Toasted – but encouraged

29 08 2007

I just finished a 150+ mile round trip from Boulder to get Dillon, CO and Cheesman Reservoir USHCN sites in addition to the Boulder NIST/NOAA site.

Cheesman had recently been flooded due to heavy runof from forest fire, the roads were mudpits, and even with 4WD I rented couldn’t get there before sunset. So gave up and returned to hotel at DIA for flight out tomorrow.

Had Vietnamese food with Pielke’s group last night, and that didn’t help my day either. I’m pretty toasted. But it was a heckofa good day even so.

So I’m signing off for a couple days for travel back home and some R&R.

The good news; While driving back on US285 I had another citizen science project idea to disprove Parker’s 2004 and 2006 papers essentially saying “UHI is minimal or doesn’t exist”, which I believe is unsupportable. I think it will work. Got to mull it over. Check back in a day or two. Pictures and presentation coming when I get back to normal schedule.

Anthony out





I have Boulder NIST/NOAA site

29 08 2007

Boulder is home to National Institute of Standards and NOAA’s research lab…big government facility and probably the most secure weather station in the USA, I had to go through metal detectors, have mirrors run under my vehicle, be photographed, and my drivers license verified.

Took 2 hours…on the road at the moment to get another station in Colorado, blogging via WiFi from Starbucks

Will post new pix soon.





Conference Day 3 – suggestions

29 08 2007

This mornig s session is all about drafting a set of suggestions to forward to other key members of the climate research community using the group knowledge gained from this conference. I have submitted my suggestion, and it has been accepted for inclusion in the publication. It reads:

It has become clear that many surface weather stations, possibly a
significant number, may have undocumented biases that may or may not
be correctable using data analysis and data adjustment techniques.
After completion of weather station surveys for USHCN and other
networks, Why not identify the known good stations that have long term
records, few station moves, and no obvious microsite biases and
separate their data into a subset. Study the data and trends the known
good station subsets produce separately to see what can be learned.





Live at the conference, Day2 – Success

28 08 2007

You know your presentation was successful when:

1) Nobody threw rotten fruit

2) People came up to me afterwards and said “I have photos I can get to you”

3) A high level official at NCDC requests a copy of my presentation “as soon as you can get it to me”





Live from the conference, Day 2 – Down to the wire

28 08 2007

Ok the next session is starting in a few minutes, less than 2 hours from now I’m going to know if the work I and all of the volunteers at www.surfacestations.org has been scientifically fruitful, or if I’m going to get pelted on the stage with rotten fruit.

My presentation is updated with some late breaking photos Russ Steele got yesterday from St. George, UT, loaded into the presentation laptop, and my remote control has been tested. I’m as ready as I’ll ever be.

At the very least, after sitting through a bunch of Powerpoint presentations, my use of the same software I use for doing TV weather presentations should break the mold.





Live at the confrence, day 2 – coming up today

28 08 2007

This afternoon there will be several presentations that embrace the measurement systems used for the near surface temperature and precipitation records.

Of great interest to me is a presentation outlining the new US CRN (Climate Reference Network) by Bruce Baker of NCDC. Another is by Glenn Conner, former Kentucky State Climatologist whose talk will be about the role of station histories in identifying biases in climate records.

My presentation follows those two – it should be a lively afternoon.





Live from the Conference, day 2 – land cover and GCM’s

28 08 2007

I just watched a presentation Elsi Sertel from a university in Turkey showing how easy it is to introduce true land cover data into a climate model. Her study area was around the Black Sea near Istanbul, and used LANDSAT imagery along with a pixel by pixel truthing technique to determine the type of land cover, sea, forest, urban, etc and apply it to use in a GCM.

Her premise was that current GCM’s use land surface info that isn’t fully representative, out of date, and in some cases just plain wrong.

Her study showed a technique that allowed for a significant amount of automation to the process, to allow improved and current land surface types to be easily integrated into the grid cells of a GCM. Unfortunately, some GCM gridding schemes are too coarse to handle such data.

From what I’ve seen in this conference so far, and I’ve seen presentations now from Europe, Turkey, China, Australia and the USA, it is becoming more clear that land use is a major driver of climate change, and perhaps dwarfs even GHG effects. That’s just a hunch. One study from Australia showed the effects of removing a woody type bush over a large area over the past century, and the results on rainfall and temperature were profound.





