Surfacestations.org hits the 1000 mark

I’m pleased to announce that the surfacestations.org project has now surveyed over 1000 of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, putting the percentage of the survey at over 82% now.My sincere thanks to the many volunteers who stepped up recently to survey additional stations in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and many other states.

Here is what the coverage looks like as of 7-14-09

USHCN surveyed 7-14-09

Here is the breakdown by state. Note that 5 states are now 100% completed.

State Stations Rated Pct
WY 30 26 87%
WV 13 9 69%
WI 23 17 74%
WA 44 40 91%
VT 7 6 86%
VA 19 10 53%
UT 40 33 83%
TX 48 29 60%
TN 15 13 87%
SD 25 17 68%
SC 29 22 76%
RI 3 3 100%
PA 24 18 75%
OR 41 37 90%
OK 45 39 87%
OH 26 19 73%
NY 59 42 71%
NV 13 13 100%
NM 28 26 93%
NJ 12 10 83%
NH 5 4 80%
NE 46 32 70%
ND 24 21 88%
NC 29 28 97%
MT 44 37 84%
MS 32 31 97%
MO 26 11 42%
MN 33 32 97%
MI 24 22 92%
ME 12 10 83%
MD 17 9 53%
MA 12 11 92%
LA 18 17 94%
KY 13 8 62%
KS 31 25 81%
IN 36 35 97%
IL 36 36 100%
ID 28 21 75%
IA 23 17 74%
GA 23 21 91%
FL 22 22 100%
DE 5 4 80%
CT 4 4 100%
CO 25 24 96%
CA 54 54 100%
AZ 25 22 88%
AR 15 12 80%
AL 15 13 87%
TOTAL 1221 1012 82.9%

Here is a chart to show the table data above:

USHCN percent surveyed-by-state

Note the states that are lacking the most in coverage are Virgina, Missouri, Texas, South Dakota, Maryland, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennesylvania, Iowa, and Idaho. These states are all below 80%. The states I would most like to get more surveys from are Missouri, Virginia, and Upstate New York which has a cluster of stations untouched. Arrangements have been made to get three stations in Texas this coming weekend: Alice, Falfurrias, and Rio Grande City, so anyone who is considering Texas can cross those off the list.

unsurveyed USHCN stations - click for larger image

For those that wish to help getting the final stations here is a Google Earth KML file that will help you locate the remaining stations yet to be surveyed in the USA.

Download Google Earth KML file here (sincere thanks to Gary Boden for his preparation of this)

Just download it (right click, save as) and then drag and drop to Google Earth, which can be downloaded free here.

The coordinates are mostly accurate, but it is always a good idea to get station location descriptions from NCDC’s MMS database also. Often they can be located easier by description than by coordinates. Note the the KML file has descriptions also along with the COOP ID number to help you get a match with NCDC’s database.

If you wish to help in surveying the remaining stations, go to the surfacestations.org project and complete the signup process.

I know that many people have been waiting for an analysis of the data. That is in process right now and a paper suitable for peer review is being prepared. I’ll answer the most obvious question ahead of time, and that is: no I will not be posting the results here first. After the paper has been set for publication, and within the rules of the journal, the paper, all of the data, methods, and results will be made public for anyone who wishes to replicate the work or to challenge it. There will be no hidden folders marked “censored” or incomplete MATLAB code. I’ll post the Full Monty once cleared by the journal.

That being said, given the tasks ahead for me, I’ll be posting far less frequently on WUWT. In the meantime, please be patient and let me finish this up with my co-authors.

Some people have wondered why I have taken two years now before going into data analysis mode. There are a couple of reasons.

1- Getting the best stations. The number of well sited stations are so few, getting enough to do a valid comparison to the poorly sited stations was a challenge.This is why I’ll continue to ask for additional surveys until we reach a publication deadline. There are so few “best” stations that even adding a handful more will be statistically significant. So please, keep up the surveys.

2- Coverage. I wanted to be absolutely certain that I had an undisputably large enough sample both in percentage volume and in spatial distribution. There were some folks who did some analysis using data from early in the project, such as John V at about 30% (with very poor spatial distribution) and the recent NCDC Talking points memo at 43%  NCDC “thought” they had the most current data, but they don’t have it, nor did they ask before attempting that analysis. That was an error on their part, and they are aware of it now. I’ve been in touch with the principal investigators at NCDC.

3- Patience is a virtue. If I had done analysis at 30 or 40%, as many suggested I do, and the analyzed results suggested that “siting mattered significantly” to the accuracy of the US Temperature record, I would be immediately vilified for having an inadequate sample, and rightly so. Interestingly, no such criticisms have been levied at NCDC by the AGW blog community for their results in the “talking points memo” at 43%, or at John V at 30%. Yet those results are being held up as examples of valid results by some. A double standard for statistical significance is something we’ve seen before in examples demonstrated by Steve McIntyre and others. Yet even without the statistical analysis, it is clear that the USHCN has not been well maintained. NOAA/NWS has closed many stations that we have highlighted, and even some we haven’t. Most recently Telluride, CO which is another story. If nothing else, this project is helping to get the USHCN network cleaned up. NOAA agrees in practice, as does NCDC, otherwise the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) would not have been created nor would there be an HCN modernization program if the USHCN was in an acceptable condition.

I wish to thank everyone who has helped in making this project continue to the level of coverage it has. Regardless of the outcome of the analysis, whether it shows that siting matters or it does not, one thing can always be said with pride: this survey is a one of a kind volunteer accomplishment that NOAA couldn’t do themselves.

It has been a long road, fraught with roadblocks, frustration, and criticisms.  I appreciate everyone who has helped me along the road.

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “Surfacestations.org hits the 1000 mark

  1. Yes, patience is a virtue. But while it is easy to talk about, it is so very hard to practice.
    Thanks again for yours and the volunteer’s great work and the best of luck on publication.

