Climate cuttings 3

In the last edition of Climate Cuttings, I noted that NOAA was trying to stop the Surfacestations project by hiding the names of the volunteer station managers in the reference database. They now appear foolish as well as disingenuous as it's been revealed that they already publish photos and names of many volunteers, thus ruling out any claim that the data was hidden on privacy grounds.

Over at Real Climate, Gavin Schmidt is all in favour of Surfacestations and documenting how well the stations are sited. He just thinks that people are jumping to conclusions (who? where?). We also learn that the models don't need to square with the temperature record because they've got physics in, and that even if the stations are sited next to AC exhaust outlets, it won't materially affect the temperature record. Roger Pielke Sr shoots back.

Al Gore was in town to deliver a gentle reminder, just in case we'd forgotten that we're all about to burn. Nobody believes him though. 

Henrik Svensmark, a bad man who reckons that climate change is all caused by cosmic rays, is interviewed in Discover.   

Comments

[Anthony Watts]

Hello from across the pond.

FYI, Here is my latest post on what sort of analysis will be done to the USHCN stations once a statistically significant sample is gathered.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/standards_for_weather_station.html

Of course, the goal is to get all the stations, good or bad, so a proper analysis of micro-site errors can be done and a tabulation of the error value of each station based on a NOAA standard.

To do this, we'll apply a qualitative ratings system from the site category rating of the new Climate Reference Network (CRN) put together by NOAA in 2002. The rating system they devised should work equally well worldwide. Details of the rating system are in the link above.

[Phil A]

Not the right place to put this, sorry way off topic, but re your <a href=" http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bill-of-rights/">bill of rights</a> you don’t have comments enabled.

In true Blue Peter style: Here is <a href="http://criticalfacultydojo.blogspot.com/2007/05/robust-constitution.html">one</a> I prepared earlier. I would welcome your thoughts. Some good thoughts in yours but I do I think it needs to tie the state down so it can’t change the rules without incredible difficulty at bit more.

Back on topic - Re climate: Have you seen <a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf">this</a>. It looks as if the IPCC took measurements from a Tide Gauge situated on subsiding coast and used that. Then it used that to make a ‘correction’ factor to re calculate satellite data to give a rising trend when it had been flat without the correction.

[Bishop Hill]

The BoR piece is a standalone page - I asked for comments on the blog post. I've added a link now. I'll take a look at your piece and comment there.

I've seen the tide gauge piece and posted on it here.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ipcc-accused-of-falsifying-figures.html

(I don't say much about it other than drawing people's attention to it.)