Contribution of USHCN and GISS bias in long-term temperature records for a well-sited rural weather station

Guest post by David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.

When Phil Jones suggested that if folks didn’t like his surface temperature reconstructions, then perhaps they should do their own, he was right. The SPPI analysis of rural versus urban trends demonstrates the nature of the overall problem. It does not, however, go into sufficient detail. A close examination of the data suggests three areas needing address. Two involve the adjustments made by NCDC (NOAA) and by GISS (NASA). Each made their own adjustments and typically these are serial, the GISS done on top of the NCDC. The third problem is organic to the raw data and has been highlighted by Anthony Watts in his Surface Stations project. That involves the “micro-climate” biases in the raw data.

As Watts points out, while there are far too many biased weather station locations, there remain some properly sited ones. Examination of the data representing those stations provides a clean basis by which to demonstrate the peculiarities in the adjustments made by NCDC and GISS.

One such station is Dale Enterprise, Virginia. The Weather Bureau has reported raw observations and summary monthly and annual data from this station since 1891 through the present, a 119 year record. From 1892 to 2008, there are only 9 months of missing data during this 1,404 month period, a missing data rate of less than 0.64 percent. The analysis below interpolates for this missing data by using an average of the 10 years surrounding the missing value, rather than basing any back-filling from other sites. This correction method minimizes the inherent uncertainties associated with other sites for which there is not micro-climate guarantee of unbiased data.

The site itself is in a field on a farm, well away from buildings or hard surfaces. The original thermometer remains at the site as a back-up to the electronic temperature sensor that was installed in 1994.

The Dale Enterprise station site is situated in the rolling hills east of the Shenandoah Valley, more than a mile from the nearest suburban style subdivision and over three miles from the center of the nearest “urban” development, Harrisonburg, Virginia, a town of 44,000 population.

Other than the shift to an electronic sensor in 1994, and the need to fill in the 9 months of missing reports, there is no reason to adjust the raw temperature data as reported by the Weather Bureau.

Here is a plot of the raw data from the Dale Enterprise station.

There may be a step-wise drop in reported temperature in the post-1994 period. Virginia does not provide other rural stations that operated electronic sensors over a meaningful period before and after the equipment change at Dale Enterprise, nor is there publicly available data comparing the thermometer and electronic sensor data for this station. Comparison with urban stations introduces a potentially large warm bias over the 20 year period from 1984 to 2004. This is especially true in Virginia as most such urban sites are typically at airports where aircraft equipment in use and the pace of operations changed dramatically over this period.

Notably, neither NCDC nor GISS adjusts for this equipment change. Thus, any bias due to the 1994 equipment change remains in the record for the original data as well as the NCDC and GISS adjusted data.

The NCDC adjustment

Although many have focused on the changes GISS made from the NCDC data, the NCDC “homogenization” is equally interesting, and as shown in this example, far more difficult to understand.

NCDC takes the originally reported data and adjusts it into a data set that becomes a part of the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). Most researchers, including GISS and the East Anglia University Climate Research Center (CRU) begin with the USHCN data set. Figure 2 documents the changes NCDC made to the original observations and suggests why, perhaps, one ought begin with the original data.

The red line in the graph shows the changes made in the original data. Considering the location of the Dale Enterprise station and the lack of micro-climate bias, one has to wonder why NCDC would make any adjustment whatever. The shape of the red delta line indicates these are not adjustments made for purposes of correcting missing data, or for any obvious other bias. Indeed, with the exception of 1998 and 1999, NCDC adjusts the original data in every year! [Note, when a 62 year old Ph.D. scientist uses an exclamation point, their statement is rather to be taken with some extraordinary attention.]

This graphic makes clear the need to “push the reset button” on the USHCN. Based on this station, alone, one can argue the USHCN data set is inappropriate for use as a starting point for other investigators, and fails to earn the self-applied moniker as a “high quality data set.”

