Roundup

Well, welcome back.

The operating problems have resulted either from an increase in volume, or a DOS attack or both. Any time that we’ve tried to open up the site, the site has been knocked over. This has been true even on the weekend. Even after the climateaudit IP address was pointed away from the server, the hitting of the server continued unabated.

Notwithstanding this, you’ll notice a few comments over the past week. For most of the week, the site has been in partial lockdown as any attempt to open up has ended with the site being swamped. For the most part, anyone who’s been able to see the site has the server as me (e.g. my neighbor, bigcitylib) or John A in England or Anthony in California.

During this time, instead of my usual fairly quiet circumstances, I have had my 15 seconds of publicity and have been very busy particularly with Canadian radio talk shows. By contrast, there was virtually no Canadian coverage of the Hockey Stick although there was extensive international and American coverage.

I seem to have got onto the Canadian radio talk show play list for a day or two. At one point today, I could be heard simultaneously on two different Toronto talk shows (one taped, one live). The story seems to have got traction here, not because of American coverage, but because of an article in The Toronto Star, a very liberal and Liberal paper, entitled “Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder: Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years’ data fumble”. This story then got linked by the Drudge Report.

Today I taped a segment for CBC Toronto at 2 pm, taped a segment for CBC national radio at 2.30, appeared on John Moore CFRB Toronto at 3.30, – all of which required pre-interviews with producers during the morning, was interviewed by Marcel Crok from NWT Holland at 4 pm. Oh, yes, I also was on Calgary radio last Friday, Minneapolis radio today and interviewed by a U.K. newspaper on the weekend. Tomorrow I’m scheduled on Washington radio at 7.20 am, for John Oakley (AM640 Toronto) at 8.15, then CTV national television is coming to my house for an interview at 10, another interview at 11.30; plus I’ve got about 3 more radio invitations I haven’t coordinated yet. And about 5 requests that I haven’t responded to yet – just in: a magazine in Brazil, television station in US.

I think that the “NASA” error is hitting some hot buttons. One of the calls came from a reporter who was in Florida covering the space shuttle and was intrigued with the idea of a “Toronto blogger” identifying an error for NASA. He didn’t know Hansen from Hansel and Gretel.

On blog operations, we’ve received suggestions that we should have re-located to blogspot. Blogspot uses “Blogger” software, while this site has been constructed in WordPress and a changeover is not something that is really very practical at this point.

Adding to the difficulties, about 2 weeks ago, John A asked me to start the process of finding new technical support for CA; his efforts had been all volunteer and he had pressing personal and work obligations. Needless to say, instead of being able to accommodate this request, we were immediately hit by a deluge of problems. Despite his request, John A has worked long hours to resolve matters without a whisper of complaint, all on a voluntary basis and without complaint or compensation.

We’ve re-located to a server in California with Anthony Watts’ able assistance. I am grateful to Anthony for his help in re-locating the website, but especially to John A both for his present efforts in re-locating the website and for his past efforts. I hope that the re-location will enable me to accommodate John A’s request to spend far less time on CA. I would particularly appreciate it if people would recognize John A’s efforts by making deposits to the PayPal jar; such contributions will be forwarded to John A as an honorarium rather than used for other operating expenses. I’m sure that John A would also appreciate a few kind words from readers who have benefited from his efforts.


104 Comments

  1. SidViscous
    Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Kudos to John of course.

    Steve, I know you’d prefer to keep the servers in Canada, and as I’ve mentioned before, I know someone who owns a hosting company in Montreal. I have a long relationship with him, and would be willing to finance his maintenance time.

    He’s pretty agnostic on the issue at hand, but I’m sure would be more willing to help out.

    Of course I’m speaking for him. But if your interested I’ll contact him.

  2. Magnus A
    Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Agree w SidViscous. Great work! A PayPal-buttom in the menu area would be great (but don’t accept from Exxon ;).

    Isn’t next step for surfacestations.org to penetrate the world? A bunch of other countries to start with would probably give indications if the US problems are common outside US. (There’s ppl check the existence of Y2K bug outside US I hope.)

    (Things as non-rural station selection and adjustment algorithms also crucial to “watch” and discuss due to accuracy and scientific findings, I think. Both measurement- and algorithmical errors…)

  3. Magnus A
    Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    (Well, my last word “errors” is misleading of course. There’s no errors before errors are found. Possibilities to improve measurement and algoritmical accuracy is a better way to phrase it!)

  4. Jim B
    Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “Even after the climateaudit IP address was pointed away from the server, the hitting of the server continued unabated.”

    - not to go all techno nerd on you but you probably mean you pointed your domain name away from your ip address in an attempt to redirect traffic, but your server ip continued to be hammered, which “could” imply a ddos attack. If you had actually switched ip’s and did not tell your DNS server provider, the actual traffic would have stopped dead.

    I also have a nice heavy server hooked to a fiber optic if you need another mirror.

  5. Daniel
    Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Your website overload problems may stem from the DrudgeReport link. That tends to shut down websites not used to heavy traffic.

  6. Posted Aug 14, 2007 at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yay! Glad you’re back on line.

    It has been amusing reading all the different interpretations, misinterpretations, and parsings of the Y2K error, from the view that “oh, this is insignificant”, to the flat certain proclamation that “global warming is dead!”. I especially like the “2% surface area solution” to the new problem. That 2% surface area seemed to matter much more to Gavin et. al. when it included the majority of the metrics that made up the “Hocker Stick”. The thing I curious about is how have the historical temps of the other 98% of the world been collected, collated, and tinkered with. I have always been under the impression that the US was the exemplar when it came to the the studies of AGW and climate science. We already are getting a peak at the reliability of Chinese data, but how well do the Russians do when it comes to accuracy? Plus, the Euro-Asian continent was in almost constant turmoil during the first half of the last century, diverting resources away from many scientific fields. I would expect that, in many countries throughout the world, there was less than stellar measurement and record keeping of climate and temps within the time-frame spanning WW1 and WW2.

