USHCN station – Port Angeles, WA.
Update – I originally spotted this one surfing through the reports at the site. Reader “Johnlee” advises that it received particular attention from Steve McIntyre. Worth the read, especially if you’re new here and unaware of the significance of the photos I’ve been sharing.
I have long suspected that bird poop was behind (if you’ll excuse the expression) global warming measurements.
Now we have the evidence.
We all owe burping mooses an apology.
awwwww…. wet flying pigs in a pink al gore sky…these temp sensor locations just keep getting better and better.
…maybe in a few months someone will expose how sea level sensors are situated in marine land’s whale tank or that polar ice sensors are located in the ice cubes in the urinals at the UN’s men’s washroom ;-D
Thought of the moonbat who installed this one:
“I’ll put it up closer to the sun…my AGW research grants are insured…Mhoaaaaahaha!!!”
I’m quite curious why these placements invalidate the measurements? I have a thermostat on the tree outside my house and it’s quite accurate throughout the year.
More importantly, where should local, low-cost, weather stations be located for their measurements to be reliable. More importantly, as you can set up many of these low cost stations throughout the country, their combined measurements can give great statistical significance to each individual station and tampering can be easily detected.
Just because a scientific instrument is simple, doesn’t mean it’s measurements are invalid.
Kate: Most of your “weather location sensor” location photos are a) Funny; b) Evidence of utter incompetence; c) Believable
However, I’m having trouble with this one as it is so “far out”. Not really believable and that, in turn, makes me wonder about some of the others (beside AC vents etc.). Have you ever tried to verify any of this stuff?
Roland,
are the published standards for station placement just an option for you then?
Love the stop sign: it’s perfectly positioned and makes that shot.
@Robert
placement is important and I see nothing wrong with this one. It can measure temperature and humidity at least 1000 fold better than my backyard hardware.
I’m quite confused by these reactions. Measuring temp/humidity/etc etc is quite easy and doesn’t require the most exotic placement. Tampering to this equipment can be easily detected, as a discrepancy will be detected by the neighboring low cost weather station.
So can somebody please actually give a coherent criticism of this weather station. Yes, tempering is somewhat easy but it’s even easier to detect. But I can’t see other criticisms for such a simple measuring devise.
Zog
“However, I’m having trouble with this one as it is so “far out”. Not really believable and that, in turn, makes me wonder about some of the others (beside AC vents etc.). Have you ever tried to verify any of this stuff?”
Verified? I’ve been sitting here laughing my head off over this whole thing, wondering when someone was going to ask that very question. They aren’t verified because they are not the actual sites they are being passed off as. Most of the stations you are seeing here are nowhere even remotely connected with NOAA or any other government meteorological organisation. They are often simply privately owned by hobbyists or some are even connected with those signs you see on the streets flashing the time and temperature (incorrectly). Anyone can buy one http://www.txwx.com/prod.htm and anyone can submit their photos of these sensors completely unverified..
I would be concerned about the disinformation being presented here, but in reality the people that take this all for fact are inconsequential, so it really doesn’t matter.
OK Roland – Hope grade 3 is going well for you. The problem is this site, like many others, do not meet the guidelines for the citing of weather stations.
Do you think the heat effect of the pavement could skew temperatures? Would you see a problem if your daddy put a rain gauge on the tree instead of the thermometer?
Now run along – Mommy has your cookies ready.
Alby wrote “I would be concerned about the disinformation being presented here, but in reality the people that take this all for fact are inconsequential, so it really doesn’t matter.”
Then why do you hang around here so much?
Please leave
@mrtisaduffer
Thank you for your insults :D, shows that I hit home. Hopefully in the future you’ll be able to act like an adult, so that I actually feel like replying to your vacuous criticisms.
(Hint: look up the literature of how these low cost stations are build, then you’ll see just why your criticism is entirely pointless).
I like reading this blog because of the occasional interesting point, but I’m getting tired of being insulted every time I raise any objections. Are these posters really so insecure in their positions that childhood insults are their only weapons of defense?
Roland: You aint no gunslinger!
Roland,
Nothing is actually wrong with the current location of this site, but if you follow the link you will see the rest of the story.
Apparently this site was moved in 2002 due to vandalism. The previous site was surrounded by grass the current location is surrounded by concrete and asphalt. I can’t find the trends for this weather station on the site.
However it should be noted that the previous location in 1983 was also surrounded by concrete.
Roland, These instruments’ primary function is to provide a reliable set of temperature data over time, i.e. several years. In order to do that with any validity, it needs to be free from changes in its surroundings which would influence the data. If this sensor has been up on this same utility pole for 70 years, and all of the ground around it has always been asphalt, then fine. Problem is, that is not the case, rendering any conclusions from this data set worthless.
Albatross, these sites come from an organization dedicated to exposing flaws in the GISS temperature record, I believe known as surfacestations dot something or other; I have never heard any challenge as to the validity of their work. Much like the great Canadian Mr. McIntyre, their work is causing many to take a second look at the whole issue.
Re: 6.20 PM
Steve McIntyre does have an article on the Port Angeles station.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1871#comments
“However it should be noted that the previous location in 1983 was also surrounded by concrete.”