The GISS Adjustment

GISS states that their adjustments reflect corrections for the urban heat island bias in station records. In theory, they adjust stations based on the night time luminosity of the area within which the station is located. This broad-brush approach appears to have failed with regard to the Dale Enterprise station. There is no credible basis for adjusting station data with no micro-climate bias conditions and located on a farm more than a mile from the nearest suburban community, more than three miles from a town and more than 80 miles from a population center of greater than 50,000, the standard definition of a city. Harrisonburg, the nearest town, has a single large industrial operation, a quarry, and is home to a medium sized (but hard drinking) university (James Madison University). Without question, the students at JMU have never learned to turn the lights out at night. Based on personal experience, I’m not sure most of them even go to bed at night. This raises the potential for a luminosity error we might call the “hard drinking, hard partying, college kids” bias. Whether it is possible to correct for that in the luminosity calculations I leave to others. In any case, the lay out of the town is traditional small town America, dominated by single family homes and two and three story buildings. The true urban core of the town is approximately six square blocks and other than the grain tower, there are fewer than ten buildings taller than five stories. Even within this “urban core” there are numerous parks. The rest of the town is quarter-acre and half-acre residential, except for the University, which has copious previous open ground (for when the student union and the bars are closed).

Despite the lack of a basis for suggesting the Dale Enterprise weather station is biased by urban heat island conditions, GISS has adjusted the station data as shown below. Note, this is an adjustment to the USHCN data set. I show this adjustment as it discloses the basic nature of the adjustments, rather than their effect on the actual temperature data.

While only the USHCN and GISS data are plotted, the graph includes the (blue) trend line of the unadjusted actual temperatures.

The GISS adjustments to the USHCN data at Dale Enterprise follow a well recognized pattern. GISS pulls the early part of the record down and mimics the most recent USHCN records, thus imposing an artificial warming bias. Comparison of the trend lines is somewhat difficult to see in the graphic. The trends for the original data, the USHCN data and the GISS data are: 0.24,

-0.32, and 0.43 degrees C. per Century, respectively.

If one presumes the USHCN data reflect a “high quality data set”, then the GISS adjustment does more than produce a faster rate of warming, it actually reverses the sign of the trend of this “high quality” data. Notably, compared to the true temperature record, the GISS trend doubles the actual observed warming.

This data presentation constitutes only the beginning analysis of Virginia temperature records. The Center for Environmental Stewardship of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy plans to examine the entire data record for rural Virginia in order to identify which rural stations can serve as the basis for estimating long-term temperature trends, whether local or global. Only a similar effort nationwide can produce a true “high quality” data set upon which the scientific community can rely, whether for use in modeling or to assess the contribution of human activities to climate change.

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.

Director

Center for Environmental Stewardship

Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Springfield Virginia

===================================

UPDATE: readers might be interested in the writeup NOAA did on this station back in 2002 here (PDF, second story). I point this out because initially NCDC tried to block the surfacestations project saying that I would compromise “observer privacy” by taking photos of the stations. Of course I took them to task on it when we found personally descriptive stories like the one referenced above and they relented. – Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks for this–we keep seeing more and more of these individual station histories. Hope someone’s keeping score.
BTW, you have some issues with graphics not appearing in this post…

EdB

I agree.. we need to go back to the raw data at each site and adjust if need be, openly, with full disclosure as to why.
The above adjustments to the raw data are simply not credible.
Thank you for your hard work on this.

JamesS

So is it a fact that the USHCN records available here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
are adjusted and not the raw data? If that’s so, then even the adjusted data from my favorite rural station (Pineville, WV, settled in 1853 and incorporated in 1917, and with only 715 souls recorded by the 2000 Census, after a big population loss in the 1990s) shows no sign of any warming.

kwik

“Note, when a 62 year old Ph.D. scientist uses an exclamation point….”
Good point! Never believed I would ever get interested in something as boring as the climate.
So much more other things to be interested in. But when you smell a fishy stench, you want to investigate….

