Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Somewhat boring but let's keep the guys over at Climate Audit amused.

Although the bunnies are always looking for better burrows, we disclaim responsibility for the large number of folk surfing surfacestations.org. However, we have the next real cool site from Anthony Watts' collection, and what is cooler than Berkeley?


Our cool station of the day.

An air conditioner or a shadow do not a trend make. We can find at least as many cooling flaws in the USHCN network than warming ones, yet the surface record trend agrees with trends in other series such as the corrected satellite MSU, the sea surface temperature and more. A major problem with all the jumping up and down is, as Eli has pointed out forevah, that it is not clear how the associated offsets will affect the multiyear trend. But there goes the baby with the bathwater

Oh yeah, take a look at what the Sparrow has wrought

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Berkeley, as in "Berkeley, CA"?

Everyone knows Berserkely is the world's A-number-1 bastion of Liberaldom.

I would not be at all surprised if the students regularly went out and stuck a torch under the thermometer (when they aren't busy torching things at "anti-this-and-that" rallies, that is)

Eraldo said...

Hey:

I found your site by accident. Thanks for pointing out the surface station website. There's a lot of neat stuff there.

Anonymous said...

Since teh thermometer is in the shade inside the shelter, it is difficult to see how the shade of a tree is going to affect the measured temperature.

An air conditioner will affect the air temperature. The shade of a tree does not affect the air temperature.

Is this the state of climate science?

Anonymous said...

"The shade of a tree does not affect the air temperature."

No, but transpiration does.

Anyone with a clue and trees next to his house knows that there is a large evaporative cooling effect from trees.

Anyone without a clue with trees next to his house does not know this.

Do you have trees next to your house?

Anonymous said...

Actually the shade of a tree does affect air temperature.

The screen is to stop the thermometers being warmed by direct sunlight, and to reduce the speed of any airflow over them.

The air is warmed by the ground beneath it. If that ground is shaded, then the air immediately above it is warmed to a lesser degree.

If this was not the case, there would be no, or at least a smaller, measured diurnal temperature range.

Anonymous said...

I have contributed to standards groups in my field. Standards were set based on the best empirical science to be had. If someone were to suggest that measurements could be taken with uncalibrated equipment in uncontrolled conditions because they felt the biases would probably cancel out, they would suffer a great loss of professional reputation. Quibbling about the effects of shade to try to justify unsound data gathering does not reflect well on climate science.

Dano said...

Quibbling about the effects of shade to try to justify unsound data gathering does not reflect well on climate science.

Perhaps, then, you can show us where climate scientists are doing such.

Otherwise, stop your widdle conflation gamey-game.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

If one wants to see quibbling over shade then one needs only to examine this very posting.

Anonymous said...

It looks like Hansen has made a few more mistakes in his surface temperature record.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, then, you can show us where climate scientists are doing such.

The ones having to make "adjustments" for data not meant for the purpose it's being used to do.

Although I wouldn't say "unsound" just not meant for the purpose.

CRN, the faster the better.

Anonymous said...

The data was unsound since it was collected from equipment that did not conform to specification. The data was even more unsound in that it was processed with algorithms for which there is no established theory to provide justification.

This, apparently, is the state of climate science.

Anonymous said...

The data was unsound since it was collected from equipment that did not conform to specification. The data was even more unsound in that it was processed with algorithms for which there is no established theory to provide justification.

This is bullsh*t. You are full of sh*t. I call bullsh*t. This argumentation is a joke.

Back your clown claim with evidence the temps are unsound and the algorithms have no theory. Get your *ss out there and measure some temps over time and show everyone that you aren't talking out your ideologue *ss.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:15 (aka Nomad -- or is it Nobrain?) said

"The data was unsound..."

I am Nomad, Error. Error..

[smoke and sparks start to appear]

Error...error."

Captain, let's get it out of here before it blows up and takes the whole ship with it...

Anonymous said...

This is bullsh*t. You are full of sh*t. I call bullsh*t. This argumentation is a joke

Is this the state of climate science with regard to peer review?

EliRabett said...

some of the comments ARE going downhill, there was one yesterday that Eli trashed, and he NEVER does that. So, keep it clever.

OTOH, I still want to see the contributions to bring some of these sites up to spec, especially the zillions of $ needed for upgrading in the past (time travel is expensive). Till then homogeneity corrections are what we have

Anonymous said...

Sweeping past mistakes under the rug does not make them go away Eli.

A thorough and proper inventory of current surface sites would be a good start, with (hopefully) qualified and competent climatologists then performing a considered reexamination of the surface site record to ensure its integrity.

Might cost a few million dollars at most; a good investment considering the cost of mitigating AGW.

Regards,
Paul S

Anonymous said...

Paul S A thorough and proper inventory of current surface sites would be a good start, with (hopefully) qualified and competent climatologists... then performing a considered reexamination of the surface site record to ensure its integrity."

Face it Paul, no one at Climate Audit is going to accept ANY "re-examination" of the surface record done by NASA, NOAA or anyone else who did the first analysis -- or any of the climatologists who would be doing it for that matter (certainly not James Hansen, whom they despise so intensely -- and irrationally.)

So, for better or worse, it makes no difference what they (or you) say. This whole photo project has basically been done in such a way that ensures that no one will pay any attention to the results in the end (other than perhaps to say "Thanks for the memories") -- not NASA, not NOAA, and not the public.

The latest polls indicate 84% of th e public believe that global warming is real and a real problem to be addressed.

Do you really think a bunch of pictures of temperature monitors throughout the country is going to change that? If so, you don't understand the American public very well.

Note that i am not saying that there is nothing of value in what watts and others have done. Just that they have done it in such a way that no one will give it the time of day in the end.

Anonymous said...

== anony said: ==
="This whole photo project has basically been done in such a way that ensures that no one will pay any attention to the results . . . not NASA, not NOAA, and not the public."=

NASA has already corrected their GISTEMP data due indirectly to photos taken for www.surfacestations.org.

The NOAA (specifically the NCDC, National Climatic Data Center) has requested a copy of the presentation Anthony Watts recently made at the National Science Foundation workshop:

"Detecting the Atmospheric Response to the Changing Face of the Earth: A Focus on Human-Caused Regional Climate Forcings, Land-Cover/Land-Use Change, and Data Monitoring"

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2todkm

It is too early to state if the public is interested or not, but there has already been an improvement to the US data indirectly attributable to Anthony Watts.

Not bad for a bunch of volunteers.

Regards,
Paul S

Dano said...

Is this the state of climate science with regard to peer review?

No, despite clumsy and ham-handed rhetoric to try and paint that picture.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Here are some new beauties from the USHCN. Take your pick. :)

Bluff, UT
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=25883

Seligman, AZ
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=23999

Virginia City, MT
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=25453

Regards,
Paul S

Dano said...

Watts got a bot! Must be hot - watch it gavotte.

What, bot? Brow fraught?

Pixel dots don't say why polar bears hot?

Shucky darns.

Can we...er...picture this happening:

Wookit the cuuuuute widdle bear! Awww. Yes, honey, bears used to only live in zoos until a bunch of amateurs took pictures, which cooled the earth and let the bears go home with their mommies. Awwwwww.

We can't picture this? Not plausible? Then why do the bots do it? Envirohate?

Best,

D