  2. What a great thing this study and Google Earth turned out to be. Well done Anthony and fellow volunterers.

  3. Your relentless and painstaking approach is reminiscent of Michael Faraday. The divergence of temperature data is another bombshell waiting to explode upon the global warming debate. Meanwhile, another leg of AGW theory is collapsing with this must-read for climate realists, 8 fatal flaws in IPCC’s climate modeling…
    “INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT
    TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE
    ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
    CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.”
    by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html

  4. Unfortunately the map doesn’t seem to be getting any greener or bluer. Have we no volunteers in Chicago to zip over and nail that sore thumb Indiana site?
    Looking forward to seeing our own raw data version of the “talking points” memo, since the CRN 1 & 2 stations in it were homogenized stations.

  5. 3- Patience is a virtue. If I had done analysis at 30 or 40%, as many suggested I do, and the analyzed results suggested that “siting mattered significantly” to the accuracy of the US Temperature record,
    Anthony
    Can you clarify what you mean by this. I’m sure everyone accepts that siting will affect actual readings, but many readers of this blog are interested in the implications from the perspective of ‘climate change’. To them, therefore, it is the effect on the trend, which should be most important.
    For example, if Station A was reading 2 degrees above the surrounding area in 1980 and it is also reading 2 degrees above in 2009, the trend will be unaffected.
    It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).

  6. @John Finn,
    Just imagine a station that was well-sited in 1950 – maybe on a grass field surrounded by farm land 2 miles from a small town.
    Since then the surrounding fields have been turned into a nice suburban development with A/C units, sprinklers, roads, houses.
    The station itself has changed. There is now a small car-park and a gravel road. The temperature gauge has been moved closer to a building to give the cables have a shorter run.
    These changes did not all occur at the same time – but gradually.
    I’m sure you get the idea…

  7. Looks like the end of ths epic is nigh. Be good f you and your team can get the report out before Copenhagan.
    Thanks to you and all involved for the hard work which has gone into this.

  8. Congrats Anthony and all – sort of like a birthday!
    Happy Millennium!
    John Finn said:
    It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).
    John, I think this is incorrect. I see no net global warming in the UAH data since 1979. It appears we are back to where we started in 1979, and probably cooling, but with significant variability. Comparing UAH LT to Hadcrut3 ST, I see ~0.07C/decade warming bias in Hadcrut3.

  9. No instant gratification here. A truly Herculean effort in which many ought to be lauded.
    What? No “censored” files? What is this, some kind of scientific study?
    Appreciate the efforts being expended to apply rigorous standards to the study. This is how such work should be done – and how errors are sometimes discovered. It isn’t about being right (though it may feel good); it’s about learning and improving our understanding of the world around us.
    And if you’re not posting as often, it’s all for a good cause. But then I’m sure there will be plenty of chances to fill in some days with some fun fluff stories, like the one about The Blob off the north coast of Alaska.

  10. John Finn (00:10:06) :
    “It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).”
    Yeah, but UAH’s trend is 0.25 DOWN per decade!
    :O
    LOL!
    Kidding!

  11. The most important aspects of a scientific study are the data analysis and publication of the results. I am happy to hear that Anthony is working on the statistical analysis and that he will submit the results for peer-review before posting on a blog, as a public posting before submission and peer-review is not acceptable for scientific journals. The results could, however, be presented at a scientific meeting before being submitted for peer review. I am very curious to learn whether the local siting issues are significant or not.

  12. John Finn (00:10:06) :
    I completely agree with John’s post above. The main issue for the analysis of these data is whether station siting affects temperature trends. I assume that the main hypothesis is that UHI effects are increasing and leading to an over estimate of climate warmin due to poor siting. This would be shown if temperature has been increasing more rapidly at poorly sited stations than at well-sited stations. Thus, the analysis needs to test whether temperature over the last decades has increased more at the poorly sited sites than at the better sited sights. By now, the number of sites that have been rated is enough to make a very rigorous statistical test of this hypothesis. There is no need to get at or near 100% coverage.

  13. What about resurveying the worst stations? Start with first surveyed and worst CRN. Just to get an idea of how these issues are being resolved.
    Maybe a random retest so it can be quantified?

  14. Congratulations, Anthony!!!! Looking forward to The Full Monty. Unfortunately, the U.S. government will only be bare-assed with absolutely no class.

  15. Jack Hughes (01:35:50) :
    @John Finn,
    Just imagine a station that was well-sited in 1950 – maybe on a grass field surrounded by farm land 2 miles from a small town.

    Yes I understand the point. However I ‘m not sure how often this actually happened and to what extent it affected the US trend
    We know that, since the satellite era , the US trend for both UAH and GISS has been 0.25 deg per decade, i.e identical. This suggests siting issues have had no effect on the amount of warming since 1979.

  16. Allan M R MacRae (02:29:41) :
    John Finn said:
    It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).
    John, I think this is incorrect. I see no net global warming in the UAH data since 1979. It appears we are back to where we started in 1979, and probably cooling, but with significant variability. Comparing UAH LT to Hadcrut3 ST, I see ~0.07C/decade warming bias in Hadcrut3.

    No it’s not incorrect. You appear not to have read what I write. The US trend is 0.25 deg per decade for both UAH and GISS. Futhermore, as was pointed out in a recent post, the trends for all 4 datasets are within about 4 hundredths of a degree within each other since 1992.

  17. Wouldn’ t it be better to change the color of all those 1000 spots to blue, light blue or green?, because we are already saturated of noaa’s reds and oranges.
    It would be a nicer and more relaxing view.

  18. “That being said, given the tasks ahead for me, I’ll be posting far less frequently on WUWT.”
    We can understand the need for your working time, but my craving for my WUWT “fix” is obviously going to be unsatisfied. It is one of my few “must” reads every day. (I always look at Climate Audit as well to see if Steve has something new, but given the depth of his analyses he can’t crank them out daily.) All the best with your invaluable work.
    IanM

  19. I tried to hit Moberly, MO, on 7-03 but it appeared to be atop the roof of the local radio station, and no one was available to let me in.

