I've moved !
Please update your links and bookmarks...this blog will remain active as an archive, but all new posts as of October 3rd will appear at:
www.wattsupwiththat.com or wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com
My new blog location will allow me to provide better service to my readers, and richer content of postings.
Thanks !
Anthony
Above: Earth in comparison, size wise to common sunspots
The Christion Science Monitor had a detailed article recently that brought in a surprisng source - NASA GISS - an entity that seems firmly entrenched in the AGW- CO2 theory of climate change. Here are some excerpts from the article:
Researchers say they've found puzzling correlations between changes in the sun's output and weather and climate patterns on Earth. These links appear to rise above the level of misinterpreted data or faulty equipment.
"There are some empirical bits of evidence that show interesting relationships we don't fully understand," says Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
For example, he cites a 2001 study in which scientists looked at cloud cover over the United States from 1900 to 1987 and found that average cloud cover increased and decreased in step with the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle. The most plausible cause, they said: changes in the ultraviolet (UV) light the sun delivers to the stratosphere.
Well I just finished Day1 at the conference at UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) put together by Dr. Roger Pielke, and sponsored by the National Science Foundation titled: Detecting the Atmospheric Response to the Changing Face of the Earth: A Focus on Human-Caused Regional Climate Forcings, Land-Cover/Land-Use Change, and Data Monitoring.
The day started off bright and early with the shuttle to the NCAR headquarters, shown above. It's a unique place, at over 6000 feet up right next to the "flatirons". Once there, we learned that the conference had been moved to downtown Boulder (somebody forgot to tell the shuttle driver). So we had to wait for the shuttle to return. A new one arrived, and we piled in. Then we sat there and waited because others were coming. As we waited in the sun, someone remarked, "It's getting hot in the van, open your window" to which I remarked "well, with all these windows, it's a simple greenhouse experiment". That brought a chuckle, then "no, really, open he window". So 10 minutes later, we were on our way in a van that holds 12, we had 7.
The driver informed us he had two stops to make to pickup additional people. We added three at the first stop, and at the second stop, at the invitation of the driver (I don't mind if you don't ) we added 6 more people, for a total of 16, all crammed into a van that holds 12. After that exercise I quipped: "well in addition to our earlier greenhouse experiment, now we are adding population growth in an urban setting" which drew a big laugh - inside joke for climate science, you had to be there.
At the conference we had a busy day, lots of papers on land use changes, urbanization studies, rainfall studies, and one statistical study which really caught my eye because I had lunch with the presenter and he gave me the real inside scoop on the "adjustments" process used to turn raw temperature data into "usable" data. More on that later.
I felt a bit out of place at first, because I'd been away from the scientific community for awhile, and this was the first presentation of this type (mine comes tomorrow) in about 25 years. So I was a bit nervous. That soon faded, as people whom I've never met saw my name tag, came up and introduced themselves, and said things like "I've been following your work, I'm really looking forward to seeing what you've found" "after what I've seen on your website, I'm beginning to think the surface temperature record is hopeless, and we should focus elsewhere". So I started feeling a bit more confident. I didn't see anybody packing rotten tomatoes, and everyone was very nice today, so I'm hoping for the best tomorrow.
Of course Roger Pelke Sr. was a most gracious host, as was his assistant, Dallas, and it was a comfortable and easy day thanks to their efforts.
Later I'll have a short summary of some of the papers presented today.
I'm currently attending a conference at UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) put together by Dr. Roger Pielke, and sponsored by the National Science Foundation titled: Detecting the Atmospheric Response to the Changing Face of the Earth: A Focus on Human-Caused Regional Climate Forcings, Land-Cover/Land-Use Change, and Data Monitoring. UCAR is in Boulder, tucked right up against the front range of the Colorado Rockies. It's quite an interesting place.
You can view the conference agenda here
About 50 climate science professionals are attending, Dr. Pielke invited me to make a presentation.
I'll be presenting my preliminary results of station quality analysis for the 27% of the USHCN stations surveyed thus far by surfacestations.org volunteers in my presentation tomorrow. Depending on how that s received I'll then decide whether or not to release that data publicly on this blog and other outlets, or to wait for the station surveys to be more complete. I'm really looking forward to getting feedback on this project so that I can identify weaknesses, and improve the final result. Having 50 climate scientists critique my work will be a very good test.
