SurfaceStations now at 80% of the network surveyed: Illinois and Florida USHCN surveys complete

Illinois USHCN StationsFlorida USHCN stations

It has been a long time coming to get these two states completed. I’m happy to report that they have now been completely surveyed for all USHCN stations. I’d like to personally thank volunteer Ted Semons for his week long road trip in Illinois to get the remaining 17 stations completed, plus volunteer Ron Horvath for getting Key West Florida completed

Further, as of last night, we have now surveyed 981 stations out of the 1221 USHCN weather station network, for 80.3% of the total. With only 19 stations to go to reach 1000 surveyed, I have no doubt we’ll bat 1000 soon.

Of those 981 stations surveyed, we have been able to assign ratings to 972 of them. Lots’ of quality control has gone into the recent work to ensure that the surveys we are getting are the correct stations, and accurate in the rating.

I will be publishing lists here soon that will help locate the remaining stations.

Also for the many that have asked me privately, yes we are working on the analysis of the data. But, I’m not in a position to share details at the moment. You can view a preliminary report (detailed in PDF) of the station census when it was at the 70% level here

I’ll also be publishing some new “how not to measure temperature” essays in the near future.

Stay tuned for updates on these topics. – Anthony

45 thoughts on “SurfaceStations now at 80% of the network surveyed: Illinois and Florida USHCN surveys complete

  1. “I’d like to personally than volunteer Ted Semons for his week long road trip in Illinois to get the remaining 17 stations completed, plus volunteer Ron Horvath for getting Key West Florida completed”
    -Thank-
    tia.
    REPLY: Fixed, thanks, -A

  2. 19 stations is only 1.6% of the total.
    REPLY: 981 (now) +19 stations = 1000 Just trying to be able to reach the 1000 stations surveyed mark. Nice round number. – Anthony

  3. “REPLY: 981 (now) +19 stations = 1000 Just trying to be able to reach the 1000 stations surveyed mark. Nice round number. – Anthony”
    Another 43 stations would be 1024, which is also a nice round number…in binary.

  4. Congratulations on getting these states completed — another important milestone. The project is getting very close to the point where the ultimate goal is in sight. Definitely a lot of early naysayers who thought this project had no legs, and yet here it is, closing in on a comprehensive survey — truly a remarkable accomplishment.
    Steady on!

  5. Yesterday Senator Fielding had a meeting with Hon Penny Wong, minister for the environment, Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett and the director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, Prof Will Steffen.
    With Senator Fielding were David Evans, a former carbon modeller for the former Australian Greenhouse Office; Stewart Franks, an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle; Robert Carter, an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University; and William Kininmonth, a long-serving member of the Bureau of Meteorology.
    They were requesting Minister Wong to explain why CO2 has been increasing yet global temperatures have been falling since 2001.
    Senator Fielding had this to say on this mornings radio:
    “STEVE FIELDING: Look, firstly I would have to say I am not a sceptic but at the same token, I do want to get to the bottom of the issues. Now up until now, we have seen carbon emissions go up and global temperatures, the way the IPCC has been measuring them, not going up.
    Now if that is the case that is a real problem.
    Now yesterday, yesterday’s meeting with the chief scientist and Professor Steffen, they outlined that they are using a different temperature measure which is ocean temperature. Now that is something we are going to have to look at because that is something that the IPCC wasn’t using to prove that carbon emissions were driving up global temperatures.
    Previously they were using something from the Hadley Institute or the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia. That is the measurement that I have been given and it quite clearly shows that carbon emissions have been going up but global temperatures haven’t.
    Now yesterday they showed another figure which is ocean temperature”
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2599201.htm
    Hopefully Anthony we might finally get some action on this matter and your final measuring stations won’t be necessary .

  6. BTW, Anthony, I know you’ve posted it before, but would you mind providing another quick link to the interactive map of remaining stations. Perhaps some of us can help get the last few wrapped up.
    REPLY: I will in the next day or two. – Anthony

  7. “janama (21:55:32) :
    Yesterday Senator Fielding had a meeting with Hon Penny Wong, minister for the environment, Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett and the director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, Prof Will Steffen.”
    As the current Govn’t is relying on his vote, I am confident that in a few days, maybe weeks, Senator Fielding will be “persuaded” in some backhanded, slimy, way.