  7. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 12:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John has been a necessary part of ClimateAudit from the beginning. I hope that ‘pressing work obligations’ means that business is booming for him.
    John, thank you and good luck to you.

  8. Hias
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Glad you’re back!

  9. Bob Meyer
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 1:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve – Congratulations on being up and running again, also on your “15 seconds of fame”.

    John – Thanks for getting the site up and running again. You’re one heck of a volunteer.

    It’s funny when you think about it. The warmers get billions of dollars in research money while CA and surfacestations.org have to survive on volunteers. Then the warmers accuse you two of being Exxon whores.

    I guess it’s like cops, you just can’t find a corrupt Exxon executive when you need one!

  10. JerryB
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Many thanks to John A!

    Also, other reports were published in:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4&refer=worldwide
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/

  11. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Many Thanks to John A and all others who have helped to get this site running and maintaining it. I have been an avid follower here in New Zealand and have introduced many others to the site including a couple of talkback hosts who have an interest in the subject. It is difficult to make a donation from here in NZ through your tip jar. I will make some effort to do this another way as I have been provided with an excellent insight into the AGW debate in a forum which I regard as far and away the best. Thanks again John A in good old blighty.

  12. TAC
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 4:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, CA!

    Also, congratulations to all of you for drawing so much attention to a critical component of “global warming” science — the data!

    So, where did you hide the Tip Jar? It does not seem to be showing up on my browser 8-)

  13. Goz
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 5:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Does anyone know where the PayPal link is ?
    I`ve searched everywhere and I couldnt find it.

    C’mom, open your oil industry funded neo-con controlled wallets and support CA ! hehe

  14. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 5:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t change to Blogspot! Blogspot is awful and the only reason I still use it is total intertia.

  15. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 5:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah – the ‘tip jar’ has disappeared.

  16. RomanM
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks, Steve and John, for your efforts! I was having withdrawal symptoms and even went to RC for something to read (that lasted about 5 minutes)! Nice to see you back.

  17. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I just listened to Steve on 640 am with John Oakley. Great job Steve!

    John A is so modest he quietly removed the “Tip Jar” from the front page. Come-on John, put it back on so we can send you a small tip that you rightly deserve.

  18. John A
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Paypal TipJar now online. Remember – no tip is too large.

  19. jae
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Congrats, Steve Mc, you have put a helluva lot of work into your audits, and some influential people are beginning to notice. At last. And a special thanks to John A. I have been following this blog for a couple of years now, and I am aware that you have made much of it possible.

  20. JS
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hansen’s quote from the Bloomberg article:

    `These are some desperate characters trying to make a mountain out of a molehill,” he said in an e-mail. “If one instead looks at the temperature averaged over several years, it is apparent that the U.S. as well as the world has been quite warm in the past decade.”

    I don’t recall him saying that when all the fuss was raised about NOAA announcing that 2006 (globally) was the warmest year on record. Nor do I recall a peep from any of them after NOAA later (and quietly) revised 2006 to the 6th warmest year on record.

  21. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Old friends are back again. I hope that past success continues into the future.

    The photos of the sub-standard stations are a huge success. Ordinary people like me can look at them and wonder in disbelief, no need to explain the statistical mathematics. The population density in Australia here is far smaller and so there are few volunteers to find and photograph sites. I’m up to armpits in alligators, but I’ll try for some.

    Remember that Warwick Hughes from Australia first examined and questioned the early Jones temperature data around 1990. This needs a revisit now that China is looking sus. We can’t blame all on the US of A.

    These themes of crook instruments and modification of data have underpinned this site, together with modelling and statistical deficiencies.

    The public find these hard to warm to in the face of the barrage of AGW propaganda. So do many in the media. It was most interesting to hear that the media are starting to sense a story from Steve. A momentum continues to build. What we need is a blockbuster, like an AGW convert who did a 180, who saw the Al Gore movie and read his books and is prepared to stand up and tell it as it is.

    In the meantime, it is so pleasing to see the progress that hard work has brought. Well done, Steve and team.

  22. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I do some sysadmin work, and volunteer my time to help a few people. I understand how much of an onus they both are. I’ll drop a tip in the jar at some point in the next couple of days.

    Thanks John A and Steve McIntyre for what has been a fascinating journey so far, and I hope it continues for quite a while longer. We can never know everything, but I do hope that your efforts to improve the quality of our knowledge continue.

  23. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Good to have you back online. I hope that what you accomplished, Steve M, does not get lost in any ensuing agenda driven discussions (from all sides), i.e. pointing to quality control issues in climate science’s most important data. Just as Anthony Watts’ pictures do, the work cries out for more digging into what actually goes into the data and persuading the scientists involved to do their jobs. I have appreciated that you and Anthony have not over-hyped the findings with suggestions of what all this means in the final result and have instead shown where major improvements in measurement and methodology are required.

    I also want to acknowledge the efforts of John A, Anthony Watts and Steve M with something in the tip jar.

  24. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Finally a social thread and I want to talk climate. Have you seen this:

    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/14/positive-feedback-have-we-been-fooling-ourselves-by-roy-spencer/

    Positive feedback could be wrong. He shows how the miscalculation happened. Very persuasive.

    If the feedback is negative then CO2 is not very important.

  25. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It was interesting following the GISS story as it exploded around the planet in various shapes and forms … but I greatly missed my daily fix of CA while it was down!