  20. Finn wrote: “By now, the number of sites that have been rated is enough to make a very rigorous statistical test of this hypothesis. There is no need to get at or near 100% coverage.”
    Yes people said the same thing when I was at 30%.
    Does a population census stop when somebody says “we have enough”?
    This isn’t like an opinion poll mind you, where 1000 people queried are said to represent a national trend. This is a census.
    I’m really not interested in stopping when just a little bit more effort will provide a complete census. And as I mentioned the goal is to find the remaining “best” stations.
    I find it amazing that people want to give up so easily and have so little curiosity in seeing a complete data set such as you display. The phrase “close enough for government work comes to mind”.

  21. Congrats on the milestone, Anthony–and a big hat tip to all you dedicated volunteers who made it possible.
    Okay, enough basking. Back to work.

  22. Anthony, I live five miles away from the Gt. Barrington AP, Mass., and asked them about their station (none visible). They replied that they haven’t had a reporting staff or staff in years.
    Better write that one off.
    REPLY: Yes according to NCDC metadata, it has been closed. They seemed to have some issue in the years leading up to closure. Switching from MMTS to “other temperature equipment”. – Anthony

  23. Sweet. I’m thinking on this Sunday I’m going to daytrip down to Grand Meadow, MN and get the on-site pics that Evan wanted to supplement his virtual survey.
    REPLY: I sent you an email about one station you uploaded that is missing the temperature sensor pics – did you get it? Anthony

  24. You have 6 states with 100% coverage. I’d fix that quick before RealClimate says, “Anthony Watts, who can’t count, has published a paper…”

  25. Regarding the talking points memo, is that the only problem with it, the 43% coverage? Is it possible they were comparing adjusted stations to adjusted overall result?
    Steve McIntyre has posted that NOAA rural matches GISTEMP, and GISTEMP does not match NOAA.

  26. Don’t see Alaska or Hawaii listed. If you need some help here in AK, let me know. Cheers –
    REPLY: Funny thing about NCDC, they excluded AK and HI when they setup USHCN – Anthony

  27. John Finn (08:14:09) :
    Allan M R MacRae (02:29:41) :
    John Finn said:
    It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).
    John, I think this is incorrect. I see no net global warming in the UAH data since 1979. It appears we are back to where we started in 1979, and probably cooling, but with significant variability. Comparing UAH LT to Hadcrut3 ST, I see ~0.07C/decade warming bias in Hadcrut3.
    No it’s not incorrect. You appear not to have read what I write. The US trend is 0.25 deg per decade for both UAH and GISS. Futhermore, as was pointed out in a recent post, the trends for all 4 datasets are within about 4 hundredths of a degree within each other since 1992.
    *****************************
    OK John, but for the USA, the warmest year is 1934, and the next is 1998. Can you kindly explain how you reached your conclusion, wth data sources.
    I believe there is a significant urban warming bias in the USA Surface Temp data as well as the global ST data. Please show me where I am wrong.
    I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
    Please see
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/lobalwarminguahsatellitedatasince1979.jpg
    and
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsSUNvsPDOAMO.jpg

  28. I am a meteorologist who lives in Grand Forks, ND and if you’d like I can go survey the sites in NE ND and NW MN.
    REPLY: Your help would be welcome

  29. I was at my cousins house on the fourth, he had a hard copy of the preliminary surface stations report sitting on his coffee table.
    The message is getting out.

  30. Allan M R MacRae (10:36:53) :
    I can’t speak for Jon Finn, but perhaps he is referring to the analysis done on this very blog showing that UAH has higher trends than GISS over the US for the entire satellite record.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/
    So, I will ask again… how can poor siting and UHI be exaggerating North America/US warming when a supposedly more accurate and representative satellite dataset actually has a greater trend?

  31. Allan M R MacRae (10:36:53) :
    OK John, but for the USA, the warmest year is 1934, and the next is 1998. Can you kindly explain how you reached your conclusion, wth data sources.
    I don’t understand your point. What relevance does the warm 1934 year have with respect to the issue of UHI. I’m not convinced that UH and poor siting have had a significant effect on the US warming trend since ~1975. The fact that the UAH record for the US shows more warming than the GISS US record provides strong support for this belief.
    No-one has yet explained how this can be. Do you have an explanation?
    I believe there is a significant urban warming bias in the USA Surface Temp data as well as the global ST data. Please show me where I am wrong.
    See above. Just to repeat, UAH is warming as much if not more than the surface record. Are the satellites badly sited?
    I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
    I don’t believe in fitting arbitrary polynomials when there is no justification for doing so.
    I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
    I don’t agree with fitting arbitrary polnomials when there is no scientific justification for doing so.

  32. John Finn,
    Allan M R MacRae asked for data sources — and you gave him your unfounded opinion. WUWT? And then you gave your ‘belief’:

    “I don’t believe in fitting arbitrary polynomials when there is no justification for doing so.”

    Well, here are a few data sources that will help you understand that the Alarmist crowd has cornered the market on misinformation:
    click1
    click2
    click3 [look closely]
    click4 Alarmist version with truncated y-axis
    click5 Honest CO2 chart

  33. At this point Anthony I think you want a “hit list” Those stations that have a
    high probablity of being good.
    1. Nightlights = dark
    2. Rural = true
    3. ASOS = false.
    The more of these stations you get the better slices you can get through the data. That will help your S/N since the effect is likely to be small (<.25C) and the effect will change over time.
    A. Good ( CRN12, no ASOS) versus Worst (CRN5)
    1.) Prior to installation of MMTS (beehive–) Versus 2.) POST MMTS
    personally I think there are two hypothesis of interest.
    I. there is a measureable microsite bias.
    II. That bias impacts the land record in a measurable way.
    Good luck!

