Sunday, July 22, 2007

Our far flung correspondents write:

BATON ROUGE looks like a great site. No pavement. No AC. No shelter. NONE of the issues that plague the sites those denialists are putting a spot light on. This looks like a great site. This looks like a site that meets the CRN guidelines. The great thing about this kind of site is you dont have to make adjustments. It follows standards. Can you please do the following.
  • Download the giss RAW data for this site.
  • Download the Giss adjusted data. Difference these to see what Hansen did to this COMPLIANT site.
  • Post the adjustment and explain it.
  • Otherwise, back in your hole rabbett.
Ever the pleasing bunny, Eli went to the GISSTEMP site and downloaded the data for Baton Rouge. Then he plotted the raw and adjusted data on the same graphand so, as per request he plotted the differences

And then the EverReadyRabettTM went to the NOAA data center site and read the station history and used the map to see where it had moved. Eli noted that the airport weather station only opened in 1932, and the location moved in 1945, 1978 and finally in 1995. The original airport was pretty much in the center of town (to the east of the river, use the map). In 1945 it moved a considerable distance to the north. Certainly pictures from 2007 don't tell us much about any of this, but the station history helps considerably.

Interestingly, the first record from the airport station(s) is from 1932, but the GISS record goes back to 1889!?


you ask with interest **. Well, little mouse we may not be able to answer that completely, but if you download data from the Global Historical Climate Network, yes, the information from the Baton Rouge station does extend back to 1888 (Its a big download out there, don't do this trick on a 26kB modem. The BR station ID is 425722310090) and, Eli notes that there are several stations in the area that opened at the same time, including a number of rural stations.

The data sets incorporated into the GHCN reports are tested and corrected as described in two publications:

Peterson, T.C., and R.S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78 (12), 2837-2849. (PDF Version)

Peterson, T.C., R. Vose, R. Schmoyer, and V. Razuvaev, 1998: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data. International Journal of Climatology, 18 (11), 1169-1179. (PDF Version)

Frankly Eli cannot resist quoting from the introduction of the second of these which truly shows the difference between amateurs and pros
In the process of creating GHCN, cautionary remarks were made that cast doubt on the quality of climate data. For example, a meteorologist working in a tropical country noticed one station had an unusually low variance. When he had an opportunity to visit that station, the observer proudly showed him his clean, white instrument shelter in a well cared for grass clearing. Unfortunately, the observer was never sent any instruments so every day he would go up to the shelter, guess the temperature, and dutifully write it down. Another story is about a station situated next to a steep hillside. A few of meters uphill from the station was a path which students used walking to and from school. On the way home from school, boys would stop and...well, let’s just say the gauge observations were greater than the actual rainfall. In the late 1800s, a European moving to Africa maintained his home country’s 19th Century siting practice of placing the thermometer under the eaves on the north wall of the house, despite the fact that he was now living south of the equator. Such disheartening anecdotes about individual stations are common and highlight the importance of QC of climate data.
While several commentators are enjoying a good piss on air conditioners and grills, those little boys are at least not doing the same on the stations, or at least not as yet, that we know of.

The point is that one can recover a data set with care and professional experience. Details of how the GHCN data is tested can be found in the two references.
Historically, the identification of outliers has been the primary emphasis of QC work (Grant and Leavenworth, 1972). In putting together GHCN v2 temperature data sets (hereafter simply GHCN) it was determined that there are a wide variety of problems with climate data that are not adequately addressed by outlier analysis. Many of these problems required specialized tests to detect. The tests developed to address QC problems fall into three categories. (i) There are the tests that apply to the entire source data set. These range from evaluation of biases inherent in a given data set to checking for processing errors; (ii) this type of test looks at the station time series as a whole. Mislocated stations are the most common problem detected by this category of test; (iii) the final group of tests examines the validity of individual data points. Outlier detection is, of course, included in this testing. A flow chart of these procedures is provided in Figure 1. It has been found that the entire suite of tests is necessary for comprehensive QC of GHCN.
So the Rabett traipsed over to Broadway and visited GISS, where he read that the various adjustments to the GHCN and USHCN data are described most recently in

Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.

In particular, to the questions of dear reader, Eli discovered that there is an
4.2.2. Urban adjustment. In the prior GISS analysis the time series for temperature change at an urban station was adjusted such that the temperature trends prior to 1950 and after 1950 were the same as the mean trends for all “rural” stations (population less than 10,000) located within 1000 km (with the rural stations weighted inversely with distance). In other words it was a two-legged adjustment with the two legs hinged at 1950 and with the slopes of the two lines chosen to minimize the mean square difference between the adjusted urban record and the mean of its rural neighbors.

The urban adjustment in the current GISS analysis is a similar two-legged adjustment, but the date of the hinge point is no longer fixed at 1950, the maximum distance used for rural neighbors is 500 km provided that sufficient stations are available, and “small-town” (population 10,000 to 50,000) stations are also adjusted. The hinge date is now also chosen to minimize the difference between the adjusted urban record and the mean of its neighbors. In the United States (and nearby Canada and Mexico regions) the rural stations are now those that are “unlit” in satellite data, but in the rest of the world, rural stations are still defined to be places with a population less than 10,000. The added flexibility in the hinge point allows more realistic local adjustments, as the initiation of significant urban growth occurred at different times in different parts of the world.
That sounds a lot like what the differences between the raw and adjusted data shown above and upon which our correspondent inquired, but still, why the 0.1 C steps in the adjustment

GHCN data is reported in 0.1 degree increments.

RTFR.

** Thanks to R. Ruedy at GISS for a prompt and informative response to our inquiry.

112 comments:

Anthony Watts said...

Nicely done. Just one question.

You state "GHCN data is reported in 0.1 degree increments".

But, the observer practive for recording data on B44 forms for submission to NCDC is to round the reading to the nearest degree F.

How can the GHCN data (at least the US portion)have a resolution of 0.1 degree when it is reported in whole degrees? Were you speaking of the observation data or adjusted data?

Anonymous said...

=="It has been found that the entire suite of tests is necessary for comprehensive QC of GHCN."=

That's great, but leaves unanswered the microsite flaws that are appearing in some photographs. "Comprehensive QC" would have addressed these fundamental issues decades ago.

=="In the United States (and nearby Canada and Mexico regions) the rural stations are now those that are “unlit” in satellite data. . . "==

That's great too. But "lit" and "unlit" also does not identify many microsite problems.