    I think it is in order to thank John A for the hard work he has put into keeping things running here, and wish him all the best in whatever it is he is taking on now.

    Of course, we should also be thankful for the efforts of Steve M and the multitudes that contribute to the discussions, making this such a dynamic and informative place to learn about some important issues surrounding climate science.

  26. Mark T
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    They linked to this while CA was down, M. Simon. Of course, one of the usual suspects showed up in the thread and used ad-hominem to “prove” Spencer wrong. RPSR was quick to point out the flawed logic, however.

    Mark

  27. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What an event! Reading realclimate for the first time in 6 months while CA was down I was struck by the change in tone. The last 6 posts at least seem to be in RESPONSE to issues being discussed on CA. What’s more, a great many of the commenters seem very well informed in their objections, and Gavin has adoped a much more civil tone in fielding these comments. The ‘voice’ of CA is getting much louder, though most people seem to be hearing through the pro-anti-AGW filter, I think there have been noticable gains in lifting the standard of the debate.

  28. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #2 – First priority would be the UK. Second would be China. Third would be Russia. Those last two might a real challenge.

  29. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #28 – And there are serious climate issues. History will probably record that the “killer AGW” meme was a feeble, primative, overly simplistic view. Personally, I worry about the Brown Cloud. That to me is the elephant in the room.

  30. John Hekman
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The success that Steve McIntyre has achieved is a tremendous David vs. Goliath story. But the media has gone to such extremes in proclaiming that there can be no argument on AGW that it will be hard for them to see the facts. The cover of Newsweek snidely says “Global Warming is a Hoax” and then says that this is the position of “well-funded” opponents. Attack their character, Newsweek, and get your “facts” from Hansen.

    Similarly, a “science writer” for, I believe, MSNBC spends an entire column trashing “deniers” and saying they are bought and paid for by the oil industry. This is how one reports “science.” I can’t stomach the content of mainstream media reports these days, so I am counting headlines to see which way the story is moving.

    I know that the efforts of Steve and Anthony and others will eventually have a larger impact. But we may have to wait for a new generation of reporters.

  31. Chris Wright
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s great to see Climate Audit back on the air! I really missed it. And many, many thanks to the people who make it happen, particularly John A, and of course Steve M.

    #4
    Ian,
    Hopefully the media’s coverage will become more balanced. There is hope. I was truly astonished to see New Scientist print a letter expressing a sceptical opinion. Of course, New Scientist’s coverage is normally one-sided and exaggerated.

    The letter was from an Australian water engineer commenting on a recent NS article. The doom-laden article was about the drought and predicted disaster for Australian farmers for decades to come. Of course, just weeks after the article was published the drought broke and there have been heavy rains. The engineer stated that farmers in eastern Australia are predicting that agricultural production for 2007 will be the highest on record.
    There’s probably a moral here: if you want to indulge in doom-mongering, make sure it’s well in the future so you won’t be quickly caught out!

  32. GMF
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #32,

    The Uk Met office having been badly burned by predicting summer 2007 in UK would be a scorcher, have now discovered “natural variability” (where was it hiding?) but have a new prediction that 2009 will be when it starts getting hotter.

    This gives them 2 years for people to forget their prediction, 2 years to develop new excuses and 2 years to get lucky that a bout of hot weather can be offered as the New Improved Proof of Global Warming.

  33. GMF
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Also want to say it is great to see CA back!

    I’ve also really missed the stimulating discussions here. And as for the question of a DOS attack – my opinion is that it was definitely an attack. I know that high levels of traffic can bring down a site. But even if there was a surge of interest after media reports on CA, it is hard to imagine that thousands of web surfers were just sitting at their computers repeatedly hitting Go in their browser trying to get through to CA for days on end. The constant traffic points to a more sinister explanation.

    And coming as it does after a kind of breakthrough in terms of getting GISS to revise its’ data – it is not totally surprising.

    I think that this shows that Steve is having a much bigger impact that would be expected from what is basically a grassroots kind of project. A bunch of people spread all over the world, co-operating on a voluntary basis to try to discover the truth.

    Kudos to Steve for creating such a project and for keeping the tone civilized and respectful, something lacking since the politicization of this debate. And thanks to JohnA for his sterling efforts, having done enough with computers over the last couple of decades I know how much that job can be.

    I have put something in the jar as a small sign of my support. (However according to Al G that makes me an oil company since I am funding skeptics….)

  34. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Tuesday morning while driving in Perth (West Australia) I heard on local ABC (Australian taxpayer funded broadcaster well soaked with left wing & Green attitudes) Radio 720 AM a woman ring in during talkback mentioning the error by NASA. She specified the point that 1934 was now the hottest year but did not make it clear that it was just for the USA. The announcer sounded a bit thrown off his usual line. Just a minor ripple on a big pro IPCC AGW pond.

  35. GMF
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #35

    Actually that’s ABC – Australian Bias Commission. Their job is to report all news with a leftist slant.

    Their “discussion” following a showing of Global Warming Swindle was a good example of how journalism has been replaced by activism/evangelism. Disgusting that we pay taxes to fund a retirement home for left-leaning hacks, has-beens and mediocrities.

  36. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So far today: two radio talk shows (Washington, 640 Toronto); about 3 hours with CTV television producers – perhaps on 6 pm local and 11 pm national. They take a lot of footage for a short piece, but the reporter found it interesting. One print (Brazil). One more talk show (CORUS in Canada) and one more interview. Pretty hard to do any writing.

  37. JerryB
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #37,

    How they edit all that footage will be interesting.

  38. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> Pretty hard to do any writing.

    Don’t worry about that. Make the most of this opportunity. You certainly deserve the recognition and any benefits derived from all of this. A hearty congratulations!

