Watts Up With That?

Another parking lot being measured for climate change: Newport, TN

My surfacestations.org project has reached an important milestone.

With the submission of #222, Lexington, VA, submitted by John Goetz, we are now below the 1000 mark (out of 1221) stations left to survey. It was a 3 -way race to #222 between power surveyors John Goetz, Kristen Byrnes, and Don Kostuch.

Thanks to ALL of the wonderful volunteers for helping to reach this important benchmark! We currently stand at 231 surveyed stations and 990 left to go.

I still need help in the midwest and the south, particularly Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Alabama. If you live in the areas want to make a lasting contribution to science, please visit www.surfacestations.org and sign up as volunteer. Its easy to do, and it makes for a fun science learning experience.

To see more weather stations like this one, see my "How not to Measure Temperature" series on this blog. This is only a small sample of the 231 surveyed to date, but it will give you an idea of the problems that have been seen so far.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

This picture, taken by www.surfacestations.org volunteer Don Kostuch is the Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.

The complete set of pictures is here

From NASA's GISS, the plot makes it pretty easy to see there was no discernible multi-decadal temperature trend until the A/C units were installed. And it's not hard to figure out when that was.

But hey, thy can "fix" the problem with math and adjustments to the temperature record.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (21)

Warren Meyer, one of the first surfacestations.org volunteers, delivered Tucson for us Saturday. It was discovered during an analysis of climate stations around the USA on the Climate Audit blog that Tucson had the greatest positive temperature trend for any USHCN station after the TOBS adjustment was applied. The TOBS adjustment corrects for differences in local times of observation of temperature by the observer. The picture says it all:

Yes folks, this is an official climate station of record, the temperatures it measures go into our National Climatic Database and are used in research such as the graph produced by NASA Goddard Institute for Spaceflight Studies here:

There's a British word that has been bandied about to describe the reaction to pictures like this one: "gobsmacked". The word applies even more so since this station is operated by science faculty members at the University of Arizona.

They are so proud of this station they even had a sign made for it to hang on the chain link fence enclosure:

The complete photo essay is available at the Tucson album at www.surfacestations.org The satellite and aerial photo images there are telling of the environment being measured.

Besides the obvious questions like "why is it in the middle of a parking lot?" and "why would scientists who should know better allow such a bizarre siting for a USHCN climate station of record?" Then there is this burning question: "Why did they go to the trouble of installing a precision aspirated temperature sensor and then not even bother to place it at the standard observing height?".

It appears that the Stevenson Screen serves no other purpose except as an equipment holder, as Warren Meyer reports the Stevenson Screen to be empty. Originally the inside standard mounting board for the mercury max/min thermometers were mounted about 1.5 foot higher than the air inlet of the precision aspirated temperature sensor. So the lower mounting height for the precision sensor adds a positive bias.

Is there no diligence left in basic measurement? Is this what they teach in college science departments these days?

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (30)

I've been involved in meteorology in one way or another since 1976, and while I knew of the vast number of COOP stations around the USA, I never knew that a good number of them are at sewage treatment plants until I started my surfacestations.org project. It seems to me, that given the physical makeup of these facilities, they are one of the worst possible environments to measure air temperature. But like many historical stations, they weren't chosen with the environment in mind, but rather if there was a human being present 7 days a week whom could take the high/low temps and rainfall and write it down on an NCDC B44 form.

This week I visited a few stations in southern California, and Santa Barbara is one of those USHCN stations that is also a sewage treatment plant. Conicidentally, a few other USHCN stations that are also WWTP's were posted by www.surfacestations.org volunteers. So I thought I'd give you the grand tour.

Above: aerial view of Santa Barbara WWTP and USHCN climate station of record

Above: Placement of Santa Barbara's MMTS Temperature Sensor - looking NW

Here's one from Tifton, GA taken by Joel McDade:

more pictures here

Cheraw, SC taken by L. Nettles:

more pictures here

Albany, GA from Joel McDade:

more pictures here

Zumbota, MN from Don Kostuch

more pictures here

And let's not forget Urbana, OH, by Steve Tiemeir

more pictures here

There's lots more, but you get the idea.

surfacestations.org volunteer Don Kostuch wrote this to me about WWTP's recently:

"I spoke with the curator in New Hampton IA. He gave me these figures for his plant last January:
780,000 gal/day
Incoming temp 55F
Outgoing temp 43F

The worst example I saw was in Winnebago, MN where the sensor is above and in the middle of four large tanks all huddled together in about a 100
ft square. The population there is about 1500 so the heat released would be about 1.5 million btu/hr in an area of about 10000 sq.ft."