The sophistication of satellite imaging does not override the obvious negligence that is emerging
of climate professionals oversite of surface sites.

QC begins with the physical properties of the site and the accuracy of it's instruments. Satellite photographs and homogeniety adjustments made without intimate knowledge of the microsite can not overcome nor correct all of these basic flaws.

EliRabett said...

Hi Anthony. These are averages over a month. See tamino's post on the power of large numbers for how the precision of an average can exceed that of a single measurement.

Anonymous said...

Oustanding analysis Eli, I don't know how you can do so much work and still have a life. But then, I don't really know if you have a life. Anyhow, great job.

Anonymous said...

Eli says:
=="See tamino's post on the power of large numbers for how the precision of an average can exceed that of a single measurement."==

Great point. Now we can know that BBQ's, roof top sensors, parking lots, etc., actually don't degrade the quality of the measurements, they improve it.

No need for the new Climate Reference Network, we can get better accuracy by guessing the global temperature. I'm convinced.

EliRabett said...

No more so then nearby trees or air pumps heating the house. You are aggressively proclaiming Pielke Sr's fallacy, that all things break one way.

Anonymous said...

I am proclaiming nothing eli.

Whether the power of large numbers analogy applies to surface site measurements, I do not know, but if it does, there is no need for the highly calibrated, carefully site selected, photographically documented and stringently monitored Climate Reference Network.

It appears that all we need for temperature accuracy is guesses, and the more the better. Somehow I doubt that will sell well to the general public.

Dano said...

Somehow I doubt that will sell well to the general public.

Somehow I doubt the assertion that amateurs "auditing" the network for temp issues without measuring temps will sell well to the general public. Sure, it'll sell to dupes, denialists and the critical thinking-challenged, but to the general public? Nah.

Dream on, wish, project. Release and transcend the literature!

Best,

D

Anonymous said...


No more so then nearby trees or air pumps heating the house. You are aggressively proclaiming Pielke Sr's fallacy, that all things break one way.


Oh, but the errors *are* breaking one way. Thanks to the bumbling temperature recording efforts in the USA (as documented by the surfacestation.org folks), millions have been misled into believing that the Earth is actually cooling! Consider the carefully cherry-picked image at http://tinyurl.com/2zee28. It shows how inaccurate temperature records seem to show that much of the continental USA has actually cooled (as the rest of the Earth has warmed).

This proves that the measurement errors are highly biased and vindicates the critics of the North American temperature records.

Marion Delgado said...

I am assuming the anonymouse at 8:56 pm is joking, but I would hasten to point out it's far too subtle.

Anthony Watts said...

Please lets not pick fights. I'm reading Tamino, and doing some research and math to better understand the issue. I urge others to do the same.

One thing I just can't get away from though and keep coming back to, even with the power of large numbers, is the propogation of uncertainty. Eli/Josh/Dano can you tell me why temperatures from USHCN and GISS are not reported with +/- x°C uncertainties? This isn't some snarky challenge, but a genuine question on my part.

BTW, I've seen some USHCN sites show up that have biases that will result in cooling trends. I'll post those soon. So you can't assume the biases will always be upwards. But as humans tend to be energy consuming beasts and creators of un-natural surfaces and structures in this day, the majority of potential biases will be positive.

Anonymous said...

But as humans tend to be energy consuming beasts and creators of un-natural surfaces and structures in this day, the majority of potential biases will be positive.


Of course, the most dramatic warming is occurring where local human impacts are the least evident, namely the high Arctic (Siberia, northern Canada, Alaska, etc.). I don't think that you'll find too many bias-inducing parking-lots or air-conditioners there.

And when you take into account that the continental USA represents some two percent of the Earth's area (a region, mind you, that has been lagging much of the rest of the planet wrt warming), it should be quite obvious that the whole fuss over a tiny percentage of temperature monitoring sites on that two percent is nothing more than a red herring.

Anthony Watts said...

Well you have to start somewhere. We can't do the entire world at once. So we started with USHCN.

You are welcome to think of the work being done as a red herring if you wish. That won't change anything. I'd point out that the density of weather stations at those latitudes you mention is very low, and you have no basis to know what if any local biases may exist. Unless of course you can send me pictures and metadata.

While the US may only be a small percentage of landmass, it has the most weather stations, and if problem exist in this area, they may very likely exist elsewhere in the world. Few weather services in other countries are as well maintained as NOAA's, or so I'm told. Canada shut down much of its surface network.

But hey, if you (whomerever you are) have a better idea, please by all means, have at it, there's certainly room for more investigation into the issue. Prove that the effort is of no value - hint: anonymous opinions have no value at all, if you believe in something, put your name on it.

Anonymous said...


by all means, have at it, there's certainly room for more investigation into the issue. Prove that the effort is of no value - hint: anonymous opinions have no value at all, if you believe in something, put your name on it.


I'm not about to claim that the effort is of no value... but I haven't seen any evidence that you guys are going to do the real work necessary to make this exercise worthwhile.

I rather suspect that this latest endeavor will turn into another "but Mann's PC method mines for hockey-sticks" charade, where you guys ignore little details like eigenvalue magnitudes.

But if you *do* decide to do some real science, and submit your analysis to a *real* scientific journal (like one that's listed in the Science Citation Index), then more power to you.

Anonymous said...

==dano said above:==
="Somehow I doubt the assertion that amateurs "auditing" the network for temp issues without measuring temps will sell well to the general public. Sure, it'll sell to dupes, denialists and the critical thinking-challenged, but to the general public? Nah."=

Which "amateurs" are you referring to dano? The ones taking photographs of surface sites which should have been done years ago by the climate professionals?

The amateurs on the issue of surface site QC for the US appears to be the climate professionals themselves.

And professionals measuring temps without the foggiest idea of what is going on at the surface sites has the potential to be damaging to the credibility of climate professionals. I think the general public could be quite interested in all of this.

EliRabett said...

Marion, the anonymice are subtle, but not malicious.

Hans Erren said...

# They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot. #

Anonymous said...

Anthony Watts said "While the US may only be a small percentage of landmass, it has the most weather stations,"

That statement indicates a lack of appreciation for how NASA arrives at its sub-regional, regional and global global mean temperature anomalies.

It also shows a lack of understanding of the impact of bias in measurements that contribute a small percentage to the total that is used to obtain an average.