I have Internet connectivity in the conference room, and I'm blogging this entry from there. I'll keep you updated. So far, some very interesting papers on land use as it relates to climate have been presented.
The National Research Council (NRC 1999) recommended that the following ten climate monitoring principles, proposed by Thomas Karl et al. (NCDC, 1995), should be applied to climate monitoring systems:
National Research Council (NRC), 1999: Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
There's been some discussion about specs on siting of weather stations and temperature measurement.
Coincidentally, I've been conversing with Jos de Laat of KNMI, the Dutch Meteorological Institute who offered some scans of weather station siting specifications from the World Meteorological Institute (WMO)
he writes:
OK then, you can find the first part of the report here (~ 1 Mb):
http://www.knmi.nl/~laatdej/TMP/WMO488.pdf
Especially the beginning of part 3 is relevant, I guess. Because of document size considerations for now I only scanned up to paragraph 3.1.2.1.7 (after paragraph 3.1.2.1.7 the description of requirements for measuring on other locations like sea and the free troposphere starts).
Descriptions of sensor and siting requirements are also available online (see below) …
… but they are more formal and largely based on WMO report 488, which contains some interesting quotes that are not present in later reports. The online reports also refer to the report below, which unfortunately I was not able to locate either online nor in our library.
World Meteorological Organization, 1993a: Siting and Exposure of Meteorological Instruments (J. Ehinger). Instruments and Observing Methods Report No. 55, WMO/TD-No. 589, Geneva.
These specs are worth a read, because they show that quite a lot of thought and analysis went info choosing the specs.
As for the 100 feet cited by the NWS on this page: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm
I suspect its a round off of 30.48 m where 30 meters is the minimum distance to an artificial heat source cited for a Class 2 climate site as defined by the specs used in the Climate Reference Network (CRN) which has a French lineage, and likely traces back to WMO.
This is the climatological station of record for Odessa, Washington. It is at the residence of a COOP weather observer administered by NOAA. The photo was taken by surfacestations.org volunteer surveyor Bob Meyer.
In addition to the proximity to the house and the asphalt being less than the 100 foot published NOAA standard, we have a basketball goal nearby. This is a first as far as I know. I don't know if any studies or standards exist that describe what if any effects having the MMTS sensor whacked by errant basketballs might have.
Speaking from my own electronic design experience though, transient and numerous G forces applied to electronic sensors don't generally allow for sustained accuracy and reliability.
The complete photo album for this station is available on www.surfacestations.org
There's been some recent discussion about how only rural stations have been used in the NASA GISS analysis, and those rural stations are qualified by looking at night time DOD satellite photos, and doing a count of visible streetlights within a radius to quantify UHI potential or lack thereof. The "best" stations are labeled "lights=0"
One of those stations is Happy Camp, California, population 2182, an old gold mining and logging town located in the rugged NW corner of the state, and about 100+ miles from any major city. NOAA MMS metadata website reports data back to 1931 with 3 small distance station moves, and no changes to equipment. NASA GISS reports data back to 1914.
It looked like a good candidate to look at for a lights=0 survey. The weather station is located at the Ranger Station:
But what you can get from satellite images and databases can't really prepare you for what you may find. I "expected" to find an old classic Stevenson Screen, probably near the Ranger Station office. Check on that. But what I didn't expect to find was a "rural" station swimming in a sea of exhaust from 22 air conditioning units within 100 feet of the Stevenson Screen. Ridiculous, you are making this up you say? Well that would be my first reaction too.
But here they are, count them, I've labeled the A/C units for your convenience:
Happy Camp Ranger Station looking West from Stevenson Screen
Happy Camp Ranger Station, looking NE, Stevenson Screen visible
Happy Camp Ranger Station, looking North towards courtyard
Happy Camp Ranger Station, looking southwest inside courtyard
To help you get bearings on this walking tour, an aerial photo is available here
And the complete collection of photos is available on www.surfacestations.org
In addition to the 22 A/C units within 100 feet there are other biases too. Granted, not all 22 may be introducing a bias, but since NASA's Dr. James Hansen counts lights near stations, to asess UHI magnitude, we can count A/C's. If each A/C unit was 2000 BTU, that would be 22x2000=44,000 BTU of waste heat dumped within 100 feet of the Stevenson Screen where the thermometer is located.
