Thursday, July 19, 2007

Wanna see some pictures lil' girl?

UPDATE: This has morphed into a series of posts on how GISS calculates trends. In short, only rural stations contribute to the trends.Ethon on his way to Hamburg, flew in and out of a bunch of airports. You can't get here from there anymore, and if you fly cheap, you end up in the strangest places. Always willing to do a good turn for our friends over at Climate Audit (UPDATE: The link to the pictures appeared on CAs list of station data) , Climate Science, and Anthony Watt's Surface Stations, Eth used his brownie, and got a few pics (click on the link to the photos on the right) of about 209 surface stations that he thought he would share. Not all are USHCN stations but the data is at the NOAA archive and used by GISS. These are currently part of the US National Weather Service (NWS) Automated Surface Observation Stations (ASOS) system although many go back before automation. We hope the co-respondents will send some liverwurst sandwiches over, the food on the trans-Atlantic red-eye sucks.

Baton Rouge Airport

Islip, NY

Dulles (Washington, DC)

Yeah, Eli knows, it's really on the NOAA site with a lot more information on the USHCN and other stations. The cartoon is by Gahan Wilson and you have until the 22nd to enter the New Yorker cartoon caption contest. Something like Roger Pielke Sr. dictates about surface climate stations to Steve Sadov while the rest of the Climate Audit crowd cheers would probably be too obscure.


Anonymous said...

I'm sure the Climate Auditors will come up with a "statistically sound" way to show that the "surfacestations" sites represent 99% of the warming, while the "good" sites (without AirCon/barbecues/car exhaust/flamethrowers/etc) show cooling, etc.
-- Carl

Anonymous said...

Don't insult chimpanzees like that, ain't polite.

Anonymous said...

Inquiring minds want to know: What trend do these stations show?

BTW, when I tried the photo link link it went to an error page.

"Sadlov, you idiot: It's Coriolanus, not coriolis. And what's this business about the Tempest being a result of teleconnections from the PDO? Neeeeeext."

Well, *I* think it's funny.

Anonymous said...

well Kristen is now "Associate Editor" at "" -- where they tout "patriotic bald eagle pics" and other junk for purchase (includeing "junk science"). so she's well on her way to being the next Ann Coulter (NOT the next Judy Curry!) well that is the most stable path to making a lot of dough, after all, postdoc & scientist salaries fall far short of what the Ebell's & Michael's and Ball's et al rake in...

-- Carl

Anonymous said...

Since we're off into humor,the cartoon was an instant reminder of Bob Newhart's old 90-second "Infinite Monkeys": Bob is the guy who monitors the monkeys (who of course, are not as smart as chimps).

I found a freely-listenable copy:

Anonymous said...

Don't have the playa - but I do remember from my younger days something like, "To be or not to be, that is the gzorgnfefr." There are probably useful chunk of information I cannot retain because of brain space taken up by Bob Newhart routines and MAD magazine songs. As far as the caption, it's too tempting to launch into an ad simian attack, so I will refrain.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, deech56, if you did that we'd be forced to pan it.

Marion Delgado said...

steve bloom said...
Yeah, deech56, if you did that we'd be forced to pan it.

You know, you're a bunch of troglodytes!

Marion Delgado said...

By the way my advice to ignore her stands. Her "joining" *cough* that Bedlamist compound changes nothing. Poor kid. As the hippees said in the Sixtees, shower em with super-love or in this case super-tolerance and who knows, they may snap out of it.

Anonymous said...

The ASOS list of stations and pictures has been on that site for quite some time. Nothing new, so patting yourself on the back for finding something with Google isn't very impressive.

And this Eli/Bunny guy...what the heck is that all about? You write and speak what seems to be valid science and then make yourself look juvenile by throwing in comments about various rodentia. How is that supposed to make anything you write believable? Comedy is for comedians, science is for scientists, which are you?

The whole bunch of you don't seem to behave like scientists at all, more like a bunch of teenagers razzing others at school in the playground.

Grow up, all of you. Even Gore doesn't need animal props.

Anonymous said...

Yo, Anonymous 10:37, rabbits is lagomorphs, not rodents. They grew apart circa the Oligocene--and have had all those millions of years to grow up.

Anonymous said...

Mice aren't rodents? "Eli and the Mice?" seems to be a common phrase on this blog.

Rabbits, mice, hamsters, gerbils, voles, whatever, they all come from the childrens pet store. The point is that if you want to be believable, write science and leave the animal props behind. It's just silly and juvenile in appearance.

You can all choose to argue over this absurdity or write science like scientists.

Anonymous said...

So no more Ethon/liver references either? Jeez, when the other side summons 15 year old girls to haul their water, complete with invective and exaggeration, and mythical graphs, you'd think a few mammalian allies would be within bounds. Oh well. Tried the leberknudel yet? I hear it is/they are delicious.

