While this would certainly put an end to the poor siting problems discovered by the surfacestations.org project, I can’t help but think almost everything related to climate can be solved with money:
Here’s the letter:
PDF with attachments here: USHCN_Letter_-_FINAL_-_7-29-10_SECURED
I also can’t help thinking of this image when 100 MILLION DOLLARS is used:
Now don’t get me wrong, I support a modernized network, but $100 million? That’s a bit steep.
It works out to $100,000 per weather station.
When I visited NCDC in April 2008…
Day 2 at NCDC and Press Release: NOAA to modernize USHCN
…they told me the USHCN-M cost was supposed to be around $25,000 per weather station.
Which looking at the USHCN-M equipment below, allowing for government inflation, sounds about right:
USHCN-M station at Greensboro, AL
But $100K a piece for what you see above? I don’t think so.
See: What the modernized USHCN will look like
Hell, I’ll do it for 10K a piece and do a better job than NOAA ever could.
h/t to Joe D’Aleo
Anthony the land survey expense alone is 3000 per site.
so even before you buy anything, you are down to 7K.
And, you had better have all the MTBF data on the systems.
But if you think you can deploy and maintain 1000 sites for 10K a piece and pay all the salarys, pay for the spares, the maintence, the whole program, then you probably need to read the spec again.
But $100K a piece for what you see above? I don’t think so.
$100k … that’s about the cost of an acre of good building land, land which has been effectively purchased for the sole use of weather monitoring … otherwise it is useless for long term trends.
$25k might be the cost of equipment, but when you add on time and effort to locate these sites, legal fees to draw up contracts, contractual payments to secure long term use, in some cases roads, gates even planning permission (or the US equivalent).
Add to that a few years to cover setting up the organisation to install, monitor and maintain. A calibration lab, replacement equipment so that calibrated equipment can be swapped with equipment in the field.
Then you’ve got staff training, (…. like not to put old bits and bobs around the station).
Basically what I’m saying is that it is quite possible that it could cost an average of $100k/site, and whether or not that was reasonable would depend on a lot of other factors like the contractual terms with landowners e.g. are they buying the land and if so how much?
Man says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“Seriously, if a Net Community were to attack this problem, what would it look like and how much would it cost”
If a net based community were to attack this problem then … it would look like the shambles they call wikipedia … full of in fighting, petty politics data that cannot be trusted by anyone least of all those involved. All it all a total waste of time for all concerned!
You mean Obama missed this in his stim you less package and his health crater program? I am astounded. I would have thought that once they passed this they would have found this to be in it. After all the replacement of traffic lights with LED bulbs only cost something like $5,000 a light in the stim you less package in LA. A turn arrow cost $25,000.
I’ve recently read that smart phones are gaining sensors faster than any other device in the world. In line with the other thread on pollution. why not enable the phones to send time, date, GPS, stamped temp data to a central server, or share resources like Seti at home, and have real time trends from everywhere? Sounds a little crazy, but the possibility is real.
To “the Rev. Anthony Watts”
From his “band of screeching mercury monkeys”
EEK! EEK! OOK! OOK!
NOBODY BEATS THE REV!
Anthony the land survey expense alone is 3000 per site.
I use a tape measure.
“The smoke alone is worth a thousand pounds a puff.”
Reminds me of the late and great George Carlin’s skit about God:
“He’s all knowing!, all powerful!, call seeing!, call caring!, omnipotent!…CAN’T HANDLE MONEY. ALWAYS NEEDS MONEY!”
JimB
Ughhh…I hate it when I forget to proofread!!!
call=all
JimB
a.n. ditchfield says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Anything goes if it serves the aim of suspect pecuniary interests: rationing the consumption of fuel and international licensing and taxation of its production. It means power over every act of all human beings. Qui bono?
Good question. Trying to guess the motivations of the elite is tricky at this point in history. Some of them genuinely believe humankind needs to have its numbers reduced for the good of the planet. Some of them see a buck to be made in providing the means of control. It’s hard to see how they come to the conclusion that thier wealth will increase in a world creating less energy, but wealth is a relative thing. It’s status and a hand in ‘big decisions’ which they really crave, even if they choose to reman discreet.
ya go figure. 10K per system is 10 Million dollars. you can’t even maintain the system on that figure.
the Maintanance labor cost for 1000 sites for 10 years.
thats 10,000 years of maintenance cost. we already know what bad maintenance gets you. Ever check the triple redundant CRN data files to see how well the stuff operates in the field under all sorts of conditions?
Anyway, the estimated site operation and maintenance figure is 1700 dollars per site per year. Go figure at 100 bucks an hour, thats 17 hours per site per year or less than 90 minutes per month of operation and maint.
Figure that includes travel time of 15 minutes to and from any site and a 1 hour minimum for service labor. pretty soon when you look at the costs over a 10 year period it adds up.
So if you plan for 90 minutes per site per month for all maintainence actions (PM as well) that means, 18000 hours per year and 180,000 hours over the length of the program.. and so, 18Million bucks at 100 bucks per hour.
