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
A common theme with official climate stations of record is their placement with city and county fire stations. The reason? An observer is needed to transfer the data from the thermometer to the B91 form sent to NCDC every month. Unfortunately, fire stations are often not good places to measure temperature due to the amount of concrete and equipment around them. Their placement is to better serve the city population, putting them in the middle of UHI. For example here we see Bartow, FL city fire station provided by www.surfacestations.org volunteer surveyor Don Kostuch.
While this placement "is" over grass, the narrow grass strip is also within feet of parking, a major thoroughfare, located downtown near high rise buildings. This is not an ideal place at all to measure temperature, yet it is the official USHCN climate station of record. As shown by the graph provided by NASA GISS, there appears to be a step bias introduced in the early 1980's.
A possible cause is that the MMTS electronic thermometer was placed in 1984, according to NCDC's database. It is not uncommon to see such step biases introduced when the MMTS replaces the traditional Stevenson Screen shelter and mercury thermometers, since cable issues often force the MMTS to be closer to buildings. For example, consider Marysville, CA, one of the earliest and worst examples of a place unsuitable for climate measurement.
So far, over 70% of our USHCN climate network uses the MMTS electronic thermometer system.
While fire stations do give the appearance of a regular warm body to record the temperature and send it in to NCDC, sometimes it doesn't always go as planned. For example, this B91 form from Bartow looks a bit like a workbook assignment from school. There is a lot of data missing, and uncertainty over a couple of days of data:
See the original B91 form in PDF format.
Now while this form lacks neatness, the observer at least tries to provide something each day, in contrast to the very neat but nearly vacuous B91 form provided by the Marysville observer (PDF format).
Please don't get the idea that I'm putting down the hard work of the amateur climate observers, they perform a valuable and much needed service. The point here is quality control issues and missing data.
These B91 forms are just a couple of random samples, more on that missing data issue soon.
It's been awhile since I updated this series, and its not for lack of material. But I got busy with the UCAR conference, publishing a slide show, and other things. But this morning, über volunteer Don Kostuch sent me a note on his latest survey in Titusville, FL near Cape Canaveral and KSC. I'd like to point out that Don has traveled further and surveyed more stations in the USA than anyone. He is a surveying machine. He wrote this in his email to me:
"On your scale of 1 to 5, this is an 8. Peace, Don Kostuch"
Ok in the past we have seen stations on rooftops, at sewage treatment plants, over concrete, next to air conditioners, next to diesel generators, with nearby parking, excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights.
Imagine a USHCN station that embraces all of that. I give you the Titusville, FL USHCN station:
Ever thorough, Don also provided photographs of the Climate Reference Network site, just 7 miles east at KSC, which demonstrates the correct environment for measurement of near surface air temperature:
Now I know there will be the usual critics who will jump in and say "This can be adjusted for!". Ok here is your chance, show me the equations to untangle Titusville's temperature record from microsite bias. Personally, it looks FUBAR to me.
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.
The picture above is of Conconully, Washington and comes to me courtesy of Josiah Mault, of the Washington State Climate Office. Mault has been surveying all of the Washington stations for that office, and has been regularly making contributions to www.surfacestations.org The picture illustrates how human activity can spring up around a station. The MMTS electronic temperature sensor is shown next to a lean-to used for rafting gear storage. I presume the life preserver is placed next to the sensor as a reminder that we may need it in case of catastrophic sea level rise. The metal ore cart full of stones is a nice touch, and makes a perfect high mass IR radiative heatsource to keep the overnight lows a bit more "comfy". There are also stones directly under the sensor whic you can see in this photo.
But perhaps it is not the curator's fault, but rather that of the NWS/NOAA employee that made the placement, as we see in the next photo:
more pictures available here on surfacetstations.org
Once again, we have a climate station of record in the middle of a parking area, near buildings, and directly in the middle of regular human activity. One of the downsides to the NWS COOP modernization program started in the 1980's and continuing today is the MMTS unit itself. It requires a cable, and that cable has be be buried to be brought into the domicile containing the electronic readout.