James Sexton

It is pretty much as I expected. I was mildly surprised to see the USHCN adjustments to move downward, but not all surprised by the arbitrary upward(or historical downward) adjustments by GISS. How does GISS justify the historical downward adjustment for UHI bias? Even if it became necessary to apply an adjustment of that nature, they are applying it backwards. It doesn’t take a PhD to realize urbanization typically occurs in a forward time step. I suppose, it is possible to have had a large thriving metropolis to later diminish in size to a sub-urban or rural area, but I can’t think of one example in the U.S., but that would be the only case where historical downward adjustment would be appropriate.
Its a bit puzzling that they have the backup mercury thermometer but didn’t record the readings for comparison to the electronic device. On a lighter note, maybe when they delete all other stations from the data, they can use this one for the global thermometer.
Dr. Schnare, I truly hope you continue with your stated endeavor. So far, in all of the individual station data I’ve seen, the GISS backward adjustment is applied. The question that comes to my mind is do they apply this to all stations or just a select few?

Dan

“Only a similar effort nationwide can produce a true “high quality” data set upon which the scientific community can rely”
Hasn’t this just been done?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
The authors found that the warming trend was actually slightly stronger when using only those sites rated highly by http://www.surfacestations.org. It seems we need to move on from the hypothesis that the microclimate station siting issue is causing an artificial warming trend.
REPLY: The NCDC study is flawed, and used pilfered data with only 43% of the network surveyed, see why here.
I can say with confidence that the study at 88% surveyed shows a much different picture, and that paper is being written now. – Anthony

Berényi Péter

Average NCDC adjustment for the 1850-2010 period for GHCN rural and non-rural sites. Difference of v2.mean_adj & v2.mean (raw data).
Suggests some bizarre algorithm.
http://ber.parawag.net/images/GHCN_adjustments.jpg
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

Dr Schnare,
Thank you for this illuminating work & the further Virginia investigations.
I have seen other analysis like this, for instance; Darwin Zero & some work around West Point, NY compared to the adjusted data at New York City.
Do I understand this correctly; these are serial adjustments? The first is made my NCDC & then another by GISS?

If
1: this almost 1 deg C negative bias for pre 1990 temp records by the NCDC is common
and
2: this almost 1.5 deg C negative bias for pre 1900 temp records by the GISS is common
then the whole claim of AGW red herring.
once that is established…. follow the money. you will find the crooks & their enablers

John F. Hultquist

I didn’t have a graphics issue and when I sometimes do I can refresh and get them or get them one at a time.
As for the post, I think it has been clear for awhile now that the temperature records are not good enough for the purpose to which they have been put. This is another fine example.
Line 2 mentions SPPI and an analysis of rural versus urban trends. Maybe there should be a link.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/temperature_trends.html
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

Robert of Ottawa

Yet another example of the earlier temperatures being lowered. This is becoming a pattern. It is a very clever device for amplifying a rising trend. The current temps are “accurate” so the non-inquisitive enviro-journalist will be convinced the temperature trends must be correct as well.
I am having severe doubts concerning the honesty of these crimatologists; up ’til now, I have always been willing to give them the benefit of doubt concerning deliberate manipulation. Now, I am seeing this lowering of early temperatures too often; perhaps incompetance is not the cause.

Steve Keohane

Thank you for this clear exposition. Starting over with an examination of each and every station record is a must. I suspect Anthony’s work will provide the foundation.

Ok, I reread the post. They are serial… I just can’t believe it! (Question mark by a 60’ish former technologist.)
If we just concentrated on your red adjustment lines, do we know when these adjustments were made? In other way of asking this is, did a past year ever get adjusted more than once?
Senator Imhofe ought to convene a NOAA & NASA executive panel to testify before congress on how this “process” is managed. Don’t ask them why they did it, don’t ask if it’s correct to do it, ask how it was conceived, quality assured & how they satisfied themselves that it didn’t get out of hand.
Once this “Assurance” review is complete, then you can ask if it were scientifically correct. If you really want to get a knot tied in there collective underware… this is the way to do it.

