When I first started the surfacestations.org project, this Google Street level view tool was just a concept, now I’m actually able to find USHCN stations with it such as this one in Manassa, Colorado:
Click image for interactive Google Earth Street level view.
I’ve found quite a few, and there are some real stinkers out there, like this one in Greensburg, KY on a major thoroughfare through town. Note the south facing brick wall and concrete work:
The official USHCN NOAA climate station for Greensburg KY also has a great proximity view of the main drag through town:
Click image for an interactive Google Earth street level view.
It’s pretty easy to find a few stations now, since a good portion of the USA has now been entered into the street level database. Unfortunately stations like this are the exception, since many USHCN stations are not in the front yards next to the street. But those that are, we are getting.
Feel free to load this Google Earth KML file of stations that have been surveyed (thanks to Gary Boden for this great resource) and try your hand at spotting USHCN stations. The ones that show up as question marks are unsurveyed.
If you spot any please report them here. Or if you live within driving distance and have some time, why not go out and get a good quality set of photos after signing up at surfacestations.org ?
taken from Wikipedia “Global warming” I though this was quite funny
The overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.[11][12] … Of course they would LOL….
O/T Sorry!
But this is an important event in the history of the hysterical climate campaign:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3867232/Promoters-overstated-the-environmental-benefit-of-wind-farms.html
Not much can one add there, frankly. They did the job for us realists. In the UK, even the windmiller hysterics are forced to admit that they are lying.
At many stations I have looked at here in California with MMTS, it is the fellow installing the station and he does not want to do alot of trenching. Therefore the closer to the building the better. The observers told me so.
If the Colorader pic faced east, then the shadows would be very long because the western sun is late afternoon and low. Short shadows indicate noonish, perhaps even 11am, meaning the pic faces north, the garage door faces south, and the solar panels face east.
One should not assume that the panels were intelligently aligned by the installer. They fit the slope of the roof. Not everybody in Colorader is a genius.
The U.S. now has 21,000 Megawatts of Wind Energy.
http://domesticfuel.com/
Smokey (14:59:46) :
vukcevic: click
Re: Appeal for a map of the Magnetic North Pole drift
Thanks for the tip. I have used Google. Unfortunately, there are no maps of sufficiently high resolution or more details than the one I have http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GTvsMNP.gif
if you know of one, please either post a web location or email to: vukcevicuATyahoo.com
More details of my project available on:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk link GTvsMNP
Perhaps the longer the cable, the lower the temperature readings.
🙂
Mike”
Well, yes, actually.
evanjones (04:31:30) :
In fact there’s a workaround for thermocouple cables that compensates for cable length, no matter how long the wires are. It’s not widely used because it doubles the number of cables required, and a two wire setup is sufficient for most applications.
A 45.7m cable should get the units far enough away from buildings, paved areas, cars and boats, and barbeque grills, eh?
Even that’s too close for CRN1.
It’s interesting to note that the specs preclude their own best ratings:
Class 1 – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (less than 19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than 10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation greater than 3 degrees.
Smokey: I was thinking in far more caveman-type terms: The shorter the cable, the closer the sensor it to a heat sink or waste heat.
evanjones:
Sorry to expose my nerdiness. I worked with thermocouples in my previous life.
Hey, what are you doing up this early on a Saturday morning? Insomnia is my excuse.
You both have me beat, I didn’t think of either of those things. That’s why I hang around here, to try to soak up a little smart.
“The U.S. now has 21,000 Megawatts of Wind Energy.”
Yeah, off and on.
I have to buckle down and start work, soon. (But that’s okay because I am very happy to have the work in the first place.)
@evanjones (04:39:33) :
[“”A 45.7m cable should get the units far enough away from buildings, paved areas, cars and boats, and barbeque grills, eh?”
Even that’s too close for CRN1.
It’s interesting to note that the specs preclude their own best ratings:
Class 1 – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (less than 19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than 10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, ….]”
Don’tcha ya just love the gummint? Taking into account robert gregg’s (21:57:40) comment, the spec for placement is 100m, 45.7m of cable is provided, and the installers don’t like to trench much more than about 3-5m on sites that are less than 10-15m (my observation) from the next property anyhow.
Hmmmm… given what we’ve seen, I wonder if at all of those 3-5mm sites the remainder of the 45.7m cable is just coiled up somewhere or is every installation cut to length? And how do they put together 100m of cable on a true CRN1 site? Two 45.7m cables plugged together still come up short.
Oopsie! happy fingers. That’s 3-5m sites, not mm.
Kum and Mike: I think that should be 21,000 MW of Wind Power (installed capacity).
Note:
GREENSBURG, KY
37.25917 -85.50222, USHCN 153430
MMTS ELECTRONIC SENSOR
Rural, dim (lights=17), hilly, WARM FOR./FIELD
What a shame that such a good station location should be ruined by such bad siting.
But the AGW promoters *know* they are accurate to within .1oC ofr temp averages going back hundreds of years.
What utter trash Hansen has built his fortune and fame on. How cynical of Gore.
Kum Dollison (23:08:08) :
Lessee, 21 million Kw times 365 x 24 is 184 billion Kwh, so that’s 32.6%
of rated output (1/3 would mean generating 61 Twh, which is probably the
factor used).
At least that’s believable, at least at some sites. I guess it’s not too hard to track turbine sales but tougher to track failed and decommissioned turbines, and even tougher to know just how much power has been produced.
Isn’t there some cheap way to remotely get the data from the weather station? Maybe wi fi? I certainly don’t know but with all the engineers and scientists around here I am certain that someone knows a relatively inexpensive way to get data from a weather station at 100 feet away or so…
Re:
Mike Bryant (04:56:57) :
Indeed,
Looks like according to the numbers, the capacity factor (per cent utilization) is about 30%.
This is a useful link for those who prefer numbers in context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States
Off topic… this article from The Times-England somehow ties weather, the sun and the economy all together. It is supposedly trying to cheer people up by predicting weather. I thought we all wanted it to be cooler.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5394889.ece
Mike Bryant: a cheap way to remotely get the data?
You can buy them. Good to 1 degree or so, but fairly cheap. Anthony’s store has several remote sensing units, including a new one with solar power and 1000 foot range. You could have several sensors around the site to reduce local bias. The MMTS system design predates all this fancy stuff.
Assuming a positive tempco in the thermistor, a longer wire would give very slightly higher temperatures. It would also move the sensor farther away from the barbeque, which could lower readings by a substantial amount.
Ric Werme, John M. – Yeah, I know all that. The point I was trying to make is that we’re doing a considerable amount of it, already. Everybody knows it’s not as efficient as Nuclear, or Coal, or even burning logs; but it has it’s utility, and we’re going to do some.
We’ll get a little “experience,” a little hands on knowledge, if you will; and go from there. It won’t hurt us any, and might even be a good thing in certain locales, and circumstances.
In any event, there’s no use in getting caught in the loop of “railing against the incoming tide.” Leave that for the “warmener” types. We’ll experiment, and learn.