As anyone knows, especially rabbits, digging short holes is far easier than digging long ones. So its far easier and less time consuming to dig a short trench and place the sensor nearer the building. This proximity bias seems to have been repeated regularly when the MMTS system has replaced the traditional Stevenson Screen and Mercury Max-min thermometers.
There's a reason that NOAA specifies that temperature sensors should be a minimum of 100 feet away from buildings, concrete, and asphalt which may introduce biases into the reading. What we don't know is why there has been such an apparent regular failure to adhere to such specifications.
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 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
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.
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.
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. "
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This photo comes come to me from NOAA's Weather Service Forecast Office in Monterey.
This is the official USHCN climate station of record for Livermore, CA. USHCN # 44997 The temperature sensor is located in a backyard of a residence within six feet of the swimming pool.
Here is the temperature trend from NASA GISS:
The question is: can an unbiased and accurate reading of temperature be obtained in somebody's backyard next to their pool? With NOAA siting requirements saying a minimum of 100 feet from buildings, I would assume this would apply to pools too.
I couldn't make this up if I tried.
You can see the picture without the annotations on the NWS website with this direct link:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/mtr/cpm/4997.jpg
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
I've received a few requests for information regarding just what the established standards are for placing weather stations as they relate to their surroundings. Here is an excerpt from the NWS web page describing the issue, along with an embedded link to the PDF document that gives specific details:
The [National Weather Service] COOP network has provided climate and weather data for over 100 years.
Consistency of the measurements is an attribute of the network, and it has been
maintained by rare and/or gradual change, and established standards for
exposure, of instruments over the life of the network. In order to preserve the
integrity of the network, NWS has
established
standards for equipment, siting, and exposure.
By these standards, the Stevenson Screen at the NWS office in Monterey, CA shown above, is well out of compliance.
Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot
above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation]
is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is
desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install
the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the
area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the
shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree,
fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or
concrete surface.
Precipitation gauge siting: The exposure of a rain gauge is very
important for obtaining accurate measurements. Gauges should not be located
close to isolated obstructions such as trees and buildings, which may deflect
precipitation due to erratic turbulence. To avoid wind and resulting
turbulence problems, do not locate gauges in wide-open spaces or on elevated
sites, such as the tops of buildings. The best site for a gauge is one
in which it is protected in all directions, such as in an opening in a grove of
trees. The height of the protection should not exceed twice its distance from
the gauge. As a general rule, the windier the gauge location is, the greater the
precipitation error will be.
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 above comes to me courtesy of Gary Kobes, of the US Coast Guard. It is the temperature sensor at the climate station of record in Aberdeen, WA It is located at the sewage treatment plant. Note the sign on the support post. Note also the temperature shelter plates are clogged with some dark matter, what I'm not sure.
Gary writes: The general location is about 300-400 feet north of Grays Harbor—the body of water. The sewage plant is located in the middle of an industrial area. The sewage plant lies between the site and the harbor generally on the south. The heavy construction company’s yard building and equipment are to the east. Weyerhaeuser has a log yard to the west. The northern boundary of the site is a railway and on the far side is an area of light industrial buildings.
The measuring head is 6’ above the ground. It is about 25’ from the office building in the background. It is surrounded on three sides—the tree and out building about 75” to the southeast, the office building 25’ to the southwest and the #1 sewage digester and processing tank 90’ to the northwest—and sheltered from the three primary prevailing directions of wind in the area. The measuring head has a 25’ wide strip of grass on the southwest side and a concrete sidewalk and asphalt parking lot to the northeast.
Nothing like convenient parking next to a weather station, why I'll bet those hot automobile radiators only affect the temperature a few degrees, not to worry.