Steve Keohane

Dan (16:48:35) : I think Anthony has pointed out that ‘paper’ used the surfacestations.org data at 45% of completion.

Garbage in, Garbage out, true enough. But in this example of long-term and well sited Climatological GOLD is transmuted into POOP… Poop, being much warmer than gold, is also very suitable for smearing “deniers,” so watch where you step, y’all! LOL
Great article and so on the money! All you other states, start your engines!! There is a juggernaut of good data out there to smash the AGW house of cards – lets GO and find it!

John Blake

We suspect that re-evaluating these data-sets in detail will confirm what has been increasingly evident for quite some time: Adjustments are made without scientific warranty, solely for the purpose of propagandizing discredited AGW hypotheses. But these spurious time-series are but a symptom of Green Gang disease… the fundamental lack of integrity displayed invalidates every single measurement ever reported by these wretched ideologues.
As ever, the burden of proving AGW lies solely with its advocates; dissenters may point out flaws ’til doomsday without ever refuting Warmist orthodoxy as such. Yet as years go by, as a “dead sun” tips Earth from her Long Summer to the overdue end of our Holocene Interglacial Epoch, treating rebounds from a 500-year Little Ice Age as “global warming” from c. 1890 will stand revealed as willful self-deception.

KimW

Seminal work like this, is blithely ignored by the media, the ‘environmental reporters’, and those obsessed by CO2. The problem is that they would rather go down in flames than admit that AGW is the biggest scam in history.

TanGeng

Wow nice methodological review.
Is there any insight into GISS’s “adjustment” process? Seems like a totally unwarranted effort to cool the past.

Dan

Discussion over surface station data quality should be placed in the context of the satellite data record, which has nothing to do with surface station records and which shows a slightly weaker but still similar global temperature trend over the satellite record: GISS = .168 C/decade vs. RSS (satellite) = .156 C/decade, and UAH (satellite) = .132 C/decade.

c james

James Sexton (16:46:41)
“I suppose, it is possible to have had a large thriving metropolis to later diminish in size to a sub-urban or rural area, but I can’t think of one example in the U.S.”
Detroit is surely headed this way. Population has dropped by 50% from 1.8 million to 900,00. Empty lots are now being turned into urban farms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91354912

Suzanne

Another issue to look at is “how long have the conditions of this weather station been in effect?” I have looked at the pre 2006 weather USHCN station data for Wyoming and Nevada in comparison with the change in population around the sites. What I found was that for cities like Lander, Wyo. which hasn’t grown much, the temperatures were lower than those of the 1930’s. At the same time, areas growing rapidly, like Riverton, showed considerable warming to levels above those of the 1930’s. In both states, the average temperature of rapidly growing cities showed warming of over 1 Degree F. , while the average of those with stagnant populations or weather stations well away from the city showed little of no warming trend the past 70 years

Bruce King

It is easy enough to see. They let UHI increases take care of the heat bias until
the rural sites needed some personal attention to get the heat bias. then they could let their imagination run rampart. Wonder if they had competition to
determine the most exotic “fix”?

RuhRoh

Dear Sir;
Could you please clarify whether you are reporting on USHCNv1 or USHCNv2 ‘adjusted’ (value-added?) data?
Perhaps you might re-run the analysis with both flavors of adjusted (and “raw” ) data to highlight the differences if there are any.
What is the source of the purportedly ‘raw’ data?
I have seen some blinker graphs where ‘raw’ data (downloaded 6 months apart) looked VERY different.
As far as I can tell, both are now available online.
Thanks for this fine expositional effort.
RR

Earle Williams

Dan,
The Menne paper uses adjusted data. See the post at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/
to see the how the adjustment process makes the rural data indistinguishable from urban data.