LIve from the conference, Day2

28 08 2007

I’m sitting in a presentation by William R. Cotton, of Colorado State University where he’s talking about the effect of Urban Heat Islands (UHI) on precipitation. He’s making a convincing pitch showing how the UHI factors into downwind delayed convection initiated by the city UHI along with a significant contribution of aerosols and ice nuclei that seed the precipitation. He’s been able to demonstrate that in St. Louis, downwind from the city (typically NE to SE based on prevailing winds) there are increased precipitation from thunderstorms by as much as 160% during the life cycle of the storm.

Yesterday, I saw a very similar study done by Indiana State Climatologist, Dev Nyogi, where he studied Indianapolis, IN and came to similar conclusions. The midwestern cities make good case studies because they are singular islands of urbanization (as opposed to sprawling cities like Los Angeles and Chicago) that essentially become point heat sources at the mesoscale level.

The summary is this: Urban and-use has the biggest control on locations and amounts of precipitation and that condensation nuclei added by the city also have a significant effect. Heat and particles contributed by the city can make bigger, more precipitating thunderstorms.

Of course studies by Parker tells us there is no significant UHI effect, so this presents yet another challenge to what is looking ore and more like a flawed study by Parker.





How not to measure temperature – part 30

28 08 2007

Russ Steele is out on vacation and doing several surveys while traveling. This one below is from St. George, UT. Here we see an MMTS measuring the temperature near the surface of an elevated parking lot. The effect of the asphalt and vehicles that park near it, engine forward, probably dwarfs the effect of the nearby a/c unit. The shading may help daytime temps some, but the asphalt likely biases Tmin the most. The complete photo survey is available on surfacestations.org

St George_south.JPG

St George_east.JPG





Conference Day1 – van rides and jitters

27 08 2007

NCAR.jpg

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.





Live from Conference at UCAR, Boulder, CO

27 08 2007

UCAR-mesa-lab.jpg

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 10 Climate Monitoring Principles

26 08 2007

The Ten Principles

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:

  1. Management of Network Change: Assess how and the extent to which
    a proposed change could influence the existing and future climatology
    obtainable from the system, particularly with respect to climate variability
    and change. Changes in observing times will adversely affect time series.
    Without adequate transfer functions, spatial changes and spatially dependent
    changes will adversely affect the mapping of climatic elements.
  2. Parallel Testing: Operate the old system simultaneously with the
    replacement system over a sufficiently long time period to observe the
    behavior of the two systems over the full range of variation of the climate
    variable observed. This testing should allow the derivation of a transfer
    function to convert between climatic data taken before and after the change.
    When the observing system is of sufficient scope and importance, the results
    of parallel testing should be documented in peer-reviewed literature.
  3. Meta Data: Fully document each observing system and its operating
    procedures. This is particularly important immediately prior to and
    following any contemplated change. Relevant information includes:
    instruments, instrument sampling time, calibration, validation, station
    location, exposure, local environmental conditions, and other platform
    specifics that could influence the data history. The recording should be a
    mandatory part of the observing routine and should be archived with the
    original data. Algorithms used to process observations need proper
    documentation. Documentation of changes and improvements in the algorithms
    should be carried along with the data throughout the data archiving process.
  4. Data Quality and Continuity: Assess data quality and homogeneity
    as a part of routine operating procedures. This assessment should focus on
    the requirements for measuring climate variability and change, including
    routine evaluation of the long-term, high-resolution data capable of
    revealing and documenting important extreme weather events.
  5. Integrated Environmental Assessment: Anticipate the use of data
    in the development of environmental assessments, particularly those
    pertaining to climate variability and change, as a part of a climate
    observing system’s strategic plan. National climate assessments and
    international assessments (e.g., international ozone or IPCC) are critical
    to evaluating and maintaining overall consistency of climate data sets. A
    system’s participation in an integrated environmental monitoring program can
    also be quite beneficial for maintaining climate relevancy. Time series of
    data achieve value only with regular scientific analysis.
  6. Historical Significance: Maintain operation of observing systems
    that have provided homogeneous data sets over a period of many decades to a
    century or more. A list of protected sites within each major observing
    system should be developed, based on their prioritized contribution to
    documenting the long-term climate record.
  7. Complementary Data: Give the highest priority in the design and
    implementation of new sites or instrumentation within an observing system to
    data-poor regions, poorly observed variables, regions sensitive to change,
    and key measurements with inadequate temporal resolution. Data sets archived
    in non-electronic format should be converted for efficient electronic
    access.
  8. Climate Requirements: Give network designers, operators, and
    instrument engineers climate monitoring requirements at the outset of
    network design. Instruments must have adequate accuracy with biases
    sufficiently small to resolve climate variations and changes of primary
    interest. Modeling and theoretical studies must identify spatial and
    temporal resolution requirements.
  9. Continuity of Purpose: Maintain a stable, long-term commitment to
    these observations, and develop a clear transition plan from serving
    research needs to serving operational purposes.
  10. Data and Meta Data Access: Develop data management systems that
    facilitate access, use, and interpretation of data and data products by
    users. Freedom of access, low cost mechanisms that facilitate use
    (directories, catalogs, browse capabilities, availability of meta data on
    station histories, algorithm accessibility and documentation, etc.), and
    quality control should be an integral part of data management. International
    cooperation is critical for successful data management.

