USHCN Station, Tucson
It gets better! USHCN Wickenberg – “Remember, these are the few select stations being used to determine how much global warming the US is experiencing. “
USHCN Station, Tucson
It gets better! USHCN Wickenberg – “Remember, these are the few select stations being used to determine how much global warming the US is experiencing. “
It’s great that there are people who are documenting, with photos, how and where these sensors are set up. It certainly suggests the skewing.
But, is anyone actually empirically demonstrating the screwed up results by taking their own nearby readings? It seems that all one would have to do is take some measurements say, for example, a couple of hundred metres from these locations on the edge of a forest or some similar neutral position. Then, by comparing the results, the ammunition would be concrete as opposed to suggestive.
These choices of sensor locations brings up interesting questions:
Are climate ‘scientists’ – for one assumes temperature sensor placement falls within the duties of ‘climatologists’ – 1/ incompetent or 2/ engaging in sabotage of their own data?
If the former can we trust them?
If the latter, they offend the fundamental rules of science and in so doing forfeit the right to call themselves scientists.
But, there appear to be two sorts of scientists: Real scientists whose job is to seek truth through the honest, accurate measurement of Reality; and Official Scientists whose job is to support the policy on which their continued employment depends.
The Urban heat Island is a well known variable and I suspect it skews the data most where Kate’s pictures show the poor siting.
The following link is to a site where one could easily compare those stations data with the USHCN database to see if potential warming is amplified from these stations.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/ushcn.jsp
I randomly selected sites and observed historical trends up, down and sideways. This site also documents the good news science of increased atmospheric CO2 (effects on growth of important plant species). The scientists managing this site doubt there is an overall warming trend on the basis of the data.
Information that will likely never see the light of day in the MSM.
On the tarmac and on a tarred roof…beauuuuutiful…talk about preordaned results…why waste time with the pretense of fact gathering?
Yeah… I’m sure those are the only sensors they have, and I’m sure they don’t take stuff like this into consideration when building their peer-reviewed climate models.
And really, let’s just ignore the glaciers melting before our eyes, the satellite data, the changing weather patterns, and the fact that dumping billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn’t been there for hundreds of millions of years can’t possibly have any impact on the eco-system.
I have to say, I didn’t know you could buy crack out there on the prairies.
The asphalt is man-made; so are the air conditioner units.
Plus the scientists who are skewing the data are man-made.
Ergo, man-made global warming.
Solution: get rid of asphalt; get rid of air conditioners, get rid of scientists, and, oh yes, stop eating tangerines.
Peer reviewed climate models John? From a fruit fly geneticist and an a wanna be president? Oh ya,they really know their climate stuff. Hey John. Stop drinking the kool-aid. You will be much better off. Glaciers melting.Ummmmmm…maybe thats why the Vikings settled Greenland and grew grapes,before the big cooling hit again? You think you have the power to change Mother Nature? Twit.
John, “the fact that dumping billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn’t been there for hundreds of millions of years can’t possibly have any impact on the eco-system.”
Hmm, Let’s see, a large volcanic eruption. Explain how CO2 levels have been much higher centuries ago, long before human industrialization.
Nice try.
…them Ford Van’s do run hot when idling for A/C usage.
This is a GM conspiracy. Err wait, a GW one.
And yet, check this out:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/climate/figure8.php
Remember that thing I posted in the last settled junk-science thread about how Las Vegas is warming so fast and ZOhMyGawdwe’reallgonnaDIEEEEEE!!!!!?
NOAA says nuh uh, even with the no-doubt interesting site locations in Nevada. (Furnace Creek, remember that one? Anyone? Buler? John Cross?)
Actually the Tucson one is worse than you think, imagine what happens when they turn the sprinklers on EVERY FREAKIN’ DAY to keep that grass alive. Hygrometer readings funky much?
ZOMGwe’regonnadieeeeee!
“And really, let’s just ignore the glaciers melting before our eyes, the satellite data, the changing weather patterns, and the fact that dumping billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn’t been there for hundreds of millions of years can’t possibly have any impact on the eco-system.”