And, as population grows in a city so would waste water volume. So it stands to reason the a temperature sensor at a WWTP would be directly sensing waste heat produced by population growth, and the amount of waste heat would grow proportionately with population.

Perhaps we should call the WWTP effect "P-UHI"

Posted by Anthony Watts at 03:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Above: Tifton, GA Sewage Treatment Plant - a good place to measure climate?

There have been some claims on the blogosphere of limited or no value to the taking of pictures for the www.surfacestations.org project. This is my view of why pictures are vitally important to an assessment of the accuracy of the near surface temperature record gathered by USHCN and other weather stations, where the data gathered is used in climate studies.

Photography is well established as a diagnostic tool in many fields. Take astronomy for example. If data and computer models of the universe is all that was needed to move the science forward, we certainly wouldn’t need the Hubble Space Telescope.

Do pictures work very well in illustrating problems that need correction? Well I say ask any doctor who uses xrays, or MRI images, or ultrasound. Do you think doctors can define an illness solely on chart data such as BP and body temperature? No of course not, they need pictures. They DEMAND pictures.

Or how about the NASA’s loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2004? The spacecraft is covered in sensors, yet after a photo showed foam striking the shuttle during booster burn, engineers pleaded to get photos under the wing from Department of Defense DOD. NASA Engineering made three separate requests for DOD imaging of the shuttle in orbit to get photos to determine if there was damage. NASA management did not honor the requests for DOD photos and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.

On reentry, sensors on the shuttle started showing problems, and flight controllers struggled to understand what was happening. Photos and video taken by amateurs on the ground showed clearly what had happened. I don’t recall CNN showing pictures of sensor data in announcing this failure to the world.

Given NASA’s unwillingness to listen to engineers first with Challenger (frost and o-rings) and Columbia (possible wing damage - just get us a picture so we can be sure) I have even less respect for the NASA armchair UHI analysis called “lights = x” ironically done by counting the number of streetlights near weather stations using DOD nighttime photos. This method can give an approximation of the urbanization around a weather station, but it can’t possibly discern the nearby microsite effects like asphalt and air conditioners that have seen so far.

The worlds of science, engineering, medicine, forensics, astronomy, biology, and many more use photos to cross check gathered data or to confirm observations or theory. Climatology shall be no exception.

We are getting pictures of stations, lots of them, and we'll get every one if possible. Then we are going to analyse them against existing published standards, and then we will publish the results of that analysis. And unlike some prominent climatologists, the pictures, the methods, the code, and the results will be publicly available to anybody, be it scientist, layman, or citizen. And, it will be done without wasting once cent of taxpayer money.

Then after that, critics can determine just how useful the pictures are.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (24)

The picture below is of the USHCN climate station of record for Newport Beach, CA When I first visited this site I did a double take. Then started searching for the "real" temperature sensor.

I couldn't believe that NOAA allowed them to use consumer grade equipment. I was sure I just hadn't located the MMTS sensor. It wasn't until I looked up the MMS metadata entry for equipment for NB and saw "miscellaneous" listed for rain and temperature sensors, that I began to get concerned.

I then went back a second time to be sure I hadn't missed the station, after checking lat/lon on my GPS...because I just didn't think it possible NOAA would allow a consumer grade sensor in the USHCN dataset. Then I found somebody in the harbor patrol office to ask, and he confirmed that was the station they use to send readings to NOAA.

I was reminded of that famous quote from the movie "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" lampooned in the movie Blazing Saddles; "We don't need no stinking badges!". Except, what was playing in my mind then was "We don't need no stinking homogeneity!"

Note to NOAA: standards exist for a reason.