This station is used in the GISTEMP database to calculate future trends in computer driven climate models. You can see it here:
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
I found this when I visited the old Army Airfield (Derby Field) in Lovelock, Nevada. The official airport for the city also has a NOAA weather station that has been there since the airfield opened around WWII.
In addition to the air conditioners, there's nothing like an occasional jet blast or propwash to complement your high temperature measurements. Thats not a museum piece, its a working jet. The aviation ramp is in fact just 10 feet from the Stevenson Screen. This station has since been replaced with a more modern ASOS, about 200 yards south of this location, but this Stevenson Screen measured data for years in the exact same spot.
And yes, the data from it is in the NASA GISTEMP database used in climate modeling which you can see here
It looks like the whole thing may in fact be a Soviet plot. ;-) (Its a Russian MIG parked there)
Oh, and they like light bulbs in the screen here too. Notice this screen is the old kind with doors that open side by side.
At least somebody had the good sense to put in a timer.
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 the City of Lodi, California, since they have a USHCN weather station that produces data used in the climate record and also in climate change computer modeling.
Wow was I surprised, not only because of how bad the weather station siting was, but because I found two.
First site is the Lodi Municipal Service Center, 38.11619N 121.29003W. FYI, Lodi runs their own municipal district, which is why they own a substation. Note the bank of fans on the big transformer. they are about 30 feet away. I wasn't about to get close enough to the transformers to measure for sure. The fans exhaust the waste heat the transformer produces. Note that when temperatures are at their highest, so is electrical energy use for air conditioning. And of course, our thermometer will track this trend.
The picture to me is like “when worlds collide” where the solar power to offset GHG’s (charging the car) meets the reason for global warming in the first place (the waste heat from the power transformers).
This is a Google Earth satellite photo of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh. The weather station, at 55°55′22.71″N 3°11′17.69″W is the white box in the middle of the grass circle. Of concern is not just the nearby roads, but also the buildings. It appears the station is almost completely encircled by tall buildings.
This means that the heat from the buildings will significantly bias the temperature, and reduce wind which adds further bias.
You’d think top scientists would know better?
The picture below is from Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor. You may have heard of him, the Governor of Oregon tried to get him fired for not jumping on to the global warming bandwagon because he doesn't see enough supporting evidence.
The picture is of Forest Grove, Oregon, and the temperature plot below shows how it is warming. But George says:
"Yes, it’s a window air conditioning unit to the east and the edge of a large asphalt parking lot to the north, northwest, and west. The pic is shot looking northeast. For those of you that may not immediately realize this, air conditions exhaust hot air to the outside.
I decided I’d drop some more fun with entropy your way. Here is the USHCN station of climate record in Redding, CA GISS number # 425725920010 and used in the climate modeling database
It is now operated by the US Forest Service at their HQ located at the Redding Airport. It used to be operated by the National Weather Service, but that WSFO closed in the mid 90’s.
Like Marysville, the site is surrounded by asphalt, and the surface is unnatural - its wood chips over weedmat, and I’ll have to say it was hot as heck to walk on during mid-day..
But the kicker is the “accessories” they’ve added for convenience of running the hygrometer and for night observations. Yes it is another fine high-quality USHCN climate recording site. I wonder how many times they forgot to turn off the light? It looks like there might be room for a hot plate to keep your coffee warm while making observations.
The blower is used to run air past the wet bulb hygrometer...its not the
correct way
to do it (manual aeration by rotation is specified).
I'm surveying climate stations of record around California and documenting their condition as part of a larger project I'm doing. You'll see more about it here in the near future.
Today I visited Marysville's Fire Station, just off Hwy 70 at 9th and B Street, where they have the station of record for the city using the MMTS electronic sensor installed by the National Weather Service. The data from this station is part of the USHCN (US Historical Climatological Network) and is used in the computer modeling used to predict climate change.