 

References:

Karl, T.R., V.E. Derr, D.R. Easterling, C.K. Folland, D.J. Hoffman, S. Levitus,
N.Nicholls, D.E. Parker, and G.W. Withee, 1995: Critical issues for long-term
climate monitoring. Climatic Change, 31, 185-221.


National Research Council
(NRC), 1999:

Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems
, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.





Specs on weather stations

24 08 2007

thermometer1.jpg

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) …

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/Draft%207th%20edition/Part1-Ch01FINAL_Corr.pdf

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/Draft%207th%20edition/Part1-Ch02Final.pdf

… 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.





How not to measure temperature – part 29

22 08 2007

concully1.jpg

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:
concully2.jpg
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.





Equipment Distribution in the US Climate Network

21 08 2007

I just finished several days of data compilation and cross checking in preparation for release of the first set of numbers from my www.surfacestations.org project.

One of the things I’m doing is looking at what kind of equipment is used and how widely distributed it is. Here are some numbers that illustrate the makeup of the USHCN network of 1221 weather stations:

NIMBUS 196
MMTS 674
CRS w/ MAX-MIN 251
ASOS HYGROTHERM 64
THERMOGRAPH 5
OTHER NS EQUIP 19
UNKNOWN 12
Total: 1221

USHCN_equipment_piechart.png

Source Data: NCDC MMS

Note that the vast majority of the temperature sensors are now the MMTS / Nimbus electronic type, comprising 71% combined, with the older Cotton Region Shelter and Mercury MAX-MIN Thermometers comprising only 21% of the network now. ASOS systems mostly at airports comprise 64 stations, or 5%. There are 19 official climate stations where nonstandard consumer level equipment has been substituted, comprising 2% of the network.

This is an important thing to know, keep it in mind becuase it goes hand in hand with the upcoming station site quality analysis based on 25% of the total network that has been surveyed.





A letter from climate scientist James Hansen

17 08 2007

James Hansen of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies issued a letter (the second this week) in response to the correction of temperatures that was recently done as a result of the work by Steve McIntyre illustrating problems with temperature data processing for the US record sets.

I provide the letter (PDF) link here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf without any comment of my own, except to say that it is in fact from Hansen and published on his web page which you can see here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/





Climate Audit is back online

16 08 2007

The new server hardware I built for Climate Audit was deployed in the co-location center today in California, I hand delivered it myself. This new server has much over the old one from a tech spec point of view, including faster CPU, dual core, error corrected memory, and hi speed SATA2 drives. It’s biggest advantage is that it’s not near a flood zone nor an earthquake zone for that matter. Multi-homed fiber to the backbone, DDOS attack filtering at two levels, instant UPS, automated backup, and remote administration by multiple methods will improve its uptime compared to the old server and location.

The DNS/domain name issues should now have been resolved worldwide, and www.climateaudit.org should now be reachable anywhere. The brief issue today with incomplete page loads had to do with the server temporary configuration at a fixed iP address for setup and testing and JohnA made the needed edits while I was on my way back from the COLO facility.

I think we are good to go. Onward.





Townhall.com on the NASA “Y2K” Error

16 08 2007

By Steve McIntyre

“Here’s an interesting article on the NASA “Y2K” error from Michael Fumento of Townhall.com that steers between the over-reaction of some commentators that this error somehow disproves global warming and the claims of NASA spokesmen, James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, that the error “doesn’t matter”. NASA spokesman Schmidt uses the realclimate.org website to advance the view that the error “doesn’t matter” without explicitly identifying himself in the article as a NASA spokesman.”

