“You and your volunteers have surveyed almost half of the network on a zero budget. If we had undertaken this, it would have meant preparing several proposals and allocating thousands of dollars”.
“You and your volunteers have surveyed almost half of the network on a zero budget. If we had undertaken this, it would have meant preparing several proposals and allocating thousands of dollars”.
You mean they thanked him, instead of ordering a CIA hit on the guy trying to expose Al Gore’s clandestine asphalt installation project?
Shocking.
Is there a similar map that shows weather/climate data collection points from the rest of the world (i.e., other than the USA)?
This graphic represents the world’s populated regions, so a comparison might be useful.
On the other hand, the “light map” linked above could just be a computer simulation generated to illustrate a talking point and have no basis in reality.
That’s a good joke, samuel, but that is all it is: a Joke.
Over 55% of the stations checked so far, fail miserably for the criteria used to put them up in the first place. In some places, temperature data has just gone missing.
According to Anthony’s posting, this new group is doing an excellent job of placing and monitoring new sites. Let’s hope they keep it up.
could just be a computer simulation generated to illustrate a talking point and have no basis in reality.
–Ditto the IPCC Report. Of bloody course it may well be a fraud. If one thing can be considered a potential fraud, then why not another?
What, is the IPCC Report sacred? Is it Holy Scripture? Are we supposed to believe it just because a bunch of people wrote it and insist it’s the Truth?
It’s a pseudoreligion with Al Gore as its Prophet. We’re even told by some of its adherents that we’d better be believers or else.
A very clever, impressive fraud. Perhaps the greatest con of all time.
Already there’s enough reason to dismiss the collected data.
Plus, using a computer program to prove stuff which we aren’t observing at all, namely the direct connection between our activities, “global warming” and climate change. I’m not stupid; I’m not going to buy something based on nothing other than hypothesis and computer modelling. Hypothesis and fancy computer programming stuff does not constitute proof of a bloody thing.
People will believe if they want. But to believe the nonsense being sold by the likes of snake oil salesman Al Gore and the corrupt, crooked, evil UN, which offshot the IPCC, is to demonstrate a steadfast refusal to think rationally as opposed to submissively.
There’s no need to worry about global warming, nor climate change. I really don’t give a damn, and it’s my bloody right, too! I deeply resent being told that I’d better believe what I’m told and submit to what’s imposed upon me by the Far Left (they say it’s not a left/right issue, but they’re lying, for of course it IS a left/right issue!).
Leftists hate having stuff “imposed” on them.
Why do Leftists hate being imposed upon, but they’ll gladly impose stuff on others? What hypocrites.
Why doesn’t the Left just respect our human right to disagree and stop imposing draconian crap onto us, backed up with outrageous claims that we can see haven’t been proven?
Why can’t we be allowed to reject claims and lies whereas Leftists insist that they cannot be forced to accept proven-true and obvious things as such?
It’s not an “Inconvenient Truth” we’re dealing with.
It’s an Inconvenient Lie.
An Ice Age is coming?…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Soon John Cross will post his usual claim that there’s not much difference between the “good” stations and the “bad” stations.
I got thinking about this a little bit. I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating.
You can’t compare the measurements of two different localities to verify accuracy. This is because they are TWO-DIFFERENT-LOCATIONS. Their temperature will be -DIFFERENT- at any given time.
In order to demonstrate the level of skew at a “bad” site you have to set up a proper sensor to record the accurate temperature of the area in question. Several would be better.
I’m a frickin’ glorified house painter here, why is this obvious to me but not the braniacs who get all frothy about “climate change” denial? This stuff isn’t difficult, know what I mean?
So far I have seen no studies posted that measure the difference between a NOAA standard thermometer mounted over a concrete driveway with and air conditioner next to it, and one mounted properly in a grass area 40 yards away.
That would be useful, eh? My money says the difference is more than 0.2 degrees C.
I’m no scientist but if I interpret the graph correctly, the data is overwhelmingly unreliable based on the very small amount of projected climate change? Hey, better get big Al on it right away.