The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio and is probably the worst site visited so far. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt reflecting sunlight/heat. And worst of all, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. Oh and lets not forget the portable BBQ the firefighters use a "couple times a week." The area has been constantly added to, what was once a grass rear yard was turned to a parking lot, then more buildings added, then a cell tower with one, then two electronics buildings and the air conditioners...no report on how long the firefighters were BBQ'ing back there, when they figured out why I was asking all the questions they clammed up.
I can tell you with certainty, the temperature data from this station is useless. Look at the pictures to see why, and is it any wonder the trend for temperature is upward?
Above: Vehicles with hot radiators park within 6 feet of the temperature sensor!
Now compare Marysville to Orland, just 50 miles away, where there's not been any significant change in the last 100 years at the measuring location. Its obvious that Marysville is measuring UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects.
So the question is, how does bad data like this slip into the NASA GISS model database?
Site Survey
Chico State University Farm, Hegan Lane, Chico, CA 95926 (530) 898-6343
Date: 5/09/07
Survey By: Anthony Watts
USHCN Reported Coordinates of site: CHICO (39.71°N, 121.82°W; 56 m)
Measured GPS Coordinates of site:
Lat/Lon 39.69194˚ N 121.82127˚ W
Elevation 54.5592 m (179 feet)
Site description and known history:
California State University, Chico has been in operation since a land grant made the college a reality in 1887. The CSUC Farm has been in operation since 1963, and it is believed the current site has been at the same location since then. The prior source and location for data in the climate record for Chico is unknown as of this writing.
Curator notes:
Site surveyor notes:
Images of the site: (click for larger images)
|
North |
||||
 |
||||
| West |
 |
 |
 |
East |
 |
||||
|
South |
Other Images: (click for larger images)
Interior of west most CRS with data logger, temp/dp sensor
Before (sketch) and after of vegetation encroachment
Various details of disrepair on both CRS's
Ground cover
Interior of east most, manual mercury thermometer CRS
Evidence of repainting, brush-marks, drips
Lon Glazner, a fellow blogger and local electronics engineer made some comments about my post on the NASA/CSU study on California temperatures. Well that got me started...so below are Lon's comments and my reply along with a fun technical challenge. For those of you that read this blog, but disagree with my views, I invite you to read this carefully.
Anthony,
You make a number of good points. Particularly in the fact that the writers may have applied changes in urban temperature measurements over large regions for graphical impact.
As someone who has designed and built electronic temperature sensors I have certain concerns about the data itself.
Unless temperature sensors are regularly calibrated I think it is unreasonable to expect accuracy of greater than a couple of degrees.
Even some that are calibrated may not have good accuracy. The LM34 which is a commonly used semiconductor for measuring temperature is +/-2 degrees F. This is pretty typical of analog or digital semconductor sensors. The temperature error for this part is also non-linear, and so it's not a simple offset that you have to account for during data collection. Furthermore, there are lots of additional errors that can creep into a temperature measuring device beyond the sensor itself.
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM34.html
One could argue that numerical analysis done on data points would tease out errors. But if a scientist doesn't know the exact accuracy of a temperature sensor then they couldn't account for errors in their system.
Some of the temperature sensing stations may be very accurate and regularly calibrated. But maybe they're not?
I have a hard time trusting that the data is accurate to the level of identifying 1 or 2 degree changes over decades. This is especially true since the techniques of making these measurements have changes over that time frame.
Lon
I'm innately familiar with National Semi's LM34 and it's accuracy problems. One of my early jobs at my university as a research assistant was to create remote electronic weather stations. I soon learned how inaccurate many electronic devices can be in temperature measurement.
The problem with the National Weather Service temperature data sets (and world data sets too) is that they are full of biases and errors that I'm not sure have been accurately accounted for. People such as Jim Price, from CSUC who is on the IPCC say they have been, yet nobody has shown me any hard evidence of such. I'd be a lot less skeptical if I could see how the IPCC accounted for temperature measurement biases. But they won't share.