Even if there were legitimate problems with a large fraction of all the stations in the US (something which has certainly not been demonstrated so far), the weighting attached to the US contribution to the total used to get the global mean anomaly is very small, so biases (if they are real) would have to be primarily in the same direction and very large (relatively speaking) to significantly affect the value of the global mean.

QC is obviously good -- indeed necessary -- and I applaud Watts for taking the initiative to point out potential problems.

I have been surprised/shocked by some of what I have seen -- particularly the station in Tucson!.

The stations in question should be looked at seriously and problem stations should be fixed -- and their data completely removed from the dataset if the situation warrants that.

But the contention that what Watts and others have done to date casts doubt on the whole surface record is simply not credible -- not at this point, anyway.

bigcitylib said...

Interesting article on Mr. Watts here:

http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_6445069


"Working with Penn State climatologist Dr. Michael Mann, Watts found most of the problems were in urban areas where temperatures are allegedly on the rise."

Working with Michael Mann?

Anonymous said...

From the same link " The potato was developed in Europe because of a major cooling trend in the eighth century that froze the ground killing most vegetables." Maybe...

Anthony Watts said...

BCL cites an article (in a small town newspaper) where the author never bothered to talk to me, email me, or otherwise do any background. The article was likely culled from online reports. I believe he meant to write Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

But if Dr. Mann would want to work with me on this project, I'd welcome it.

And for the record, we are still in data gathering mode. The only conclusion that can be drawn thus far is that there have been a number of USHCN weather stations that are out of compliance with published NOAA siting guidelines, and some weather stations that have visible biases that are out of the ordinary. I'm waiting for a better geographic distribution before starting an analysis since its west coast heavy right now.

As this project grows, it will include other countries as well. The system has been setup from the start to be multi-lingual. There are people ready and waiting for us to start that phase.

As for the anonymous person who challenges me to write a paper...that was the goal from the beginning.

Eli/Josh /Dano If you please, I'm still interested in your views on the question about propogation of uncertainty. I hope you will shed some light on it. Thank you for your consideration.

Marion Delgado said...

For the record, this is simple harassment of weather stations to make a false and tendentious political point for political extremists. Your lot has gone from DENYING there is ever a scientific consensus in any field on what data means ("consensus is not science") to attacking the very basis of science, peer review ("peer review is bogus") to the ne plus ultra, attacking the gathering of data itself "They just want more money {never mind that it's for more data}" and "the weather stations are biased."

You want to see what someone who doesn't need funding says about you?

You're a pack of Lysenkoists. You're fundamentally wrong in so many ways it's breathtaking, and it's demanding to continue pointing them all out. You're wrong about the dependence on surface station data. You're wrong about satellite data. You're wrong about data at sea. You're wrong about vegetation. You're wrong about ice cores. You're wrong about astronomical data. You're wrong about climate models, about statistics, about basic math, about basic physics, about basic chemistry. You're wrong about error propagation and calculation, wrong about scientific history, wrong about how paradigms work in science, about how research works.

It's not politeness to pretend you fanatics are engaged in quality control, research, or fact-checking. It's acquiescence to corruption and madness. Many of us who do NOT depend on research grants, far from hailing you as Ayn Randian heroes, are actually free, as people in the public eye with scientific expertise and with reputations to maintain and bridges not to burn are NOT free, to tell you how sick we are of the denialist herd.

Cut the nonsense. You want to intimidate weather stations, fine. You want to cherry pick to please AEI and CEI and Heritage and Cato and so on, fine. But own up. Quit trying to dress it up in pseudoscientific garb.

Anonymous said...

Anthony,

There's nothing to talk about until you start measuring temps.

One as esteemed as RP Sr surely should have outlined a proper research methodology and outline for you, and had someone point you in the direction of grants and how to write them; if not, you should dump his counsel immediately.

Otherwise, we know the drill that will come from the paucity of your data: hype that there is a problem, make lots of noise, have Heritage and CEI get you some pub, have the usual suspects harrumph about the conspiracy, etc. We've seen it all before.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Forgot to mention the dupes in the Denialosphere spreading the "findings" far and wide as "proof".

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

== marion delgado says: ==
=". . . this is simple harassment of weather stations."=

That is funny. And your whole comment avoids the problems being documented at some surface sites.

== anonymous said: ==
="There's nothing to talk about until you start measuring temps."=

There is lots to talk about.

Such as why climate professionals have failed to perform due diligence at surface sites.

The photos document that certain sites are non-compliant to long established standards.

Since some of these surface sites are so obviously poor grade, it is up to climate professionals to explain why they should even be measuring temp, much less using any of the data from some of these sites.

EliRabett said...

I rather suspect he was pointing to McIntrye not Mann. Eli appreciates irony

Hank Roberts said...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12335-tibet-is-warming-at-twice-global-average.html

As to the individual sites,
> it is up to climate professionals
> to explain why they should even be
> measuring temp, much less using any
> of the data...

And you're actually looking at the data at those sites, so you can compare them to others and point out there's a problem?

And you're looking at the quality control being done currently, so you're sure you're making a point not already build into the process?

And you're making the request to them --- here?

We know all the serious heavy hitters in climatology are here. But the data analysts may not _care_ what's said here, they may be pure number crunching people who don't care _what_ the numbers represent as long as they are meeting the quality control requirements (like averaging, like comparing similar sites).

So, have you contacted people who maintain the sites?

Have you any data from sites you believe are ones that are giving erroneously cold numbers, that you will be putting up soon.

Anthony Watts said...

Ok thats it for me. I'm sorry to have intruded by asking polite questions. I'll move along now.

Anonymous said...

Since some of these surface sites are so obviously poor grade, it is up to climate professionals to explain why they should even be measuring temp, much less using any of the data from some of these sites.

Please show the temp/wnd/press data that show poor grade data. Oh, no one is measuring any?

Now STFU.

Best,

D
(obviously Dano)

EliRabett said...

Anthony, they only bite John Fleck. OTOH there is a joie de vivre here abouts.

The basic critique is that you need a lot more than a set of photos taken at one point in time and that does not necessarily tell you much. For example, the trash barrel. Was it simply stored near the Stevenson screen or was it moved away when trash was burned? How often was it used? etc.....we really don't know.

EliRabett said...

You have to differentiate between about five groups.

-The first are the actual operators of the weather stations. They are diverse, some volunteer, some associated with government, or industry (TV for example) or some part of the weather services or military of various countries.

-The second are the networks to which the stations report.

-The third are the top level in each country that agglomerates the data.