Dan (17:24:15) :
Discussion over surface station data quality should be placed in the context of the satellite data record,

Dan, what do the satellites measure (i.e., what do they ‘see’)?
Surface temp?
How is this accomplished through overcast skies?
Like we have had in North Central Texas for the last four weeks nearly continuously …
.
.

Mooloo

Discussion over surface station data quality should be placed in the context of the satellite data record
The opaque satellite data? For which we get only a “it’s showing definite warming”?
We’ve seen the robust “hockey stick” turn out to be dodgy.
We’ve seen the robust GISS data to be dodgy.
A cynical person might be worried that the satellite data is also not pristine.
I could be wrong, of course. NASA only have to release the original, unedited data, to allow qualified people to have a look. Do you reckon they will?

Eric Gamberg

NOAA seem to do at least some adjustments on a seasonal basis. Looking at the monthlies would seem to be the type of review required for understanding “climate”.
ref:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=35159&g2_imageViewsIndex=3

Enginear

Thanks for the contribution. This is just another example of how this internet option fo review is working out. I’m new in this and have been carefully observing since the “Climategate” incident and noting which side appears to be looking for truth. From my perspecrive at least the skeptical side for the most part admits when they are wrong but I have never seen any of that from the Warmist group. I even once tried posting a question on Realclimate but it never made to the screen. That could be due to my inexperience so I don’t get excited about it.
This temperature data issue including the paleo work is fascinating to me. As an engineer I have had to get data for some projects and kniow how difficult it is to get anything useful. The work I see here is way out of my league and I am thankful that such distinguished people have contributed to the conversation.
Keep up the good work and thank you again.
Barry Strayer

vigilantfish

JamesS (16:35:58) :
So is it a fact that the USHCN records available here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
are adjusted and not the raw data? If that’s so, then even the adjusted data from my favorite rural station (Pineville, WV, settled in 1853 and incorporated in 1917, and with only 715 souls recorded by the 2000 Census, after a big population loss in the 1990s) shows no sign of any warming.
———————-
Not quite clear on your point, but if you’re saying that the adjustments are ‘hiding the decline’ I’d agree that that’s a strong possibility. Great work, Dr. Schnare! I hope you pull out all the stops in continuing with other station records.
Dan:
I’m not an expert about the satellite data records, but I’ll take the liberty of copying a response from the Dr. Long thread from today, with the added comment that at this point, few people here, after experiencing the growing evidence for the pile of crap that has been passed off as climate science, trust the people or institutions that are ‘recording’ the data:
TKL (08:50:20) :
Several people here have called attention to the recent satellite-based temperature data. Going from the data produced by the satellite radiation sensors to an estimate of the earth’s atmosphere and surface temperatures is an “ill-posed” mathematical problem. This means that small random errors in the satellite sensor measurements — and these sorts of errors are always present, they can’t be avoided — lead to big, odd-looking, and obviously wrong temperature estimates unless the computer program estimating these temperatures makes some assumptions about what the satellite sensors are really looking at. These assumptions could be that the actual temperatures are not too far from the climate average expected for the place on the earth and the time of year where the satellite is taking data, or that temperatures close together in the atmosphere or at the surface cannot be different by more than a certain amount, and so on. Then, always insisting that these assumptions are satisfied, the computer programs attempt to find the temperatures that do the best job of matching the radiation measurements. Change those assumptions and the programs will produce different temperatures for the same radiation data coming down from the satellite. People who run these large and complicated programs do not like doing this, because it’s all too easy to introduce bugs that result in no temperature estimates at all being produced, but I would not be surprised to find that under the right sort of outside “encouragement” the programmer would be told to make the effort. All the data coming from the satellite systems is highly digitized, making it easy to produce cool graphics and so on, but given the ill-posed nature of the mathematical problem they are solving I would be wary of treating that temperature data as gospel. What skeptics should really be looking at is the raw radiation sensor data coming from the satellites.