  8. Anthony, are you going to publish this?
    that would screw this no publish, then it is no good BS.
    any way good job, and thank you to the volunteers.
    submit this to congress ?
    Gavin and gang is desperately working on a new model to deal with the cooling going on.
    this will be interesting on how they will explain away the false/bad/poor QC data.
    REPLY: The intent is to publish, with detailed analysis. I have a publication team lined up that includes people with statistical experience that far exceeds my own. – Anthony

  9. Urban shade islands.
    I wonder how much thought and work has gone into examining and measuring the reduction of temperatures at weather stations which were once situated in direct sunlight but were then thrown into shade due to urbanisation, i.e. buildings rising up between the sun and the stations.
    Surely this must have an effect partly comparable to urban heat islands?

  10. Senator Fielding has just got my vote at the next election well done sir.
    Also the government have said that they now use sea surface temperature data to prove that CO2 increases cause warming. Every sea surface temperature graph I have seen doesn’t show warming in the last 10 years is this no the case? if so I think the Australian government may have just painted themselves into a very sticky corner!
    Stu

  11. Don’t you just get the feeling that Hansens going to (already has) upgrade(d) a couple of surfacestations and then turn round and say that Antonys study is no longer relevant because they fixed the problem ?

  12. Jorgekafkazar @ 21:41
    There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary and those who don’t.

  13. dennis ward (23:45:19) :
    Urban shade islands.
    I wonder how much thought and work has gone into examining and measuring the reduction of temperatures at weather stations which were once situated in direct sunlight but were then thrown into shade due to urbanisation

    What’s up dennis? Don’t you think there have been enough upward ‘adjustments’ to the data yet?
    😉

  14. Re: dennis ward (23:45:19) :

    I wonder how much thought and work has gone into examining and measuring the reduction of temperatures at weather stations which were once situated in direct sunlight but were then thrown into shade due to urbanisation

    There are 981 stations surveyed at SurfaceStations, with pictures and descriptions, so why not browse them from the comfort of your armchair and find a couple of examples of “urban shade island”? That way we would have something tangible to discuss instead of something theoretical.
    Without any of your examples I can only theorize as to why this effect would be negligible or offset by other warming biases, but here are a couple of ideas.
    1. Buildings that are tall enough to shade the sensor tend to be made of concrete and glass which introduces a warming bias.
    2. Buildings that aren’t tall but are close enough to shade the sensor will also act as a windbreak, introducing a warming bias. They may also have air conditioners or other equipment close enough to impact the sensors.
    No doubt you will be replying with a whole host of examples of stations in an “urban shade island” that do not have any of these warming biases.

  15. This is such an impressive acheivement. I raise my hat in salute to all those who did the legwork.
    quote REPLY: The intent is to publish, with detailed analysis. I have a publication team lined up that includes people with statistical experience that far exceeds my own. – Anthony unquote
    Just remind me again… this Copenhagen meeting… you know, the Copenhagen climate change summit 2009… when is it exactly?
    JF
    If you needed help then I expect the Czech Republic would be happy to oblige.

  16. Well done Anthony/et al. Remind us all again who thought this was a stupid idea that could never be done?

  17. [Anthony] REPLY: The intent is to publish, with detailed analysis. I have a publication team lined up that includes people with statistical experience that far exceeds my own. – Anthony
    This implies one of them is named Steve. 🙂

  18. Well done, Anthony, and much gratitude to all your volunteers — for this last push in Illinois and Florida, Ted Semons and Ron Horvath. I wish you speed and accuracy for the publication. Your writing is always accessible and engaging. Let’s hope that by the pub date, government agencies already will have been shamed into making many changes. What a shoddy way to run a country, and for so many years. It takes dedicated and patriotic citizen-scientists to clean up the bureaucratic mess.
    Documenting this history is a very important undertaking. Even more essential, imo, is how AGWers have been able to make people fearfully think “hockey stick” every time they see those monthly, annual, and decades-long charts showing the global temperature heading for the sky (along with the anomaly maps colored red for warmth — uh, you know, like in the Antarctic!). I know it gets to me. It is no wonder that many otherwise well meaning people feel they must lower their (and their country’s) CO2 footprint “just in case”.
    I imagine one chapter will be dedicated to the long-term temperature readings of that less-than-10% (I think) of the stations properly sited. From my perspective this would be very interesting reading.
    And will you have a chapter on CO2 and temperature, if only to document the (irrational? cynical? manipulative? unscientific? evil?) fixation of our historical time?
    REPLY: The study is about instrumentation, quality control, and siting. I’m not going to venture into speculative areas not related to the premise of the study. – Anthony

  19. Its comments from the likes of Dennis Ward that make the AGW cause untenable.
    They now have real world data, oceans cooling, air temps cooling, clouds causing negative feedback and they still cling doggedly to their flawed computer models.