-The fourth are the top level data centers who create and store the GHCN and similar products

-The fifth are the users of the climate data, such as CRU and GISS.

At each stage homogeneity corrections are added (or subtracted) according to different algorithms and judgments are made about the quality of the data.

It is in the first two or at most three stages that rules for station operation are made and checked

Hank Roberts said...

Anthony, was it my questions that you felt were impolite?

If not, perhaps we can continue to talk.

The trick as ever online is to ignore what you don't want to encourage (a.k.a. "don't feed the trolls _here_, even if they're your friends or allies _elsewhere_)

I am trying to encourage you to ask useful questions and tell people the answers you are getting.

Even if you suspect that I may offline actually be this guy: http://static.flickr.com/29/49598124_b564cb242d.jpg
(not saying that I _am_ that guy, just saying you may wonder) -- so long as I'm polite here it shouldn't matter. Conversation matters.

When talking about climate, I do try to stay civil regardless, because I hope there's always a chance to elicit useful information from anyone and everyone willing to talk at all. Do try too please.

Patience furthers.

The mice will take care of keeping the trolls stirred up, and vice versa. We can play with them too, but it distracts from the attempt here at conversation.

Hans Erren said...

And it is in stage four where the careful checks of the first three stages are blissfully neglected.

Remember De Bilt.

And if it doesn't matter, Dano, then why bother to put up an expensive Stevenson hut at all? We can save a lot of money by changing over to this instrument.
http://www.hobby-party.com/workshops/juni2002/tuinthermometer/tuinth1.jpg

Anonymous said...

Marion/Eli, I thought "the debate (on Global Warming)is over" and that we had all the answers we need and all the scientist agreed. So why do you guys keep arguing with the denialists?

HenkL said...

Just wondering about the so called State Climatologists. Did they ever have a look at the weather stations in their states?

Anonymous said...

==dano said:==
="Please show the temp/wnd/press data that show poor grade data. Oh, no one is measuring any?"=

You have it backwards. It is up to climate professionals to demonstrate that they have properly accounted for the surface site disrepancies. Not one has done it yet. Until they do, the public may look with a jaundiced eye at the data they proclaim to be so solid.

="Now STFU."=

Is that another variation of "the debate is over"? :)

Anonymous said...

Hans, if you can't follow who is measuring what in the stunt, then the campaign has fooled you too.

Marion/Eli, I thought "the debate (on Global Warming)is over" and that we had all the answers we need and all the scientist agreed.

Sounds like you made that up to have an argument.

Best,

D

EliRabett said...

Hank, Eli must admit that he enjoys playing both sides of the street according to the motto of moderation in all things including moderation.

Think of this as a conversation at a bar with the usual amount of moaning and laughter

Marion Delgado said...

The genuine debate is over, for the most part, for most scientists and scientifically educated people in most disciplines that touch on or deal with anthropogenic global warming. The "debate" is not.

That's exactly like asking why do evolutionary biologists and zoologists and geologists and zoologists and so on "keep arguing with the creationists?" It answers itself. They keep arguing with creationists because there is a movement against science now. The "Wedge" document proves that ID and creationism are simply wedges to split the public off from science generally. They keep arguing because the "other side" keeps trying to supplant science with sectarian religious doctrine.

The same is true of the well-funded and completely ideological campaign against climate science. Our society is rigidly and fanatically market fundamentalist, so the ideology that can maintain itself without having any substance is one that fits that.

In Stalin's Russia, Lysenko's model of wishfu/positivel thinking and emphasis on the environment and human manipulable realities made a good fit, so he kept scientific authority even as those who worked under him discovered he was scientifically bankrupt. Should Soviet scientists have stopped arguing with Lysenkoists? It's not like that was a profitable, or even safe thing to do.

Dano said...

Speaking of a bar, you'd never cut/paste at a bar, but allow me to remind the gullible clowns:

Again, the Watts folks aren't measuring temperatures.

So for the commenters thinking that they are validating, you are projecting your big fat wish.

It is a stunt.

When they start measuring temps, its an audit.

When they take pictures, it is a stunt.

Temps = audit. Pix = stunt.

Not hard. Not hard at all.


There. Now, let us read the groundbreaking paper that the drooling small minority is fervently wishing for. The rest of us need to line our rabbit hutches.

Best,

D

Marion Delgado said...

Hank Roberts:

As you may know, I more or less AM that guy, so to speak. How amusing! I scanned that off one of my Jack Chick tracts, and it's part of the design of my blog.

This one, on the other hand, (c. design proponentsists) I drew with a mouse.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1346/823654507_4b3cd914e5_o.gif

Marion Delgado said...

Dano, I agree, but I have a bigger problem with the non-random nature of these alleged audits. How basically wrong scientifically is that?

Anonymous said...

As far as measuring temps go, after seeing one of Mr. Watts early posts about the "BBQ effect", I decided to try a little experiment.

On my porch I have a Weber "Silver B" 3 burner BBQ grill capable of 36000 btu output. I also have a sensor for my outdoor thermometer which is located about 6 inches from the rear of the grill. On the other side of the porch is another thermometer located about 12 feet away. In general both of these thermometers agree. The experimental design was improvised to correspond with the cooking of dinner. I checked the temp on my thermometer (next to the BBQ) and then checked the temp on my neighbor's thermometer. Both agreed on 80F. I then fired up the grill to full blast (had to clean it, you know) and it shortly reached 600F as measured by the thermometer probe into the grill. After about 10 minutes the thermometer next to the grill showed 95F. However, on checking the temp on the other side of the porch, it was still 80F. This was on a calm evening with no appreciable wind. To summarize, in the absence of wind, the effects of a very high heat source are limited in their effects when measuring temperature, as long as the wind is not blowing heated air onto the sensor. Since BBQ's are used only occasionally I conclude that the "BBQ effect" is bogus.

Rattus norvegicus

Roger Jones said...

A rain gauge near a pub in Queensland Australia was moved to between the pub and the outside toilet to the rear.

Strangely, rainfall increased markedly ...

Anonymous said...

=dano says:=
="Again, the Watts folks aren't measuring temperatures."=

Really? I thought all digital cameras automatically took temp readings with their photos too.

That Watts guy is pulling a fast one on all of us. Thanks for pointing this out.

Dano said...

Yeah, butbutbut Norway you didn't try all possible fuels that can burn in a barrel, such as wood, poop, papers by Soon and Baliunas, etc so your experiment is, like, bunkum dude. Therefore global warming is bogus.

