The Sound Of Settled Science

55 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

1. Last thing is for dinosaur, and then to bed:
   Canada also has surface temperature measuring stations, but the array is very sparse. Until recently such stations had to be read by human beings, which means they had to be near human habitation, and your population is concentrated mostly near your Southern border, which doesn’t give much additional data over that from the U.S.
   Note that this is the same reason the existing stations aren’t regularly spaced, and much of the reason the stations have become contaminated. There isn’t always a responsible volunteer available right on a grid square, and the number of volunteers is dropping, so the stations got moved to places more convenient for reading — and less accurate, because closer to or within population centers.
   Newer stations are automated and report by radio or cellphone techniques. One can hope that this means they can be better sited.
   You could, if you wished, do similar surveys on Canadian sites. First you’d have to get their locations from Environment Canada. Good luck with that.
   Regards,
   Ric

2. I can’t help being impressed by all the experts out there on remote sensing of weather data. I do have a passing knowledge of this as I have held a commercial pilots license, was in charge of Calibration for a major company, and set up a bunch of remote atmospheric sensing stations for the military. It ain’t easy folks.Ours was one of the first systems reporting by (of all things) cell data modem. We took measurements every half hour for hundreds of thousands of measurements. Here are some of my observations.
   1. You never get to set up the station where you want it.
   2. There is a tendency for the station to be vandalized, even by normally responsible people.
   3. Instrumentation for for remote stations is not nearly as accurate or precise as the manufacturers say it is.
   4. Remote stations should be recalibrated at least monthly and almost never are.
   5. Radiation shields look nice but don’t control measured temperature even within the instruments standard error.
   6. Temperature measuring devices, even used in industry under controlled conditions, do not have a standard measuriment error less than the temperature deviations claimed by the AGW idiots.
   7. I considered the weather sensing side of the project to be a failure. Too many instrument malfunctions. Too many unaccounted failures.
   8. Within the sensor and computer side of the stations we had ants (Japan), geckos (Hawaii), Wasps (Florida), and bioprocessed Murphy’s Stout (England).
   9. About 60% of the data was usable, with the rest showing anomolous behavior. We calibrated every 6 months, or after each system failure. After hundreds of thousands of data points, and mathemetically averaging the best we could, the end result was no better than published by Weather Underground (Wunderground).
   The U.S. Airforce tried to do a study to generate a formula to specivy how often their aircraft should be washed to reduce corrosion, by basing location. The study was “Pacer Lime.” Although the data collected was admittedly worthless by the authors of the report, the Air Force still used the results to wash aircraft (sound familar). Most corrosion folks (including off the record one of the report authors) will tell you that washing for corrosion only makes it worse. So we are currently destroying dozens of aircraft in the name of bad science (sound familar again). Idee fixies are not limited to the ignorant or downright stupid. Even smart people get them.

3. Country boy,
   Don’t overload them. The chance that John Cross (e.g.) would ever figure out what you’re talking about is nil. Better just to hit ’em with the wedge they can understand: the data is crap, and here’s why. If we repeat it often enough, it might get through.
   Regards,
   Ric

4. Ric: I don’t claim to be able to understand everything, but I do claim to be able to follow the science. My comments still stand. The good data show similar graphs to the bad. You can argue that there are large errors that affect good and bad stations equally, but nothing you present indicated that the bad stations are that much worse than the good.
   By the way, the effect is much more than 0.2C and the difference is much less than 1C.
   Regards,
   John

5. Have you been watching those silly ads put on by WE CAN SOLVE? i mean NANCY PELOSI and NEWT GINGRICH as well as AL SHARPTON and PAT ROBERTSON all blabbering this climate change poppycock bull kaka THEIR ALL LAIRS AND NONE OF THEM ARE CONSERVATIVES