Horatio Algeranon said...

"Eli and the Mice?"
That seems to be your vice.
Rabbits, gerbils, mice, and more,
Are for children at pet stores,
And should be quoted "Nevermore!"

"REAL SCIENCE" is done by adults,
Who snap their little photos,
With Kodak Brownie cameras,
So puleeeease leave out the Totos! (Shall we?)

EliRabett said...

Anon, 10:37, Eli was giving credit where credit was due. You have a problem with that evidently, but it is your problem. Curiously tho, did CA show the pictures of any of these sites?

As to the rest, think whimsy. If you want serious go read Real Climate, if you want whiny go read, well you do, don't you.

Anonymous said...

Photos of the USHCN ASOS sites found on NOAA's website via the referenced link (Baton Rouge, LA and NY sites for Syracuse, Albany, and Binghamton) were all uploaded to website about six weeks ago. I do not believe any of the other 209 ASOS sites are USHCN, but if anyone determines they are, I am all ears (just not rabbit ears).

There are a number of other USHCN sites that are ASOS sites, but photos do not seem to exist on NOAA's website.

Anonymous said...

It did not take long for help to arrive :-)

Providence RI is also an ASOS USHCN site with photos that have been uploaded, and it was brought to my attention there may be as many as eleven others with photos on NOAA's website.

I so love the bloggosphere.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but how often are those fields mowed? Have any of you geniuses ever been on a lawn mower? They get quite hot and are usually made of metal. In addition, airplanes are hot because of engines and the body heat of 200 people on board. (What's 98.6 times 200--get the picture, Dr. Einstein?) And don't forget the noise which can cause vibrations which also produce heat. The surface record is clearly invalidated.

EliRabett said...

John, I should mention that one of the drivers in all this was the GISS list of stations that they use for GISSTEMP, and this is larger than USHCN, even in the US. I am not so focussed on the USHCN. That being said, my point was that a lot of information on the stations is out there on the net waiting for the right mouse to come along and click and I agree :-)

Anonymous said...

[jedi mind trick] These are not the stations we're looking for [/jedi mind trick]

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, but how often are those fields mowed?" etc, hilariously

And what about children? This picture shows a USHCN station clearly built in CLOSE PROXIMITY to a child. Won't somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

"What's 98.6 times 200"

Shouldn't we be measuring in Kelvin? So that's (37 + 273) x 200 = 62,000 K - or TEN TIMES HOTTER THAN THE SURFACE OF THE SUN!! Holy crap, that's the last time I'm flying. No wonder you get dehydrated.

Anonymous said...

Eli, thanks. I was aware that GISS (US subset) includes about 400 more stations than USHCN, give or take. But I believe that USHCN is awfully close to a proper subset of GISS in that every physical station (or near every station) in USHCN is also in GISS. Thus, focusing on USHCN means GISS is getting some focus.

I agree that a lot of the information is already out there, including photos. It can be challenging to find, though, but on occasion I am up to it!

7:58 - I don't think lawn mowers are a big factor at airport ASOS sites. Airport fields are rarely mowed. Long grass keeps the birds away.

Anonymous said...

Someone have a problem with whimsy? Geez, someone hasn't spent a day in the lab with a bunch of scientists. The only difference is that (at least for us biology types) the humor in the lab is a lot sicker. Happy Friday, everyone.

Anonymous said...

Watts and others helping him have covered most of the sites in California. Others states are being covered. Eventually, every site in North America will be audited. Other countries are starting to receive coverage as well.

Anonymous said...

"audited"? They're taking pictures. As a participant in a true GLP audit, this is anything but. This is not an evaluation of the temperature records and of all the changes in the stations that might have taken place. Not is it an examination of the various factors that could affect temperatures (ACs operating in winter? bovine exhaust in fields?). All of this extra work would be included in the category of "research", which real scientists know is laborious and thorough.

Anonymous said...

ugh Typos R Us *nor, not "not"

EliRabett said...

It's Friday, it's summer, . . . dont' wory.

Marion Delgado said...

Anon, 1037 and 1058:

rabbit << rabett

(anony) mice include you!

you are the mouse you are looking for.

Anonymous said...

Eventually, every site in North America will be audited. "

...well, at least every site with a barbecue grill and an air conditioner.

I believe that's what it is termed "conditioning the data" -- to make sure it is homogeneous (don't want to let any of the best sites slip in there and contaminate the sample)

Anonymous said...

Yes Eli I know there are also good stations, congratulations for finding some, but that's not the point is it?

Can you think of one valid reason why a temperature sensor close to an aircondioner should be part of a climate network?

I can't.