The last 2 paragraphs of the Townhall.com story on page 2 sums it up well.





Guest weblog – A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield

15 08 2007

roy.jpg

by Roy Spencer | 15 Aug 2007

In case you hadn’t noticed, the global warming debate has now escalated from a minor skirmish to an all-out war. Although we who are skeptical of the claim that global warming is mostly manmade have become accustomed to being the ones that take on casualties, last week was particularly brutal for those who say we have only 8 years and 5 months left to turn things around, greenhouse gas emissions-wise.

I’m talking about the other side – the global warming alarmists.

First, NASA’s James Hansen and his group had to fix a Y2K bug that a Canadian statistician found in their processing of the thermometer data. As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States – 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared “1998!” into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.

Then, the issue of spurious heat influences on the thermometers that NOAA uses to monitor global temperatures has reared its ugly head. Personally, I’ve been waiting for this one for a long time. Ordinary citizens are now traveling throughout their home states, taking pictures of the local conditions around these thermometer sites.

To everyone’s astonishment, all kinds of spurious heat sources have cropped up over the years next to the thermometers. Air conditioning exhaust fans, burn barrels, asphalt parking lots, roofs, jet exhaust. Who could have known? Shocking.

Next, my own unit and I published satellite measurements that clearly show a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics which all of the leading computerized climate models have been insisting is a warming mechanism (Spencer et al., August 9, 2007 Geophysical Research Letters).

We found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up from extra rain system activity, the amount of infrared heat-trapping cirrus clouds those rain systems produce actually goes down. This unexpected result supports the “Infrared Iris” theory of climate stabilization that MIT’s Richard Lindzen advanced some years ago.

No one in the alarmist camp can figure out how we succeeded with this sneak attack. After all, there isn’t supposed to be any peer-reviewed, published research that denies a global warming Armageddon, right?

But these volleys have not gone unanswered. From the other side of the battlefield, Al Gore and Newsweek coordinated an assault on a few skeptics with all kinds of guilt-by-association accusations. They allege that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming.

Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming. Apparently, that’s okay since we all know that the federal government is unbiased and there to help, whereas petroleum companies only exist to force us to burn fuels that do nothing more than ruin the environment.

Little damage was done by the Gore-Newsweek assault, though, since the attack amounted to little more than a verbal “Well, your mama wears Army boots!” It didn’t help matters that the magazine’s own columnist, Robert Samuelson, published a follow-up article saying the allegation of bribes offered to scientists “was long ago discredited” and that “the story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.”

Next, I’m happy to report that we skeptics have been getting a steady stream of new recruits. In the last year or so, more and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and admitting they’ve had some doubts about this whole global warming thing.

In fact, chances are that your favorite TV weather person is a closet skeptic (unless it’s Heidi Cullen). But please observe the “don’t ask – don’t tell” rule. Most broadcast meteorologists are not ready for the public embarrassment that would accompany their outing.

And lastly, I have been heartened by new scientific intelligence that we skeptics have been gathering. I can predict there are more surprises to come, with some pretty powerful tactical weapons yet to be deployed. Climate scientists are beginning to question long held assumptions – which is almost always the first step toward a major scientific discovery. So stay tuned.

Oh, and by the way, in the interests of a fair fight, the next time someone sees Al Gore, could you ask him to stop calling us “global warming deniers”? I don’t know of anyone who denies that the Earth has warmed. I’m sure this has just been an honest misunderstanding on Mr. Gore’s part, and he’ll be more than happy to stop doing it.

The author, Roy Spencer, is Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama. This article originally appeared in TCS Daily





New Climaudit.org server to be up TODAY

14 08 2007

JohnA and I have been busy rebuilding CA from the ground up on a new server platform in a more stable co-location facility.

The new platform I’ve provided is up and running now, but remains offline to the domain name at the moment while final testing and security measures are tested. This new server, while being bigger, badder, with more cores, more CPU GHz, more memory, faster SATA II drives, automated backup and many other improvements should be able to handle the kinds of loads being thrown at it as well as deflect DOS attacks.

Look for it to appear around noon PST today, Thursday August 16th