Phantom:
Heck, you could do such a test yourself — I routinely check the differences in temperature between the thermometer in open shade on my back deck and out in open shade at the front of my house. They typically vary by much more than 3 degrees Celsius during the summer, and usually by more than one degree even during the winter (on sunny days).
The foundation of good science is good observation and data. You cannot prove or disprove anything without good observations and analysis of that data.
The AGW proponents, assuming they want proper science, should be for proper data. Bad data gathering techniques only open loopholes for the skeptics.
Gather good data and see what answer the data yields.
Right Theory + Wrong Data = Bad Science.
Of course the problem is the AGW proponents believe we dont have the time and must implement their solutions immeadiately. This, as always, should raise suspicions. Follow the Marines rule and get 80% of the information (you dont need it all), problem is we dont have anywhere near that so how can we pronounce a decision.
To the AGW crowd. GET IT RIGHT. If you can prove it with good theory and proper data that supports it then you will not have a problem. Sloppy data causes delays, your interest is in ensuring proper measurement to make the path as fast as possible. But remember data drives answers not the other way around.
Pretty simple to do eh Garth? Right now I’ve got 60F on the west facing front thermometer and 70F on the back facing east. (I hate metric.) 9:30 am, those measurements reflect the position of the thermometers, not the air temperature.
And yet, there’s nobody getting published doing these correction measurements.
No lowly Ph.D. candidates grubbing about for a dissertation subject? No OCD stricken weenies obsessed with data quality? No empire building bureaucrats out trying to make a name for themselves by applying regulations? All we have is a blogger and some cheeky hobbyists with digital cameras? And I am told, loudly, that this is all just happenstance.
Frankly, I don’t believe it. Such things do not happen by accident, they happen by arrangement and mutual don’t-rock-the-boat style agreement. My BS meter is pinging.
why is this obvious to me but not the braniacs who get all frothy about “climate change” denial? This stuff isn’t difficult, know what I mean?
–Right you are; not difficult. It’s very easy, actually, for the lay person to see that something isn’t credible, isn’t valid, isn’t proven.
The “scientists” pretend to have a “special knowledge” that’s somehow inaccessible to us lay folk, assuming that if we don’t have at least a BSc. degree and a job as a scientist, we cannot possibly understand.
It’s the same as when a judge claims to have special insight into the constitution/laws, etc., when he/she “reads-in” stuff that we know isn’t there in any way, shape nor form. It’s pure BS, and they’re arrogant to think we can’t tell the difference.
It’s elitist, too. Condescending.
They haven’t proven f… all. Haven’t made the case.
Show us the AGW/CC WMDs already or shut up, why don’t they?
“You and your volunteers have surveyed almost half of the network on a zero budget. If we had undertaken this, it would have meant preparing several proposals and allocating thousands of dollars”.
The survey is only half done.
Only half of the stations have been surveyed.
Why hasn’t the USHCN moved to complete the survey.
Why hasn’t the USHCN applied for funding or written their proposals for funding to examine the finding and continue the work.
Why haven’t they “allocated thousands of dollars”
Could it be that they do not care to promote any data that refutes their hypothesis.
Could it be that they’re perfectly content to carry on with incorrect data.
They can send me money for Winnipeg “the forks”,…
Too bad they don’t want Canadian ones.
🙁
it’s snowing in Winnipeg!!! Days get shorter in less than 2 months!
“My BS meter is pinging.
The Phantom”
ditto,
Phantom, you’ve hit the nail on the head with your 8:34 post. The margin of error in the temperature measurements is vastly larger than the claimed rise in average temperature.
When “Experts” wrap themselves in their Processes and Standards they are (in their minds) relieved from the need to justify their actions.
They are free to do what they feel like doing and what satisfies their personal needs.
It takes REAL critical analysis of their work to uncover their failings. This is what has occurred here, not because the experts had the integrity to be honest in evaluating their work but rather because the work was so obviously flawed.