  39. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re: #34,

    that makes me an oil company since I am funding skeptics

    That’s a good point. So how do we new oil companies start getting all the government subsidies we’re supposed to be getting?

  40. Bob Meyer
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So far today: two radio talk shows (Washington, 640 Toronto); about 3 hours with CTV television producers – perhaps on 6 pm local and 11 pm national. They take a lot of footage for a short piece, but the reporter found it interesting. One print (Brazil). One more talk show (CORUS in Canada) and one more interview. Pretty hard to do any writing.

    Soon you will become the Canadian MSM’s favorite skeptic. You could have a lot of fun with that if you want to. Enjoy yourself for a while, we can wait for your next blog entry.

  41. VirgilM
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thank goodness you are back. RealClimate.org censors tough questions posed to them. The exercise was worth it, however. I am certain now that if the stations they use for the rural area average are corrupted by stations that include non-climatic effects, then their correction scheme will have problems. Steve has showed some evidence of this.

  42. Larry
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think that the “NASA” error is hitting some hot buttons. One of the calls came from a reporter who was in Florida covering the space shuttle and was intrigued with the idea of a “Toronto blogger” identifying an error for NASA. He didn’t know Hansen from Hansel and Gretel.

    For the average American, I think the issue of whether NASA as an organization can be trusted (after two shuttle accidents) is more front-and-center than the climate issue. I think what’s catching most people’s ears isn’t so much that there are problems with the AGW case as that the NASA organization can be caught in error by a blogger in Toronto. This is another black eye for NASA that they don’t need. This may explain why their chief wanted to take a more neutral position in the AGW debate than Hansen and Schmidt. He sees them as a potential political liability. It’s almost as if he saw this coming.

  43. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 37: Any help on where to find any recordings of your various radio or TV segments? I’ve searched for quite a while to no avail on the websites of the radio stations you mentioned…

  44. beng
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yes JohnA, thanks for your several years of CA server work and slashing/cutting/commonsense responses to some of the AGWers.

  45. Chris Wright
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #33
    The Met office were claiming that June was more than a degree above normal. Well, I live on the south coast, which is probably one of the warmest parts of the Uk, and I can report that during June I was regularly wearing a sweater and on several days I had to resort to switching on the central heating. Certainly here, not a million miles from Worthing, May, June and July were remarkably cold after a very warm April. After a cold and miserable summer, global warming seems an excellent idea!

    Another masterpiece from New Scientist. It reported new research by Ka-Kit Tung which demonstrates a global temperature variation of nearly 0.2 degrees over each solar cycle. This correlates purely to variations in solar radiance. Any other long term solar variability (e.g. during the last century) such as cosmic rays affecting cloud cover would be in addition. It is clearly a gift to the solar theory by demonstrating a major warming effect due to solar variability.
    And yet, by some magic, according to New Scientist, this is yet more proof of how right the carbon dioxide theory is!

  46. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #46 – This year’s “summer” has certainly reinforced a number of stereotypes regarding the weather and climate of the UK!

  47. per
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    well, done, John A.

    it is a fair bit of work to run a website, and all back-room stuff.

    all the best.
    per

  48. Chris Wright
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    After reading these posts I did some googling to see if I could find any of the radio interviews. I didn’t, but I did find something quite intriguing.

    http://www.politicalvindication.com/

    I don’t know how accurate the article is (about half way down the page) but it chimes in beautifully with the Y2K correction showing that the warmest year in the US was in the 1930′s. A short quote (and note the date it gives):

    “In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, Przybylak (2000) found that (1) “in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s….” (end of quote)

  49. TAC
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There is a lot to digest in this whole story. Nonetheless, it is a very positive sign that issues related to surface temperature data quality are finally being reported in the media.

    However, one thing should not be overlooked: Among the reasons this is happening is because Jim Hansen paid attention to SteveM’s criticism. Hansen admitted the mistakes that SteveM had identified, and corrected at least some of the errors. This was the right thing to do. Hansen is no fool, and he must have known how much heat he would take for doing this, rather than, say, forming a Data Review and Oversight Committee — possibly with SteveM as a paid outside consultant — to consider the topic of irregularities in the record, with a first report due in 2010.

    I am not proposing to nominate Hansen for any medals, but I am pretty sure that, under the same circumstances, many government managers would have shown substantially less courage and integrity.

  50. John M
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    John A and Steve M

    Well done! My donation’s in.

    Best of luck to John A.

  51. Magnus A
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #46 Chris Wright: “new research by Ka-Kit Tung … global temperature variation of nearly 0.2 degrees over each solar cycle. This correlates purely to variations in solar radiance. Any other long term solar variability (e.g. during the last century) such as cosmic rays affecting cloud cover would be in addition.”

    0.2 degrees in the often 10-12 years solar cycle, isn’t that quite much? I mean I think it would be strange with an added effect upon that large one. I also think that the radiation not completely covary with the solar cycle, and its effect has i different research proved to be small marginal. I guess this cycle effect is due to sun activity (sun spots and hi magnetic impact) and the protection an active sun gives from particular comsic rays (these cosmic rays are not from the sun, but from exploding stars in our galaxy) which causes less clouds to appear and a higher earth ground temperature. That’s what i think, but I can really be wrong! (High activity maybe covary a lot with radiance e.g. …?)

    “And yet, by some magic, according to New Scientist, this is yet more proof of how right the carbon dioxide theory is!”

    Of course! Don’t forget the paper that forget that the sun activity was on century top 1998. That report said that the CO2 is to blame, not the sun. All papers believe that, so who dare to write something else, heretical… We can’t (now I’m deliberately a bit over the top?) blame a depraved monocarbondioxidtheistic culture and the chickens of it… sort of. :-/

  52. TAC
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It is well worth the time to listen to SteveM’s interview this morning with WTOP (Federal News Radio, Washington D.C.). Click here and then click on the “Digital D’Oh” button in the middle of the page.