  34. Smokey (14:12:15) :
    John Finn,
    Allan M R MacRae asked for data sources — and you gave him your unfounded opinion. WUWT? And then you gave your ‘belief’

    I gave data sources. The UAH trend for the US is warmer than the GISS surface temperature trend. I’m not sure what else you want. If GISS is affected by poor station siting then what is causing the UAH warming.
    If someone could please answer this then I’d be happy. Can you answer it, Smokey? Can you tell me why UAH is showing more warming than the surface temperature record, if the surface temperature record is contaminated by the UH effect.
    Incidentally, I have no interest in “misinformation” from either side of the argument.

  35. Anthony–
    No, I’m sorry. The spam filter must have eaten it.
    If that’s Pembina, ND. . . then I screwed up. There is no picture of the temp sensor. I got bamboozled by a raing gauge I hadn’t seen and quit looking. Sorry about that. I’ve tried to contact a guy at the water plant to see if I could sweet talk him into a pic, but no response so far. I’ll try again.
    I uploaded what I did have before I realized I screwed the pooch. Delete them if they are of no value.
    REPLY: Yes that is the station. The MMTS photo is missing. What you got photos of was the Fisher Porter rain gauge. – Anthony

  36. Anthony–
    Yeah, Evan politey (at least he didn’t laugh out loud) informed me of that fact. Luckily, I kept wondering around the Grand Forks NWS site until I stumbled onto the MMTS or I might have made the same mistake there a few hours later!
    Tho interestingly, the Grand Forks NWS station had what looked like a MMTS near ground level next to their Fischer-Porter rain gauge visible in the pictures (in addition to the presumably “regular” MMTS back aways in the trees).. Was that a MMTS near the ground next to the Fischer-Porter rain gauge? For what purpose?
    Btw, I was just looking at the “USHCN Master Station List” that often gets referenced as something to check out before going to look at a site. It hasn’t been updated since before summer of 2008. In all your copious spare time, etc. . . .

  37. I’ve downloaded the info, signed up at surfacestations.org, and will see if I can get to some of the Northern NY ones or that last VT one within the next month or two. No promises, because my 11-month-old will be in tow, but I travel from Northern VT to Central NY a bit.
    I’ve been reading this site for a little while now — you do a great job, Anthony! I learn a lot from the comments, too, not just the posts.
    Google Earth rocks. I was generating some KML files to visualize primary election results last year.

    REPLY
    : Thanks, good hunting, Anthony

  38. Anthony,
    I live in Central WA State. WA shows as needing 4 stations. Maybe I can help.
    Now to show my lack of computer skills. I downloaded the file and have a 123 KB XML file stored on my hard drive. When I drag and drop this to my Google Earth icon on the desktop nothing happens. Do I have to do something else, like set G_E to open in DirectX or OpenGL, or what? Is there some spot of the G_E window to drop to?
    Just opening the file and searching for WA, I get: [my comment re loc.]
    CLE ELUM – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE WITHIN AND 0.9 MILES SW OF PO AT CLE ELUM WA [lat/long seem OKAY]
    COLFAX – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE WITHIN & 0.6 MI NW OF PO AT COLFAX, WA [lat/long seem to be off by .1 or .2 miles in a wheat field]
    COLVILLE – OBSERVERS FARM RESIDENCE OUTSIDE AND 5.1 MI NE OF PO AT COLVILLE, WA [lat/long lands us inside town, not on a farm 5.1 miles away]
    GRAPEVIEW – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE OUTSIDE AND 2.5 MI SW OF PO AT GRAPEVIEW, WA [lat/long seem to place station in Pickering Passage; houseboat? Again probably off by less than .2 mi.]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Cle Elum / South Cle Elum is 45 minutes away. Station is in South Cle Elum and I have the person’s name and phone number.
    The other three I will have to induce friends who live closer and let them figure out the location. Each is 3 to 4 hours one-way driving time from my home.
    I’ll set this plan in motion but would still like to know what’s up with the Google Earth drag and drop concept.
    Thanks, John
    REPLY: Open Google Earth first and then drag the file into it. Or simply double click on the KML file and that should open Google Earth and load it. As a last resort. Open Google Earth then use the File>Open menu to locate the KML file – Anthony

  39. <Hiding behind averages – The usual approach is to [spacialy] average temperatures then look for changes in the average. This looks wrong to me. A station collects information at one and only one site which gets lost in the average. It would be better to calculate the change for each station and average the change. I hope Anthony tries it both ways in his analysis

  40. Adam (11:56:09) :
    The link you give
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/
    gives a slope of .0185 for UAH and
    0.0159 for the GISS data.
    Of course if one used only the data from the last decade, the slope if not negative for both, would be much flatter.
    GISS is constistently higher than UAH in absolute anomaly, so they must be measuring hotter. That is the problem with anomalies. One would need a plot of the difference of UAH from GISS in temperature measures to see if they are measuring the same thing.
    Now UAH start measuring in 1979 and a lot of the urban sprawl has occurred by then so it is not clear what percentage of the urban heating effect will be included by GISS in these 30 years, or measured by the satellite at that ( one does not exclude from the satellite data the urban areas, right?).
    The surface station project will clear this up.

  41. I’m absolutely staggered that nothing has yet been done to rectify the incompetence and neglect of stations revealed by surfacestations.
    82% is done. At what point do they even respond (let alone address) the negligence?
    Why are these clowns paid? What job do they actually do? I’ve had a big pot-hole out the front of my house for a month, now. They could come and fill that in. That would at least be a useful expenditure of my tax dollars.

