REPLY: People told me I should stop at 30%, that I had a large enough sample. Of badly sited stations, I have an overwhelmingly large sample. The goal here is to find the best stations, because literally there are only a couple of handfuls of them. I will continue data gathering while analysis methods are developed, as it is very easy to plug in the final numbers. But you just sit comfortably and do nothing, and lodge complaints as you do, and then you can harp about the results when they are published. One thing nobody will be able to say is that I did not make the strongest effort possible to find all the best stations and get the largest survey of surface stations done to the best of my ability. – Anthony

Superb work. I think we are near a tipping point in the AGW debate.

‘Tipper’ Gore anyone?

Here:
http://surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=60

Please tell me how to submit this if it would be useful.

Good on ya, Anthony. Keep it up.

JimB

One of my Emails says:

Subject: News from Blue Hill Observatory
From: Blue Hill Observatory
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:17:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Eric Werme

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

A new, comprehensive study says NO!
- Charles T. Orloff, Executive Director, Blue Hill Observatory

In a shocking report scheduled to be aired on CBS Channel 4 tonight (May 13, 2009) at 11 P.M., Anthony Watts, a veteran broadcast meteorologist, concludes that we can not trust the reliability of temperature data collected across the United States. In fact, he found that “89% of the 860 official climate stations surveyed – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements.”

In probably the most comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the National Weather Service network of weather stations ever compiled, Watts concludes that the clear majority are reporting a “false warming trend”. Having documented that, he asks the question “How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?”

For the last few years Watts and a team of over 650 volunteers have been visually inspecting and photographically documenting official temperature stations across the United States. What he has discovered is alarming – “We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas… The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.”

Earlier this week Watt’s assistant, Evan M. Jones, who has personally surveyed over 200 climate stations, visited Blue Hill Observatory (BHO) for an official audit. As the oldest, continuously operating weather station in the nation, BHO is often looked at as a benchmark station for the study of climate trends and we have documented change – the temperature at BHO has risen almost 2.5 degrees in the last hundred years. While a final report from Mr. Jones’ visit has not yet been issued, we expect that his assessment will be generally positive.

If you’re interested in the discussion of global warming you won’t want to miss this report. Tune in tonight on WBZ-TV at 11 P.M. and follow the expanded story on their website on Thursday, May 14th. http://wbztv.com/

The WBZ notice was posted by one of their on-air mets, Terry Eliasen, who notes “Watch WBZ-TV news at 11pm on Wednesday night for Mish’s full report on this fascinating topic!” That would be Mish Michaels, another on-air met and one of my favorite people in the Boston area. She “continues to support the WINS program (Women in the Natural Sciences), run by the Blue Hill Weather Observatory in Milton. The program seeks to inspire adolescent girls to pursue careers in math, science and technology through thoughtful study of the atmosphere.” (She may have been the one to start it.)

Living in New Hampshire, I generally watch the Manchester NH station and the New England Cable News Network. However, I’m making an exception tonight! New England weather is a bear to forecast, so we attract some of the best talent.

My 3rd statement:
3. Underlying ground. If this is consistent over the life of the thermometer than surely this is ok if it is grass, concrete, a mirror, asphalt. It will read the wrong temp but it will be consistent. It will be useful for trends only.

This must be hell for unattended instruments. Snow/rain/grass growth/season will affect the absorption and convection of heat under an instrument. This cannot be taken into account. Somewhere on the UK met office site I found a document describing UK set up (idealised presumably). It went to dreat detail on things like the slab used for precitation and I think grass length! Cannot find it now.

As you have pointed out only air temperature should affect the reading and if this is from sewage tanks, airconditioners,jet engines it is invalid (and dependant on wind direction.

It would also be interesting to see how a large flat tarmac stand affects readings, and if wind direction has an effect.

I would have thought that closeness (within reason!) to a building has less effect – re-radiation should be ignored by a screened thermometer. Convection of the walls will predominantly straight up. Only wind will be heated and could find its way to a thermometer but it is difficult for wind to blow at 90deg from a wall.

How does rain affect the screen of a thermometer – evapouration will cool the air as it enters the box. is this this why the paint was changed to a waterproof variety?

Anthony –

Yes, this needs to be done, otherwise it will be the first thing that critics will raise. My own opinion is that radiative heat is not the problem here, but the convective heat from hot surfaces – which is what thermometers measure.

.

Regards the rest of Bill’s post.

Yes, If the poor siting remained constant the readings would be inflated, but consistent. However, things have been changing.

a. Towns are growing around established met stations.
b. Towns are producing more of their own heat, as we consume more energy (cars, air conditioning etc:)
c. The new equipment is getting closer and closer to buildings (as Anthony mentions)
c. The equipment is nearer to things like air conditioning outlets which produce convective heat (which the thermometers measure), and would not have been there 50 years ago.

It’s barely 10% now, if that. Plus, a lot of the better sites are in airports which have seen huge expansion both in traffic and asphalt in recent decades.

Yes, it’s offset not trend.

Spurious warming data will be due to station moves with offsets getting conflated into the trends.

Bad stations tend to warm a bit faster if there is a warming trend already (see Yilmaz, et al, 2008, and extend daily logic to the longterm).

Good/Bad stations are – not – evenly distributed among naturally cooling/warming areas. This complicates matters (but is being dealt with).

Will we be able to observe the progress of data analysis as we did at climateaudit through 2007 for good stations? I’d like to stress again how important it is to do this openly and publicly rather than present the results as a fait a complis. Not just because it was fascinating to watch the stats and conversation unfold, but primarily to demonstrate transparency in the scientific process (particularly when we castigate others for keeping data and methods secret). You may elect to publish the results all at once, with data and methodology included, but it can only give confidence to the work if the world can see it being done step by step.

I can’t think of a good reason not to do it that way, as exemplified in the climateaudit analysis – surely one of the most focussed thread evolutions on just about any subject – no snark, just honest analysis and effective exchanges dedicated to revealing the truth. This shows the best of us.

I may be able to get to Key West next week for those siting photos if you still need someone to go.

Pics from the ground are always best. But check the link I posted earlier (to the virtual survey). It will tell you exactly where the thing is. It may be hard to find, otherwise.

Will do.

Ron