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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice work by all involved!
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
@ur momisugly 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
Flanagan (06:36:54) :
Rob: oceans are cooling? Not on my planet…
Yeah but we don’t know what planet you’re on.
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.
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).
darn it didn’t make it first oh well had to show the wife:)
Milwaukee Bob (10:34:19) :
@ur momisugly 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
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…
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.
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.
This paper:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
…which forms the basis of the errors shown in IPCC reports, claims “… So the error in the monthly average will be at most 0.2/SQRT(60) = 0.03 deg C ”
Is there a detailed analysis of this paper ?
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.
Flanagan,
The sea level graph is seriously out of date and has been hansenized beyond recognition… Anything newer and more probative?
Mike
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
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.
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.
“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.
Pt: this would only be true if sea level rise were homogeneous – which it is not.
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.