Apparently the observer wanted wind too, (the wind sensors are on top of the tower, not shown in these pictures)and while I can appreciate that being located at the harbor patrol office, NOAA could have supplied standard equipment in addition to the shiny new consumer grade Davis station. In fact a standard rain gauge and MMTS did exist, but was removed in 1998 in favor of "miscellaneous" equipment.

Now don't get me wrong, Davis makes a great weather station, but we can't just replace sensors with other types willy-nilly and have a homogeneously rigorous data set.

But there are other issues too, such as the rooftop proximity, the diesel generator, and the parking lot it sets in the middle of. More pictures available on surfacestations.org

Posted by Anthony Watts at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

This picture below comes to me via surfacestations.org volunteer Kristen Byrnes, a 15 year old budding scientist that has created a bit of a stir with her critique of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Her website,"Ponder the Maunder" also has more photos of weather stations.

It is the USHCN Climate Station of Record for Lewiston, Maine, placed at the Union Water Power Company there.

It features an air conditioner unit, a portable barbecue grill, pavement and a nearby building. No close-by parking though as we've seen with other stations.

It also features a curious non-standard instrument shelter, of a design I've not seen before. The observing height appears to be non-standard, and lower to the ground than usual.

In addition to the close by hard surfaces like concrete pavement, the shelter also is located on an up-slope. That's a no-no according to NOAA siting specs for a good reason - hot air rises.

Ms. Byrnes found another interesting station in Eastport, Maine. Ms. Byrnes found another interesting station in Eastport, Maine. While it is not part of the USHCN climatic network it is worth looking at because it shows how something simple and obvious that was missed can skew any experiment.

This station is a state operated, NOAA funded special monitoring station with high accuracy, very expensive laboratory grade sensors. The temperature sensor is aspirated, meaning it has a powered fan to draw air in from the outside, and is considered the most accurate way to measure air temperature. The same temperature sensor is used in the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) specs of which can be seen here and photos here.

The setup also has a portable electronics building to go with it, to house all the data logging and analysis electronics. All that electronics needs to be kept cool, so these building are fitted with an air conditioner.

But the scientists who placed the temperature sensor were apparently so transfixed on the goal, they didn't notice the air conditioner for the electronics building:

Fortunately, the US Climate Reference Network sites I've seen are much better thought out than this station in Eastport Maine.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

You may recall that back in May I did a simple preliminary experiment to give me guidance on a hypothesis: That changes in paint on Stevenson Screens over time make a measurable difference on the temperatures recorded inside them. This stems from the fact that when the Weather Bureau commissioned the design in 1892, whitewash was specified. But whitewash is no longer commonly available, and the National Weather Service changed the specification in 1979 to be semi-gloss latex paint.

But, cured whitewash is composed of Calcium Carbonate, while latex paint uses Titanium Dioxide as a pigment. While they both appear "white" in visible light, they have vastly different properties in infrared.

My first simple experiment used thermistors in boreholes into 3 wood slats; 1 bare wood as a control, the other two painted with whitewash and latex, showed me that there was a measurable difference in the temperature of the wood by as much as 2-4 degrees at times. I needed to do that experiment before I embarked on the full scale test, since each of the Stevenson Screens you see here in the pictures cost me about $1000.00 Since I'm doing this out of pocket, with no funding or grants, I had to try a small scale test first.

The photos show 3 standard Stevenson Screens as used today in the United States. One is bare wood, unpainted, as a control, the middle one is latex, as sent from the supplier, and the third is painted with a historically accurate (for early 20th century) whitewash mixture that I obtained both materials and formula from the head chemist at the National Lime Company.

The device on the tripod is a stacked plate IR shield with a small fan to pull air through, commonly called an aspirated shield. It is the air temperature reference and placed at the same exposure height as the thermistiors in the screens. Also nearby but not shown is a pyranometer to measure solar insolation and wind speed/direction sensors that are being datalogged as well.

Each Stevenson Screen and the air temperature reference sensor are fitted with matched, calibrated thermistors, NIST traceable with certificates, that are connected to a calibrated data-logger, also with a certificate. The resolution is .01 degree Fahrenheit with an accuracy of +/- 0.1 degree over the range.