Posted by: John at July 26, 2007 1:28 PM
OH, LORD! One hardly knows where to begin anymore.
But isn’t this really a good part of the problem: people like this who have little or no knowledge of past climate history, and Earth’s history, yet they actually believe what they say. Another failure of the education system.
It is really getting scary out there in the real world. I once had the occasion to have a brief discussion with a “science” teacher from a local junior college. The same kind of “facts” as exhibited in the above statement came out of his mouth. So I slowly turned and pointed to the flat fields surrounding us. I told him they represented the old glacial lake bed formed as the last continental glacier retreated. I told him the area where he was standing had been under 15,000 feet of ice approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years age. I then asked him where that glacier went, and what was the reason that caused it to melt away so rapidly. After offering me a blank, and then somewhat hostile stare, the conversation ended.
Facts do not matter anymore. Dogma and agenda do matter. Our school systems have produced a willing audience.
http://www.surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm
This link wil let you go see the rest of the program. Only by showing the public where the global warming is taking place can you help stop the madness. It isnt the cars that cause the climate change, but the fact that greedy humans cut down the forests to put up another strip mall or sports arena instead of rebuilding the ones that are already in place
Yep.
*Real* climatologists know that the Earth has been cooling since its creation from the solar accretion disk, approx. 4.5 billion years ago, and that the glacial periods in general are becoming longer, whilst the inter-glacials are becoming shorter.
Hell, just take a walk through the displays at the Royal Tyrell Museum — they tell the same story through all the interpretive plaques. Last time I was there (Oct. 2006) one young lady was reading the plaque about the cooling trend and said in a loud voice, “How can that be possible when the Earth is going through Global Warming?”
In the future, we’re going to use people like that for food, I tell you.
Now now now guys leave john to his dilusion…he’s standing on the tarmac in some urban shit hole beliveing with all his might the rest of the world is similar to his experience…he IS an island 🙂
And today there is a story on Drudge, re 70 children dying from EXTREME COLD, and many more who are ill with pneumonia etc, in the Peruvian mountains. The temp dipped to -4F.
Remember that old commercial for some margarine brand, YOU CAN’T FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE.
Anyone heard or seen algore since his fiasco live earth concert.
I have an honest question to ask: even though the measuring station appears to have been installed incorrectly, if it still registers a year-over-year increase in surface temperature readings, then wouldn’t that suggest that a warming trend is in fact taking place? The actual numerical readings are probably exaggerated by the interference from the asphalt, etc., but unless the asphalt itself is somehow getting hotter with each passing year, wouldn’t the relative increase suggest a real trend?
So we’re convinced the world isn’t warming but if it is we’re convinced it’s being caused by something else.
Speak for yourself, Jose. I’m not convinced of much regarding this topic. That’s why I’m called a skeptic. And I must say that at the rate frauds are currently being exposed, in part because of this new media, this is a good decade to be a skeptic. Or a haberdasher, for that matter, considering the number of once emperors now running around without clothes.
Casey.
This my opinion only.
The answer is it depends. It might seem a logical conclusion, but you need to know the entire history of the site and be sure everything stays exactly the same. Sunlight, traffic patterns, building occupancy, AC loads, horticulture, etc etc etc
The proper placement of the measurement site should be one that removes as much outside biases from the measurement.
The improper placement adds in unknown bias. So unless you can account for the additional unknown bias, inferences from data are suspect.
Worse still, this “instrumented” data are being compared historic temperature data from analogs. Of course everyone assumes the instrumented data are correct (or unbiased) because they are instruments rather than something esoteric as Oxygen isotopes. If enough sites are improperly placed (and likely uncorrected because they can define what the correction should be day to day) they will create a warming trend or magnify the degree of the warming trend. People should remember sites like these before placing faith in the numbers.
