In this first map of it’s kind, one can clearly see the how the quality distribution of the 460 out of 1221 stations surveyed so far looks […] results clearly show that the majority of USHCN stations surveyed so far have compromised measurement environments. The question then is this; have these mircosite biases been adequately accounted for in the surface temperature record?
This, I think, is the most telling quote:
“Given that the generally agreed upon rise in surface temperature over the last century is approximately 0.8 degrees Centigrade, and seeing that the majority of climate monitoring stations have errors that are nearly equal to or larger than that value, the microsite bias errors are a cause for concern.”
“The majority of climate monitoring stations” is, if you add up CRN=3,4,5, is a whopping 87%!!! More than 4 of every 5 stations has an error greater than the change measured. Yikes.
I know this is random, but don’t forget to click on Kate’s sponsors…helps keep the bandwidth costs down! I just did.
Even with intentionaly ‘skewed to the warm side’ weather stations, the alarmists are still loosers.
Note the dates of the statements;
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.
Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C;
–UK Met Office, 4 January 2007
With just a few weeks to go it’s looking like 2007 will be the coolest year this century and possibly the coolest since 1995. If so then one more year like this and we will begin to have enough statistical information to speculate about a downward trend, though a few more years will be better.
–David Whitehouse, CCNet, 7 December 2007
And besides, this year our own Canadian, Steve McIntyre, caught James Hansen lying. Hansen had to admit — 1934 the hottest in the Twentieth. Not 1998.
No wonder the UK Met office doesn’t know what they are talking about — they are ‘experts’ !!
The definItion of EXPERT:
X = unknown quantity
Spurt = drip under pressure
Provided by a charming young lady I was courting.
We did not marry!
Facts are irrelevant, poor or suspect data is irrelevant, your opinion as an AGW denier is irrelevant.
The IPCC has spoken, all rational people concur, the media willingly obliges, so stop whining about it.
Just go with the flow, pay up, and promise to conform in the future. That is all that is required of you, anything more is a crime against humanity.
/shakes head in amazement that there are people who actually believe in the crap I just wrote
There you go again Kate with the facts. These don’t matter to the Kyoto Kultists! Just like religion/politics,you believe or you don’t. So keep on tithing that 25% of your disposal income to the Kyoto Kult,and everything will be fine. (N.B.- above tithing does NOT apply to Kultists/socialists/progressives. Only the West working class need apply)
Johann, since albatros39a or John Cross haven’t shown up yet, allow me to be the one to say:
– that graph represents only about 33% of the stations in the states, so 87% of 33% is a small number (/drooling uncontrollably as I type); and
– the US only accounts for 3% of the world’s surface area, so the effect on the global temperature from any minor variance is negligible (/having difficulty remembering how to blink as I type this).
Oh, and don’t forget, the author of the chart is undoubtedly in the pay of Big Oil.
Eeyore: ROFL! Glad to hear you (tongue-in-cheek) filling in for those guys.
BTW, I’m considering doing a couple of surfacestations.org audits of my own, seeing as how it seems none in North Dakota have yet been done (!) It’s only about an hour south of me here in (I could sure use some global warming right now, it’s so friggin cold) Winnipeg.
Canadian stations, I hope, are next.
I blame this all on BIG CARBON .
…Class 4 (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources
class 4 is 55% of the pie chart,
so that means that more than half the measurements are taken near artificial heating sources.
key words here ARTIFICIAL HEATING SOURCE
Have you ever placed a thermometer near a light bulb?
does the reading represent the room temperature?
Global warming is probably the biggest scam ever.
appears that only 13% of the measurements are within 1 degree error bars,which is one centuries worth of global warming.
…can you say DUMB?
Global Warming = Best Scam Ever!…wish I (like The Goracle) owned my own Global Offset Co.!
The alarmists skew climate data to help with their fear-mongering.
A centre piece; They claim we are killing the Polar Bears.