I expect that the air temperature differences inside the screens will be less than the 2-4 degrees I observed in the paint slat test. It's possible that there will be no significant difference at all. I won''t know until I run about a months worth of datalogging.

The site, while not ideal due to the trees, is the best I could get permission to use. Fortunately the trees do not directly shade the screens except for a short portion of the day. It's also out of the way, so vandalism will not be likely. Since it had to be an unwatered grass field, concerns over fire danger were raised from some I asked because of the electronics package, so I had limited choices. Perhaps later I'll be able to find a better site but for now it will have to do.

The whitewash on the third Stevenson Screen is still curing, as the chemical reaction is not yet complete to convert Calcium Hydroxide to Calcium Carbonate. In about a week, I'll make the data available via a web link in near real-time.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 06:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (16)

The recent photo submissions at surfacestations.org have demonstrated that many NOAA/NWS climate monitoring stations feature convenient close-by vehicle parking.

Not to be outdone, the Paso Robles USHCN Climate Station of Record features freeway on-ramp access to California's Highway 101. The weather station is just feet from the street, with the temperature sensor placed just high enough to catch full view of vehicles over the fence.

My thanks to surfacestations,org volunteer Ed Hahn for this photo. His complete photo essay is available here

Here is the NASA GISS plot for Paso Robles:

Curiously the GISS database still classifies this station as a "rural area".

I find it interesting that the temperature was trending down in the 70's then a huge offset occurred just about 1980. I wonder if that was when the freeway access was added? Nothing in the MMS records seem to indicate a station move or other change at that time. Or maybe that's when somebody got the bright idea to pour a concrete slab under the the station?

From NOAA's own siting specs: "The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface."

Close enough for government work...

Posted by Anthony Watts at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Pictures have been coming in to www.surfacestations.org from many places. This one is from Fort Morgan, Colorado's USHCN climate station of record. Fort Morgan is in the eastern plains of Colorado, about 100 miles northeast of Denver.

In such a place, with all that open space, you'd think it would be an easy matter to place something as important as an official NOAA temperature sensor used to contribute measurements to the national climatic database in some of that open space.

No such luck. In fact, the sensor recording the wide open plains has four air conditioners near it!

But lets not forget, in keeping with current observed trends, that any weather station with air conditioning also needs close-by parking.

It's not like there's no other open space to put the sensor in Fort Morgan.

The pictures above, courtesy of the Pielke Research Group shows an electronic Min/Max Temperature Sensor placed near a grain elevator office. Cable length limitations on this sensor have caused hundreds of similar placements in the USHCN network where Stevenson Screens used before could be placed a good distance away from such influences.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Lately, it seems that I've been finding air conditioners juxtaposed with temperature sensors for USHCN climate stations of record all over the USA.

That got me to wondering; what sorts of trends are there for air conditioners in the United States? And, could there possibly be any correlation between surface temperature measurements to the number of air conditioners in use in the USA?

Some research led me to a Dept. of Energy's "Energy Information Administration" (EIA) website which had some interesting facts, some of which I've graphed to show trend.

The EIA website only had data as current as 1997 for some reason, but it did go back to 1978, though apparently surveys weren't done every year.

By 1997, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of all American households had air-conditioners. 47 percent of all households had central air-conditioning systems and 25 percent had window/wall air-conditioners. 1 percent had both central and window/wall air-conditioners. I would expect that number to be at 80 percent or higher by 2007, in part due to the availability of very inexpensive a/c units manufactured in China, Taiwan, and Korea, some of which can be had for about $100 US.

By 1997, over nine-tenths (93 percent) of the households in the South Atlantic Census Division had air conditioners. Over half (54 percent) of all the households in the division had air conditioners and used them all summer.