--------------

Marion, I did botany fieldwork with Russians in numerous ecosystems in CA. They use relévés instead of random sampling and their results were very similar to ours. Random samples can be used by anyone, anywhere, whereas relévés require excellent knowledge. Jus' sayin' that it's a western construct and not necessarily the only way. But the clown parade way is certainly worthy of ridicule.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Yes, but what if they use the Stevenson screen to keep their buns warm?

Sclockums Razor says that the most unlikely possibility is the most likely one, so alien spacecraft exhaust on temperature sensors must also remain on the table.

Dano said...

Really? I thought all digital cameras automatically took temp readings with their photos too.

Now THAT'S rigor and data collection worthy of the best study plan.

Haw.

This is the best they can do.

I look forward to the "journal submittal process" and the Heritage Victory Tour and the Inhofe touts.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

=marion delgado said:=
="I have a bigger problem with the non-random nature of these alleged audits. How basically wrong scientifically is that?"=

The goal is to document each and every surface site.

What is wrong is that climate professionals have utterly failed to perform this job of basic due diligence already.

Anonymous said...

How would the "BBQ effect" lead to an ongoing warming "trend" anyway?

Are we talking about more cookouts as the years go on, or what?

Instead of "climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling", scientists will have to specify "Climate sensitivity to cookout doubling".

James Annan? You're not done yet.

Dano said...

What is wrong is that climate professionals have utterly failed to perform this job of basic due diligence already

We've already addressed this talking point.

You keep repeating it, which is a function of your abilities. I hope you aren't the best they can do, for their sake. For our sake, we're thankful that you are the best they can do.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Whatever dano, your thoughts about photographic documentation are outdated.

QUALITY CONTROL OF DATA FROM THE US CLIMATE REFERENCE NETWORK

Page 6:

"Once again the importance of site documentation should be mphasized. This documentation must include photographs of the local site, its geographic relief, and vegetative cover. These elements are critical in the correct manual or automated QC of ambient temperature and wind speed. The photographs of the USCRN sites become a part of the extensive METADATA files . . . "

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/research/Goodge.pdf

Hans Erren said...

"the use of the data from poorly sited stations provides a false sense of confidence in the robustness of the surface temperature trend assessments.”

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, M. Cai, N. Doesken, S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 913-928.

Marion Delgado said...

Dano, it's not a Western construct, actually. It falls out of the fundamental mathematics of sampling. And in a case where sane people know they are not, in fact, going to do anything whatsoever with "every single station," where their resources for doing serious analysis are limited, and most importantly, where they have not got any a priori reason - other than wanting the facts and data to be what they aren't - for focusing on a selective sample - then random sampling is mandatory if they want to do constructive analysis. And that means that if the station that is selected randomly is in Newfoundland you get someone to go there. Etc. No exceptions, no excuses.

But also, even your dictum that they'll be serious when they measure temperatures is probably inadequate for what they are purporting to be determining. They would have to do what they're doing - set up various populations based on the perceived status of the station - plus measure temperatures, plus, frankly, come back a year later to the same stations and measure temperatures.

And when they were done, even if they found, let's say to a 99% confidence, that there were discrepancies beyond what could be accounted for by their own measuring errors - shoe's on the other foot, denialists! - they'd be left with nothing but a small indication that surface data were perhaps moderately out of step with all the other data.

I am dead serious when I nominate this phony project for equal anti-science status with the "peer review is bogus" and "consensus is not science" campaigns. This one boils down to "data is bogus, and data-gathering is big government socialist waste pork that them scientists lie about to get more money."

So so far they've contributed:

1. consensus is bad.

2. peer review is bad.

3. data gathering is bad.

Which is why what we study is "junk science" and what they do is "sound science."

Dano said...

Yes, yes Hans: 5 stations represent the entire network.

Anyway, I don't see that passage in the paper. Are you sure you copied the text in the box correctly? Anyway,

I'm glad the Intrepid Auditors are measuring temps at the other stations to submit a peer-reviewed empirical paper, to expose this fraud and stroke their EnviroHate.

I can just see it now:

"We've shown that the USHCN has a temperature bias!!!!!!! Ta-daaaaa!!!"

"Um, OK. Which way is the bias?"

"Alarmist!"

"Er, what is the amount of the bias?"

"Conspiracy!! *Heart*"

"How much is the network off? Surely you've done the numbers, right? Right?"

"AlGore is fat!"

"What journal are you submitting this to? It's something other than E&E, right?"

"You enviros are alarmist!"

"Do you think this...um...report can stand scrutiny?"

"Say, that Scaife sure can choose the caterer, can't he? Pass that salmon, wouldya."

Best,

D

Marion Delgado said...

anonymous 12:34

You should read that document, instead of pulling a couple sentences out of it. It completely undermines this entire harassment project.

Dano said...

Marion, I agree wrt the Big Stunt, but relévés don't have a sampling bias. And this crew isn't doing a relévé.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

"the use of the data [photographs] from [only] poorly sited stations provides a false sense of [denialist] confidence in the robustness of the surface[stations.org] temperature trend assessments.”

Anonymous said...

"And if it doesn't matter, Dano, then why bother to put up an expensive Stevenson hut at all?"

Hans Erren is right, let's put up "Herrenhuts"TM

Cheap and unbiased. Cool in summer, warm in winter. Net bias: zero.

Anonymous said...

Yep, the all data are flawed, contaminated and unreliable.

Unfortunately, butterflies and countless other species had time to read the baseless conclusions of silly alarmist scientists in the biased media and decided to shift their species'ranges in latitude and altitude when they really did not have to.

The gullible ice also has been freezing later and thawing earlier by mistake (ice just can't seem to think critically).

We really have to do something about those stations, their biased data is wreaking havoc on the animal and physical worlds.

Anonymous said...

= marion delgado said: =
="anonymous 12:34, . . .
you should read that document, instead of pulling a couple sentences out of it. It completely undermines this entire harassment project."=

Still hung up on that harassment thing, eh? "Harassment", ie: photo documentation of each and every site is the new standard for CRN surface sites.