Additionally. for other biases, positive and negative there's the buildings, the windows, the shade trees, the wind sheltering, and the lawn sprinkler. There's also the big parking lot to the southwest, and the Stevenson Screen is at the top of a slope and there's a parking lot downslope.
When I mentioned to the site curator about the A/C units she said "hmm, I never thought about that" but then added, "But I can tell you that when we water the lawn, my high temps are lower". I asked the curator what the prevailing wind direction was, and she said from the "south to southwest usually".
Now there doesn't appear to be much of a trend according to the NASA GISS plot, but there are some large amplitude swings and discontinuities:
Unedited NASA GISS raw data plot for Happy Camp RS
So one has to wonder, with all the observed microsite biases, what is the data really showing? One also wonders what the plot might look like if this station was better sited.
And if a lights = 0 station like this one, far removed from urbanization, has so many such micro-site biases, could others have similar problems? It looks like more hands-on site surveys will have to be done to determine the true value of lights=0 USHCN sites.
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.
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?
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
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."
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?
This isn't a case of gradual encroachment by localized site changes that happened around the thermometer, like what happened in Marysville. This is a deliberate placement of an official thermometer in the worst possible measurement scenario. Somebody had to choose this location, the building and air conditioners did not grow up around it.
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.
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,
You made several inquiries recently regarding the availability of Cooperative observer names in the MMS system. I have received the clarification I needed in order to respond, and wanted to inform you of the results as well as to provide some background detail.
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.
Natural changes such as the growth of trees and shrubs, reduce the clear sky radiation, resulting in a warming trend. Man made changes, such as increased building and paving in and around the site, also results in a warming trend that is unrelated to any potential climate change. Finally, deterioration of the shelter housing the instruments also leads to an artificial warming.
Any correction of these potential warming factors simply returns the site to its initial, ideal state. The only way to get an artificial cooling is to start with a less than ideal setting for recording air temperature and improve it. While this may have happened in a few locations, it is obvious that the gradual degradation of recording sites is the norm.
The calculations of the temperature increase due to increasing CO2 are theory, which can only be verified with actual, accurate data. Those who claim that the accuracy of the data is not relevant are, in effect, defending a theory against reality, which is faith, not science.
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
As many readers know, the www.surfacestations.org effort has been gaining a lot of attention, and also volunteers. I'm now at over 130 volunteers nationwide.
The results of the effort attracted national attention. I never went seeking it, but when Bill Stiegerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune stumbled across it, he wrote a column about it. Little did I know his column was nationally syndicated. Last week I found myself being asked to give radio interviews. One interview, at KIRO in Seattle surprised me when I found myself being co-interviewed with Dr. Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) the keeper of weather records, including weather station records. The exchange was congenial and stuck to science. That was Thursday June 21st. I am certain NCDC is aware of the effort that is going on to document the stations. Part of the reason the effort exists is that NCDC has been pressed to do this by scientists that want to do exactly what I'm doing, studying the measurement environment, and NCDC has failed to do it. We'll come back to that.
Part of the method I and volunteers are using to do this project relies on a database of weather station information provided by NCDC. In some cases stations are at airports, fire stations, sewage treatment plants, and ranger stations. In other few cases, they are at the residences of observers that have volunteered to record weather data and submit it to NCDC. Since the latitude and longitude provided in the database is fairly coarse, volunteers have to rely on a database entry called "Managing Parties" to find the name of the location, be it a fire station of the name of the volunteer observer.
You can access the database yourself, its a public record: http://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm
Use the "Guest Login" button
I last used the NCDC database system this way to locate stations on Sunday evening, June 24th it went down Monday Morning June 25th and displayed a message:
"You are not authorized to view this information. Your IP address has been logged"
When it came back up Monday afternoon, the “managing parties” field identifying the location of the weather station was gone. I would note that I shared a radio interview with Dr. Thomas Peterson of NCDC last week, so I am certain NCDC is aware of the effort.