From 1978 to 1997, the total amount of electricity used in the residential sector increased from 2.47 quadrillion Btu in 1978 to 3.54 quadrillion Btu. Over the same period, electricity used for residential air-conditioning rose from 0.31 quadrillion Btu to 0.42 quadrillion Btu. Among the reasons air-conditioning electricity use did not rise more is the increasing efficiency of air-conditioning equipment. You can see the electric use trend in the graph below:

This correlates somewhat with the number of cooling degree days, but surprisingly, the trend went downward over the last few years of the study:

The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" when it comes to air conditioning has been steadily closing. Interestingly, the trend of households with a/c units looks similar to some of the surface temperature trends that have been published:

But it makes you wonder, what effects do the millions of air conditioners dumping waste heat into the near surface atmosphere have on temperatures measured at about the same elevation as the waste heat is dumped? Is there enough atmospheric mixing to distribute it so that it becomes part of the entire UHI bias, or does it dwell in "pockets"? Sounds like a start for a study for somebody.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

In traveling around California and Nevada to look at NOAA USHCN climate monitoring weather stations I've seen some odd things. I've seen temperature sensors near asphalt and concrete, sensors placed within feet of buildings and cars, sensors placed near air conditioner exhausts, and sensors that had barbeque grills in the vicinity.

Last Friday June 6th, I traveled to Santa Rosa, CA to the Press Democrat Newspaper, a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times, which according to NOAA, has the climate station of record for Santa Rosa.

I figured it would be a fairly straightforward survey, and that I'd probably find the temperature sensor near the back of the building by the parking lot, as I've found many others placed. I figured it would look a lot like our local newspaper, the Chico Enterprise Record (owned by Media News Group), weather station. It is in the rear, in a bit of disrepair, missing some slats and part of its roof assembly, but otherwise ok. It is seen below:

But nothing prepared me for what I was about to find at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

When I arrived, I couldn't locate the NOAA MMTS sensor anywhere around the building, but I did see a tower on the roof of the building, and in the rear of the building they had a Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station on a pole. I knew that wasn't the official climate temperature sensor provided by NOAA. So, after doing a perimeter search twice, I went inside to inquire within. Everything in the lobby said "go away". I guess it was the bullet proof glass, and the cameras, and the security guard. After getting a name of the person resonsible for their weather page from the front desk, I called on my cell phone, no answer.

Undeterred, I decided to try looking outside again. It was then I noticed the 5 level parking garage about a block north.

From the top of the parking garage a quick scan with my binoculars located the NOAA MMTS temperature sensor. It was there, about 8-10 feet above the roof, surrounded by a sea of air conditioners and exhaust vents!

Here is what I saw from my binoculars:

And here is a panorama of the entire rooftop of the Press Democrat. Click on the image to get a full sized view with panning functions:

A complete photo essay is available on my surfacestations.org website.

An independent check of aerial photos that I had access to confirmed the placement of the sensor in the middle of several air conditioning units.

 I've seen some poorly thought out places to measure temperature, but this one takes the cake. Not only do we have the sensor above a sea of air conditioners with warm air exhausts, there are two rooftop building exhausts, plus the roof and building itself, and then lets not forget that the Press Democrat itself is in a sea of buildings in downtown Santa Rosa, all of which to contribute to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) the thermometer is exposed to.

Yes folks, this is an official USHCN Climate station of record. The data from this station goes into the national climatic database. But given the absurd and irresponsible placement of this NOAA MMTS thermometer, is it any wonder at all that the graph of temperature at Santa Rosa looks like it does?

Posted by Anthony Watts at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (26)

On Friday June 6th, I made a trip though northern California to visit four official climate monitoring stations that are part of the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) which has been the subject of study on my photographic database website www.surfacestations.org

Here is the Napa State Hospital, which has a long history of observing temperature and precipitation. The MMTS and rain gauge are located at the Fire Station that serves the hospital grounds:

Here we see what seems to be the ubiquitous close by parking which has been almost as a theme in recent station surveys. Lots of asphalt surrounding the sensor too, and a building about 10 feet away. This of course makes the station out of compliance with NOAA siting specifications.

Another view shows an even greater problem; an air conditioner unit mounted at the same height as the MMTS in a window and a mere 10 feet away:

You can see a full set of pictures, at the surfacestations.org image database.

For an independent confirmation of this finding you can see the National Weather Service's web page photo of Napa.

