-in-KS thermometer is near a city thermometer (2 to 5 degrees ABOVE background), the city thermometer’s resulting temperature goes down – but apparently NOT down to “background” (or does it ???? Would Hansen be that honest? Er, accurate.)
However, EACH mid-cornfield temperature 500 km around that city goes up – by some unknown amount inside Hansen’s formulas.
What happens when there are MANY “city-center” thermometers at a border (San Diego is next to a very large urban island to the south – and few nearby thermometers to the immediate mountainous northwest that are either much hotter OR much colder than the San Diego valleys, and LA has no measurements to the west of Malibu, but hundreds of individual heat islands to the west and north. San Francisco has the Bay – but then Oakland’s heat island, a mountainous region that is unpopulated, then the VERY hot and comparably unpopulated central valley. (temperatures can be 110 F degrees in the valley, and 64 degrees only 30 miles west at the Pacific coast. The same rule CANNOT be applied to every border thermometer from San Diego to Vancouver – each city is different.
But Hansen doesn’t measure that coastal (water) temperature at all – yet apparently “corrects” the heat island-affected measurements inside SFO and Oakland by the extremely hot central valley thermometers. Or does he? (Up north, the summer winds in CA are from the cold coast waters inland to the hot central valleys – usually. Down south, usually, the winds are from teh cold coastal water inland, but these reverse irregularly with the Santa Anna’s.)
One more example of a completely “wrong” correction: On the east coast, New Jersey has many isolated independent heat islands to the WEST of the herd of coastal thermometers (every one of which is in a heat island itself), but no thermometers at sea – east (up wind) of the prevailing coastal summer winds, but downwind of the regular weather fronts coming from the west. Simple “count every-thermometer-within-500 km is dead wrong – half the time.
So, how does Hansen correct for geography – when every station needs it own algorithim of “find the baseline”, “find the local temperature”, “calculate the heat island effect – at THAT station at THAT season for the winds of THAT particular day”, and then finally “calculate the “surface temperature plot.”
Or does he do each of these steps already? He might be. Right?
I wonder if you’ve seen the new study of Antarctic ice by Karpechko “Humans to blame for melting Antarctica”? See it here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24580868-11949,00.html
….”Sorry for all the colored dots lately.”
Dots all right Anthony. 😉
Michael J. Bentley (16:43:55) :
Your facts do provide good evidence that CO2 emissions are increasing, but you provide no evidence that enough CO2 is being releases to significantly overcome the fact that the CO2 IR absorption band is nearly saturated. Without that, extra CO2 won’t result in significant extra warming.
A couple quibbles: 1) Earth is not getting smaller. It is getting larger, albeit rather slowly. 4) CO2 is plant food, it’s not a pollutant until its concentration reaches a point where it causes health problems. 5) Take that up with China, the US and Europe isn’t building much lately.
Anthony
OT but I think important. There is an official “office of the president elect” site, http://www.change.gov/ that asks for :
“Open Government
It’s Your America: Share Your Ideas
The story of the campaign and this historic moment has been your story. Share your story and your ideas, and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country.”
in the link:
“Tell us your story and the issues that matter most to you. Share with us your concerns and hopes. ”
It may all be political and useless, but it may be that the man wants to listen. Actually the internet is a marvelous tool for somebody who wants to listen.
It would be good if many rational skeptic entries are submitted on AGW. Not polemic, but thoughtful. ( Ideally by somebody registered as a contributor to his campaign of course, we have to be realists)
I wish I had seen this before I went on vacation, because I stayed at the state park next to
USHCN# 410498 BALMORHEA
http://www.physorg.com/news145187972.html
Michael J. Bentley (16:43:55) : Good one. You had me going there, for a minute!
Off Topic
Has anyone noticed yet?
Because it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince people that we are suffering global warming in an ice age the new tune for “Alternative Energy” is the “We run out of oil in 20 years” line. I don’t know how good the science behind this one is yet but it will be interesting to watch the pundits tango their way from one bandwagon to the next.
AAAAARGHHH! NOOOOOOO! (And other comments.)
And at the same time they put 80% of our oil off limits. And make exploration utterly unprofitable.
(The more I see of the upcoming appointment picks the sicker I feel.)