QUALITY CONTROL OF DATA FROM THE US CLIMATE REFERENCE NETWORK

="For any given amount of solar radiation the type of ground cover and its color will greatly affect the temperature of that surface and in turn the temperature of the air above. Dark colored surfaces
absorb more heat than light colored surfaces, and bare soil or dead vegetation will absorb more heat than living vegetation. This is one of the reasons that the USCRN program requires the engineers or technicians to take photos of the ground cover at the
site and its surroundings at the time of installation and each annual station visit."=

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/
data/uscrn/documentation/
research/Goodge.pdf

It appears the NOAA will hold the CRN network to much higher standards. You and dano are behind the times and out of step with the scientific community on this issue.

Dano said...

You and dano are behind the times and out of step with the scientific community on this issue.

Excellent. We wait anxiously, then, for the scientific paper that shows temp bias at sites despite not having measured temps or winds or reflectance.

This truly will be a groundbreaking day for CA and the NewScience.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

"BREAKING NEWS: BOREHOLES POLITICALLY BIASED."

Documents from Climate Audit reveal an effort by boreholes to skew the data from temperature measuring stations so that it would agree with them. Infra-red night footage shows herds of boreholes blowing hot air on the thermometers in many areas of the contiguous US. It is unknown how the boreholes got wind of the exact positions of the stations, although some have suggested a socialist conspiracy much wider-ranging than previously thought. Real scientists are now scouting the countryside in an attempt to keep those pesky holes in their rightful place. There is little doubt that the surface temperature record will straighten once the holy stealth operation is totally defeated. Stay tuned.

Anonymous said...

dano, you have been out of step on this issue for years.

Back in 1995, Thomas Karl advocated the "Ten Climate Monitoring Principles" that have already been adopted by the Australian Reference Stations and the nascent US Climate Reference Network. Both demand photographic documentation on a regular basis as part of the metadata.

The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) reported on this issue back in 1999. Thomas Karl stated in the report:

"Are we making the measurements, collecting the data, and making it available in a way that both today's scientist, as well as tomorrow's, will be able to effectively increase our understanding of natural and human-induced climate change? The Panel on Climate Observing Systems Status would answer the latter question with an emphatic NO."

The report further went on to say:

"Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality, and continuity of the records, however, still place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6424&page=R1

Dano said...

Anon at 3.41:

I repeat:

Excellent. We wait anxiously, then, for the scientific paper that shows temp bias at sites despite not having measured temps or winds or reflectance.

This truly will be a groundbreaking day for CA and the NewScience.

And I add:

The NewScience, lacking empiricism, will show how ideology and big fat wishy-wishes can overcome rigor and all that bothersome gathering of knowledge and wisdom.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

One of the things that you learn in "science 101" in college is that you start out a scientific study by making a hypothesis and then testing it.

So, if this is a scientific study, what is the hypothesis and how are they testing it?

These things should be made very clear on Watts' site and they are not.

Dano said...

Anon 6.42:

As I said above,

Anthony,

There's nothing to talk about until you start measuring temps.

One as esteemed as RP Sr surely should have outlined a proper research methodology and outline for you, and had someone point you in the direction of grants and how to write them; if not, you should dump his counsel immediately.


As he has ignored that issue, I think we know what's going on.

Best,

D

EliRabett said...

First you have the hypothesis and then you test is canned junior high school science. First you have an idea, then you push it about a bit, then you run some preliminary experiments, then you are in the position to formulate an hypothesis and test it. In the case of theory, you don't even have to formulate an hypothesis, you just have to work out the consequences.

The big IEHO problem with the Anthony Watts' approach is he has a snapshot of a fairly unrepresentative sample As I pointed out elsewhere, by the nature of things you are going to get urban and suburban stations over-represented. Because of how GISS corrects these to match the trend of the nearby rural stations, the urban and suburban stations do not contribute to the surface anomaly trend over time. I don't know what the outcome with the CRU record would be because I don't know if or how they correct for UHI.

Anonymous said...

First you have the hypothesis and then you test is canned junior high school science.

nonsense.

Where di you go to school. I went to Cornell and that was waht I learned in introductory biology there.

Anonymous said...

== dano said: ==
="I repeat:
Excellent. We wait anxiously, then, for the scientific paper that shows temp bias at sites despite not having measured temps or winds or reflectance."==

Boy do you repeat. We know, we know, you already told us that cameras don't measure temperature.

And with the microsite contamination so evident at some of the sites documented so far, one can safely say they are not measuring "temperature" either.

Anonymous said...

I learned about hypothesis and theory and testing in 8th grade and we had lab testing and documentation/journaling/writing results in 11th.

Best,

D

EliRabett said...

And that is still not how bench science is really done. Karl Popper is about the worst thing that ever happened to explaining to people about science.

There is an old saying that you need to know 90% of the answer to ask a sensible question, and indeed climate posts and comments are an area where that is obvious with many of the "hypotheses" having negative information content (you know less after you read the things then when you started). It is one of the reasons why half truths propagate.

Now if you see something that you really don't understand, you CAN'T form an hypothesis about it. You poke it, see how it reacts, poke it again. Eventually you have enough observation and theoretical understanding to formulate a sensible hypothesis. You also have a very good chance that trying to prove the hypothesis will not be an exercise in humping sand.

Dano said...

And with the microsite contamination so evident at some of the sites documented so far, one can safely say they are not measuring "temperature" either.

Boy, you guys got nothin'.

Hurry TFU so we can read your groundbreaking paper, showing how the temps can't be right despite the fact you aren't measuring temps. Can't wait.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Thanks Eli.

Now why was the data of 1921 selected as the end of the cooling adjustment.

And, why was the adjustment the magnatude that it was.

And what will the adjustment be going forward

And can you provide the code used to make this adjustment

AND we only have a few Thousand sites to Go.

So, since you did such a good job on this, lets move on to the next.

OR be a dear and have Dr hansen release the code from its warren.

Anonymous said...

Hinged at 1950?

Looks like 1920

The reason this site interested me is some of the hansens adjustments have a hinge at 1950.

Typically two postive slopes. This was the first I saw with a negatve slope to 1920 and a positive slope
thereafter.

So, what explains cooling a rural site from 1900 to 1920. No pictures to document micro site concerns. No loss of population.
No significant change in elevation
( I beleieve Hansen uses 1C per KM at least in his 1999 paper)

So, Very simply. DOCUMENT the alogorithm used to adjust this site
DOWN in temperature from 1900 to 1920. What where the site changes.
and what JUSTIFIES such a cooling over this period.

That's easy. 1 leg of one adjustment down, several thousand to go.

Anonymous said...

Oh power of large numbers.

First off, you have to measure the same THING over and over.