They are misleading if not outright lying in both cases — the temperature and the bears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811
A leaked government document suggests Canada could derail talks to reach a post-Kyoto agreement at the UN conference in Bali, Indonesia, with a set of priorities that go against Kyoto principles, climate activists said Saturday.
As over 180 nations are gathered in Bali to hash out a blueprint for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol – which expires in 2012 – Canadian negotiators will ask to create binding emission targets for all major emitters, including industrialized developed nations and poorer, developing nations, such as India and China, suggests a federal document obtained by the Climate Action Network, an international network of environmental advocates.
“To be asking countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty (to accept binding targets) is not a position that is going to move along things here in Bali,” said Dale Marshall, representative of the David Suzuki Foundation, a member of the action network.
“It is going to derail everything.”
That’s it…we’re all going to DIE! RUNAWAY..damn where is my heavy down coat, its freezing outside.
Good thing Al Gore and Suzuki were not around in Mark Twain’s day — otherwise, ‘The Mississippi Lengthen Tax’.
Just goes to show — nothing is new !!
“In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.” MT
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” MT
Got that, Al Gore believers ??
The sad part in all this — the naive keep on feeding the alarmists.
Case in point; NHL players to dish out a couple of hundred bucks (WOW !) for Suzuki MMGW credits.
The real sad part;
That hockey players can be taken ? No.
That Suzuki is a con artist ? No
That the media makes a splash out of it ? No.
That people will see this on TV ? No.
That some will believe the scam ? YES !!
I wonder what Don Cherry REALLY thinks of this ??
Gee, John Cross must have been struck dumb this week. Not a peep out of him.
Anyway, in answer to the question:
“The question then is this; have these mircosite biases been adequately accounted for in the surface temperature record?”
Short answer, you can’t. Long answer, in order to account for the bias of an individual site you’d have to know the actual temperature of the site, then apply an algorithm to change the recorded “official” temperature to match. (like how I squeezed Algore in there?)
Any other kind of modification to the “official” data is nothing more than a guess.
Big headed climatologists would like to pretend that it ain’t so, but any high school science student knows it is.
Here is one definition of the word “sabotage”:
sab·o·tage (sāb’ə-täzh’) n.
1) Destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war.
2) Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.
Suzuki’s blog and some newspapers are claiming that the Canadian Government is “sabotaging” the Canadian record on fighting climate change. How can the GOVERNMENT sabotage their own policy? That’s not sabotage, that’s just a change in policy!
It is Suzuki, Dion and their ilk that are in the business of “sabotage”.
Frenchie77 at December 8, 2007 4:03 AM
You forgot to add the “Amen” at the end. that *was* a sermon, wasn’t it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811
But they’re all cute and fuzzy and cuddly and stuff!
It’s the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter.
Stranded? Wait, can’t polar bears swim? How did they get there in the first place? Did the glacier they were standing on suddenly separate from the main ice mass at a speed that exceeded their ability to swim back? Is this a Frankenstein reference? Am I using too many question marks?
“when I think back to all the crap I learned in highschool, it’s a wonder I can think at all”
@billygoat:
Allow me to add a dog that didn’t bark over the last several years. Where have the penny-stock operators been? Had the Venture been the old VSE, there would have been at least several greenie-related promotions floated. It looks like the TSX has been somewhat successful in cleaning the juniors sector up.
(I can think of at least one promotion that would have been easy to get off the ground when Al was flying high…)
Punch an ex-PM in the face, make a statement! Express your opinion, stand up to da man!
While some prime ministers – Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau among them – continued to evoke strong negative reactions long after they left office, Clark was not a particularly controversial figure. His low-profile earned him the nickname “Joe Who?” and he got off to a bad start after first winning the Progressive Conservative leadership in 1976 by losing his luggage on a trip around the world intended to boost his profile.
Right on, orvict.
Paul Simon should have included Universities.