No notification was given, nor even a professional courtesy to advise of the change, nor any notice on the website. The records were simply removed from public view where they existed before. Given the timing, and because the this same data had been visible on the same system for years It seemed this was a response to the efforts to photograph and document the USHCN network.
Without this information, its is very difficult to locate the stations, and in some cases where the official climate station is in some one's backyard, completely impossible. For example, fellow blogger and surfacestations.org contributor Russ Steele had a very difficult time locating the official station for Ft. Bragg, CA. The observer did consent to having photos posted by the way. Had Russ not been able to contact the observer, the station would likely never have been found as it's surrounded by trees and garden.
One of my volunteers wrote a query to NCDC and got this back:
Your inquiry was forwarded to me by our webmaster. I’m glad you’ve found
MMS to be a useful tool in your research.
MMS is our primary source of station metadata for National Weather Service
Cooperative Observer and several other networks, and we are
actively working to provide increased detail for a larger number of stations.
It sounds as though you’ve used the system enough that once you’ve located
a station using the search, you’re clicking on the station name hyperlink
and opening a separate station details window. The managing party for a
station has always been visible by clicking on the “Other Parties” tab. In
the case of NWS Coop stations (the USHCN research network relies upon a
subset of stations in the NWS Coop program), this is usually the NWS office
that administers the site. This information was previously included at the
bottom of the Identity tab’s “form view,” but was removed from that view
early this week because in some cases it also revealed the name of the
Cooperative observer.
Cooperative observers are volunteers who donate their time in the interests
of the public good with a reasonable expectation that their personal
information will remain private. It is the NCDC’s policy to protect
observer details, based upon Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Update, Vol.
X, No. 2, 1989, which exempts the application of FOIA in certain cases and
establishes privacy protection decisions in accordance with the Privacy Act
of 1974 (2004 edition). This exemption applies when the personal privacy
interest is greater than any qualifying public interest for disclosure.
If you have other questions regarding MMS, please feel free to contact me.
I am often away from my desk, so my response may not be immediate.
I was shocked to say the least. So were others in the scientific community.
Data which was once public for years, has now been removed, and the timing is very suspect.
The claim that it was done to protect the privacy of observers doesn't stand up to certain tests:
1) COOP weather observers are gathering climate data which is published and publicly available. The program is publicly funded. Data and methods from a publicly funded program that is not classified for national security reasons should be available for public inspection. Clearly results from surefacestations.org so far show some problems with the climate measuring network.
2) That published data is used in a multitude of publicly funded research. Some of that research guides policy decisions. The effects of a public policy decision based on data gathered by a volunteer individuals can affect millions of people. The right of the individual to FOI privacy is trumped by the greater need of the general public's right to know if the data produced by that observer is accurate.
3) The data has been publicly available for years, removing it now is clearly in response to the effort to examine a public program given the timing of it having been removed four days after an NCDC official became aware of my efforts.
4) The data that has been removed also includes locations of public entities such as fire stations, police stations, sewage treatment plants, park headquarters, state run agricultural experiment farms, and many more. These locations are public entities and have no expectation of privacy whatsoever.
I can understand wanting an individual volunteer's privacy protected. But the method used so far has been to contact the observer ahead of time, tell them what the project is about, and ask for consent. If consent has not been given, no visit is made, and no photographs are taken. See the rules that each volunteer to surfacestations.org must follow
So you have to wonder this: Is NCDC asserting that the privacy interests of police and fire stations, park headquarters, waste water treatment plants, and a handful of individuals, outweighs the public interest in examining quality of data produced in NCDC records and subsequent NOAA reports and publicly funded research?
Does this waste water treatment plant measureing temperatures for the climate record really need privacy protection?
I said earlier we'd get back to something.
Dr. Roger Pielke, a senior climate researcher, of the University of Colorado, posted on his blog, his outrage at this action, calling it a "cover up". Those are strong words coming from a congenial scientist. He also posted something even more shocking:
Pictures of these weather stations already exist, but they are being held from public view. Apparently some time ago weather service offices were issued digital cameras and told to do this work. The pictures were submitted to NCDC, and an archiving process begun, then stopped again for "privacy concerns".