Measuring a changing thing over and over again with a changing ruler gives you Rabbett turds for
data.

Also you have to calibrate your instrument. NIST is a good thing.

Every wonder why CRN has 3 sensors per site? ever look at how they vary? Open questions Harvey, have at it.

This is simple. The sites are broken. Fix them. The process needs open data and open source.
Provide it. The instruments need to be calibrated and records provided. Do it.

Otherwise, I am not compelled to believe.

EliRabett said...

RTFR (or even the post) since 2001 the hinge point for each station is adjusted for best fit of the urban station to nearby rural one. Before 2001 it was arbitrarily taken as 1950.

Marion, Ms Rabett does not allow Eli to look at Bunnycake pictures, but for those of you who do. . .

Anonymous said...

会計検査

I think when Anthony asked "can you tell me why temperatures from USHCN and GISS are not reported with +/- x°C uncertainties?" and mentioned it again later and nobody answered, he gave up on trying to talk to anyone.

If part of the standard is photos, and there are none, somebody's not doing their job. If there are no photos, why not start taking them now. Who will take them? The people that aren't? The people that haven't? The people that were supposed to and didn't? And people will go take trips to get to out of the way stations as an adventure. Or maybe it will all be cities. It remains to be seen how the data is treated and what it comprises.

As much talk of the power of large numbers, why would anyone ask NOW for a conclusion? There's not enough stations yet. I don't remember reading where Anthony has said the readings are bad, or that they have enough data yet. Or are you guys arguing that documenting the stations, like they are allready supposed to be is a bad thing?

The hypothesis question would be "Is the GHCN network 'high quality'?" How do we answer that? "Do the stations meet the standards." You don't need the temperature, wind, pressure, humidity and such to do that.

But since you don't like people who keep repeating themselves, although you do (asking for something you've been told it's not time for yet), here's a new one for you. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the project set up another weather station in each location that is actually 'high quality' to see if it measures the same thing as the other one? You can't be talking about a one time measurement, because why would that be any better than a one time photo you say you disapprove of. If the existing station isn't 'high quality' then it isn't. Purpose taken, move to the next one. This is an ongoing project, we'll get back to it next time to see how it is "later".

For those of you saying it's not an audit: "the inspection or examination of a building or other facility to evaluate or improve its appropriateness, safety, efficiency, or the like" "a methodical examination or review of a condition or situation"

There won't be a paper on how the temps aren't right, because that's not what the project is (hint; they are not monitoring the temps, so they can't do that one) But they could (notice the use of the word 'could' there) show that x% of the network is not 'high quality' (e. g. don't meet their own standards).

Then the network, if it needs it, can be made high quality by removing or improving the stations. The next batch of photos, and the next, and the next... can document that.

Like it should have already been.

EliRabett said...

What 10:19 appears to have missed is that there are and always have been programs to improve the stations. The ASOS system which Eli blogged on is one. Moreover station evaluation is an ongoing activity both in the US and the rest of the world. Data evaluation and correction is another thing that has been done and reported on, but the Anon 10:19s of the world do not appear to have RTFRs, some of which are even on the internet.

Folk like Anon belong to the tribe that if no one shouts in their ears it don't exist. A small suggestion, before you grab your brownie attempt to figure out what has been done by others. Your idea may suck.

Anonymous said...

== dano said: ==
="Hurry TFU so we can read your groundbreaking paper, showing how the temps can't be right despite the fact you aren't measuring temps. Can't wait."=

They're measuring something at those sites dano, but it sure ain't temperature.

And now you are in disagreement with the Board of Atmospheric Sciences too? You tell 'em!!

Repeating their statement:
=""Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality, and continuity of the records, however, still place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results."=

Anonymous said...

=eli rabett said: =
="What 10:19 appears to have missed is that there are and always have been programs to improve the stations."=

They obviously missed a lot of stations.

Anonymous said...

They're measuring something at those sites dano, but it sure ain't temperature.

Excellent. You have information that says ambient air temp isn't being measured (supposedly someone is falsifying the record).

Plz provide your evidence. Thank you in advance.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Eli, your 10:36 in reply to my 10:19 is fair in that yes station improvment programs exist. The reality still is that there are so far a number of poorly sited stations. So if you don't see the need to verify if such programs are working and are sufficiently large, that's fine too. Think of it this way if you don't accept verification: They're locating the sites that need the improvment programs and those that don't need them. I don't see how that's foolish.

Anonymous said...

Dano maybe he meant they're measuring the emissivity of the surfaces around the sensor and how the air reacts to it. But of course they're measuring temperatures. What it's the temperature of and what it means, that was probably the point although it was rather lacking in details and a qualifier.

Anonymous said...

11:07 Sorry if I miscategorized your point in my explanation to Dano, but I thought he'd like to have it explained to him since he didn't understand it. Sorry if I got it wrong.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone computed long-term correlations between readings taken from problematic temperature stations and those taken from neighboring stations? It would be interesting to get a handle on just "out of whack" temperature readings from the problematic stations are.

If the what is being measured at the badly sited stations "isn't temperature", then the data collected at those stations ought not to correlate very well with legitimate temperature data collected at properly sited stations in the same geographic regions.

Anonymous said...

I take it all that figurin would need more stations to compare and get a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Sorry if I miscategorized your point in my explanation to Dano, but I thought he'd like to have it explained to him since he didn't understand it. Sorry if I got it wrong.

Just making sure no one is sowing FUD.

I'm sure the random picture taking is far superior to actual data measurement, esp. wrt FUD sowing.

Best,

D

EliRabett said...

Actually the GISSTEMP US trend (which is overall none or even slightly negative) is set by 250 rural stations not any of the urban and suburban station. RTFR

Anonymous said...

== dano says: ==
Excellent. You have information that says ambient air temp isn't being measured (supposedly someone is falsifying the record).

Plz provide your evidence. Thank you in advance."==

Somethings being measured dano, whatever it is, even climate professionals aren't sure. (See post regarding Board of Atmospheric Sciences)

Evidence? We have no evidence that climate experts, who are supposed to know a thing or two about surface temperatures, have followed the simplest guidelines that they themselves state surface sites should follow. That's evidence of professional incompetence.

guthrie said...

Once again, I ask that all the anonynmous posters identify themselves somehow, whether with a pretend name, or the setting up of an anonymous blogger account. It would make following all these anonymous comments much easier.

Anonymous said...

Trying to follow anonymice down their holes?