Even though I wasn’t in the arts,(Engineering) by 3rd year my Dad would quip;
I hope the hell you finish there (Univ) soon — before they completely ruin your mind. (True, true story)
Quite the nonsense coming from Dion and Layton. They want Canada, again, to sign onto emission caps, without any plan on how they plan to comply.
Messrs Dion and Layton, where is your plan? If you don’t have one, then you are spouting BS, just like Chretien was when he signed us on in the first place.
It is not the responsibility of Harper and Tories to do plans for them; they don’t agree on Kyoto’s “it’s OK for China to pollute, the climate will understand” nonsense in the first place.
These hypocrites are real good at criticizing other when they haven’t the slightest idea of how Canada could possibly comply with Kyoto. Additionally, they expect Canada to show “leadership” on this issue, when we, even if AGW theory 100% correct, couldn’t have ANY EFFECT ON CLIMATE OR WARMING. Of course, they only want to show leadership on their issues, not the ones they disagree with like WOT and our involvement in Afghanistan. What a pathetic display of leadership from these louts.
So let’s hear the opposition plan (after all they tabled the Rodriguez bill which had no costing whatsoever) to comply with Kyoto. I bet they plan on using carbon credit scam system to help China pollute even more.
Opposition once again has miscalculated, thinking Canadians don’t see above nuances, and hoping they could use emotional debate to seize power in next election. It won’t happen, they are preaching to their own choir who will vote for them anyway. The rest see them for the phoneys they really are.
Shamrock, Canadians ARE seeing through the Kyoto hoax — big-time.
We know this is true when;
All day CTV Newsnet has brought out the “big guns” ppphhht in trying to persuade Canadians to go with Dion, not Prime Minister Harper on the Bali meeting/beach-party.
And on CTV’s web page, they feature, in pictures (in CTV’s own words) ‘activists’, ‘protestors’, ‘demonstrators’ and Jack Layton.
To “bolster” CTV’s take on the issue they quote “all knowing” John Bennet and give his web page a free plug.
CTV also brings in Rajendra Pachauri, the UN’s top climate scientist — Oh ? Anybody vote for him ?
BUT !! But, CTV’s very own commenters tell CTV to take a hike. Again.
In spite of being snowed under with media BS, Canadians know a scam when they see one.
CTV closed off the comment section after only 52 were allowed — wasn’t going CTV’s way ? Again!!
Out of a total of 52 commenters on Bali;
Support PMSH position 63% (33)
Support Dion position 27% (14)
Neutral, hard to tell 10% (5)
* BREAKING; 63% OF CTV READERS SUPPORT HARPER ON BALI !! *
CTV ‘push-pull’ news here
RIK. Yes I noticed that one too. From CTV readers. Like I said, Layton and Dion operating in fantasy land without foundational policy to back up their arguments. It won’t fly, period.
They’ll have to go back to their latest scandal ju jour, oh look, nucleargate. In about 90 days Dion will make a rookie mistake and schedule his own execution, with the gleeful help of PMSH et al; and perhaps his own party.
Remember the Dion doctrine: we were leaders, then we became laggards, now we are saboteurs.
Climate criminals, that’s what we are; going for the easy money. That’ll resonate, especially when they throw in carbon credits via the omnipotent UN. Maybe in Toronto. Maybe. Maybe in Vancouver. Maybe. Maybe in Montreal. Not. Maybe in Halifax. Oh Well. Oh yeah, I forgot Ottawa. Sigh.
That’s it though. If Harper invades that territory then he will enter majority land, something the Grits are desperate to avoid, possibly even willing to lose an election if need be to get rid of Dion.
Pretty soon, Dion (and Layton) will have to bring his Magical Climate Mystery Tour in for a landing with a proper cost/benefit analysis of Kyoto compliance, and demonstrate why it is in our country’s interest to lead the way on climate change. He’ll have to back up his claim that we can all be better off in a “green economy.”
I don’t think either of them can pull it off, mainly because the climate consequences have been fraudulently overstated and the costs of compliance sugared over with no proper quantitative analysis.