This is my position:
Given what has been seen so far at weather stations that have been inspected by myself and volunteers, it is clear that parts of the USHCN climate monitoring network are out of compliance with published siting standards and in disrepair. Given that the output of this network drives in part NOAA's climate assessment, the public should demand a full and open accounting of the condition and data accuracy. If volunteer observers using NOAA equipment at private residences do not wish to have their location and the data it produces scrutinized by quality control methods, they have that right. But the data [produced by these stations should be removed from the climatic dataset because it will be unverifiable.
The picture below comes to me via my website www.surfacestations.org from volunteer site surveyor Bob Meyer. It is the USHCN climate station of record for Waterville, Washington.
In addition to the now commonly seen attempts at measuring the temperature of parking lots, this station sports another new feature: volcanic cinder rock under the station to complement the tidy sidewalk. Note the convenient drive through teller window nearby so that you can cash your paycheck while on the way to the Post Office to mail in your COOP observer form to the National Climatic Data Center.
There's also a nearby building about 10 feet away, and of course, convenient close-by parking just a few feet from the MMTS temperature sensor. Note that published NOAA/NWS siting standards require a 100 foot distance from buildings.
The USHCN "high quality" set of climate monitoring stations keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.
This picture comes to me via www.surfacestations.org courtesy of Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado.
It is the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) Station of Record for Hopkinsville, KY. The NOAA provided Max/Min Temperature Sensor is located at the observers home. The nearby air conditioner is just 10 feet from the temperature sensor. Then there's the chimney. The contribution of the portable BBQ grill to the temperature record is unknown.
The MMTS temperature sensor wasn't always mounted on the tower next to the house, it used to be in the yard, but the observer made some "improvements" over time. Note that published NOAA/NWS siting standards require a 100 foot distance from buildings.
The picture above is of the official USHCN climate station of record in Quitman, GA and comes to me via www.surfacestations.org volunteer Joel McDade.
It is located at a residence, the observer has consented to having this NOAA weather equipment at his home.
Besides the usual problematic close-by parking of vehicles that we've seen before, and buildings less than 100 feet from the temperature sensor, we have a new issue to contend with: inoperable vehicles and abandoned appliances near the temperature sensor. Such big chunks of metal have thermal retention, which means that heat is retained past sunset and re-radiated near the sensor. This may bias overnight lows.
I thought the old washing machine was a nice touch though. It illustrates how little quality control of the temperature measuring environment is being done with the US Historical Climatological Network.
Additional pictures of the site are available at the surfacestations.org online database.
One of the really odd discoveries that I've made while surveying climate monitoring stations around the USA is the fact that many of the official stations are located at sewage treatment plants. For example, the one in Colusa, CA is at their sewage treatment plant. I've visited it.
A couple of volunteers for www.surfacestations.org have been going around Washington and Oregon locating stations there and have also reported a number of stations at waste-water treatment facilities. I'll get to why locating a temperature monitoring station at these facilities is a really bad idea later, but first I want to tell you why many of them are located at these places.
It has to do with the fact that somebody must read the thermometer once a day, write down the max and min temperatures for the last 24 hours in a logbook, then send in the page of the logbook to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) once a month. When stations were assigned to cities, they needed to locate them at a place where there was somebody 7 days a week. Sewage is a 24/7 operation. Police and fire stations have some stations for the same reason, somebody is always there.
Ok this picture comes in today from from surfacestations.org volunteer Steve Tiemeier, who visited the climate station of record located at the Urbana, Ohio Waste Water Treatment Plant:
The small item in the center of the picture labeled "MMTS" is the temperature sensor that is used to submit monthly climate reports to NCDC.
Now in case you don't see some of the obvious problems with this location and why its a terrible place to measure temperature, I'll list them one by one:
- Sensor is attached to the building, just mere inches away from brickwork
- Sensor is near windows, which radiate heat from heated interior rooms in winter
- Sensor is directly above effluent grates for waste-water, Waste-water is often warmer than the air many months of the year
- Sensor is between three buildings, restricting wind flow
- Sensor is between three buildings, acting as a corner reflector for infrared
- Several exhaust fans near sensor, even though one is disable, there are two more on the walls (silver domes)
- Air conditioner within 35 feet of sensor, enclosed area will tend to trap the exhaust air near sensor
- Sensor is directly over concrete slab
- Refrigeration unit nearby, exhausts air into the enclosed area
- Shadows of all buildings create a valley effect related to sunlight at certain times
- There are two nearby digester pools, which release heat and humidity in the sensor vicinity
- Heat and humidity plume over the site from digesters is often tens of degrees warmer than the air in the wintertime
Here is wider view that shows the temperature sensor in relation to the digester tank:
More picture on my image database here: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=5322
I don't know if any readers of this blog have ever driven by a sewage treatment plant in the winter, in the midwest, as I have, but I can tell you from experience it looks like a hot springs with steam rising into the air.