  20. I am very glad that Illinois has been completed and applaud the great personal effort by Mr. Semons.
    I’m disappointed that I couldn’t get out to do a station myself.
    Great work Ted !!!!

  21. “REPLY: 981 (now) +19 stations = 1000 Just trying to be able to reach the 1000 stations surveyed mark. Nice round number. – Anthony”
    ….. How about doing 9 more? 1009 is a prime number. It’s not significant, but it’s different 🙂 …. Just 9 more…?
    Jokes aside. Good work Anthony. Looking forward to seeing it completed and published, and the attempted criticism it will draw 😉

  22. Danger in extrapolation. If we see temps drop and see CO2 contuinue to rise, what happens when CO2 falls? Do they take credit for that? I refer to credit and blame in terms of the AGW fringe movement being a political movement and not a scientific endeavor at all. Climat progress as we speak is declaring 120 90 degree days per year in Kansas when the actual number is falling. In fact the number of 100 degree days in the prairie are disappointing the last few years.

  23. Anthony, I put together a macro level Google Map of the stations in MI and OH. Please note that the locations are ONLY THE TOWNS, not the exact station locations. There is one that is within a 3 hour round trip to the East of Detroit. If I can track the exact location down, I may do that one.
    There are 2 near Ann Arbor that are within a 5 hour round trip from Detroit. There is a remote possibility I might be able to get those.
    There are 3 in the Western side of lower Michigan. I doubt I will have the time to do those as it would require a LOT of time.
    Here is the URL for the Google map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?vps=1&jsv=160h&hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=118227252070537845809.00046c7902948788c3e03
    REPLY: I can help you locate the stations exactly. Ohio needs coverage. Look for an updated KML file soon – Anthony

  24. @ jorgekafkazar (21:41:12) & Boudu (00:35:48)
    No such thing as 1024 “IN BINARY”. The binary equivalent of the DECIMAL 1024 is: 00000000001 🙂
    Seriously, congratulations to you Doc Watts and your dedicated team. Looking forward to the analysis.
    MKE Bob

  25. Flanagan (06:36:54) :
    Rob: oceans are cooling? Not on my planet…

    Yeah but we don’t know what planet you’re on.

  26. Mr G G,
    I’ve asked Flanagan several times what the color of the sky is on his home planet, but he never answers. Maybe he needs permission from the mother ship.

  27. just curious Flanagan what planet do you live on? Last i heard the sensor buoys that are reading ocean temp show a cooling even after the manipulation of agw scientists(true believers).

  28. Milwaukee Bob (10:34:19) :
    @ jorgekafkazar (21:41:12) & Boudu (00:35:48)
    No such thing as 1024 “IN BINARY”. The binary equivalent of the DECIMAL 1024 is: 00000000001 🙂

    Actually, 10000000000

  29. This is exciting stuff and a serous achievement. I very much look forward to the final results.
    “Also for the many that have asked me privately, yes we are working on the analysis of the data. But, I’m not in a position to share details at the moment”
    And;
    “The study is about instrumentation, quality control, and siting. I’m not going to venture into speculative areas not related to the premise of the study”
    I hope I’m reading this wrong. To my mind, the money shot, the giant-killer that will go far beyond this board, would be a nice clear graphic of the temperature series derived from the best sites overlaid on the ‘official’ temperature record.
    That will have the most profound impact on the greatest number of people.
    Anthony, I know I’ve mentioned it before, but if such work is being done, what prevents it from being done in real time like before (at climateaudit)? What’s the difference this time?
    To my mind, the comparitive time series is the final straw. How else can we clearly and simply show that the ‘adjustments’ for UHI etc are false? We can say, “these sites showed a warm bias X”, but until it’s simply shown that the adjustments are at odds with the ‘clean’ record, won’t the buggers just say, “yes, we know there is a warm bias – we have accounted for that”.
    Don’t mean to come off like a wet blanket. This is a proud achivement, and I’m barracking to see it rolled out to the fullest extent. Bravo to all that put in the legwork and the headwork. Hell of a team effort.