  53. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My accolades added to those of everyone else. John A has done a great job keeping ClimateAudit running. I can’t think of a finer example of intellectual passion than that someone makes the sort of effort John A has done purely through altruistic committment to an idea.

    Likewise Steve M. Talk about charting a steady course. You’ve never deviated, and kept your calm despite often outrageous provocations. It was great theater seeing you carefully dismatle Michael Mann’s deliberate mythomatical circumlocutions. I’d like to salute the part of your achievment deriving from high mathematical competence alone. Damned good job.

    We can all agree that you’re both, Steve and John A, also having enormous fun doing this, but that doesn’t detract at all from the admirable achievment.

    The only ironic note is the sudden media attention for finding a relatively trivial mistake in Hansen’s temperature numbers. It’s been 4 years since Steve and Ross showed, in E&E, that the Hockey Stick was a monument to scientific negligence (not to say incompetence) abetted by a tendentious establishment and a media besotted with politically correct environmental righteousness (and a tolerance of character assassination by innuendo). During the interim, Steve and the posters here have pretty much shown that all of dendrothermometry is a crock. But no media attention was given these important refutations of the AGW arguments.

    The 2003 achievment alone would have caught the attention of a competent news media. But it didn’t. The new NASA error is of relatively small overall importance. But the media is all over it. Because it has star quality. Steve merits the attention on solid grounds. But the publicity attending the NASA mistake illustrates everything that is wrong with the media. Mindless sparkle, sparkle, flash. No substance.

  54. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m listening to the interview.

    -Overall very good remarks by Steve (now some criticism).

    -Tucson data is NOT COLLECTED OVER ASPHALT. It is a rock surface, below the instrumentt.
    -Bit long on the first statement.
    -I disagree with you a bit philosophically (in a subtle way) on the “audit” meme. While I agree that all methods should be public and inspected, I DON’T care so much for the targeting or evaluation of INDIVIDUALS.

  55. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/87924.mp3

  56. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #56. I agree that I was sure slow in getting started, but did a bit better once I got underway. I’ve got an unfortunate tendency to have partial sentences, going in one direction and then changing direction, until I figure out where I’m going.

    My impression of the interview is that I primarily talked about NASA and not about individuals. There is a small patch of gravel or something in the middle of the Tucson parking lot, but it’s still in a parking lot. The infrared radiation from the asphalt will go in all directions and will directly affect the station.

  57. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve:
    -I agree that you did well once you got going.
    -You specifically used the term “over asphalt”. That is certainly incorrect. And the “in the parking lot” is misleading at best. But I WILL NAIL your cherry ass on the “over asphalt. Oh…and the “small patch of rocks” happens to be located precisely under the instrument. Probably the most relevant location, no?
    -you did not at all target individuals in the interview. My comment on the aidti meme has to do with your general practice.

  58. Larry
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Whether the box itself was over asphalt or dark gravel is immaterial. It’s the color that matters. In the picture, you can’t tell the asphalt from the gravel by color, so it might as well be asphalt. Same emissivity.

  59. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There’s a big difference in IR reflectivity off of tar-soaked asphalt and hard rock.

  60. Pat Frank
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #60 Not the same heat capacity, though. Asphalt is almost pure organics. They absorb like crazy in the infrared, i.e., asphalt softens on a hot day. Starting at the same temperature, asphalt will probably emit heat for much longer than dark rocks.

  61. Larry
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    TCO. the IR doesnt reflect. It emits. The radiation doesn’t come in as IR.

    Pat, true, but that’s only going to make a difference for a brief period at dawn and dusk.

  62. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/06/our-response-to-recent-comments-on-anthony-watts-blog-by-ben-herman-and-cyrus-jones/

  63. Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #58 Steve ,

    I’ve got an unfortunate tendency to have partial sentences, going in one direction and then changing direction, until I figure out where I’m going.

    I wouldn’t take it so hard. I’m told I write that way. (I do – if you don’t see it much it is because I have a fair editor – me).

    LOL

  64. MarkW
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 5:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The rock only extends out from the sensor a couple of feet. The rest of the parking lot is asphault. There is also asphault under the inch or two of rock. Asphault that is physically connected to the asphault in the rest of the parking lot, allowing the heat collected in the rest of the parking lot to migrate directly under the sensor.

  65. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #66. It’s not subsurface conduction that’s the issue. It’s the infrared re-emission by asphalt. Infra red photos show asphalt in Arizona up to 137 deg F, much higher than natural surfaces, because of the extremely low albedo (both visible and IR) of asphalt relative to natural surfaces in the area. A little patch of rock surface obviously doesn’t stop the IR re-radiation from the surrounding asphalt from hitting the sensor at 4.5 feet. That’s probably why the WMO specs call for sensors to be 100 feet from paved surfaces.

  66. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re: #67 Steve,

    It’s the infrared re-emission by asphalt.

    Terminology question. Is it really right to use “re-emission” rather than simply “emission”? It’s not like the heat of the asphalt comes from absorption of IR only. During the day, most of the heat comes from absorbing visible light rather than IR. And if a parking lot were on the side of a volcano some of the heat might be coming from an underlying magma pocket where it was never from radiation at all. Likewise with AC units or barbeque grills. The point is that the emitted IR is simply a function of the temperature of the asphalt (and other things). It doesn’t matter where the heat came from and so shouldn’t be said to have been re-emitted.