More pictures from my 4 station survey trip will be posted each day, tomorrow, Santa Rosa's USHCN climate station of record located on the roof of the Press Democrat building in downtown Santa Rosa.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You may recall and entry about a week ago titled: NOAA/NCDC Throws a roadblack my way.

Good news! NCDC has decided to restore the access. I think this is a wise move on NCDC's part not only because their initial argument was unsupportable as I demonstrated dozens of pages in various NOAA websites showing not only observer names, but also photos of the observers, but more importantly the timing made them look like they were actively hampering a science activity. Data sharing is a hallmark of science so that independent study and confirmation of observations and theories can occur.

I'm pleased that NCDC has changed their position. Its the right thing to do. I agree with their current position that provides the name of the observers, but keeps addresses and telephone numbers private.

For the purposes of the photographic investigation being done at www.surfacestations.org I point out that anyone in the project must agree to and follow rules of conduct, and respect the clearly spelled out privacy issues.

Here is the communication:

Dear Mr. Watts,

The names of observers participating the the National Weather Service's (NWS) Cooperative (Coop) Observation Program have for many years been published state by state in both the Climatological Data (CD) and Hourly Precipitation Data (HPD) publications. Individual Coop observer names have also appeared from time to time on various NWS web sites, often in the context of award presentations. However, as a practice, NCDC has not intentionally made the names public as part of its station metadata systems.

Jeff Arnfield
--
Jeff Arnfield
Station Metadata Project Manager

Posted by Anthony Watts at 08:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Ok a simple post since I'm not up to speed today. I've already talked about the effort in the USA to create the Climate Reference Network (CRN) In Australia, they have something similar, called the Reference Climate Station Network.

The map below shows all the stations in country. Even though a number are near coastal population centers, they are fairly widely dispersed and many are in the middle of the outback.

By clicking on the orange dots in the image, you get details on each station, along with a photo such as this one of the GILES METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE almost dead center in the middle of the country away from urban influences:

One of the goals of my project at www.surfacestations.org is to create something similar, but with more detail.

Here is the best part about Australia's project:

"Regular inspections by trained specialists will ensure that these stations are maintained to high standards. Detailed reports of any changes to the site and its surroundings will be made and procedures adopted to ensure that the quality of the records are not compromised. "

Posted by Anthony Watts at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

There is a war of words going on between two scientific blogs over my project at www.surfacestations.org. The RealClimate blog, operated by pro AGW global warming scientists Penn State's Dr. Michael Mann and NASA's Dr. Gavin Schmidt, and others, has posted a six point rebuttal to the effort saying that it is only marginally useful. It's called "No Man is an (Urban Heat) Island".

Dr. Roger Pielke, of the University of Colorado, runs a blog called Climate Science which looks at a wide variety of topics on climate change outside of the AGW mainstream, has posted his response to RealClimate's rebuttal in defense of the project saying its good science. The debate is intense, and some normally reserved scientists are letting the fur fly over the issue. There's sensible debate, science at high levels, diatribe, rhetoric, and even a "Tasker" like character who is a scientist for a major university that uses a doppelganger persona to attack ideas rather than risk his own credentials.

All because I want to take some pictures of weather stations and put them online in a publicly open database for the purpose of evaluating the weather station network and it's data integrity. Go figure.

I guess I should be flattered that people are fighting over my idea, but I'd really rather just get on with the project and see what comes out of it. I figure that the established science should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a former TV weatherman and some volunteers taking pictures. If not, there's something really wrong. I'm not getting involved in the bickering, I'm just keeping to the work I and the volunteers have started. We are almost up to 100 stations surveyed now.

But I did find a nugget of wisdom in this entry on Climate Science which clears the air rather nicely:

If a [weather station] site is initially chosen because it meets all the qualifications for observing temperature, there is little about the site that could change to develop a cool bias. Almost all the changes will result in a warming trend from the original, ideal setting.

I know that supporters of the AGW theory get very upset when they are accused of behaving in a religious fashion, instead of behaving like scientists. To avoid this, I suggest they start behaving like scientists and support the effort to obtain the best data possible.