Is this how the rest of NASA works? If so, how do they ever successfully launch a satellite? Do their rockets veer all over according to the ad hoc adjustment of real data in real time? Are there data adjustment officers at Cape Kennedy twiddling with dials while the space shuttle is taking off?
Why is the American taxpayer being jerked around by NASA data adjustment officers? Maybe we should adjust their paychecks. I volunteer for that job. Sorry, Jim, I just tweaked your salary this month to negative $50G’s. Fork it over or my cousin Luigi is gonna pay you a visit you’ll never recover from.
Good golly Miss Molly. And they want us to trust them. “Why don’t you trust us? Is it something we said?”

AnonyMoose

Anthony and helpers might be a bit distracted, and the graphic/image issue might be related. I also didn’t see the graphics until I refreshed. He’s mentioned that his surfacestations.org is flooded with traffic, probably due to the Fox News report about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is web server juggling going on, although I have no idea whether this server is directly involved in the other activities.
Consider it as an easy article for Anthony… whatever he’s wrestling with will make for a short story that is writing itself without needing a trip to a library or swamp.

Patrick Davis
John C

How do we know the satellite data is accurate? Because it closely matches the questionable surface data?

Eric Rasmusen

Which stations in the world are the ones driving the average global warming result? It would be useful to focus in on those, and see which ones in those regions are like the one in this post, not needing adjustment, and then see how they are adjusted.

Ed

If you do this again, it would be interesting to see the step by step instructions. You could use the viral nature of the internet to distribute the work of looking at all the weather stations.

Willis Eschenbach

Dan (16:48:35) : edit

“Only a similar effort nationwide can produce a true “high quality” data set upon which the scientific community can rely”

Hasn’t this just been done?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
The authors found that the warming trend was actually slightly stronger when using only those sites rated highly by http://www.surfacestations.org. It seems we need to move on from the hypothesis that the microclimate station siting issue is causing an artificial warming trend.

Dan, you have been suckered by the usual kind of shabby science done by mainstream climate scientists. Despite being warned by Anthony that not all of the stations had been surveyed, and that the results had not yet been quality controlled, the authors went ahead and wrote up the piece of junk that you cited.
Can’t blame you for being duped, that was their intention. See the full details here.

Antonio San

Data and those who understand them… so much better than politics!

John Whitman

”””’This graphic makes clear the need to “push the reset button” on the USHCN.”, by David W. Schnare”””’
Push.
John

Stephen N Cal

For the sake of keeping the Stephens separate, I will now start using Stephen N Cal
While it shows a warming trend from 1885 to present, notice, as near as I can determine from the Dale Enterprise station graph, that there is a cooling trend since about 1920. The way I see it, as the rural areas go, so goes the planet, no matter what the heat islands are doing! I have seen this cooling trend on stations around the USA, several here in Calif. if this cooling trend can be seen on stations on other continents, then it must be Global. Heat islands only reflect micro locations and in my opinion, have no relationship to Global climate; and should not be used for Global climate monitoring, unless the heat island effect can be totally removed from them.

S. Massey

Seems like the scientists moved too fast on this one. We need more data before jumping into the AGW craziness!

Claude Harvey

Re: John C (18:52:56) :
“How do we know the satellite data is accurate? Because it closely matches the questionable surface data?”
I think those who question AGW theory should be careful to not duplicate the fundamental error they accuse the “true believers” of having made. The damning charge against AGW proponents is that they ignored data that did not support their theory and “adjusted” some of that data into a more supportive form. The satellite data seemed quite good enough for the “doubters” so long as it told them what they wished to see and hear. Now that the satellite data shows heating, dramatically so over the past nine months, the satellites are suddenly unreliable?
I think everyone would do well to drop back a couple of paces and remember that the AGW argument is not settled by a degree or so of average global temperature so up or down over the past century. The heart of the AGW argument is that whatever has occurred over the past century is abnormal in the ordinary scheme of things.
Take a look at either the past 1,000 years of reasonably and rationally reconstructed global temperature or the past 450,000 years of reconstructed history and you must conclude that present arguments over a degree or so of average global temperature is simply ludicrous in the overall scheme of things.