This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves under pressure
from the link provided before
http://www.change.gov/agenda/energyenvironment/
the only thing about CO2, no links:
“Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.”
It seems to me that there is no apriori ready made detailed program. 2050 is far enough away.
Cap and trade will be stopped by current economic realities, all ready a link from Jennifer’s page points to that:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.YTOC9grPB8&refer=home
“- President-elect Barack Obama may pursue legislation early next year to speed a transition to an economy fueled by renewable energy sources and delay a fight on climate change until the economy improves. ”
So there will be time to educate him, and maybe the weather will do that for us more efficiently if it keeps cooling.
OT
ARCTIC SEA ICE AT HIGHEST LEVEL IN 7 YEARS!
That was quick!
I couple of days ago I predicted Arctic sea ice would reach the highest level in at least seven years – within one week (by Nov. 12).
It’s already happened!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Someone tell the Democrats the country looks red again!
anna V
It’s a nice gesture – but I’d say more a PR stunt. These people haven’t listened in 20 years, why would they start now?
Clare,
concerning CRICHTON
I’m hoping Anthony will post a tribute, or at least some acknowledgement, about the passing of Michael Crichton like:
at Lubos Motl:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/11/michael-crichton-1942-2008.html
or at Jenny Marohasy:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/michael-crichton/
or at Russ Steele:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2008/11/michael-crichton-a-hero-is-gone-dead-at-66.html
or at IceCap
http://icecap.us/index.php
or at SPPI:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
But so far not a peep. Maybe Anthony is preparing something really special that’s worthy of Crichton. I’m not giving up hope.
Do check out Lubos’s link! Excellent!
Lubos never lets me down.
Off topic, but just seen this on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7714019.stm
Of course, they still manage to get AGW as a modern cause, but it shows what 1800 years of historical natural variation can do…
I thought I would climb out of my cage and write to my Member of Parliament, Nick Hurd. http://www.nickhurd.com/about
Dear Mr Hurd,
First things first. You should know that I do not accept the IPCC conclusions about AGW and I certainly do not accept that the Conservatives were at all sensible in supporting the Climate Change Bill. This is because continuing and rigorous scientific research is unequivocally demonstrating that the predictions produced from IPCC computer modelling are not being supported by observational data around the globe.
You will see below, a link to a 4th November letter sent to Chairman Dingell of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515-6115 by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, College of Management & Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2M5. The letter is in response to a request for additional information by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response.to.Dingell.EAQ.pdf
Professor McKitrick gave testimony to the Committee in June 2008. http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/#new
You will see that the professor enjoys a great reputation for intellectual honesty and I would urge you to familiarise yourself with his work and bring it to the attention of your senior colleagues. Yes, the science is complicated and difficult to understand, but I would expect that any politician who is representing his voters, should have a very good scientific grasp of the facts, if he is voting in the Commons on scientific matters, that affect our economy.
The simple fact that global temperatures have cooled to 1979 values, should prompt you to take note of the consequences of your actions. AGW is not supported by the evidence and recklessly hoping that that “inconvenient truth” can be hidden under a tissue of mendacious calumnies will not serve to stop your voters considering their options at the next election.
Yours truly,
Perry Debell
Everyone is entitled to write to my MP, if they so desire. Email from overseas will brighten his days. hurdn@parliament.uk
A bit OT
There they go again. From ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030144618.htm
Conclusive Proof That Polar Warming Is Being Caused By Humans
Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence.
Let me guess — by updated this means adjusted temperature data and of course the models are probably heavily weighted in favor of greenhouse gases affecting change.
And the beat goes on…
How do you open this thing? What application is needed? Where do I get it?
REPLY: Download Google Earth here
http://earth.google.com/
– Anthony
Crichton on climate panic: Must see!
Pierre Gosselin (01:45:54) :
According to http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv it isn’t quite:
Nov 6:
2008: 9354219
2004: 9362500
Ah – for Nov 5:
2008: 9250781
2004: 9255625
So highest for one day by about 0.05%. One step forward, two steps back. 🙂 Three steps, actually. Maybe it’ll go 5 forward today. All well within measurement error, I’m sure.
To DocWat:
The map only shows ratings up through about mid-September. Anthony hasn’t rated any of the stations surveyed more recently. When he does a new file will be created.