Anonymous said...

septics are really getting desparate --- all of McI's linear algebra shenanigans has been thrown out in favor of photos of temp monitoring stations! :-)

Anonymous said...

Haha! Now the alarmists are destroying their weather stations so they don't have to be audited:

And of course the last thing that weather station read was the explosion, which they'll just add to global warming. How many other stations have been destroyed?

Anonymous said...

Seems like Messrs. Erren and Watts want to play gotcha. How about some of those old reliable falsifiable hypotheses that Karl Popper wrote about?, And if the only evidence were from USHCN data, how do you explain borehole tempratures, changes in animal distributions, earlier onset of snowmelt, advancing dates of plant phenology, etc. etc?

Anonymous said...

Note to Hans Erren: Step 1) Note temp with a/c on. 2) Turn off a/c unit. Note temp. Step 3) repeat Step 1 and Step 2 during different conditions when a/c is likely to run. Step 4) investigate record during seasons of no a/c use. Step 5) remain silent until steps 1-4 have been conducted.

Anonymous said...

You fergot this one:
Step 0: Only include stations that sample according to minimum standards. So no pavement, no rooftops, distance from buildings.

That, to me, is a minimum requirement.

Horatio Algeranon said...

As everyone knows, NOAA conspiracies are like jackalopes: 100% true.

Anonymous said...


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

Download the Giss adjusted data.

Diference these to see what Hansen did to this COMPLIANT site.

Post the adjustment and explain it.

Otherwise, back in your hole rabbett.

Anonymous said...


U found the pictures weeks after the the folks you are critical of.

Why not post the data. They all know how to find it at GISS. Do you?

Go ahead. You found a GREAT SITE at Baton Rouge. Post the raw data.
Postthe adjusted data. Show the Blooming nuts some truth.

Next we look at Islip.

You go hide in the warren bunny boy

Anonymous said...


taking pictures is part of the process of documenting that the sites meet standards.

The CRN has standards. These standards can be ascertained by photo.


Ask yourself why?

EliRabett said...

There is a new post up about Baton Rouge.

Who knows what nonsense lurks between the ears of denialists, The bunny knows. Read about it at Rabett Run

Anonymous said...

(caerbannog the anonybunny)

I was poking around a bit on the USHCN web-site. The folks' two favorite stations are Orland, CA and Marysville, CA. The "default" temperature plots for both sites are prominently featured at

But I decided to "drill down" a bit. I set the plot time-scale to 1970-2005 and looked at things like minimum temp vs time. Over this 35-year period, the trends for the Orland and Marysville stations are pretty similar. You have to go back prior to 1960/1970 to see much of a discrepancy between the two stations' trends, i.e. back to a time that pre-dates most urban expansion!

The post-urban expansion data for the past 30-40 years looks much more consistent than the earlier data! So whatever it is that was driving the differences between the two stations' data, it doesn't appear to have been urbanization!

Some "outlier" temperature readings back in the late 1800's impact the autoscaling of the Orland station plot for the default plot settings. Set the time-scale to look at the last 35 years or so, and the differences are much less dramatic, *especially* if you look at plots of the *minimum* temperatures.

You can hunt up the USHCN data at

A look at data from neighboring stations for this time-period will show pretty consistent trends, with overnight lows appearing to increase the most consistently (according to my crude eyeball estimates).

The differing urban vs. rural settings for the Orland and Marysville sites don't have nearly the impact that the "default" plot-settings imply.

Anonymous said...

(caerbannog the anonybunny again)

I just took a closer look at folks' renditions of the Orland vs. Marysville plots.

They show the Orland data going back to the 1800's, but they truncate the Marysville data to 1900-1910 or so (poor plot resolution makes it hard to tell exactly.) Data for both stations go back to the late 1800's, and both stations show anomalously high temp readings prior to 1900. The folks saw fit to include the high 1800's temp readings for the Orland plot, but *exclude* the high 1800's temp readings for their Marysville plot.

The Orland plot was autoscaled to keep the high 1800's temps on the plot, but the same was not done for the Marysville plot! So that's the way of doing business -- selectively truncate data and let autoscaling do its magic!

It's the same stunt the deniers pulled with their "hockey-stick" antics. Monkey with the plot scales to obscure the order-of-magnitude difference between the dynamic ranges of their "noise-only" hockey-sticks and Mann's data-driven hockey-stick.

Anonymous said...

If you would like a nice interface to the GISS data set and to see the trends at any of the stations check out a work-in-progress of GISTEMP in Google Earth

Dano said...

Thank you evil bunny. Yet another example of how peeling back a few layers of the Cheer Squad veneer shows an old, worm-eaten piece of plywood rather than a solid foundation.

And many suspect the plywood is skirting for a single-wide.



EliRabett said...

Anyanon who wants a good example of why a single set of photos is not enough should go read Watts up Doc