  67. Larry
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    In reality, since the thermometer is inside of the white box, the IR emission from the surface isn’t terribly relevant. What is relevant is the other side of the coin, which is absorption of the solar radiation, which raises the surface temperature of the asphalt and the gravel, and thus raises the local air temperature. That’s what the thermometer actually sees.

    Because the transfer of heat from the surface to the thermometer is by convection, the area is more important than proximity. So in fact, the asphalt in the surrounding lot has more effect than the gravel underneath.

    And while the asphalt itself may be almost perfectly black, the solar radiation doesn’t strike asphalt, it strikes the thin sandy layer on the surface of the asphalt. The color of that surface is almost exactly the same shade of gray as the gravel. That’s what determines how much energy is absorbed and converted into heat.

  68. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, strange bed fellows you have Mr.McIntyre…

    Otherwise this might be the breaktrough?

  69. PaddikJ
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations again to Stevie Mac, that annoying little kid who keeps telling all & sundry that Dr. James Hansen, PhD, NASA/GISS Dir. of Planetary Studies, Keeper and Protector of AGW Relics & Holies, is naked as a jay-bird.

    Some may object that I unfairly single out Hansen for “exposure,” but the man has never met a microphone or spotlight he didn’t love, so, no; I am not unfair.

    But goodness; I digress even before I’ve started.

    I wanted to tell you that I’m contributing another twenty to the tip jar, which taken with others, past and future, may very well be the best social investment I’ve ever made; and – you’re not gonna believe this – that I’m doing so now because when I tried last week after posting to the Leader Board thread, your site chose that exact moment to go down. Don’t I feel special?

    Oh – and of course: Welcome back!

    Ciao

  70. TCO
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I find it very likely that 100 feet from pavement is huge conservatism. I don’t mind some caution. But the cackling and implicity assumption that the temperatures must be way off with sensors a few feet from pavement is not supported by data. I recall some veruy, very silly blithe statements on air conditioners from people like Anthony who have NO FEEL for this kind of problem, but are way too quick to assume that it is dramatic.

    Oh…and Steve, it’s NOT “OVER” asphalt. That is just butt-ass wrong.

  71. TCO
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    68: Dave, good comment for once. Yes, (I think) that overall absorption of light is the key metric. Using a CARY UV-VIS (they hit the near IR), you could get most of the spectrum of interst. You can run both specular and diffuse reflectance measurements, using the agttachemnet, umptyfratz number.

  72. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #50

    However, one thing should not be overlooked: Among the reasons this is happening is because Jim Hansen paid attention to SteveM’s criticism. Hansen admitted the mistakes that SteveM had identified, and corrected at least some of the errors. This was the right thing to do.

    When I was in the business of communicating with customers about quality issues it was simply not sufficient to admit a mistake and correct that particular problem. One had to show how the business was going to avoid future problems like the one experienced — corrective action if you will. I would judge that that the quality issues and even quality awareness are not prime considerations with Hansen’s organization. I would like to hear how the station “problems” are going to be corrected and how one could have a 6-7 year old problem not found and revealed until someone outside the organization finds it.

  73. PaddikJ
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    168 Dave: I recall from long-ago solar design classes that there was no such thing as “re-emissivity;” maybe re-radiance, but a body absorbs or emits. That’s all.

    But: I don’t recall what percentage of the total radiant flux falling on, say, a square meter of asphalt in Tucson at noon on August 15 is human-visible, IR, UV, etc. Maybe, under conditions listed, IR is greater than visible? In fact, I can’t remember what part of the EM spectrum is absorbable by black asphalt(or black-painted rocks).

    Anyone?

  74. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 1:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think most of the energy is actually in the visible. You can get charts to show what the spectrum is for a clear day from solar radiation on the earth’s surface or in space. For pavement heating, the former would be the one of interest.

  75. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #77. TCO, you’re missing a key point. Go back to my posts on asphalt and look at the links. In microsite studies, a lot of the energy reaching a sensor comes from re-radiation from the ground – and this energy at earth temperature’s is in the infrared.

  76. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not missing squat, Kimosabe. You said “over asphalt” and it’s NOT “over asphalt”. Obviously direct location over the surface is more of a danger than when the sensor is to the side. How fast the danger drops off, we don’t know. NNow stop saying “over” when it’s not “over”. And don’t come up with some contorted Clintonesque justification for yourself.

  77. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just accept the point for what it’s worth and go and sin no more in that manner.

  78. MarkW
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It is over asphault, there’s just a very thin layer of rock over the asphault.
    It’s also in the middle of a parking lot, made of asphault.

    Man, you do grab for some mighty thin reeds.

  79. L Nettles
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The comments on our site state that the instruments are located over asphalt in a parking lot. This is partially true but the instruments are located over a layer of gravel spread over the parking lot material to simulate the local desert environment.

  80. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Shine and IR camera on it and get one of those dramatic pictures that Steve tauts so highly. I’ll bet some MONEY that there is a big difference between the rock surface and the asphalt.

  81. Allan Ames
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re 73 TCO: In basic physics courses I learned that the intensity from a point source drops as 1/r^2, a line source as 1/r, and is independent of distance from a plane. So, a large extended source like an airport tarmac contributes radiation intensity essentially proportional to the solid angle, pretty much independent of distance (unless ghg’s absorb the radiation). As for the conduction and convection there must be some studies, probably decades old, on the statistics of heat transport to thermometers; probably the basis for the bird houses.

    Your term conservatism suggests there is a deeper basis for choice than locating the thermometer near to where it can be read, which is what I suspect is the most important siting requirement.