$100 for new measurement equipment, to produce the same quality of data … What do they need to stop the data fudging? How many billions will that cost.
In some parts of the world, corruption is corruption: politicians and hangers-on fill their pockets with state cash in pretty direct ways, and every million dollars they embezzle costs their taxpayers a million dollars. Here in the West, we congratulate ourselves on stamping out corruption – only problem is that the politicians and friends are still filling their boots, but they have to do it through convoluted channels, by buying the right stocks, getting the right directorships, and then awarding contracts like these. Net result, every million dollars they embezzle costs the taxpayer a hundred million.
Remind me again who has the better system?
Anthony’s original publication was done in March. In May, it was featured on WBZTV. And in June, congress started making inquiries.
And now this!
evanmjones says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Anthony the land survey expense alone is 3000 per site.
I use a tape measure.
“The smoke alone is worth a thousand pounds a puff.”
#########################
Evan. does your tape measure:
research potential sites.
fly itself on an airplane
rent a car
eat.
sleep in a hotel
take photos
record GPS coordinates.
write a report.
real basic. if you figure you’ve go to fly from evan jones place to any 1000 different
places all over the US, you better figure 2 days of travel. land the night before. sleep. travel to the site, do you work, return the car and hit the plane.
That’s 16 hours of time on the clock for your time, figure 4 hours to complete your
trip report, 20 hours per site, assuming every site is picked for you and passess muster. 20 hours, 100 bucks per hour. thats 2K. figure 700 bucks for the average
plane ticket to anywhere, figure 2 days per diem @50 bucks a day GSA rates, 100 bucks for the room, 100 bucks for the car.
3K per survey is not outrageous. so basically the value of surfacestations project is 3million or so.
Steven mosher says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm
100 bucks per hour.
Blimey.
I can do the com to where it reports back to a DB! I won’t charge that much, but I’m not a programmer, but I do know a few!
Anthony, yes, we can bring it in under $10,000/per and do it in a way that is open to scrutiny, sortable, and programmable. Did I mention more accurate and reliable?
So in answering the question about station siting they didn’t actually look at any stations? They examined documents.and consulted other people who hadn’t looked at any stations either?
Sounds like government work.
Mike Haseler says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm
The 100Million is the PROGRAM cost over 10 years.
The equipment deployment expense is roughly 20K per system.
Depending how they define things the deployment expense can include the following:
1. the cost of the actual equipment.
2. the cost of a lay in of spares and replacements for 10 years of operation.
3. the cost of storing the spares
4. the cost of transporting the equipment.
but you really cant tell ANYTHING without a specification. Based on their prior experience with equipment, and based on the requirement of a 99% availability requirement ( system must be reporting 99% of the time) they may require redundancy (CRN is triple redundant) they may require a scheduled replacement after 5 years ( which would mean 2000 sets of equipment) So, its really unwise to claim that you can do “it” for less. “it” means deliver a system that satisfies the spec. including all the life cycle aspects of the program. so 100M over 10 years to design
deploy operate maintain 1000 stations. Seems low to me.
Hey,what Steve Mosher says. Stress again,this is over a ten year period….and yes,if you want to improve the infrastructure,you need money.
“If a net based community were to attack this problem then … it would look like the shambles they call wikipedia … full of in fighting, petty politics data that cannot be trusted by anyone least of all those involved. All it all a total waste of time for all concerned!”
the problems with a net based community approach would be a nightmare for anyone analyzing/auditing the data either now or 25 years from now.
Obviously, the $100K pricetag includes the $60K screwdriver set and wrenches for assembly.
$10K for installation fees, $10K for enviro-impact study, $10K for paperwork and $10K for the equipment.
Budget another extra 50% for cost overruns, attorneys fees, contract administration, etc.
Nick says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Hey,what Steve Mosher says. Stress again,this is over a ten year period….and yes,if you want to improve the infrastructure,you need money.
========================================================
Yes, but, not that much. Ideally, these people have actually identified what was wrong and where. (Else, where did they come up with that figure?)
If you know what is wrong, what does it take to fix it? It isn’t that every station needs relocated. Some only need upgraded materials. As Steve Mosher says, there are considerable expenses involved in lodging and transport, but done properly, one could hit 3-4/day, depending upon the task. The logistics, if done properly, would cut considerably the estimated costs. Sadly, this is a governmental agency, so it won’t happen, in fact, the incentive is to spend more, because they’ll have more of a budget to spend if they can find a justification. Sigh, I can see where we’ll take it from here.
I will happily install 2 stations per year for $200,000. Just send my first $100,000 and I’ll get right on it. With luck, I’ll raise the rate to 4 per year just after the first 2 are installed ….
Have they no shame?
No, I guess not – after all these same “scientists” have been lying to us for years about the catastrophic dangers of man-made global warming. Is it any wonder that they would not be seeking outrageously inflated funding that has absolutely not one jot of justification.
Bernie Madoff would be proud of NOAA/NCDC.