Not true, look at the pictures, it appears it was partially shaded at some point in the day, on a small lawn next to a building.
Now it’s 6 ft away from a 1000 watt lightbulb thirty feet in the air at an interection over blacktop without any shade from buildings.
Not counting the heat the asphalt gives off, this is at a stop sign which is probably at a busy street, as there is a strip mail there, and guess what drives down busy streets, cars, trucks, semis, garbage trucks, all large producers of heat and pollution (of which co2 is not one as it is plant food and essential for life to exist on this planet)
I wonder how many times that bird has taken a poop in it? SQUAWK SQUAWK he is giving it the collage try SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Roland,
Do I have to spell it out for you? Have you never heard of the Urban Heat Island Effect? There are many factors contributing to it but the main one arises from the fact that asphalt is black. It absorbs (practically) all wavelengths of visible light from the sun. It gets hot and then radiates energy at infrared energy that significantly warms up the local atmosphere. The point is the AGW people are claiming a global temperature increase when in fact there are stations everywhere in the vicinity of ashphalt, traffic, and often, building air conditioner vents. This is going to skew the temperature readings, because the same locations would have been in the middle of a field 50 or 100 years ago.
I hope that helps you understand the point of all these pictures.
maybe8000 volts EVCA running thru the light wires, skatebordinkids with blowtorches, migratory zone of subarctic albatruss(feces temp 6500K)
Grithater at August 31, 2007 6:20 PM
“Albatross, these sites come from an organization dedicated to…”
And here people like you buy every word of it no questions asked, because truth or not, he’s telling you what you want to hear. Shame on you!
The simple fact it, we don’t need a thermometer to tell us the word is warming and weather patterns are changing, people need to just open their eyes.
this is actually the best placed one I’ve seen.the rest are horrendous.
Yes Alby,
“weather patterns are changing” – I agree with you, they have been for millions of years. Study a bit of paleoclimatology. The climate has been anything but static in the past. Why would we expect it to stop being any different? That is the problem with the “Bambi” generation. They feel that the world should be ‘frozen’ at the 1950 stage when they were children. Grow up! The climate may be changing, but there is nothing we can do about it, despite what kyoto-cultists claim. We would be much wiser as a society to invest our resources in preparing for possible change – warming or cooling – than pissing away our money on CO2 reduction.
I thought increased CO2 increased plant growth & production. Coupled with increased warming, I would expect that humans could produce more food in warmer, more CO2 rich environments, in previously colder climes. Dicussion catastrophic warmists? I believe Greenland was populated and farmers were productive for a few hundred years during the Middle Medieval Warm Period, up until the mid 1300’s. Then it got colder and they moved to warmer parts. And if it does get warmer and all the seas rise to the projected levels our scaremongers tell us, I expect that people will move to higher ground, isn’t that what happened to those living around the Black Sea prior to 7500 years BP?
Eric, I’m quite aware of the changes in past climates. However that isn’t the issue here, the issue as presented on this site suggests that there is no climate change happening. For weeks now people on here have been pointing to temperature sensors around the US and making claims regarding their accuracy. They are doing this without confirmation of accuracy of the claims of the photographer and ownership of those sensors in the photos. So I ask you, what are they trying to convince themselves of? Are they trying to say that because the these temperatures may be in error that the earth isn’t warming up, while empirical evidence proves the contrary? Anthropogenic or natural (and it is man made) the earth is without question warming, the accuracy of the sensors becomes irrelevant when the icecaps are melting.
Anthropogenic or natural (and it is man made)
Albatross,
With that statement, you’ve put yourself in the running to win US$100,000.00.
dubdubdub.junkscience.com is giving that to the first person to prove the man made-ness of global warming.
Enjoy the cash.
SQUAWK SQUAWK GO FOR IT BUDDY BOMBS AWAY SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
So there’s something wrong with that spot. Who cares?
Temperature can actually be measured from space now…
Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man, well now that is a little fact that’s generally being ignored around here isn’t it. Who cares about hyper accurate global measurements from space, melting icecaps, rising sea levels, increased drought and storms when you have a few unconfirmed photos of indistinct temperature sensors that rumour has it, completely disproves global warming?
Alby – prooooooove it. You haven’t convinced me and a growing number of sceptics. The pro AGW crowd’s methods reek of manipulative BS. I say it’s caused by variations in solar activity, because I say so makes it right, right? The science isn’t settled like it was a court case. And don’t give me the precautionary principle, because if I believed that, I wouldn’t step off the curb, ’cause I might get hit by a bus. You and the rest of the AGW control freaks have a lot of explaining to do. AGW is a fraud, the biggest hoax ever perpetrated – ’cause I said so. nyah, nyah, nyah. Crawl back under your rock, troll.
Even logic fails to reason with tin foil hat wearing albi.
His is the type who lives in his parent’s basement running around with a bottle of disinfectant trying to ‘fix’ everything dirty. He is so brainwashed by the envirocult fanatics it’s hopeless. First it was predictions of global cooling, and then mass starvation, now global warming……three strikes your envirocult has struck out.