Comment by Jim Clarke — July 4, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

Posted by Anthony Watts at 07:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

After showing a number a stations where poor siting and thoughtless local influences may have biased the temperature records for a weather station, I decided I'd show some examples of well sited and non locally influenced climate monitoring stations for comparison. The picture was provided by the National Weather Service in San Diego.

This is Cuyamaca, in southern California. It is an official USHCN climate station of record.

While Cuyamaca isn't 100% local influence free due to nearby roads, it is well away from buildings, exhaust fans, air conditioners and other such influences. It is near Lake Cuyamaca, and is well away from the major cities of southern California.

Here is its yearly average temperature record from NASA GISS:

You can see the Google Earth Map of its location near Lake Cuyamaca here

Posted by Anthony Watts at 06:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The picture above is from the National Weather Service in San Diego. It is of Laguna Beach, CA, a COOP station that it manages. This picture illustrates how some cooperative observers have relegated the task of temperature measurement literally to the backlot. It also illustrates how some observers don't understand the issue of proper siting. Now thats not to say that the entire network is this way, many observers are fully cognizant of the issue and do a splendid job. But a pattern seems to be emerging that shows that this type of problem is not uncommon.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 12:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

NOAA has put together a new series of surface stations called the Climate Reference Network (CRN) As a specialist in the technology of meteorology, I like this program a lot. It takes great care to place emphasis on accuracy, repeatability, linearity. and calibration of instruments. The best feature, as far as I'm concerned is the use of three simultaneous aspirated and calibrated air temperature probes, so that there is redundancy. And if one sensor starts drifting it will show up against the data from the other two. Dr. Tom Karl from NCDC deserves credit for bringing this project to implementation.

While this new instrumentation will ensure far more accurate in situ measurements in the future, it will do little to help the disarray seen in the surface temperature record of the past.

Here is the manual for it:

NOAA/NESDIS NOAA-CRN/OSD-2002-0002ROUD0
CRN Series December 10, 2002
X030 DCN 06
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

I want to bring attention to the way in which they rate weather station locations, because it is very germane to the argument that some of the existing USHCN and COOP stations have micro-site issues. As far as I know, no database exists of the ratings below applied to the existing network of weather stations.

From the USHCRN manual:

The USCRN will use the classification scheme below to document the "meteorological measurements representativity" at each site.

This scheme, described by Michel Leroy (1998), is being used by Meteo-France to classify their network of approximately 550 stations. The classification ranges from 1 to 5 for each measured parameter. The errors for the different classes are estimated values.

• Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
   
• Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
   
• Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.


• Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
   
• Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

One of the goals of the www.surfacestations.org project, will be to apply this site classification standard set forth by NOAA for the USCRN to the existing network of surface stations so that the problems associated with some sites can be quantified, and the good sites can be clearly defined as well. This will help scientists whom use the surface temperature data do more accurate analyses.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The picture below comes to me via the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Monterey from their website. You can see the unannotated version here:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/mtr/cpm/1967.jpg

It is the Cooperative Observer Station ID# 041967 for Concord, California in Contra Costa County. It, like many temperature monitoring stations nationwide, is located at the Waste Water Treatment Plant there. The MMTS display console is inside the guard hut where the daily high/low is recorded and then sent of on a B44 form once a month to the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC

Fortunately, this station is not part of the USHCN climate data set, as it appears it may be compromised by micro-site effects. Note the air conditioning unit just about 6 feet away, and the nearby parking lot. Then there is the varying shade from the tree.

One could argue that all these effects could cancel each other out: Parking lot- positive, A/C unit exhaust - positive, Shade - negative and I'm sure that can be true at certain times, but at other times, they may not be. Since you can't for example calculate when the a/c turns out and compare that to when the tree's shade may not be falling on the sensor, or know where all that is in context to a partly cloudy day when sun beams through, heating up the parking lot and surrounding air.

All of these cyclic factors can combine together, like a rogue wave in the ocean, to make a "temperature peak" which would be higher than if these factors didn't exist. Similarly, a trough or minimum can also be created at other times. The point is, without having monitored these things through time, its impossible to tell when or to know the magnitude be it positive or negative.

In the next couple of days, I'll start showing some well sited stations for comparison.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)