To the point where truly independent analysis performed by individuals in the public at large were able to identify and document the extent of the “experts” failures.
I see the polite thank you as a dismissive rather than an honest acknowledgement of the work.
Bureaucrats rather than scientists!
“it’s snowing in Winnipeg!!!”
What? This is a surprise? It’s late April, not mid June. I would venture to say that snow in MB in April is the norm, not the exception. The big dump which was the cause of the 1997 flood was in April. There’s usually a couple of small squalls in May. Snow in Winnipeg in April is no more uncommon than rain or sunshine.
While it remains my firm belief that AGW/CC is at best a scam, April xnowstorms on the prairies do nothing to prove or disprove the theory. To infer that they do is just silly.
Amateur Weather station – more than likely better sited than the majority of the US stations … comes with this Disclaimer:
Never make important decisions based on this information.
http://tinyurl.com/6dnrkn
Would it not be helpful to have a satellite out in space, between earth and venus, away from earth’s magnetic field, to measure in absolute terms solar radiation intensity, which can then be correlated to temperature data collected on the surface and in the atmosphere? I would be surprised if there was not such an instrument in space already.
Phantom: What you said is true, you can not use a temperature reading at one location to see if another at another location is accurate. However, consider the following.
First, we are not dealing with absolute temperatures but with temperature anomalies i.e. the difference between a reference temperature and that temperature.
Now consider an area the size of the US. On it there are a number of stations that we use to calculate a graph of the anomalies over time. The graph has a certain shape.
Now, we take a small sample of stations that are called “good” and again plot the average for them and we see the resulting shape of the graph is quite close to the previous graph.
We now take a larger sample of sites we call “bad” and again look at the anomalies, and we see that the shape is again similar.
The fact that two different samples collected show pretty much the same anomaly graph for the same area gives us confidence that the “bad” sites are not as bad as we might think.
John
They dare not ask for any money. Any request would involve a justification for the funding. Do you tell Congress why you need to audit all of your data collection points, without immediately challenging the “the science is settled” mantra that all politicians (with the exception of Inhofe) have been trained to utter?
Stephen said: Right Theory + Wrong Data = Bad Science.
My Dad used to always say, “Facts without theory are trivia. Theory without facts is just bullshit.”
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Many of us have noticed the Urban Heat Island effect as we drive through towns, villages and cities. The outside air temperature displayed on many vehicles today is higher in urban areas than the surrounding country side. (Taken while moving and with little other traffic near by)
Over the decades, Urban areas have grown up around temperature recording stations, skewing the readings to the upside.
But that still wasn’t enough “global warming” for Hansen et al. They threw the operations manual away and moved many sites to warmer locations. Asphalt.
Dr Tim Ball was onto the UHI effect long ago. With sensitive temperature recording equipment, he drove around Winnipeg and surrounding areas – discovered a huge temperature gradient. Wx stations that were in an opened field just a few decades ago were now likely surrounded by heat generating buildings, vehicles and asphalt.
Mankind’s cities are nominally warmer compared to the opened country side, oceans, plains, ect. But cities only cover, what, something like a mere 2% of the Earth’s surface ? A very, very small part of the entire Earth’s surface is a little warmer. Ya think Gaia really cares ? Perhaps more people should move to the country side ! And take the wx stations with them ! Global warming solved ! A saving of $Billions. A saving of life style !
Some have obviously not read the data at http://www.surfacesations.com When compared to a similiar non-urban heat island site, the UHI affected ones show a decadal temp rise – Viola ! the smoking global warming gun.
But then, there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Wise father, fretless.
John, two problems.
First, causality. Your curve matching tells you nothing about the -cause- of temperature change at these sites. This means you can’t tell if the change is due to changes at the sites or changes in the atmosphere. A larger sample doesn’t make any difference if you don’t know what you’re measuring. Particularly when we know the bad sites are -not- measuring the ambient air temperature.