  42. Re: John F. Hultquist (23:25:10) :
    John,
    I am mapping out a vacation/picture taking tour for the week after next. Current plan has me working my way south from Porthill at the top of the Idaho panhandle. I should be able easily to jump over and pick up Colfax.
    I do have a question for Anthony, though, if you’re reading this. I see a recent posting for Pullman (I can now pull that off my list), and I have some concern lest the photographer may have some ‘latent’ prints for Colfax already taken but not posted.
    Juan

  43. anna v (05:19:55) :
    “GISS is constistently higher than UAH in absolute anomaly, so they must be measuring hotter. That is the problem with anomalies. One would need a plot of the difference of UAH from GISS in temperature measures to see if they are measuring the same thing.”
    It has been explained countless times that GISS anomalies are higher than UAH (and RSS) because the anomalies are computed with respect to different base periods, not because GISS is “measuring hotter”. So, for an “apples to apples” comparison you’d simply adjust one of the two datasets to account for the different base periods.
    If you were to plot the difference in absolute temperatures between GISS and UAH, the differences would be huge because they are measuring two totally different things. GISS measures near surface temps while UAH measures the average temp of the lower to mid troposphere… thus the only meaningful comparison between the two datasets is of the anomalies.
    anna v
    “Of course if one used only the data from the last decade, the slope if not negative for both, would be much flatter.”
    Uh… I’m well aware … But that isn’t relevant to a comparison between UAH and GISS over the satellite record, which is what we were discussing.

  44. I have a Garmin NUVI GPS for my wife. I have not figured out how to get it into LAT/LON Mode. Does anybody have any advice or can recommend a low cost GPS suitabelfor helping on the project?

  45. juan (08:13:15) : RE: picking up Colfax
    Thanks, that would be a long trip for me if I could not get a friend to do it.
    Much appreciated, John

  46. Oh darn. I just returned from a NM vacation, where I drove from SA to Ruidoso, along I-10 and US285 through Fr. Stockton and Pecos, Carlsbad and Artesia. 🙁
    I wouldn’t’ve minded taking some photos along the way. 🙁
    And yes, I actually *did* enjoy the ride. 🙂
    That being said, what are you looking for in S TX? You can email me, perhaps I can help out.
    J

  47. Robert–
    Re Garmin Nuvi. I have a Nuvi. On mine, if you go to the place where you look for locations to go to (like Cities, Restaurants, etc), and keep paging down, nearly the last entry is for Lat/Lon. When you bring it up it will show you the current Lat/Lon. . .but then you can put it where you want to go. I think perhaps (it’s been a few weeks since I did this) you can also pick what format to show Lat/Lon in, and this will be necessary to change to get the format that the Surfacestations.org site shows those in.
    If that’s not enough guidance to get you on the right path, let me know and I’ll go dig mine out of the car for more exact instructions.

  48. Oh, and I think W (West) is already selected on the Nuvi, so you don’t need to use the negative sign in front of the second coordinate that surfacestation.org coords always show.

  49. John Finn,
    I don’t have time to redo this analysis for US GISS ST date, but here is a more consistent analysis for global Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature ST and UAH Lower Troposphere temperature LT.
    See the first graph at
    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
    There is a 0.2C increase in ST versus LT since 1979, or a warming bias in global ST of 0.07C/decade.
    There is also no net warming since 1940, and possibly up to 0.3C of cooling, despite an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.
    Finally, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
    Ain’t it a bugger for you warmists to have to argue that the future is causing the past?

  50. You know, looking at that map I see a big mostly empty area running right down the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It’s not from lack of surveying, it’s from lack of stations.
    So we don’t measure up in the rugged mountain country where it’s really cold and snowy very much, but we measure lots of places in the low valley near by where it is one heck of a lot hotter. Then GIStemp fills in the missing cold mountains with anomaly data calculated based on the hot area adjust how again?…
    If this pattern repeats around the world (not much measuring where cold and dismal, lots of measuring in warmer flat valleys (with airports 😉 well, theirs your global warming… Do we need a NMHIE – No Mountain data Heat Island Effect?

  51. John Finn
    Sea level is falling too – here is another good example of the egregious practise of fitting a straight line through cyclical data.
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
    I love the way you guys take the warming half of a ~60 year cooling and warming cycle and extrapolate it to infinity. Then you run around screaming “We’ll all gonna die, I tell ya, we’re all gonna BURN!”
    Have not researched global dimming, but this linear extrapolation method of yours is irrefutable evidence of intellectual dimming.

  52. Allan M R MacRae (04:09:32) :
    John Finn,
    I don’t have time to redo this analysis for US GISS ST date, but here is a more consistent analysis for global Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature ST and UAH Lower Troposphere temperature LT.
    See the first graph at
    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
    There is a 0.2C increase in ST versus LT since 1979, or a warming bias in global ST of 0.07C/decade.

    No there isn’t. You are selecting one point around 1979 where the 2 datasets are close and using that as a reference point. Look at the downward spikes in the mid-1980s. The UAH anomaly is ~0.2 deg below Hadley. Thr same thing happens in the early 1990s.
    There is also no net warming since 1940, and possibly up to 0.3C of cooling, despite an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions
    No-one can possibly claim that. The trend is clearly up since 1940. We’ve had a slight dip recently due to the 2007/08 La Nina but temperatures are still higher than at anytime in pre-1995 period. What does the last data point represent? Is it 2008?
    I’m sorry but this is cherrypicking at a level I’ve never seen before on either side of the debate.

  53. Sea level is falling too – here is another good example of the egregious practise of fitting a straight line through cyclical data.
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

    Yes of course it is. It’s quite obviously falling. Now why don’t you go and have a nice lie down.
    I love the way you guys take the warming half of a ~60 year cooling and warming cycle and extrapolate it to infinity. Then you run around screaming “We’ll all gonna die, I tell ya, we’re all gonna BURN!”
    What do you mean by “you guys”? While you’ve been dreaming up ever more imaginative ways to show that the world is really cooling and the sea is practically disappearing before our eyes, I was arguing with Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Tamino and a host of others about AGW issues which are genuinely controversial.
    But do carry on. You and the likes of David “2 deg Cooling” Archibald are doing a great job winning over the neutrals.