Talk about your urban heat island effect...not only that, sewage treatment plants effluent volume is a direct indicator of population growth. So as more water is treated, more local effects from the heat/humidity plume occur, which can affect the temperature readings.
There are dozens, possibly hundreds of USHCN climate monitoring stations sited at sewage treatment plants around the USA. I'll have more reports on this in the future.
Who knew? I've been working in meteorology 25 years and I didn't until this week.
here are some other stations at a sewage treatment plants:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1489
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4658
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4388
This is the USHCN climate station of record for Bainbridge Georgia. It comes to me by way of surfacestations.org survey volunteer Joel McDade. Joel wins the award for finding the USHCN station closest to an air conditioner, at 8.9 feet. That honor was previously held by Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor at just over 10 feet in his picture of Forest Grove Oregon.
In addition to the air conditioner, this USHCN climate monitoring station sports several other features:
- A building just 14.3 feet away
- Convenient close-by radiator forward parking for your vehicle within feet of the MMTS sensor
- An asphalt road within 10-15 feet of the sensor
- A mature shade tree that changes shade patterns with the season
- A station move of about 150 feet closer to the building to accommodate the new MMTS sensor cable length
The station is operated by the International Paper Company. The plot of temperature below illustrates some data gaps and jumps that may be related to station moves.
Full details on this site are at the surfacestations.org online image database
For those of you that want to see a detailed analysis of the data the weather stations mentioned here have produced, please take a look at Climate Audit at www.climateaudit.org
There a number of highly intelligent people are thinking through a number of the issues raised here. For example, it appears that adjustments made to the measured data by researchers may actually enhance the urban heat island effect.
But its hard to tell for sure, because key software programs and formulae used to create such types of analyses for the IPCC haven't been made fully public. There is a Freedom of Information act effort going on in that regards because some requests for data sharing and formulae used to analyse the data have been rebuked.
Whats certain is that between the inconsistencies found with some of the surface weather stations and the lack of full disclosure on the methods used it warrants further study and investigation. One of the tenets of good science is data and methods sharing and repeatability by others. It is baffling that NOAA is not allowing their methods to be tested in this way.
Russ Steele, a blogger in Nevada County at NCWatch is volunteering to do weather station site surveys as I've been doing. Yesterday Russ visited Petaluma California to see the USHCN climate station of record there. It used to be at the city fire station but has been moved to the airport, but apparently the NASA climate database hasn't yet caught up with that as it still shows "fire station" as the place.
Ok we have a temperature sensor strapped to a wooden deck, near a sea of tarmac.
And not only that, the building with the deck is only six seet away, and has air conditioners exhausting hot air on the south side. Prevailing wind direction in that are is from the south, so that means wihen wind hits that wall, it will spread out the hot a/c exhaust east and west.
Prevailing southerly winds will transfer heat from the burgeoning suburbs to the south, and when the wind reverses and comes from the north (after a frontal passage for example) it will transfer heat from the acres of tarmac to the sensor.
So its really no surprise to see this plot. But not to worry, the climate modeler Dr. James Hansen at NASA has it all mathematically accounted for, except he still doesn't know the station is at the airport. He should try visiting weather stations someday.
This station data is in fact used in climate modeling to predict our climate future.
The picture below is from Radio station KQEN in Roseburg, OR. It is the official climate observing site for Roseburg. This picture is courtesy of Oregon State University Climatologist, George Taylor, whom is collaborating with me on my www.surfacestations.org project
Note that Mr. Taylor is not responsible for the thermometer placement, the National Weather Service in Medford is in charge of the observer program. and sets up the equipment. Only a couple of problems here, like the roof itself being hotter than any surrounding area on any given day, but lets just throw in a nearby rooftop air conditioning unit for good measure. A/C units exhaust quite a bit of hot air.