It is a good question, and I would suggest you ask it a place like Climate Audit as the braintrust over there would likely have a better answer (yeah or nay) than my admittedly bias opinion.
jose governments and private industry are spending between 40 and 50 times what they did 25 years ago on the study of our weather. that represents a huge number of additional people whose livelihood depends on climate change being real as well as a serious problem.
Adrian Smits “….governments and private industry are spending between 40 and 50 times what they did 25 years ago on the study of our weather…”
Actually the amount spent now may not be that big a deal if the expenditure 25 years ago was inadequate to sustain good research….
Or maybe the problem is one of scientific discipline and honesty ……. like you say there is a big incentive to produce results that will help sustain your programs.
Like what happens over and over in government expenditures on military technology and weapons development (forget Canada here cause it’s a no show) !!
– It is becoming pretty obvious that the management of the USHCN program is in trouble.
– There’s increased dissatisfaction with the UN – IPCC program’s management.
– The way that the proponents of various “Initiatives” to manage climate change show complete aversion to discourse or contrary opinion is indicative of people who know they are on weak ground.
Most telling of all IMO is the preponderance of left wing ideologues who are promoting the ideas of AGW and the miriad imaginary solutions.
As a matter of fact this particular group has categorically been WRONG in their assessments of and proposals for solutions or action on EVERY major issue of the last 100 years.
So when a self proclaimed ‘Progressive’ starts talking about support of an idea ….. you can be pretty damned sure it’s a load of crap. The more there are and the louder they get usually means it’s just a larger load.
You know, when the other guys make it this easy to kick the sh– out of them, the game’s just no fun anymore. Global warming hysteria is over. Say goodnight, guys.
Global warming is a fact,the globe is in a warming trend, it is true, but who knows for how long, it just doesn’t have a F’ING thing to do with us.
Global warming is real, because of man?.
Emissions, remember that word?. it’s speeding global warming even faster than we want to believe.
It’s happening in every country, every one.
I have come to the conclusion no country, no leader will ever do what needs to be done because of causing a global panic if you will of what next?.
If their comes a leader one day who appers to, and I say appears to?. do not be fooled?.
The answer, not taking no for an answer in any country, what am I suggesting, to become open privately to discussions of debate, publically, you would be ambushed.
Is their an answer? their are many answers, begin by praying? then listening, really listening, gather real facts, then you have learned a very small something to go on, that’s how huge the problem has become.
Phantom: Furnace Creek, remember that one? Anyone? Buler? John Cross?
I don’t follow you here. The only time you and I discussed Furnace Creek was here when you brought up an old Daly article. I would be happy to continue the discussion if you wish.
Regards,
John
John needs to study a bit more.
Casey? You asked some good questions, to which I don’t have answers.
But I will say that, before any one or any group tries to drive the world masses into panic over anything, they must ensure their data is not questionable. And the recent photos and such have really hurt that credibility.
Science has unfortunately been made political, and that is dangerous country.
I postulate this …
1. we need to be certain before we panic
2. we need to observe (science or not … observation is still the ultimate test)
3. we need to think
… my postulation is that we are doing none of the above!
Rick
mary t, regarding algore not being seen since his live earth thing, he’s in full damage control mode because of an angry mob of animal rights activists for serving an endangered chilean sea bass for his daughter’s wedding…oh wait, I think they decided to give the goreacle a pass and go after Mike Vick instead, never mind.
Many of those major enviromental groups are HQd in fancy airconditioned buildings
dkjones: The improper placement adds in unknown bias. So unless you can account for the additional unknown bias, inferences from data are suspect.
Rick Wyatt: But I will say that, before any one or any group tries to drive the world masses into panic over anything, they must ensure their data is not questionable. And the recent photos and such have really hurt that credibility.
I agree with both of you, but shouldn’t the caveats cut both ways? If there are uncertainties in the data, then it would be illogical and politically motivated for one group to declare that global warming is definite real and that “the time for debate is over.” But wouldn’t it be equally illogical and politically motivated for another group to declare that, simply because of these uncertainties in the data, that global warming is definitely “a scam”?
As per dkjones’ suggestion, I’ll post my question to the CA folks, but their website is down at the moment.