  82. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The focusing on the niggling and nit picking details of individual pictures from the picture audit, in my judgment, detracts from the bigger issue here which is how much quality control is used in measuring the all important and critical land surface temperatures. If the measurement and site procedures call for given specifications and these specifications are not adhered to generally and there is no system/process available for checking whether they are or not then some doubt is placed in the measurement data.

    One probably needs more evidence but these pictures have shown a lack of quality control just as Steve M’s finding with the GISS 2000 adjustment error shows a general lack of quality control by this organization. If I were to visit a vendor’s place of business and find that they do not follow their own procedures and specifications and on questioning them about this lack of quality control they began to argue individual cases in attempts to show that not following the procedures does not really cause any major problems, I would no doubt stop doing business with them.

  83. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re 73 TCO: In basic physics courses I learned that the intensity from a point source drops as 1/r^2, a line source as 1/r, and is independent of distance from a plane.

    Which gets further complicated by the fact that the air moves around, so you have convection on top of radiation. If the site is in the middle of such a source, such as the parking lot with gravel on top (10×10 apparently), there’s very little isolation, if any.

    Mark

  84. Larry
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #78, Steve, that’s not what primarily affects these sensors. They paint the enclosure white precisely so that it won’t be affected by IR. The sensor is sensing air temperature, which convects in through the louvers (or at least that’s the theory). The reason why the pavement affects the reading is that it actually affects the air temperature through convection on the pavement surface. The IR business is secondary (since it bounces off the white enclosure).

    For that reason, what’s directly underneath isn’t that critical. What matters more is what’s surrounding it in the vicinity, which is the asphalt. It’s also, obviously, going to be greatly affected by wind speed. If it’s windy, the pavement won’t have that much of an effect. If it’s not, the pavement will have a great effect, as you create a localized sauna.

  85. Allan Ames
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re-emission: All objects at finite temperature emit some sort of radiation depending on their temperature. There is net flow of radiation from hotter to cooler. So you can use the expression re-radiation or re-emission to suggest heat flow from a hotter to cooler body which have longer wavelength emission. This use is parallel to spectroscopy where absorbed radiation is re-emitted at longer wavelength. Flourescent laundry brighteners absorb uv and re-emit visible blue.

    The thermal properties of rock are highly variable, so it is difficult to compare to asphalt. I would guess that crushed rock would be more emissive than river bottom rocks.

  86. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    SteveM

    Found an interesting resource

    http://www.climahom.eu/

    Nice description..

    http://www.climahom.eu/software/docs/Prezentation_SW.pdf

    Interest that his flow chart shows filling in missing data as the last step..

  87. gdn
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Since people are arguing that the box negates radiation effects:

    They paint the enclosure white precisely so that it won’t be affected by IR

    Though, even at that, the louvres are parallel to the incoming asphalt radiation, not perpendicular, right? So, to the extent that radiation energy is important, the louvres heavily block downward radiation, but much less so upward.

    Plain ungravelled asphalt is immediately adjacent to the box.

    …but isn’t the temperature sensor there the aspirated thing on the pole, rather than in the box?

  88. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    They paint the enclosure white precisely so that it won’t be affected by IR.

    I think Anthony is doing some tests on different boxes, though it will probably be a while before we see any results. Either way, while white is a good reflector of visible light, that does not necessarily extend into other bands.

    Mark

  89. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    TCO…. Is there another material over the asphalt between the asphalt and the sensor? Yes. Is it more exact to say “A layer of gravel spread over asphalt”? Yes.

    As L Nettles quoted: “….the instruments are located over a layer of gravel spread over the parking lot material to simulate the local desert environment.” There’s asphalt under the sensor.

    Is it wrong to say it’s over asphalt? Well, is there any asphalt under the sensor or not?

    You’re probably correct in 83, the rocks probably absorb/emit/re-emit somewhat differently than the asphalt itself. That would probably work this way: The gravel and the asphalt around the area absorb. When both start to cool, the gravel would insulate the asphalt, transfering the heat from both the gravel and the asphalt. The asphalt around the area would mix with air one way, the gravel, different in some other way but likely fairly similarly.

    However, if the gravel is insulating below itself, and the asphalt is kept warmer (or cooler), it could give off more heat (or less heat) for a longer period (or a shorter period) than the bare asphalt. Depending on what the asphalt is doing and what the gravel is doing. I’d think it could go either way, depending on the thickness of the layer of the extra material and the size of it. And the size of the square. (Say two inches of pea gravel vs 1 inch of large chunk gravel.) And the thickness of the asphalt. And the material under the asphalt.

    To do what you want, I think we’d need IR, UV, wind, rain and humidity information, as well as temperatures, from multiple sensors that we could then correlate. The specific details are unimportant details, so why bother.

  90. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry, last link

    http://www.climahom.eu/software/docs/Prezentation_T_homogenization.pdf

    Page 54 is nice

  91. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There should have been a sentence there:

    And the size of the square. And the size and shape of the gravel and how deep it goes. (Say two inches of pea gravel vs 1 inch of large chunk gravel.)

  92. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> So you can use the expression re-radiation or re-emission to suggest heat flow from a hotter to cooler body which have longer wavelength emission.

    I think this is very misleading terminology, as it implies that the source of radiation going out is the radiation coming in. It seems related to the fundamental AGW error that radiation is conserved. In reality, energy is conserved. As such, an object could be conducting heat, for example, an asphalt surface conducting heat to ground below, based on the temperature differential. In this case, shining a light on the asphalt will not increase the radiation coming out of the asphalt. Similarly, an asphalt surface could be heated from below (iceland), or from cars above.

    The UHI effect would seem to be quite different in Anchorage verus Dallas. In anchorage, it may not affect air temperature at all. The bottom line is that the weather stations are fine for reporting the weather, but should not be used for climate studies.