Have you considered setting traps?

They are easier to follow that way.

Anonymous said...

How did today's temperature equal that of 1920 in the "differences" graph? It looks like in 1920 the temp was 21.7 degrees, and today it is 20 degrees. Shouldn't that be a minus 1.7 degrees on the differences graph?
Likewise it is about a degree cooler than in 1970. What's up doc?

guthrie said...

7:03am anomous- I don't wish to disturb the disportment of the delightful little creatures, merely identify them better so I can better categorise them and their playful habits.

Anonymous said...

I hate to diabuse anyoue of their happily held opinions, but the SE US (you know, where LA is situated) is one of the few areas of the US which show widespread cooling. So, no surprises that Baton Rouge (how French!) LA shows a cooling trend. Hmmm....

Rattus Norvegicus

Dano said...

Anon@ 12.38:

Your tap dancing is humorously puerile.

Don't quit your day job to be a rhetoritician.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the random picture taking is far superior to actual data measurement, esp. wrt FUD sowing.

You don't need to get the temperature yourself if all you're doing is documenting if the station meets standards or not. It remains to be seen what the data will be used for once it's finished being analyzed. Until then, it's all conjecture both directions.

EliRabett said...

You have to understand how the station characterization today is reflected in the station data from the past.

Dano said...

You don't need to get the temperature yourself if all you're doing is documenting if the station meets standards or not. It remains to be seen what the data will be used for once it's finished being analyzed. Until then, it's all conjecture both directions.

To put it bluntly, duh. But, again, there are no data being collected.

Again, a real data collection effort would be to compare site temps with surrounding temps. If Andrew received counsel from RP SR on this two things happened: RP said you should write a study plan, and this counsel was not followed (the proper counsel, BTW). Else RP Sr said something different, in which case his counsel should be rejected.

In either case, this picture-taking will yield nothing other than vague generalities. This is, of course, akin to similar PR/FUD campaigns in the past.

There really is nothing else to talk about wrt this issue, and we'll wait until the humorous "study" gets "published".

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

= eli said: =
="You have to understand how the station characterization today is reflected in the station data from the past."=

No, it is sufficient enough to demonstrate that a surface site is not WMO compliant today to call into question the integrity of that site's data.

Anonymous said...

= dano said: =
="To put it bluntly, duh. But, again, there are no data being collected."=

And neither is a scientifically useful temperature measurement being made at some of these sites either.

= dano further says: =
="In either case, this picture-taking will yield nothing other than vague generalities."=

You underestimate the power of photographs dano.

Dano said...

to call into question the integrity of that site's data.

There you go folks.

That's all they're gonna do. No data, no paper, no analysis, no publication. But there will be a Heritage Victory Tour and an interview with CEI.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

You guys really don't get it, do you.

This is a case where metadata is significant.

Photos can prove whether a site is obviously OK today or not.

Use the photographic results plus move records as a filter to eliminate all "suspect" sites. Run analysis on the rest. See what you get. Compare with the overall network.

That will be a real and very useful and interesting analysis. Can't do it yet, but certainly can do it when the photography work is complete.

--MrPete

Anonymous said...

Use the photographic results plus move records as a filter to eliminate all "suspect" sites. Run analysis on the rest. See what you get. Compare with the overall network.

Please. The only way to "prove" this is to measure temps. The envirohaters and denialists and their widdle wishes crack me up.

Best,

D

Dano said...

test

Dano said...

hmmm.

Dano said...

ABSTRACT

A bunch of people took random photos that we categorized and pretended they were of import. These photographs we then showed to Heritage and CEI and they provided to us guidance, tips for invoking emotion, and phrases that outlets like the Globe and Mail will use to write an official-sounding paper.

[content unimportant]

CONCLUSION

There MIGHT be an issue, but since we didn't take measurements all we can do is infer, inveigh, and harrumph in loud, false outrage while we dine on Heritage catering and the usual cast of characters spread our message.

Oh...

Whoops.

Have I leaked someone's draft copy?

Best,

D

Dano said...

Apparently there is someone's name we can't use in comments.

Anonymous said...

The thing that really puzzles me is that the people at surfacestations are going to all the trouble to visit these sites and are not taking temperature measurements at various locations surrounding the site.

It does not seem to me that that would be much extra effort and it would almost certainly be valuable in later analysis. In fact, in and of themselves, all photos can do is suggest possible problems.

Wouldn't it be much better to say that "look, we measured the temperature at the monitor location and also measured it in a nearby field and found x degrees of difference"?

or that "we measured the temperature 6 feet from a nearby air conditioner and found that it raised the local temperature by X degrees"?

It really seems rather foolish that they are not taking such measurements when it would be so easy to do so.

The point would not be to challenge the instrumentation results (which would require careful calibration), but instead to find the difference in temperatures at different locations.

The other thing that puzzles me is that there seems to be such a lack of quality control on the taking and labeling of the photographs. Some of them are taken very systematically and labeled with measurements from various things (blacktop, AC's etc) and others seem to be much more free form. It really seems that there IS no set procedure.

Dano said...

It's a PR stunt, plain and simple.

Ask Steve McIntyre or any of the cheer squad over at CA why they won't go out and collect data. It's real work.

It's far, far, far easier to imply that something MIGHT be wrong in this era of short attention spans, media saturation, and political confirmation bias.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

= dano says: =
="Ask Steve McIntyre or any of the cheer squad over at CA why they won't go out and collect data. It's real work."=

Is it? Much easier to use a single satellite photo to classify a site as urban or rural and leave it at that.

The "real work" that appears to be absent is the verification that data being used is from NOAA/NWS compliant sites. That this has never been done by the professionals is an important question.

Marion Delgado said...

My children, held in his basement dungeon, are finally free (thank you, police department of [town name retracted]!).

I am now free to say I have Polaroid photos of "Dano" showing biased RealClimate studies to fields full of butterflies and beetles, along with DDT sprayers that act as a repellent. The conclusion is obvious.

I have scanned them and forwarded them to ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat.

I apologize to all the skeptics and brave fact-checkers for all the false and hateful things I have said recently, but my hands were as tied as those of my tiny, helpless children, held by the eco-terrorist.

I can now say definitively that human-caused global warming is a lie propagated to advance a command-and-control economic agenda and advance the political careers of a handful of populist demagogues like Hansen and Gore.

If I can redeem myself by confession, then let it be so. I feel like the Alberto Rivera of global warming alarmism.