Abi there’s a whole wide open world out there, go find some friends who are not communist tree hugging weirdo’s and get out of the house once and a while.
Atlantis and Bigfoot are not real either.
If you are so convinced that AGW is true, please give the following book an objective read. It may change your mind.
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change by Svensmark and Calder, Icon Books
I just finished writing a brief review of it for my Astronomy course and it really opened my eyes.
Ok well once I finish this terms work I’ll take a look at it.
May I suggest
“Geenhouse” by “Gale E. Christianson”
“The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth” by “Tim Flannery”
“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” by “Jared Diamond”
“The Ostrich Factor” by Garet Hardin”
and if you’re going to read that I suggest reading his essay “Tragety of the Commons” found free of charge right here-> dieoff.org/page95.htm
“Cartoon Guide to the Environment” by “Larry Gonick” Quite funny, entertaining, and good for the kids.
This- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment
and of course the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report also free online.
“The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change by Svensmark and Calder, Icon Books”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
Come to think of it after reading this review of the “The Chilling Stars”, I’ll take a pass on the book.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30103
Reason won’t work with the Eco Cult self-righteous, ooga-booga crowd of self flagellating, misery-loves-company crowd. These people are beyond “redemption”, heh. Nobody likes a liar, bullies or manipulative control freaks of one form or another, whether they be religiously, politically or financially motivated. The “science” behind AGW is being questioned because the data has been found to be misleading, misrepresentative and manipulated by the very “scientists” promoting their theory. What drives that kind of behaviour? Should we condone it? I venture to suggest that the bully tactics used to discredit the deniers is designed to maintain the cash flowing to fund their pet projects to the detriment of “good scientific” practises and to continue to promote the fraud that AGW is. You don’t buy “moose pasture” in real estate or in the financial markets, why would you buy the politically manipulative theory of AGW, especially when it has been discovered that the ones promoting it subvert free speech, the scientific process and the political process to enforce their theory upon the collective masses, through their political proxies. It is a HOAX and your political masters have bought into AGW so that they can “control” your collective, sorry a**es and your kids’ futures.
Alby,
You are such an idiot, and this is a complete waste of time, because your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.
The Physics World review is written by Gavin Schmidt, one of the main people behind RealClimate, a website run by people whose sole focus is to limit greehouse gases. These people have zero credibility. They are well known to disallow several different dissenting scientists from even posting on any of their blogs.
Alby, you are intellectually morose. Why don’t you wake up and read something other than the biased claptrap that reinforces your thinking.
Eric, please describe the mechanism involving these “cosmic rays” that forces a phase change from water vapour into water droplets which make up clouds. Sorry Eric I’m not into this cosmic ray voodoo science, I prefer to use actual physics and chemistry in my weather and climate.
You are correct that RealClimate has no credibility but only if you listen to the clowns at Exxon that is.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
Eric: Who cares if Dr. Schmidt has credibility or not. Can you argue with the points he makes?
Regards,
John
Alby, I will try to explain this to the best of my knowledge in a few minutes. I just finished writing a paper about this book for an astronomy course, but the focus of the paper was on three different causal sources of cosmic ray variation,their associated time frames, and paleoclimatological evidence connected to these events. The most relevant source of variation to us today is fluctuations in the magnetic field of the sun (the others occur over very long timespans). If you are a science person, you are probably aware of the Zeeman effect, where matter in a strong magnetic field gains the ability to absorb electromagnetic energy (to promote individual electrons to higher energy levels within the atom)over a much wider range of wavelengths and levels of energy. So, when the magnetic field of the sun is strong, matter in space is able to absorb a much higher proportion of cosmic rays than when the field is relatively weak, and according to Svensmark’s theory, when relatively few cosmic rays hit the Earth’s atmosphere, less lower level cloud is formed and the global temperature is warmer.
Sorry for the digression, I could go on about variations, but you asked about the actual mechanism of cloud formation from cosmic rays. Here’s how I understand it, not having time to go back and reread the book: When a cosmic ray hits the upper atmosphere, it forms a pion that immediately decays to form a muon (heavy electron). This muon has only about 2 X 10-6 seconds before it loses two neutrinos and becomes a regular electron. Due to time dilation (relativity), it is able to make it to the lower atmosphere. Here, the electron attaches to an oxygen molecule and together they attract water molecules that because of the presence Sulfur Dioxide in the air form sulfuric acid molecules. Once a few of these molecules have formed the cluster becomes stable and the electon can ‘move on’ to find another oxygen molecule to make the same thing happen over and over again. These sulfuric acid molecule clusters all become cloud condensation nuclei, and cloud forms. This all happens in a cascading manner in the blink of an eye.
So, from my limited understanding, that is what happens (yes, its only a theory so far). The CLOUD experiments at the CERN institute will prove or disprove it by 2010.
I could reread the book and give you more info, but I really don’t have alot of time right now. My three kids are starting school tomorrow (youngest is in grade 1!) and I am starting three more courses towards my second degree. (I go back full time in January).
Sorry if this is not even proofread. Maybe more on this later. Why not just read the book yourself? Its a quick read.
Eric
Eric