  30. Flanagan (12:22:50),
    Thank you for that sanitized, adjusted version of sea level rise — which still doesn’t show any recent rise, does it?
    Actually, the sea level may be falling: click
    Of course, you could cherry-pick certain locations in order to claim a rise in sea level. But looking at the entire planet, you can see that there is no discernible sea level rise: click
    And longer term, it appears that the sea level is declining: click
    Finally, this blink gif shows the raw data vs the “adjusted” data: click
    [Takes a few seconds to load.]
    So you see, there is no evidence that the sea level is rising any more than than it has during the past millennium. And there is recent evidence that the sea level is declining.
    We all know why you’re so desperate to show a rising sea level: because that would be at least flimsy, roundabout evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Sorry, but that conjecture fails. The sea level is not rising any more than it has for many centuries. There is nothing out of the ordinary occurring.
    Since CO2 has been steadily rising, that makes the current, routine sea level changes another falsification of the conjecture that CO2 caused global warming; if it does at all, its effect is so minuscule that it can be safely disregarded as irrelevant.

  31. Smokey (12:52:10) :
    Flanagan (12:22:50),
    Rising sea levels, as we know, are a favourite of the AGW brigade. Surely this assumes a steady baseline? Due to a number of geological factors, every point on the land surface of the earth, above and below the present day sea level, is either rising or falling at a different rate. For example, the north west of Scotland and Norway are both rising due to isostatic rebound after the last ice age. The south east of England and the low countries are subsiding due to ongoing basin formation in front of the rising Alpine mountain range.
    Admittedly the rates of land level rise and fall are generally pretty low but in certain areas I’m sure they are of the same magnitude as the ‘sea level rise’ being measured (?) and predicted by the said brigade.

  32. Flanagan,
    The sea level graph is seriously out of date and has been hansenized beyond recognition… Anything newer and more probative?
    Mike

  33. As to the term “Doc” Watts,
    The word “doctor” is derived from Latin doctus ‘having been taught; learned’ (from docere ‘to teach’);
    Since Mr. Watts has learned much and has shared much, I believe that the honorific “Doc” is very appropriate for our gracious host. The quality of the host, his moderators, the guest posters and the commenters attest to his ability to teach and to attract teachers and the teachable as well.
    Doc Watts and associates are making AGW proponents appear foolish.
    I’m glad to be a witness to this unmasking…
    Thanks,
    Mike

  34. Great job!
    I’m still hoping to participate, health permitting. Seems that Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Southern Colorado could use some attention. I finally have GPS installed on the laptop.

  35. Smokey: it is very funny to receive graphs from some blog when presenting you with charts from scientific institutions. Moreover your “longer term” graph starting in 2005 (?) is really, really funny compared to the 30 year trend I was showing. BTW, aren’t you wondering why this graph magically stops at the begining of 2008? Take a look at the Jason/Topex figure I sent…
    Same holds for Myke – do you really say there’s no recent rise ? Can you please give some details about your starting date ? Moreover, I really doubt a Colorado Univ plot from 2009 is “out of date” – hey guys, that’s just measurements, simply admit it: the sea is rising and warming.

  36. “Flanagan (12:22:50) :
    Look guys, I gave a link to measurements – I can also give another one if you like, about sea levels
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
    please show me the decreasing trend, based on these graphs…”
    If this were true, and assuming no land level changes other than sedimentation, then Cairo would become a sea port again, the Nile delta would not exist, all the several hundred year old ports, like Exeter and Portsmouth etc, along the coast of England would be swamped. They are not. Go see Old Portsmouth/Gosport with many hundreds of years of costal life.
    Check out this place…
    http://www.thecoalexchange.co.uk/
    It’s been there a while, in the village of Emsworth, practically right on the estuary. This area is hundreds of years old. No sea level rise there, unless you class the incoming tide as a level rise (You can’t drive the bay road unless you have a decent 4×4, like a LandRover.

  37. Pat,
    Thanks for straightening out Flanagan — who, based on his ‘homogenous’ comment — apparently thinks that water doesn’t flow downhill.
    I would provide more graphs refuting Flanagan [easily done], but his mind is shut tight. His ‘graphs from some blog’ comment is simple ad hominem; attack the messenger to distract from the message. And the message is clear: CO2 doesn’t cause noticeable global warming, and can therefore be entirely disregarded.

Comments are closed.