Would you mind flipping the burgers while you’re out there?”
In apparent response to Anthony Watts’ project at surfacestations.org..
…the National Climatic Data Center suddenly pulled the location addresses from publicly available resources. We are not amused! Mr. Watts took them to task, and now the locations are again publicly available . There are fewer than 1000 left to photograph, so enterprising shutterbugs, snap-to. [BTW, let me be the first, so far as I know, to predict that the alarmists will do what they’ve done with other legitimate enterprises debunking their hysteria, and submit phony photos to the effort in order to discredit the entirety].
Hmmm, BBQ. Heat rises — right to the wx station.
How can they be so stupid, you say ?? because they are ‘alarmists’ trying to justify their $$ grants.
We put our thermometer right above our dryer vent so in the winter we’d feel warmer.
The Emperor wheres no clothes.
Can I just ask, for the record, whether or not there is any data available regarding the portion of the surface stations that have been found to be situated in dubious locations?
Can I just ask, for the record, whether or not there is any data available regarding the portion of the surface stations that have been found to be situated in dubious locations?
Posted by: Vitruvius at August 3, 2007 2:07 AM
Ummmmmm. I think the Goracle,Dr. Fruit-fly,Mann,and the IPCC have all that data Vitruvius 🙂
Seriously,I think that is one of the things this project is trying to come up with.
These just keep getting better and better… a barbecue yet. Well, now we know where Larry, Moe and Curly got jobs after they left show business.
The weather monitoring stations are the inconvenient man-boobs on Al Gore’s pecs.
Not to be an apologist for the bozos who sited the station there, but from looking at this picture, I suspect the barbeque is just stored there and not actually used in that location. It appears to be an awfully awkward place to barbeque.
Regardless, ever stand next to a red brick house in the cold weather when the sun is shining brightly? Lots of wonderful radiating heat.
And I wonder how much heat radiates from a fireplace chimney?
Anybody heard much of the big guns of AGW lately? Is Al on vacation?
“All is Quiet on the Western Front”? (Now that’s an “unsettling” sound)
The entire debacle of a “settled science” will be shifted into major high-gear CYA mode very soon. As the foundations of the data crumbles and careers are jeopardized the counter-attack will have to focus more and more upon the persona of the deniers. The data MUST be protected at all costs.
These site photos are obviously all photoshopped. “Faked, but accurate” doesn’t count here. 😉
quuintuple whammy in this one
1) Red Brick House, not a wide open area
2) Next to a chimmney
3) A potentially cooling bbq underneath
4) Next to an airconditioner
5) Above asphalt
hmmm seems kind of ridiculous.
Once again looking for the analysis of the stations, which ones have changed over time. which ones are legit stations and what the trend is on the ones with proper unassailable data.
“the National Climatic Data Center suddenly pulled the location addresses from publicly available resources.”
Typical soviet response, if the information is not made public then the problems with it don’t officially exist.
Somewhere Stalin smiles on green zealotry.
I bought a Weber Charcoal BBQ for this summer (got sick of the propane/gas BBQ stuff – you can trade in your stove when you get one these babies now adays). I got it at the Home Depot and I specifically asked for the Surface Station Temperature mount option – but they were sold out – darn.
Yoop: Shouldn’t that be “Al is quiet on the Western front?” (with apologies to Remarque).
*
Well, if Gore’s got it right and crops fail worldwide…
we can always eat the cats.
*
“When in danger,
when in doubt,
run in circles
scream and shout!”
[excerpt from Mao Tze Gore’s little green book]
Since the science of global warming is now settled and no longer debateble, I believe it’s time to cut off any research grants on the topic.
Since the science of global warming is now settled and no longer debateble, it may be a good time time to cut off any research grants on the topic.
The physical facts of temperature monitoring can’t compare with the certainty of computer-generated climate models. One is mere physical reality, the other, “Science”.
Besides, if there was any funny-business going on with temperature measurements, David Suzuki would have told us by now.
I have read no peer-reviewed journal article, nor have I heard the scientific community as a whole agree that barbecues actually produce heat.
To suggest that barbecues actually do produce heat without the unilateral agreement of the scientific community is irresponsible, and flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific method and history.
Keep your alarmism to yourselves.
The idea that these installations have been made to deliberately provide tainted data is pretty lame.
What we are seeing here is evidence of the pervasive incompetence of bureaucracies!
Why would anyone be surprised that some bozo in the NCDC tried to hide the trail to the embarrassing information? I’m more surprised that they made the connection between the surfacestations.org project and their own public website!!
From Surfacestatons.org….
