Yesterday I did a post called Revisiting Tucson USHCN: Regional Correction Factor. I thought it would be my last post on the UofA surface station in a while, but I guess not. The US Climate Reference Network (CRN). This is described as “a network of climate stations… Its primary goal is to provide future long-term homogeneous observations of temperature and precipitation that can be coupled to long-term historical observations for the detection and attribution of present and future climate change.”

Luckily for me, steven mosher pointed out that there is a CRN station really close to Tucson at the Arizona Senora Desert Museum. He said:
Continue Reading »

In July 2007, the USHCN surface station at the University of Arizona was profiled for the first time. Being in a parking lot, it is a less than an ideal location. The pictures have been shown repeatedly on Watts Up and Climate Audit, as well as in presentations by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. The temperature record was defended by both me and Herman and Jones using a similar methodology.

In a recent post at Watts Up, he profiles a station that is near a concrete walkway. I commented, basically saying that just because it is near the walkway doesn’t necessarily mean it will introduce a warming bias. Which lead him to reply:
Continue Reading »

Several months ago, our favorite four-legged animal looked at the annual variations between the RSS and UAH temperatures. He showed that “…there was a systematically increasing difference between RSS and UAH (shown by the trend line btw 1979 and 2005)…” That is, the UAH temperatures were warmer in the past and cooler in the present compared to the RSS values.

I decided to replicate his analysis using the monthly data. Actually, I did the analysis first, and then went searching the web to see if anyone else could explain what I was seeing. In any case, I took the RSS and UAH data from my climate metrics file. I then subtracted the RSS values from the UAH values for each month. Note: this is the opposite as what The Bunny^TM did.
Continue Reading »

In response to Steve Bloom’s comment at the AccuWeather Global Warming blog:

Setting the various temp databases to a consistent baseline isn’t too tough. See here and here for an up-to-date comparison of four of them. The results are disappointing to denialists (but then so much is these days) and not especially surprising to anyone else. Atmoz (the blog author) didn’t include NOAA but perhaps could be persuaded to add it.

I’ve added the NCDC numbers to the climate metrics file.