  54. Anthony/Evan–
    Ground level pictures of Grand Meadow, MN have been uploaded to supplement Evan’s virtual survey.
    Evan created marked/labelled GE photos of admirable detail. Unfortunately, they misplace the MMTS somewhat as the uploaded ground-level photos show. It is not behind the detached garage/outbuilding. It is in the backyard directly behind the attached garage part of the house. So it is somewhat further south and a bit west of where Evan shows it. In fact, in the GE shots you can see the shadow of the tree he references in his survey form. The MMTS is several feet south of that.
    I do not have the experience/knowledge to know if the difference is material or not. I merely note it for your information.

  55. I hoping to snag a couple more of the south west Wisconsin stations. If anyone else is going after them please let me know.
    Thanks Glenn

  56. In about three weeks, we’re travelling by car from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to Montreal and back. I haven’t tried to do an analysis of freeways yet, but just eyeballing and knowing the last time we did something similiar, there’s at least a chance I might be able to reasonably bag that station on the Upper WI/MI border and maybe even a few upper NY ones on the way to/from. If someone doesn’t get them first, and if it doesn’t add too much time to the drive –we don’t have a lot of excess hours on this trip, but a few anyway.

  57. Wow, how is College Park, Maryland uncollected at this point?!
    /me wonders if he can interest his younger brother, who lives in Silver Springs, in a bit of walk-about. . .

  58. John Finn (10:10:00) said:
    “I’m sorry but this is cherrypicking at a level I’ve never seen before on either side of the debate.”
    OK John, I’m calling your BS.
    If I were cherry-picking, I would have tried many combinations until I found this one. I did not.
    All I did was choose 1940 as approximately the beginning of a ~60 year cooling-and-warming cycle. 1979 was not arbitrarily chosen – it was the year that the satellites that measure temperature were launched.
    You warmists choose the recent (warming) 30 years of a 60 year cooling-and-warming cycle and then extrapolate that warming segment forever, and thus claim global warming is a crisis and we’re all going to burn.
    Really, this is utter nonsense.
    The last decade of global cooling, coupled with flat-to-declining sea levels, must be giving you terminal heartburn. Serves you right for peddling this expensive, self-serving nonsense. Shame on you John.
    Now your colleagues are saying we’ll have no more global warming for another 20 years, but then more serious global warming is definitely “in the pipeline”. Again, I’m calling your BS!
    How many times do you think you can change your story before everyone knows that your side of this debate is without credibility or conscience?
    *********************

  59. Copy of a note I sent today to Benny Peiser of CC Net.
    Hi Benny,
    This scientific, energy and economic “Kyoto” debacle was not only predictable, it was predicted, by Sallie Baliunas (Harvard U astrophysicist), Tim Patterson (Carleton U paleoclimatologist) and me.
    Here is an excerpt from our article published in the PEGG of November 2002.
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
    Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
    Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
    Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
    Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
    Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
    Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
    Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
    Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
    The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
    [end of excerpt]
    Given the human suffering that has resulted from this misguided application of junk science, Pollyanna energy policy and voodoo economics, I would much prefer it if we had been wrong.
    Regards, Allan MacRae
    —–Original Message—–
    From: Peiser, Benny
    Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 4:45 AM
    To: cambridge-conference
    Subject: CCNet: Green Britain Isn’t Working
    CCNet 112/2009 – 20 July 2009 — Audiatur et altera pars
    GREEN BRITAIN ISN’T WORKING
    —————————
    The rate of unemployment among British adults aged 18 to 24 is 20% and set to grow. Fears are growing of another lost generation.
    –Business Week, 17 July 2009
    Roland Verstappen, vice-president for international affairs at AcrelorMittal, said steel industries were considering relocating their European operations to other parts of the world because of climate legislation.
    –EurActiv, 25 June 2009
    Phillipe Varin, chief executive of Corus, has warned that European steel production will wither unless governments tackle the cost of carbon credits used to offset emissions. “If we are forced to buy CO2 credits on the market without a system to improve our production process, then we will not produce steel in Europe,” said Mr Varin.
    –The Independent, 14 December 2008
    Thousands of British steelworkers and their families are holding a protest march Saturday in a town in northeast England where the looming closure of a Corus steel plant threatens to throw families into poverty. Closure is expected to result in the loss of 2,000 jobs at the plant, and another 1,000 elsewhere.
    –Dipankar De Sarkar, Thaindian News, 18 July 2009
    It may well be that the English steel mills will become unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices; but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism – and even madness when the consequence of Miliband’s Martin Luther King moment may be the lights going out not just for producers but for all of us in our homes. This is worse than a futile gesture: it is immoral.
    –Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 19 July 2009
    Government claims that Britain already supports nearly one million “green-collar” jobs have been exposed as a sham after the figures were found to include workers in the North Sea gas industry as well as suppliers of wallpaper and animal bedding. John Sharp, of Innovas, a consultancy in Winsford, Cheshire, which was paid by the Government to produce the figures earlier this year, confirmed that this included thousands of workers on gas production platforms in the North Sea as well as petrol station attendants on forecourts where liquefied petroleum is dispensed and employees at gas-fired power stations.
    –Robin Pagnamenta, The Times, 15 July 2009

  60. Geo,
    Keep me posted on the Ashland WI station. If you can’t make it, I’ve got a brother that can get to it with some effort.
    I’d like to see WI in the 100% category.
    Thanks Glenn

  61. G. Block– Actually, it was Iron Mountain Kingsford WWTP just over the line in MI that I had in mind with that comment. Feel free to send someone after Ashland, WI.