LESS THAN 1000 TO GO! With #222, Lexington, VA submitted by John Goetz, we are now below the 1000 mark (out of 1221) stations left to survey. It was a 3 -way race to #222 between power surveyors John Goetz, Kristen Byrnes, and Don Kostuch. Thanks to ALL of the wonderful volunteers for helping to reach this important benchmark!
SO far 16%….. how far does this go? Keep watching………
I believe the “when in danger, or in doubt, …” quote is from Robert Heinlein’s sci-fi classic, ‘Time Enough for Love’. IIRC, one of Lazurus Longs clones delivers it up as a smart-ass quip when he tries to tell her to be careful.
(Just picking at nits, don’t mind me.)
“The idea that these installations have been made to deliberately provide tainted data is pretty lame.”
“What we are seeing here is evidence of the pervasive incompetence of bureaucracies!”
[Posted by: OMMAG at August 3, 2007 12:48 PM]
OMMAG,
I agree entirely. But season that pervasive incompetency with a good dash of laziness. These sites are much easier and quicker to access and maintain.
I agree with you Kate. It won’t be long before a group of GWs post some ludicrous mocked-up pictures of stations attempting to discredit the project. I was a signatory of the 1998 Oregon Petition (17000 scientists and science practitioners defying the “consensus” see: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm). It took little time before GWs started signing up outrageously bogus names and then attacking the credibility of the petition which includes names and addresses of all signature’s.
Vitruvius,
Try this site for access to data re the above:http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp
Some commenters mentioned an AC unit. I assume you are referring to that white thing. Is that an AC unit and if so is it plugged in or just part of a general junk storage site?
geez mate, throw another fruitfly on the barby
John Chittick: Since you signed the OISM petition project I assume you read the paper on which it was based. Do you still agree with the paper?
“I assume you are referring to that white thing.”
AC or heat pump. Either way, it produces heat.
We are witnessing a rare and beautiful event – the output from “The Models” has transcended the data used to generate it.
Weather station placement not intentional ??
So far none on the cool side of an AC unit.
Can anyone translate this ??
KMI: “Invloed CO2 bij opwarming aarde niet zo groot als gedacht”
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2
Try Babel. Dutch to English.
KMI: “influence CO2 thought at reheating ground not as large as”
Serious question: “11 of the past 12 years were the warmest ever recorded.”
True or False?
Thanks.
Richard: according to the GISS the 12 warmest years are: 2000, 1991, 1990, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2003, 2002, 1998, 2005 (in order from coolest to warmest). As you can see 1999 and 1996 don’t make the list so in fact it is “10 of the last 12 years were the warmest ever on record”. Note that if you use a different dataset the numbers could vary.
Regards,
John
this is great, Ive been wanting to send twawna sour gas for years
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12397-sunshade-for-global-warming-could-cause-drought.html
John Cross
The petition I signed was one stating sufficient uncertainty regarding the science of GW specifically demonizing CO2 so as to be opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. The paper that accompanied the petition was supporting data from various fields of related science where my belief was irrelevant. My field of expertise and experience, forestry, has made me sufficiently certain of the beneficial effects of increased CO2 so as to support the petition on those merits alone. It has also allowed me to observe the politicization of much of what passes for environmental science first hand – hypothesis through to implementation with almost nothing in between. Science is the objective (and mostly mundane) pursuit of knowledge. Faith, politics, consensus, money, and thuggery have nothing to do with it. I have seen nothing to convince me to change my mind regarding that petition, quite the contrary.
John, you must be kidding. You usually make sense, but not this time. From 1996 to 2007, you rank temperatures and say we have had 10/12 of warmest years “ever on record.”
Using the canard “on record” is very misleading. Temperatures have been much higher in the past. Using a 12 year time window is misleading and frankly, meaningless in the climate change context.
Ask the Viking farmers on Greenland which years were warmest … “ever”.
The sun’s output is always changing. Plus, we are periodically passing in and out of cosmic rays/clouds as the Earth speeds along in solar orbit at 105,000 kph, covering millions of miles each year as it journeys through space.”
The Earth’s climate is in a constant state of change. Witness ice 2 kilometers thick over Canada only 15000 years ago. And John and Dave think they can detect something “different” happening the last 20 years.
Were the last few years warmer (so we are told by alarmists wanting more grants) because many weather station thermometers were moved close to auxillary heat sources ?? Or urbanization was allowed to “inadvertently” grow around what were formerly rural ones ?
Do you think the Albert Gores of the world would be that unscrupulous ??
Did they continue to play with a broken hockey stick ?? Should have gotten a penalty 🙂
Shamrock: I can accept that. I was responding to Richard’s question and thought that was the context of it. If not, I am sure he will clarify.