geo

I’d be interested to see what Forestburg, SD would show if someone with the talent to look cares to. I tried just now to see how long the station record is to confirm it would be worth looking at, but http://www.surfacestations.org seems to be down (the gallery is up tho) which deprived me of my usual link to get to the station record finder. I can just say I know from personal experience it is as rural as you can get, even if the mmts is too close to the house now. 160 acre farms to the horizon in all directions.

Steve Oregon

Good greif, is there global warming or not?
How much global warming is there?
Is there any reliable measurement of global temperature?
How much is the margin of error?
Is it at all possbile that there has been cooling and not warming over the past 100 years?
How does the AGW alarm keep sounding with such a convoluted quagmire of stuff that’s supposed to be science?

Eric Gamberg

Willis Eschenbach (19:14:08) :
“Dan, you have been suckered by the usual kind of shabby science done by mainstream climate scientists. Despite being warned by Anthony that not all of the stations had been surveyed, and that the results had not yet been quality controlled, the authors went ahead and wrote up the piece of junk that you cited.”
Don’t forget that the surfacestations.org survey results are really only addressing the conditions at the site at the time of the survey. The history of the site and its locations and equipment are not rigorously examined.
REPLY: We may be able to do this if NCDC will give me access to B44 forms which are top view site sketches and description of surroundings, but so far they have not made them available. -A

u.k.(us)

Get ready cause, the weather, it’s gonna change.
Throwing money at it won’t help.
But, if you throw some my way…..

geo

@Willis Eschenbach (19:14:08) :
I do get a grin going whenever the vilifiers get to going on about how the “deniers don’t do any original work”. My response is usually “Scoreboard, mother****er” with a link to http://www.surfacestations.org. It is hard to judge the amplitude of which is greater on an absolute scale –the shame due the establishment for not doing it themselves, or the honor due Anthony and his merry band for taking on the task.

Without accurate data, no endeavor is scientific.
Satellite raw data is not temperature, it is EM radiation of varying amplitude across the EM spectrum—-it can be converted to “temperature” only by correlation with actual contemporaneous temperature measurements from the same site from which the radiation is transmitted. But as we have seen, those measurements are problematic.
As one example, even if a satellite could resolve its reception down to the size of an airfield, where so many ground stations are found, can it separate radiation from paved surfaces, building exhausts, planes, etc., from some nearby grassy area where the ground station is found? If not, then “adjustments” based on some rationale must be made. After “Climategate” and the other frauds and errors documented at this web site, the basis for all such “adjustments” must be re=examined.
KW

Jerry Gustafson

When we are looking at the actual raw temperature data from these stations what are we seeing, the daily high, daily low, or what? could someone please enlighten me?
Thanks.

Dan (17:24:15) :
Discussion over surface station data quality should be placed in the context of the satellite data record, which has nothing to do with surface station records and which shows a slightly weaker but still similar global temperature trend over the satellite record: GISS = .168 C/decade vs. RSS (satellite) = .156 C/decade, and UAH (satellite) = .132 C/decade.

Given the satellite record is only 30 years old.
Given that we are assuming it’s more accurate (and yes, what we wind up seeing as an end-product is “adjusted”).
Given that the planet is over 4 billion years old.
Methinks we need to collect a hell of alot more satellite data before we draw any conclusions on long term warming or cooling trends.

igloowhite

Good thing these fools are not calling in airstrikes in Aganistain or Iraq, their fugged data just could cause them to bomb themselfs, or have they done so with their pencils.