Second, you -do-not-know- which sites are “good”. Your curve matching is “bad” against unexamined, not ” known bad” against “known good”. Every week more sites are turning up bad.
That alone is more than enough to invalidate any minuscule upward change you can get with curve matching, and that assumes the database is legit. That is a biiiiig assumption.
You are trying valiantly to salvage data that has been deliberately f-ed with. We have evidence that the actual measurements are being skewed deliberately. Proved positive, on the ground, 100%. We have additional evidence of massive incompetence in data gathering, as the photo at the top of this page shows, and an institutional culture that allows or even encourages it.
Is there any reason, at all, to think the deliberate tampering and gross incompetence would not extend to the database? I can’t think of one.
you -do-not-know- which sites are “good”.
Sure they do. They’re the ones that haven’t been exposed as “bad” yet. LOL
Phantom: Again we are not dealing with a single site so the fact that they average out to something close to the overall trend is the key thing. Now you can argue that this is just a fluke, but I will leave it up to you to do the statistics on it to show it.
In regards to the good vs bad sites – hey take it up with Anthony Watts – he was the one who classified them as good and bad (technically given a number 1 to 5).
John
Pd: I tried to post over at the other thread but it was closed. Do you want to continue the discussion here?
John
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/
At the outset Hansen knew that weather fluctuations would introduce short-term temperature anomalies into the weather station dataset that are not the same thing as climate change. But he reasoned that by taking averages over several years, and appropriately “weighting” the weather stations’ data, it should be possible to determine meaningful temperature changes over longer time periods. In the mid-1970s, he hired Jeremy Barberra, a New York University undergraduate student at the time, to automate the processing of Jenne’s dataset.
They decided to process the data to produce average temperature changes, and not absolute temperature. “If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,” Hansen explained. “What matters is the long-term mean over large scales, not single measurements from individual stations.”
Note;
“If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,”
Hugger
Allright, this post keeps getting blocked with the link included, so I’ll try it without the link.
At the outset Hansen knew that weather fluctuations would introduce short-term temperature anomalies into the weather station dataset that are not the same thing as climate change. But he reasoned that by taking averages over several years, and appropriately “weighting” the weather stations’ data, it should be possible to determine meaningful temperature changes over longer time periods. In the mid-1970s, he hired Jeremy Barberra, a New York University undergraduate student at the time, to automate the processing of Jenne’s dataset.
They decided to process the data to produce average temperature changes, and not absolute temperature. “If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,” Hansen explained. “What matters is the long-term mean over large scales, not single measurements from individual stations.”
Note;
“If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,”
Hugger
John, it doesn’t matter how many sites you’re dealing with, the principle is the same. Causation of anomaly is not determined, reliability of measurement is unknown. You can’t know if there is a trend. You aren’t measuring anything.
If I change the marks on the ruler, can you measure anything? If I give you two boxes of rulers, one box has all the ruler’s marks meddled with, the other an unknown number are meddled with and you don’t know which ones, can you measure anything?
If you carefully record all the data on a piece of paper, and I switch papers on you, is the data still good?
Ping, ping, ping…
Greg said: “If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,”
No its not. See my comment at 2:22pm and again at 3:50pm. Did the temp change because the atmosphere changed, or did it change because the air conditioning came on?
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
I have always been at a loss as to why these weather stations are not evenly spaced and distributed instead of being concentrated in populated areas. How can we consider the accuracy of this data when it is not truly spaced out according to land cover.
Did the temp change because the atmosphere changed, or did it change because the air conditioning came on?
Posted by: The Phantom at April 24, 2008 3:55 PM
If you care to examine the entire process look here;
I posted links April 22 on the first blog entry on The Sound of Settled Science from Hansen. If you look for Posted by: Greg at April 23, 2008 2:33 PM
Hugger
“Weather stations are screened for potential bias from urban heat islands by comparing station locations with maps of urbanization. Measurements from nearby stations in rural areas (gray) are used to correct urban station data for warming due to the heat island effect.”
From huggers NASA report.