  93. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    To summarize some of what has been said here so that I am sure I understand correctly:

    1. The thermometers measure the temperature of the surrounding air, and they are enclosed in a box (with louvers to allow air in) to help prevent IR and other radiation affecting the temperature read.

    2. A warm surface beneath and near the thermometers will affect the readings they give, since the air above the surface heats up and that heat reaches the thermometer by convection.

    3. A different patch around the thermometer (gravel) can be overwhelmed by other material surrounding it (asphalt) if the gravel area is not large enough, as the warm air from above the asphalt will move in over the relatively cooler air above the gravel. Indeed I could imagine a circulation cell being set up where the relatively cooler air above the gravel is sucked out into the asphalt area, causing down welling of warmer air from further above the asphalt …

    4. As Steve mentions, the IR temperature seen (up to 137F in Arizona) over the asphalt is indicative of the temperature of the surface of the asphalt, and therefore the temperature of the air there.

    5. Air conditioners blow hot air out into the surrounding area. They could easily affect temperature readings …

    I would appreciate corrections for anything I got wrong.

  94. Larry
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    90, I’m sure that there are a lot of variants, but the standard Stevenson screen is supposed to contain the temperature sensor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen

    If the air is aspirated from another enclosure, the analysis is the same.

    91 – first, I said that that’s the theory. In practice, of course it’s going to absorb some. But as a general rule, the pigments (probably TiO2) that reflect visible also reflect IR. You’d have to specifically select a pigment to absorb IR and not visible.

  95. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    the gravel under the rocks is irrelevant. Would you guys argue for saying “over asphalt” if sod had been laid down! 8

    84: There may well be some heating from the near adjacent asphalt surface. My kvetch is not with that, but with Steve saying the sensor was OVER asphalt. He needs to stop exaggerating flaws. It’s not fair or scientific. It’s lawyerly and Clintonian.

  96. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I meant gravel over asphalt (for those who insist that it is ok to claim the sensor was over asphalt even thought eh asphalt is buried, is not exposed to sun).

    And I meant say weasely instead of Clintonian. Sorry if I offended the liberals.

  97. gdn
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    90, I’m sure that there are a lot of variants, but the standard Stevenson screen is supposed to contain the temperature sensor.

    Yes. That is standard. As I understand, the Tuscon site has its temperature sensor attached to a pole bolted onto the bottom of the Stevenson screen http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=12986

  98. Larry
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    101, I can’t tell what exactly those things on the horizontal conduit at the bottom of the box are, but that’s not how a temperature sensor should be installed. It should be shielded from radiative effects, and respond only to the air temperature. That’s the idea behind aspiration.

    Someone more familiar with the devices might be able to shine some light on what’s what. The stuff on the left is just electrical plumbing. The stuff on the right, it’s hard to tell. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are some engineering flaws, though.

  99. gdn
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry, Here is the original Tuscon station thread, which describes the site a bit better. I’ll post it on the “Detectives” thread too.

  100. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #96 >> I would appreciate corrections for anything I got wrong.

    I think your 5 point summary is exactly correct. I would also add that I’m quite certain that during the day, it’s not completely dark in the box, therefore, there is some direct radiation. I’m sure you all have noticed that during the day, the sun manages to light up just about everything, from deep in the forest, to deep underwater, to every nook and cranny of our houses, there is light, enough to see by.

    I know what you’re thinking, “oh my gosh, that effect is negligible”. Oh really? It’s comparable to many of the other effects that have been mentioned on this blog with a straight face. For example, radiation from C02, at .035% of the atmosphere, while we pretend that conduction and convection don’t exist. Penny wise, pound foolish.

  101. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, yes, I remember now. If the sensor is supposed to be measuring (and indicative) of a few hundred meters of land area, the fact that a small percentage of the area 100 meters in radius is not directly over asphalt seems moot to the issue of saying it’s over asphalt, even if it wasn’t the main underlying surface.

    It seems immaterial to have to qualify it by saying the 8×8 square around the sensor it has pea gravel 1/4 inch deep covering the asphalt to get the point across in a sentence.

  102. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ll bet you money that adding a thicker layer of gravel would have no noticeable effect on an IR photograph of the area.

  103. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ll bet you money that adding a thicker layer of gravel would have no noticeable effect on an IR photograph of the area.

    TCO, you are sounding like some of the people I used to deal with in solving quality problems — from my company and vendors’ companies: lawyerly approach in arguing the minute details of an issue when all the customers wanted to know is what is being done to assure us that you have a quality control process in place that will give us some assurance that these errors will not reoccur. I believe you at one time brought up the issue of determining whether the temperature measuring sites where in compliance with the measuring organizations own specifications, but now it appears you are more interested in defending the lack of quality control by rationalizing a minimum effect on temperatures measured. What is being tested is not what the ultimate effect a particular noncompliance has on the temperature record, but whether or not a quality control process is in place to assure the users that they are obtaining reliable data most of the time and making the correct assumptions when they have to correct for what must be assumed are relatively infrequent non-compliances.

  104. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I bet you if you raised the level 1,000,000 times, it would have a huge effect on the IR signature of the area. Please be a little more specific.

    Well, when you get a chance to get to Tucson (sadly I no longer live within an hour), take your IR photos with the current level, none, half as much, double, quadruple, and with the box around the fence holding in gravel to within a foot of the sensor, of the same size and type of gravel as is there now. What’s the bet?

    Oh, I forget, photos tell you nothing. Nevermind.

    At least try and be somewhat consistent on this issue with your obfuscation and misdirection. Either seem clueless all the time or knowlegeable all the time, and make your statements and beliefs match from day to day and issue to the same issue.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,902 other followers

%d bloggers like this: