It’s interesting to me that NOAA acknowledges the importance of avoiding agriculturally developed sites in their licensing agreement handbook:

“Licensor and Licensee recognize the importance of maintaining Site integrity for among other things, to… minimize potential impacts from long-term land use and land cover changes on the climate record at the USCRN Site, such as irrigation and tilling of the land near the site, typically within 100 meters.” —From U. S. Climate Reference Network Site Information Handbook, Pg. 17.

But cultivation and irrigation, considered “natural” land uses, might tend to creep past these 100-meter barriers over time, and if Christy’s essay is right, these land uses affect temperature readings more than I realized.

Thanks for your ongoing investigation (I read on to part two of this).

Given Christy’s study (linked above), which finds a regional warming effect from irrigation, the total volume of water used in irrigation from the Tucumcari Project would be an interesting comparison to the temperature record.

All I could find online is 10 years data of total irrigated land in acres, which ends in 1992. Full records doubtless exist somewhere. Also I think volume of water used in irrigation is a better metric than area irrigated because volume will determine the amount of water vapour introduced into the atmosphere. The 2 may be closely related. However, one description of the scheme says,

“Irrigated pastures fill a niche in this area because of their ability to produce under varying levels of irrigation,” said Rex Kirksey, superintendent of NMSU’s Agricultural Science Center in Tucumcari. “Pastures remain a viable option in many situations where irrigation water is too limited or unpredictable for corn or alfalfa production.”

Which makes me think there isn’t a good relationship between area irrigated and water volume.

http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/uctucprjdata.html

And at the risk of belabouring the point, the significance of Tucumcari may be that it shows the effect of irrigation without any other significant local effect. For those of you who didn’t read the Christy paper, he found, in a region remote from irrigation, temperatures declined over the 20th century.

BTW, what clued me into the irrigation effect is that here in Perth Western Australia a typical sunny day in summer is 35C to 38C. However, we get a few days each year when we go into the 40s. I think 44C was the hottest day this year. These hot days are invariably humid, although without cloud, and nights are much hotter than normal in summer; +10C or more on some nights. I realized the 40C+ days occur after rain in the interior and the normally dry winds from the interior become relatively humid.

Its hot because the air is humid and the sky is clear. The extra heat results from a near ground greenhouse effect from the extra water vapour.

REPLY: I just completed my basic research, posted on the main page, and like you could not find the overall water volume numbers for the entire project, only a portion. But I did find something else. Leakage. The irrigation canal system that serves the area near the USHCN station loses HALF of the water to the surrounding area, and it is getting worse.

1. Was this adjustment known to take place in 1995?

No the satillite photos were taken in 1995. Those photos capture lights at night. Hansen uses those photos to say ” bright equal urban” “dark equal rural” grunt grunt.

2. Hansen would retroactively adjust for a supposed urban site by lowering (?) the temp, using a certain formula?

Dont get me started. read CA on hansens magical mushroom adjustment dance.

3. From the comments above on humiditity and temperature, it seems the interrelationship of irrigation / surface moisture / temp are numerous, overlapping and conflicting.

Shrugs. i do code not watering.

4. With the uncertainties created by Hansen’s manipulations and the unknown agricultural history, aren’t there still some questions about this site? A “gem” still in the rough?

The point is THIS. hansen’s adjsutment methodolofy takes a perfectly good site and adjusts it. I could care less whether it is up or down. This site is rural. It it well sited. It has a long record. DONT EFF WITH GOOD DATA.

rant off.

You could have buried this particular station in the surfacestation database, if you were agenda driven. But in the true spirit of science and understanding the real world, you post this as an example of what’s being done right. And when that bump around 2000 is noted, there’s none of “the science is settled and this proves it,” or “it’s data manipulation”.

Or in the previous article on the SIM hypothesis. You post it while expressing your reservations. Now, while I like the ideas in this hypothesis {it does have a certain aesthetic appeal}, it raises as many questions as it tries to answer. Even here the comments cover quite a range of positions regarding this hypothesis, yet are discussed in a manner that does great credit to you.

Kudos to you and keep up the great work.

As he rolled down the tarmac we heard him to shout,
“Happy Earth Day to all, Lights 0, and OUT!”

Bill Derryberry

1. Was this adjustment known to take place in 1995?
2. Hansen would retroactively adjust for a supposed urban site by lowering (?) the temp, using a certain formula?
3. From the comments above on humiditity and temperature, it seems the interrelationship of irrigation / surface moisture / temp are numerous, overlapping and conflicting.
4. With the uncertainties created by Hansen’s manipulations and the unknown agricultural history, aren’t there still some questions about this site? A “gem” still in the rough?

REPLY: Not yet, we have so much smoke in the air here that I’m concerned it will affect the measurement. Waiting.

1. in 1995 a picture was taken from space. Not from a guy on on the ground, a picture was taken from space.
2.that picture showed that there were lights turned on at night around this site
3. Hansen concluded from this picture that the site was NOT RURAL.
4. Hansen then adjusts sites that he thinks are not Rural, based on a photo
from space.

Then Anthony and team go out and take pictures of sites. at ground level.
Then Hansen fans say, hey Anthony your pictures prove nothing.

Well here they prove one thing. NIGHTLIGHTS is a flawed methodology.

It doesn’t get any simpler than that. Nightlights is supposed to identify non rural sites. You would think that a NASA scientist would do a cross check.
NOPE.

Maybe we should mail him some O rings.