BTW your quote applied to local temp variations and not UHI and corrupted data gathering sites.
The problem is not just with the UHI effect, hugger.
It’s rurally located corrupted gathering sites, also.
Lots of sites that NASA deems “rural” are still located beside the barbeque and inside the parking lot .
And only half the sites have been sampled.
And Nasa doesn’t care to find out about the other half.
It’s corrupted data!
It’s bullshit.
Hi John,
I think our discussion would be a little off topic for here.
I have no interest in these temperature monitoring stations. I reject the meaningfulness of a planetary average temperature – particularly one based on a collection of randomly located air temperature measurements taken one meter off the ground in a variety of different ambient environments. Now if we had some sort of measuring device located out in space that could measure the plantet’s total heat content, then we might have a meaningful variable.
To those suggesting that temperature differential in itself is “proof” of anything, I suggest they investigate the “global dimming” phenomenom and decide for themselves as to whether the cleaner air that has resulted from the implementation of pollution control devices on air emissions over the last several decades could not account for at least some of these perceived temperature increases. (as compared to say…. normal temperature fluctuations or changing local ambients)
I am interested, John, in persuing our debate regarding the energy transfer mechanisms. Perhaps on the next general AGW or Gore/suzuki mocking thread.
The problem as far as I can tell is less that these sites have massive biases and more that the quality of these sites has changed overtime. If you take a weather station and put it in the middle of a parking lot for 50 years with none of the surrounding environment changing, then the weather station will accurately measure the climate of that parking lot and its changes over time; in contrast if you take a weather station and put it in the middle of a park in 1960, the park becomes a parking lot in 1970, the parking lot becomes a building in 1980, in 1990 they install an improved air conditioning unit next to your weather station, and in 2000 they upgrade your equipment to new “more accurate” equpment that is installed incorrectly the data does not accurately measure anything …
Phantom: Your argument tends to be circular. You are arguing that the stations produce bad data because they are bad. I am saying that if we use Anthony Watts information about what stations are good and what are bad then we can see how bad the bad are. The answer is – not all that bad at all.
If you are arguing that Mr. Watts does not know the difference between a good site and a bad site, then you should take that up with him.
Regards,
John
greg and john cross
the design of the studies sucks (is flawed)
the methology sucks ( is flawed)
the data collection sucks (is flawed)
the only thing that doesn’t suck is big Al, he blows
If you were to let a compitent Industrial Engineer analyse this whole mess, they would reject it out of hand, after they picked themselves off the floor from laughing.
You would need a 100,000 sensors at 3 or 4 different levels (that’d be 300,000 or 400,000 sensors) evenly spaced and “read” simultaniously. You would also need sensing in the earth’s oceans to detect heat sinking or loss, as you were tracking the atmosphere’s “heat”, anything less and you are just guessing.
And guess what people, like the furnace in your house, the sun is the final arbiter of heat here on earth. It doesn’t matter how many sensors, B.S. artists, actors turned climate gurus or anything else the amount of heat here on earth is determined by the amount of heat that comes from the sun. Whew , Iv’e been carryin that secret for a long time. The sun is not a controlled burn, but thank god it is there. And guess what you lefties we can’t control it.
AGW “deniers” might be interested in this resource:
http://icecap.us/index.php
A scientist who was a supporter of AGW is now trying to save his reputation.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
The phantom,
Your post April 24/2008 was valid but you didn’t go far enough.
This is like using un-calibrated Lab equipment that is NOT accurate (unknown error) to record data. The trend may be the same as that of a Calibrated device but the error data itself is invalid.
I don’t think its necessary to know which are calibrated (good/bad) as long as the data is only used to show a trend of unknown magnitude
Another problem is using data from various devices, or time era, with different Calibration Standards (old data from same site) for establishing a simple trend
IMO getting to absolute values from un-calibrated data involves a little magic.
More Instrumentation & Models are the right tools to test empty theory.
John Cross said at 8:15pm: “I am saying that if we use Anthony Watts information about what stations are good and what are bad then we can see how bad the bad are.”
