What’s really interesting now is that I can’t even pull up the data for this station.

Using this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

I don’t think we’re discussing this as a GISS station; the newspaper is what drew attention to this station.

It’s a NOAA CO-OP station. Login as Guest http://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm then search for SANTA ANA

SANTA ANA FIRE STN is at 33.7442,-117.8667 and if on the GISS map you click on the south California coastline (just north of Mexican border) you can sort by location (click on “*”) to find stations near 33.7,-117.8. None of those have the Santa Ana Fire Station name.

REPLY: It is a COOP-A station, not a GISS or USHCN station. Different network, so GISS won’t have it for the same reason they don’t have RAWS or Agrimet stations. – Anthony

excellent observation.

I would add that it STILL increases the vaunted AVERAGE TEMP!!

Also, Anthony keeps talking about a definitive study to validate the readings and adjustments made to account for site variability. This is being bypassed, which will leave an erroneous history, to go directly to a new system. How the new system’s readings will be integrated with the questionable old systems readings leaves me in awe of these people.

Using this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

I tried “santa”, “ana”, and “santa ana”. Maybe I should try searching under “Waldo”?

I’ve spent considering whether to recalibrate my weather instrument based on NOAA’s idea of data quality based on surrounding instruments. When there are no comparable instruments, it is impossible to come up with absolute values that track “nearby” areas. Comparing Santa Ana to Yorba Linda? It will never work.

Comparing long-term trends between these instruments is unconvincing. There are no controls in place to prevent changes to the instrument surrounding, or even the instrument itself. Too many variables. It is mentioned that the Santa Ana instrument was “moved to the roof”. Doesn’t that make comparison of long-term measurements, before and after the move, impossible?

And then, then there are all the other assumptions such as asphalt, lawns and “air conditioners”. I don’t know if the picture of the Santa Ana station was intended to show the offending “air conditioning vents”, but the vents shown in the picture are most certainly fresh air intakes on input plenum of forced-air heater. The influence (if there is one) would be to make the instrument read warmer on cold days instead of warmer on hot days as would be the case if the vent were attached to an air conditioner condenser.

Which is to say, it seems like there are a lot of assumptions in your observations — all difficult to verify in the instance of the Santa Ana instrument.

Yes, I said “positive”.

No, I didn’t make a typo and really mean “negative”.

I actually meant “positive”.

No, you don’t have sand in your eyes . . .

“The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach outlined in Karl, et al. (1988).”

That reference states in its abstract:

“The average heat island impact during the period 1901-84 for the HCN is largest for the daily minima (0.13°C) and the temperature range (0.14°C), while the impact on the daily maxima (0.01°C) is an order of magnitude smaller.”

These people are fooling themselves if they think the impact on this site is as small as they think.

With all the corrections GISS employs to correct these things, they don’t take into account heat exhaust or the fact that roads are almost always nearby.

With all the corrections to the satellite measurements and GISS measurements the only thing they have going is that they correlate well. If we fixed this ridiculous problem, I wonder what other corrections would have to be invented!

The point to be illustrated is not invalidated by taking photographs at
different times. In all cases the temperature guage is located next to
the AC exhaust for a large building.

Somebody ask him to walk barefoot over the parking lot for an afternoon in July.

I wonder if it ever crossed his mind to look at the “science”? He calls himself science dude, right? Perhaps he could even have asked Anthony for some citations.

If he thinks that his cursory check of 3 other stations constitues a scientific refutation of Watts’ points, he should change his name.

It would be interesting to see what the corrections are for this particular site.

AC units discharge cold air to the atmosphere in the winter and warm air in the summer (assuming these are reverse cycle units) so any adjustments would have to take the seasons into account, as well as the occupancy of the building, hence the use of the AC units, which it is doubtful would be known.

When you get back you should contact that reporter again and explain your findings to him. I am sure it would be a great ’scoop’ for that newspaper to report that due to biases the weather reports for the area regarding temperatures have been off for the last X number of years; in fact, higher than the actual temperatures due to UHI. And, if you include your surface station project results thus far, it will give him more than enough information for him to report how the entire nation’s temperature measurements may be off and why GISS and NASA’s James Hansen might be wrong about AGW. You can use the rules of siting as an objective witness of sorts to show that you are not just sharing an opinion.

It’s my opinion now, with nearly half the sites in the US surveyed, that the entire system needs a major overhaul. I don’t know exactly what kind, but I am convinced that it does.

But I compared the Santa Ana data with other nearby stations (Fullerton, Yorba Linda and John Wayne Airport) and the data is consistent.

is that he doesn’t get out very much. Considering the placement of the slats on the Stevenson screen, I would imagine that it’s even hotter inside than the roof itself as all the rising heated air would quickly build up inside the box. So it’s ‘consistent’ with other stations? ‘Consistent’ in that the temperatures are the same or in that temperatures vary in the same manner, i.e. showing rising/falling temperatures in a way that matches?

The siting of these stations may be indicative of what’s happening in the microclimate – UHI {though even at that, the numbers would seem to be skewed upwards}. I just hope that the new climate monitoring stations resolve these siting problems and don’t just replace old equipment with new equipment at the same old poor sites.

For an undetermined period?! Huh?

So much for accurate record keeping. Mr. Robbins, if you really want to do your readers a service, have yet another look at this. Try to pin Mr. Isla down exactly when station moves took place, exactly where it was sited and when.