  62. Allan M R MacRae (23:07:22) :
    All I did was choose 1940 as approximately the beginning of a ~60 year cooling-and-warming cycle. 1979 was not arbitrarily chosen – it was the year that the satellites that measure temperature were launched.
    Whatever you did it’s quite clear that every year since ~1995 is warmer than every year in the 1940s. I can only think that, because the satellite temperatures dropped below the 1940s Hadley temperatures for just one year, you’re somehow suggesting that this shows there has been no warming. Even then you’ve got to rely on a strong La nina.
    I have strongly criticised the Mann hockey-stick graph in the past for the way that the thermometer record was cintinually grafted on to the H-S reconstruction. This is like comparing apples and oranges. You have done exactly the same thing. I think you’ll find even sceptics will dismiss your effort as nonsense. in fact, I just have.

  63. I have a road trip into Western Nebraska this week. I have tried the Google Earth link and got nothing recognizable out of it. So I don’t know if there are stations that I can assist with.
    If someone more computer skilled could let me know whether or not there are stations on the line, or just off for that matter, from Denver to McCook let me know and I will get them done on Wednesday and Thursday.
    My route inside Nebraska goes from Parks thru Benkelman, Statton, Trenton, McCook. it runs just south of Imperial, Enders, Wauneta and Palisade.

  64. John Finn:
    RSS, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    Hadley, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    UAH, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    GISS, 2000 – 2009; trend is negative
    And more recently: click
    It is disingenuous to simply state that one year is warmer than another year. That is a strawman argument, which assumes without any real, empirical evidence that human activity is causing the warming.
    The warming trend since the LIA is entirely normal and natural. AGW should not be invoked, since it is unnecessary to explain these natural climate fluctuations; it is an argumentum ad ignorantum, and it violates Occam’s Razor:

    “Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”
    ~~ William of Ockham [1285-1349]

    Argue that AGW is the culprit, if that is what you believe. But don’t just point to a warm year and say, “AHA! Global warming!!” Remove the “A” from AGW; it is unnecessary to explain anything.
    If you believe that AGW causes global warming, provide some solid evidence. And by evidence, I don’t mean output from a computer model, I mean real world evidence.

  65. Paul James –I’m assuming you downloaded/installed Google Earth. Please be sure you do a Save As on the map link and further than you save it with a “.KML” extension rather than a “.XML” extension. Internet Explorer (don’t know about others) seems to want to save that file as a “.XML” but it needs to be “.KML” for Google Earth to recognize it.
    The unsurveyed Curtis, NE site would be about 45 mins north of McCook just off US83.

  66. Thanks Geo
    maybe I am just a ham fisted computer user but i can’t get it to work for me. I’ll take a look at Curtis NE on Wednesday afternoon.

  67. John Finn,
    We are not going to agree.
    I have reviewwed your comments and still believe that what I said is correct.
    Enjoy what is left of this freezing cold, global warming summer.
    Regards, Allan

  68. Smokey (13:23:36) :
    John Finn:
    RSS, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    Hadley, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    UAH, 1997 – 2009; trend is negative
    GISS, 2000 – 2009; trend is negative
    And more recently: click

    Smokey, dear boy, Allan Macrae is trying to argue that the trend since 1940 is negative. I think he is most definitely wrong on this.
    Regarding your ‘trends’ I tend to side with the warmers here. The trends are over too short a period and are heavily influenced by the hugely anomalous El Nino in 1997/98. The trends since 1999, for example, are all positive.
    I’m not suggesting that the trends aren’t flattening or that they won’t flatten, but it’s too early to call. Any future lack of warming, though, will be more likely due to ocean influences than anything else.

  69. Finally got Google Earth working ! Nice Map !
    I am going to try and look at Gothenburg, NE as well as Curtis NE this week.

  70. Gore’s hometown in Summer Shiver: Record cold Breaks 1877 Temp Record ‘Set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president’
    By Associated Press
    7:59 AM CDT, July 21, 2009
    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Cool weather has broken a previous low temperature for July 21 in Nashville that was set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.
    When the temperature at the National Weather Service station dipped to 58 degrees at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it wiped out the previous record low for the date of 60 degrees, which was set in 1877.
    NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.
    Temperatures were cool, but did not break records at several Tennessee cities.
    Knoxville dropped to 59 degrees Tuesday morning, Chattanooga had 60 degrees, Tri-Cities recorded 58 degrees and Memphis was 69 degrees.

  71. Is the USA warming or cooling?
    Is there a plan to analyze the surface temperature data using Anthony’s weather station information, to try to obtain an uncontaminated dataset?
    There are many weather stations.
    What are the best techniques for eliminating sampling and measurement errors?

  72. geo — I’m taking a trip to the UP in a few weeks so I was thinking about looking into the Iron Mountain, MI location as well. However, it doesn’t look like my route will really take me near it. For whatever it’s worth, though, I searched the NOAA MMS Station Locator site and it looks like the coordinates in the KML file might not be correct. The KML file gives the name of the station as the ‘Iron Mountain Kingsford WWTP’. This must be the Iron Mountain Kingsford Waste Water Treatment Plant. However, the NOAA site lists the coordinates of this station as 45.7858 N 88.0841 W which is different than what is contained in the KML file. The KML file appears to be the coordinates for the Iron Mountain Waterworks. Which one of these two locations actually houses the weather station is not clear. Just thought I’d mention it if you actually did go there.