Surprise. John Cross offers to debate something in the future, without ever touching any issue at hand.
Casey says
“I agree with both of you, but shouldn’t the caveats cut both ways? If there are uncertainties in the data, then it would be illogical and politically motivated for one group to declare that global warming is definite real and that “the time for debate is over.” But wouldn’t it be equally illogical and politically motivated for another group to declare that, simply because of these uncertainties in the data, that global warming is definitely “a scam”?”
Indeed they should. Climate change is real. Always has been always will be. I think the biggest thing to take aways from Kate’s “Sounds of Settled Science” series is that it is indeed NOT settled. This is highly complex stuff with various inputs and feedback mechanisms, many of which we likely even don’t know about yet. Blaming it on solely anthropologic carbon dioxide is far too simplistic in this complex system. This science is in its infancy.
So should the “evil” western economic powers spend trillions of dollars on what amounts to economic indulgences based on shaky science? I dare say most here at SDA would say no.
That is not to say the we stick our head in the sand and do nothing. There are other good reasons to increase our energy efficiencies while at the same time reducing legitimate pollutants. The eco-boogieman just isn’t one.
Now lets say Canada does spend our required billions on carbon indulgences because the shrill voices win the propaganda war. What if they are wrong and we meet the Kyoto (and the requisite follow on agreements) targets and destroy the economy in the first place. Then 50 years from now we find out they are wrong. Will we have the resources to deal with effects of climate change? Or will we have screwed our children.
So why not deal with the symptoms of climate change as required. Why not develop more efficient technologies in a sane manner. Why not increase energy efficient in an economically prudent manner?
@dkjones: Earlier, I had compared AGW proponents to equity analysts. They have a similar kind of patter use, and a similar kind of glibness when their models go wrong. All they lack is a Benjamin Graham figure to drive out the hucksters.
The organization in charge of these stations is solving this problem by no longer publishing the addresses where they are located. Solved.
C’mon John Cross you old fraud, these weather station set-ups just keep getting funnier. Nobody -accidentally- puts a thermometer next to the AC vent in Arizona. Or over pavement. Or next to a building.
I used to live there John. If there is one thing that everybody in Wickenberg knows for sure, its how HOT the AC exhaust is, and how long concrete and asphalt hold heat compared to the desert.
Kinda like how people in Canada know to wear shoes in the snow. Even guys from Namibia figure that one out right after their first snow fall.
These two stations are far more egregious than the Death Valley one at Bad Water, don’t you think? And we just keep finding more of them. One might almost suspect an agenda at work. Or, dare I say it, a vested interest in high temperature measurements on the part of the USHCN?
I detect the odor of fish!!!
Phantom: why again did you bring up Furnace Creek? Is there something specific I have said that you disagree with?
Regards,
John
Casey…I suggest tommorrow you go lay in a nice pasture under a tree,then the next day go lay on the nearest paved surface you can find. I am quite sure this will answer your question.
I suppose some eco-wackos will claim that swimming pools constribute to GLOBAL WARMING the same way their trying to blame it on cows and SUVs
John,
The glaciers have been melting since the end of the little ice age.
Having just come back from a visit to the columbia ice fields, I’ve noticed that the signs marking the toe of the glacier have been retreating since 1844 on the Athabasca glacier. Our emmission of GHG’s was negligible in the years before 1844. The retreat has been natural and has buger all to do with humans.
There are signs all along the path of it’s retreat and there is no increase in this retreat.
Even climate scientists have rebuked Gore for his “ice on kilimonjaro melting” crap. It has nothing to do with GW or GHG’s.
The Gaia Gorbots also deny the earth’s ability to adapt. Giant meteors striking the earth and whiping out the dinosours didn’t destroy the planet. What kind of twit thinks we can kill it? If there is more CO2 in the air you can expect faster plant growth, alge growth, etc. The earth has its own filtration system that doesn’t depend on us. It’s even good at suffering shocks like meteor strikes and huge volcanos.