That’s what Canadians are seeing through right now, without the details. Wait until they get them in a federal election, when they actually pay (some) attention to these issues.
Phantom: Gimme a break! I have a day job and a family. I can’t spend 24 hours on climate change.
Besides, I have already answered this question several times before. As I have said if there is a large difference then it should show up if you plot the temperature anomalies from the CRN 1 and CRN 5. Well, John V did this and there does not appear to be much difference.
The interesting thing about his work is that he posted it on Climate Audit and made the code available to everyone. TO date, no one had been able to show anything wrong with his analysis. Can you?
Regards,
John
Regarding my earlier comment: I may have stuck my foot in it. As luck would have it, I found this item this morning:
EarthFirst Canada to list on TSX Dec. 10
From the report: “An application has been granted for the original listing in the industrial category of up to 170,669,960 common shares and 29,646,500 warrants to purchase common shares of EarthFirst Canada Inc., of which up to 101,334,055 common shares and 25,101,500 warrants will be issued and outstanding, and up to 69,335,905 common shares and 4,545,000 warrants will be reserved for issuance upon completion of the initial public offering….
“Nature of business: The company is a developer, builder, owner and operator of wind power projects at various stages of development throughout Canada….”
Turns out that this new company was announced last Friday, as a TSX Bulletin. I note, though, that this new issue is being listed with the seniors, not on the Venture Exchange.
“observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Calling Out the Climate Fearmongers (New study slams climate simulations)
powerline ^ | December 8, 2007
Meanwhile, four climate scientists have dealt another blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. They did an exhaustive comparison of observed atmospheric temperatures at various altitudes and compared the data against the predictions of global warming models. The abstract of the article states tersely:
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Lead author David Douglass elaborates:
The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming. …-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936883/posts
But John, its the weekend! ~:D
As the first post in this thread noted, if you have a systematic measurement bias that is as large or even larger than the effect you are trying to measure, can you still call it science?
Is a barbecue worth an average half degree change, if you put it next to the thermometer?
Just sayin’ John, you can’t adjust for error unless you know its size and direction. Think of trying to hit a dime from 300 yards, but you don’t know which way the wind is blowing. Could make it pretty hard to find that dime, eh?
Now replace the natural breezes with a wind machine run by a smart ass who hates guns. That is where we find ourselves today.
Phantom: Weekends are even worse – my wife is in a renovation mood 😉
My point is that if we actually look at the data we do not actually see much of a difference. Here is the John V link. His post is around #90.
His last graph is interesting in that it is saying that for the last 30 years the warming rate of the worst stations is just 0.03C/decade higher than the best stations. The 90 year average is just 0.01 C/decade.
Regards,
John
Sure John, but if the ” real change” is +.01 degree and you know there’s at least +.03 bias in there, don’t you have to admit there could be a “real” -.02 degree change and we wouldn’t be able to tell?
The bias isn’t accidental either, its deliberate. As in, not a natural phenomenon and therefore can’t be “adjusted” for unless you know the magnitude of each individual case.
You can’t know each case unless you go get an unbiased measurement. You can’t do an unbiased measurement of a past weather event, you can only measure from here forward and GUESS what the past was.
Your guess won’t be worth the paper its written on if you can’t show consistency of difference between the true local measurement and the biased one. Pavement below a sensor will behave predictably. Air conditioners and barbecues will not.
They’ve jiggered the data John. Its a snow job.
But good luck with the renovations. Measure twice, cut once. ~:D
Along the lines of this thread, McKitrick and Micheals have a new paper pending in the AGU, which purports to find very strong correlations between the pattern of warming and the pattern of industrial activity. Just a coincidence? They don’t think so. they purport that 1/2 of the observed warming over land between 1980 and 2002 is due to “contamination” of the record.
And in fact most of the recent warming (back to 1980) is surface temperatures over land, in the northern hemisphere. Exactly where the contamination is alleged to occur.
Regards, BRK