  73. Hey Anthony, Evan, or any other long time volunteer,
    I’ve got 3 out of 4 station owners contacted in SW Wi and will stop in next week. One SW Wisconsin station (Darlington) closed down 6 years ago. Is the goal to contact the last station owners and snap pictures of the grassy knoll where the station used to sit? Or does the station get marked closed with no action needed?
    Thanks
    G Block
    REPLY: If you can determine with accuracy of a couple of feet where the station was then yes. If you have no such evidence clearly pinpointing location then no. – Anthony

  74. Billy–
    Looking in GE at the coords you provided for Iron Mountain, MI, they seem a lot more likely than the ones on the GE KML Unsurveyed Sites map. The KML Unsurveyed map puts the MMTS basically out in the woods of suburbia with no structures visible for hundreds of feet in any direction. The ones you give look a lot more like what I’ve seen so far on my travels. I’ll take both with me, of course, but I’ll try yours first.
    http://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm seems to be down right now. Working for anyone else?
    I’m leaving tomorrow evening so any help appreciated. I see the SS Gallery is currently in turtle mode for security reasons.
    The other sites I’ve got my eye on are in upper New York:
    Canton, NY. This looks pretty reasonable a location in GE at 44.5772, -75.108994
    Lawrenceville, NY. Doesn’t look terribly likely in GE at 44.72139 -74.74361. No visible structures for quite some distance in any direction. Tho it is listed as a min-max, rather than a MMTS.
    Chasm Falls, NY. In Google Earth at 44.75, -74.21667 this looks pretty unlikely. Solid heavy wood with no obvious structures yet it is listed as a MMTS.
    Obviously I can’t see the galleries right now. Are those sites still on the “to do” list? Any advice on them? We’re leaving tomorrow afternoon if anyone has anything to chip in.
    The other sites I’m looking at for this trip

  75. Okay, I found this site to look at NOAA location records since the SS link is no longer working: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html
    Chasm Falls has apparently been gone since 1995, so scratch that (at least so far as me visiting it).
    Lawrenceville shows to “Nov 2008” instead of “Present”. On the one hand, that seems recent enough that it might be worthwhile. On the other hand, I don’t have the time on this trip to do a lot of sleuthing. So scratch that one too. Maybe I’ll look for another one in WI or New York to consider. Right now it’s just Iron Mountain, MI and Canton, NY on my list this trip.

  76. Well, I considered adding Lockport, NY. . .but it looks like Lockport, NY has been gone for years too (1999) according to that same NOAA locator link. Either I’m looking at the wrong stuff, or there are quite a few of the “left to do list” that are left to do because they aren’t there anymore. Might be nice to have those in different colors or something on the KML map, as they really are a different kind of problem and likely level of effort and pre-preparation to address them.

  77. Thinking maybe of Minocqua, WI now. Looks active and findable. Tho I can’t tell if somebody already got it since the map went out with the gallery down.

  78. Anthony,
    This is a very impressive accomplishment. Congratulations.
    You may have done this already, but I thought it would be interesting to calculate a weighted average of the errors (bias) based on the percent of stations at each CRN level and the error levels at each. I calculated an average positive bias of ~2.25 deg C., which is ~4.0 deg F. To be conservative, I assumed a bias of 0 for CRN-1, 0.5 for CRN-2, 1.5 for CRN-3, 2.5 for CRN-4, and 5.0 for CRN-5.

  79. I see the SS gallery is back up. We stopped at Minocqua, WI this morning and got some pics. We may add some of them to what is already in the SS gallery if any feel like they’d add to what is already there.
    We also stopped at Iron Mountain/Kingsford, MI and got pics this morning after Minocqua.
    Tomorrow we’re aiming for Canton, NY

  80. Canton, NY collected this afternoon. Made for a humorous exchange with Canadian border service –Them: “When was the last time you visited Canada?” Me: “Three hours ago”.
    Heh. Made me wonder if they got our plates registered on the way out the first time and knew the answer before they asked.
    Anyway, no strip searches, dogs, or mirrors under vehicles were involved.

  81. Okay, I think I’m clear for this weekend.
    Looking at Watertown, Clark, Mellete, Highmore, Forestburg and Howard in South Dakota all in one trip. At least none have pictures in the SS gallery. I haven’t started reviewing yet which seem to still be likely to be active and actually at the location shown on the GE .kml and/or the USGHCN coordinates.
    Anyone have some advice/insight on any of these?

  82. I’ve researched the 6 SD sites above, doing the unsurveyed .kml vs ushcn locator, and I feel pretty good about having a good chance to get all 6. There is a conflict on two of them .kml vs ushcn locator, and the locator coords seem more reasonable for the description given, so I’m going with those (tho I’ll have the “secondary” coord possibilities with me as well).
    So, off to SD in the morning for a weekend of walkabout.

  83. 4 South Dakota stations “got” today. Watertown, Clark, Mellette (which is really in Northville, but used to be in Mellette, 4 miles away, until 5 years ago), and Highmore.
    Watertown was fun as it was both my first airport and my first ASOS Hygrothermometer. Luckily I did my homework and new what I was looking for. Still long range shots at max 5x zoom to see it, as the whole thing was fenced at a distance, but still recognizable. And I had my 7-21x variable zoom binocs with me too, and saw it even better thru those for the first time the binocs have proved useful on one of these trips.
    Mellette was interesting for a different reason. I talked to the observer there, and he said someone from California who was “driving through” stopped by in June and took pictures. But there are none in the SS gallery for Mellette (until I have my dinner anyway). One of our SS volunteers who didn’t follow through on uploading? Or something else?
    Anyway, the pizza should be here soon.
    Two more (Forestburg and Howard) tomorrow on the road home.
    Is anyone still reading this thread besides me and the mod? 🙂 Should I not bother posting here anymore?

  84. Got Forestburg and Howard today, and am home again. Gallerty db seems to be down at the moment, so I can’t upload yet.
    A second report of the mysterious Californian picture collector in Howard. The Howard observer thinks it was earlier than June tho. So that’s two reports of him on this trip, one on the southern tier (Howard) and one on the northern tier (Mellette/Northville). Makes me think he might have gotten more of the same ones I got this weekend as well. Yet none uploaded to the surfacestaitons db. Curious.
    REPLY: Gallery db has some serious issues, it may have been hacked, or it may be some SQL issue, can’t tell just yet. Will be OL for a couple of days. – Anthony

  85. I know you were worried about being under attack from hackers a few weeks ago –I hope it isn’t that. Anyway, best of luck! Today’s pics will wait just fine until then –they are on two media now, so nothing should happen to them in the interim!

Comments are closed.