John: Good enough. I believe that trees are C3 so they may benefit from higher CO2 levels, certainly in water stressed areas. I will note for the record that many of the topics in the OISM paper are very out of date and in several cases have proven wrong.
Regards,
John
Before you know it those GREENPEACE idiots will blame backyard BBQs for global warming and demand they be banned while they still go around in that rediclous ship of their with those goofy sails and they still have engines that uses deasel fuel SCREW GREENPEACE, SCREW GREENPEACE, SCREW GREENPEACE, SQUAWK SQUAWK ALL SPURWING PLOVERS AGREE WITH ME SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
“…”10 of the last 12 years were the warmest ever on record”.”
[Posted by: John Cross at August 3, 2007 6:16 PM]
OK, I’ll bite. Which record, whose record, what record?
Precisely, what period of time, within this present interglacial period, does the *record* cover? Oh… the last 12 years, out of the last 15,000; interesting.
How does this *record* compare to the trends in prior interglacial periods? How does the rate of change, in the above quoted *record*, compare to the rate of change in the northern hemisphere at 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 ybp?
How does the data collection within this above mentioned period of recording compare to data collection within the period of time preceeding that period?
How does the density of recording sites now being used compare to the density of recording sites compiled 10, 20, 50, 100 and 200 years ago?
IOW, when that last big slab of ice retreated from it’s most southern reaches in the northern hemisphere what was the temp trends doing? How high and how fast? How does the rate-of-change in the “last 12 years” compare to those rates-of-change?
This “last 12 years” OF RECORD covers 0.08% of this present interglacial period, yet it is considered the most diagnostic of the ongoing, constant climaste change? Why?
Yoop: Well, if you read the context, I was responding to Richard’s question. That was his phrase. I took his context from the way he phrased the question. If I did not understand it then I am sure he will correct me.
Regards,
John
There is no settling-pond in the country up to the task of clearing up JC’s muddy water.
For that I give him mucho credit —- it takes a lot of thought to be so good at it.
Not meaning to be mean, but an old friend of mine had a saying; “If the guy had brains he would be dangerous”. lol
11/12 — I came across this “fact” on a carbon credits site, googled it, and saw it all over the place. Just wondered how solid it was. I guess the key phrase is “on record”.
I have no idea what time frame is meant.
If anyone one wants to follow up the same exercise with Canadian sites, Steve McKintyre sent nme this link.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.temperature.inv
Ok, I give-up. The science IS settled.
[The delta over 100 years is just under 0.7 deg C.]
Man’s thermometers themselves prove the Earth’s warming is in fact AGW.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859#comments
“As you can see 1999 and 1996 don’t make the list so in fact it is “10 of the last 12 years were the warmest ever on record”. Note that if you use a different dataset the numbers could vary.”
[Posted by: John Cross at August 3, 2007 6:16 PM]
John,
Notice that you wrote: “…so in fact it is…”.
It was to your apparent agreement that the statement is fact ( exhibit: “…so in fact it is…”) that I addressed my questions. So it would appear that you have now avoided addressing the questions buy deflecting with a contextual concern.
With all due respect, and perhaps you had no real intention of presenting yourself this way, all of the AGW supporters I have had any discourse with have ended up dissembling. Or they have become so incoherent in the presentation of their *facts* that they appear to be dissemblers. Why is that?
My questions had no hidden bait, and they aren’t traps. They are just direct questions that pertain to the presented claims about *records*. AFAICS there doesn’t appear to be any contextual anomalies.
“Ok, I give-up. The science IS settled.
[The delta over 100 years is just under 0.7 deg C.]
Man’s thermometers themselves prove the Earth’s warming is in fact AGW.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859#comments“
[Posted by: ron in kelowna at August 4, 2007 7:03 PM]
Ron,
Surrender is the only sensible action, given the following:
1)Language is “man-made”
2)”climate” is a word in a man-made language
3)”change” is a word in a man-made language
4)”temperature” is a word in a man-made language
5)thermometers are man-made instuments
6) graphs and charts are man-made visual illustrations
7) the common denominator in all of the above is the “man-made” discriptor
Do you recognize a trend here?
Yoop: I was not trying to avoid the question, I was only pointing out that I was responding to a question. The data set I used was the GISS data set and in this cotext my answer is correct. It only represents the temperature since about 1880 and should not be taken for anything else. I am aware that there is evidence that there have been warmer times during the Holocene:
However I can understand your problem with people avoiding the issue. I tend to experience that a great deal myself (just look at this thread above).
Hey, Wimpy Canadian, the noaa.gov list seems to contain the stations for the whole planet. I could not identify the Canadian stations there. Can you or someone else help?