But, John Cross said at 12:20pm: “Phantom: What you said is true, you can not use a temperature reading at one location to see if another at another location is accurate.”
Anthony Watts’ list of stations is -incomplete-. He doesn’t know about -all- the stations.
If you take only the ones he does know about, there are so few accurately set up stations your sample is about one per state. Take a quick peek up above and count the blue and green dots, I make it less than thirty by quick and dirty reckoning. He’s got maybe four on the whole west coast. Four.
Meaning, John, that you have -maybe- one station per state with an accuracy finer than one (1) degree Celsius. The rest are anywhere between >1C to >5C off, and they -vary- in their errors depending on the time of day and literally if the AC comes on or not. Because we’ve seen plenty on roofs next to the AC exhaust vents.
You are telling me you can demonstrate to a high degree of certainty a net change of less than one (1) degree C (over what, ten years? Twenty?) using one location every 500 square miles, using curve matching.
I’m telling you there’s not a chance in hell that’s right. A high school physics student would laugh at you.
Phillip, Mr. Cross here is trying to tell me he can accurately measure millimeters with a meter stick, even when the stick grows and shrinks randomly to an unknown degree.
To the best of my knowledge you can’t establish a trend that is smaller than the error resolution of your experiment, statistical analysis notwithstanding.
Phantom: I am not telling you anything. But the data says that if you use at all the stations you get a graph. If you use the stations Mr. Watts listed as good you get a graph that is very similar. If you use the stations Mr. Watts lists as bad you get a similar graph.
So that would indicate that the errors are not as significant as you think.
Regards,
John
All good Con-Artists have similar qualities.
They have a lot of baffle garb at their fingertips that is often over the head of others. (usually because it makes no sense)
They are actually quite clever.
They can type, say anything and keep a perfectly straight face.
They are very good at twisting a discussion in knots while others do not even realize it.
And, when alone, they will often burst out laughing as they think of how they duped another one. Pick-pocket another 100 bucks. A 100 Million, even.
Do we never learm ? Even when the Anthony Watts of the world make it obvious ? Yes, most of us gradually do.
Trouble is, a new crop of University Students arrives every year, indoctrinated with Utopian Ideas and Perpetual Motion plans. And, with the knowledge, that if it is in a text book, it must be true.
it’s getting colder
it’s out of control
John Cross at April 24, 2008 2:35 PM: said: Again we are not dealing with a single site so the fact that they average out …..
Probably explains why fully half the people in John’s family are below averge?
So that would indicate that the errors are not as significant as you think.
One bad apple turns the whole barrel rotten, in this case half the barrel is bad to start. Makes for a fast rotten barrel of apples, or in this case a barrel of rotten temperatures readings.
I think the the AGW believers support rot.
John Cross,
The trouble with your “analysis” is the level at which the measurements are being made, vs. the level required for the stated result.
Yeah, the two graphs would be very similar. They’d only be offset by a degree or so, an error which doesn’t make any difference to the TV newscasters and weather forecasters.
But the effect being described is on the close order of 0.2 degrees C. The variance between the maps based on “good” stations — which already have more than a degree C of error, just because of their sparseness — and those based on the “bad” stations is an order of magnitude greater than the effect you’re trying to measure. And when you add in the fact that the bias, where present, is invariably in the same direction… that data is crap, and making decisions based on it is simple foolishness where it isn’t criminal negligence.
And don’t rag on the weather guys who sited the stations. The network as it stands, bad readings and all, is entirely adequate for weather forecasting, which is what it was designed to do. The error was made by the climate Barnums, who are trying to extract data that isn’t there from a system not designed to provide it. Trying to eat oysters with a hay-fork is bad table manners, not the fault of either the cook who served the shellfish or the farmer missing his implement.
Regards,
Ric
Oh, and “shaken”: to answer your question, yes, it’s damn handy to have such a satellite. Here is its web page. It’s called SOHO, SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory.
Regards,
Ric