Here's the temperature plot from NASA's GISS database, which is used in global climate modeling and climate forecasting. Yes, this data is part of the USHCN "high quality" dataset used to make climate change predictions.
I'm not making this up, check it out for yourself at NASA's GISTEMP database
Ok folks, just when you think I could not possibly post any worse pictures of official climate stations, I yet again have more. I’d like to point out that I’ve only surveyed about 10 stations in California so far, and what you see posted here represents samples from those.
It gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
Ok here is Tahoe City California, GISS ID 425724880010 and an active station of record. I was unable to locate the observer for this station but was able to speak with the property management people for the nearby condos.
The first picture is looking south over lake Tahoe. BTW the van is not mine, but belongs to the groundskeeper, and yes that's where he parks it regularly. Note the doggie bags. There's a walking path nearby.
Next picture, looking north, whats that, a tennis court within 25 feet of the station? Horrors.
Final picture. It seems the groundskeeper likes to burn the trash and paper he picks up on the grounds, guess where he does it?
Honest folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
The property management person I spoke with said the tennis court and condos was built in the early 80’s.
Here is the GISS plot, showing the data trends used in NASA's Model E global Climate computer model
Note the jump and sustained plateau of temperature after 1980. Tennis anyone?
Today I visited my friend Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist and the man with a garage full of data going back to before the Gold Rush.
He’s been quietly toiling away in his retirement on his computer for the last 15 years or so making all sort of data comparisons. He gave me two CD ROMS full of data that I’m just now wading through. One plot which he shared with me today is a 104 year plot map of California showing station trends after painstakingly hand entering data into an Excel spreadsheet and plotting slopes of the data to produce trend dots.
He used every good continuous piece of data he could get his hands on, no adjusted data like the climate miodelers use, only raw from Coopertive Observing Stations, CDF stations, Weather Service Offices’s and Municipal stations.
The results are quite interesting. Here it is:
Squint hard and you can see a pattern emerge.
NOTE: This is not research quality experiment, but a simple test to point me towards others tests and experiments. IR thermometers have limited resolution and are subject to calibration errors. The real experiment is being conducted on 3 identical Stevenson Screens with an NIST calibrated data logger and the results will be published in a couple of months.
You may recall a blog entry where I talked about Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures? The premise is that the early weather station temperature shelters called Stevenson Screens originally have been specified to be painted with whitewash when the were designed and comissioned in the 1890's
 |
| Stevenson Screen at the NWS office in Monterey - good paint but right next to asphalt parking lot and concrete walk - a definite no-no! |
Curious to follow where the evidence leads, I decided to do a test today.
Preliminary spot test of the temperatures of bare wood, latex paint, and lime based whitewash (CACO3)
5/17/06 by Anthony Watts, Chico, CA
Click thumbnail pictures for larger ones
Test setup in full sun. Three slats of 1x4 pine, 2 feet long each, bare wood in the center as a control, latex on the left, whitewash on the right.
Methodology: Whitewash was mixed after conferring with Chemist Richard Godbey of the Chemical Lime Company in Henderson NV and after reading a paper he authored on the history and home creation of whitewash which you can read here http://www.lime.org/BLG/Mold.pdf (PDF)
Pictures: Materials, Mixing Whitewash, applying whitewash coat 1, coat 4 after 24 hour curing
Slats were all cut from same plank, chosen to be as knot free as possible, cut to exact same size, 2 ' long, and spaced equidistant on the frame.
Measurements were taken 3 times with IR thermometer shown below, at1:50 PM,
2:10PM, and 2:20 PM PST to be sure results were repeatable. What you see below
is the 2:20PM spot test.
Device used to measure surface Temperature, A Fluke model 561 HVAC Pro IR thermometer, handheld with laser dot sighting of measurement target
Temperature of bare wood, this represented average of several scans. The temperature was 102.6 degrees F
Temperature of Latex Painted wood, the leftmost slat temperature 88.2F
Temperature of Whitewashed wood, the rightmost slat temperature 82.5F
