One of the common themes seen with the surfacestations.org project has been the proximity of BBQ grills to official NOAA thermometers used in the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN). Despite now having surveyed over 77% of the 1221 station network, some truths continue to be self evident.
This station was photographed by our prolific volunteer, Eric Gamberg. The proximity to the concrete patio earns this station a CRN4 rating, it may be a CRN5 when they wheel out the BBQ away from the house. But who knows? The grilling schedule is not part of the metadata.
But fear not, NASA GISS adjusts for such problems of concrete and BBQ grills. Consider the following blink comparator:
Source: NASA GISS
USHCN RAW:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425744450020&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
GISS Homogenized:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425744450020&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
I’m not sure why the hinge point is 1978, perhaps that’s when the homeowner acquired the BBQ? Sure, that is an absurd claim, but certainly no more absurd than the GISS homogenization adjustment itself. Adjusting the past increases the overall positive slope of the temperature trend.
For those new to the whole concept of USHCN stations, the NOAA thermometer is the white slatted object on the post in the center of the photo. It is known as an MMTS thermometer and a cable goes from it into the home where the volunteer observer will write down the high and low into the B91 logbook and send in the report once a month to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).There are more photos of this station which you can see in my online station database.
The Gallery of photos can be seen here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good posting. Wonder if it’s possible to put a big red arrow on the photo so it’s totally obvious where the temp sensor is. Without this the photo is less clear.
I’m not totally up on the statistical methods used to correct for this kind of thing.
I don’t think it’s possible. You would have to surround each weather station with several other stations that did not have concrete paths, BBQ, air-con units etc. They would have to be near enough so you were comparing temperatures from the same place – but if the whole place has been overwhelmed by urbanisation then you would still have measurement errors.
You would be comparing rural temperatures from the past with urban temperatures from today.
REPLY: Your first suggestion – done- Anthony
This is so pathetic. Nasa GISS should be thoroughly ashamed that just one of these stations makes it on to the list of stations. The fact that there are so many is just too ridiculous for words. I was told by email that scientists have found the Catlin drilling data of “value”. Still, that’s science now, isn’t it? There was a time not so long ago that science could hold its head up above religion and mock it. Not anymore, I’m afraid. And it’s so sad.
Thanks again for this series… surfacestations.org is the gift that keeps on giving…
Mike
Are there any stations where GISS’s application of the “Budgederian Constant” hasn’t dropped historic temperatures or inflated recent ones?
Perhaps 1978 was when the temperature record acquired a house and an MMTS?
Whilst I am not familiar with US architecture, I am guessing the house and indeed perhaps even the MMTS station don’t date back to the 1890’s. Indeed, this opens up more questions (thoughts of spliced antarctic temperature records etc etc)
But really, you gotta take your trends wherever you can get ’em!
If you check the Reykjavik temperatures on the GISS page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and compare the graphs “after combining sources at the same location” versus “after homogenity adjustment”, there is the same unexplainable shift in 1980, where the “homogenity adjustment” puts all pre-1980 temperatures down, even Reykjavik is listed as urban (so opposite adjustment should be logical, to counter possible UHI effect).
Looks like a typical readily available BBQ for those times you really want a burger while checking the temperature.
The blink comparator just drives home the dishonesty of the corrections made. How is a counter-clockwise twist even plausible for a site like this?
Isn’t it obvious that the transition from a cotton region shelter to MMTS sensor on a short wire (which at a scientific wild a** guess occurred in 1978 where the blink is hinging) would have provided a hot bias?
Amusingly, the large graphic ad showing between the article and the comments is for a line of grills and the store to buy them from. It is a nice break from the steady diet of pro-AGW sites that adsense usually seems to offer, though.
>the steady diet of pro-AGW sites that adsense usually seems to offer, though.<
Those ads wind me up too. I think run-of-the-mill webmasters using Adsense can block specific sites from displaying ads on their pages. Perhaps Anthony can do that… or perhaps not… it depends on the relationship he has with Google/Wordpress.
I do find it incongruent, though, to see adverts enthusing me to help save the planet from AGW on this blog.
And so the nightmare continues – Nightmare on Your Street – Part 900
Let’s see – winds blocked in two directions (N/S), located next to a concrete surface, and worse, located close to the south-facing walls of a house.
Nice comparator. I noticed that there’s another hinge point around 1920. Anything to steepen the slope.
I agree that there is no excuse for this sort of siting. BUT
Have you quantified the effect of a BBQ at varying distances from the sensor – the sensor should be proof against radiation else the design is worthless (it has to be proof against a few 1000 deg radiation from the sun), and a BBQ convection heat will predominantly go vertically above it (with wind variations).
Similar quantification is required for the location of tarmac/concrete paths, air conditioners, and buildings. In the other direction, shading by trees and buildings.
If you have a sensor these test could easily be completed in a couple of weeks.
Logically I would suggest that convection will have little effect if the source is more than a couple of metres away. Shading should have no effect unless the shading creates a “sun trap”. The base under the sensor will create a difference as the convected air will enter the sensor.
And another BUT
If the surroundings have changed only once then there should be a step change – not year on year change. The plot above does not seem to show such a step change.
The way the pole tilts at 10 degrees from vertical tells us just how much care has been put into the installation and maintenance of this unit.
I think you would have to do some kind of cusum analysis to see if there was a step change in the data. Anyone ?
bill,
The siting violates the written standard for surface stations. This sloppiness makes any data questionable, if not completely unusable. Looking at the blink gif in the article it’s clear that something is wrong, wouldn’t you agree?
The result of GISS’ massaging the data always seems to show temperatures rising faster than they really are. What are the odds, eh?
That looks like a clothesline carousel on the patio. That should raise the relative humidity a smidgen on laundry days. However, it is an improvement over the sensors sited at wastewater treatment plants.
Put me down as being delighted with the blink ad for barbeque grills that was mated to this article. What a hoot!
Maybe there should be a line of grills officially endorsed by WUWT…
“Turn ’em & Burn ’em Grills. The grill with the highest BTU ouput on the market. Guaranteed to blister the paint on any nearby MMTS or your money back.”
(Fine print: “Not responsible for any loss of eyebrows when using this product. Wear appropriate fireproof garments when grilling. See our Red Adair barbeque fashion line for recomended grilling apparel.”)
Jack Hughes (00:03:55) :
Good posting. Wonder if it’s possible to put a big red arrow on the photo so it’s totally obvious where the temp sensor is. Without this the photo is less clear.
REPLY: Your first suggestion – done- Anthony
Well, not quite, Jack did specificaly call for a “Big Red” arrow and you put in a small black arrow. You know one thing that Nebraskans like is their “Big Red” 🙂
On a serious note though, (and I believe you allude to this) why if they are accounting for a house being built and adjusting the temps, are they adjusting the temps before 1978 instead of after. That way skews historical data in favor of skewed data, brilliant.
Smokey (03:13:39) :
The siting violates the written standard for surface stations. This sloppiness makes any data questionable, if not completely unusable. Looking at the blink gif in the article it’s clear that something is wrong, wouldn’t you agree?
siting obviously should not violate standards. But for the purposes of GW you are not trying for absolute accuracy – just difference. It could be placed at the centre of a 10km diameter section black tarmac. The temperature will be wrong – the max and min and average will be wrong – but the changes in the max/min will reflect changes in temperature.
At a guess in 1980 a mercury thermometer screen measurement was replaced with a MMTS. Perhaps these have slightly differen absolute temperatures?
A quick look on the web brings up these
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:bH4wlVyBKcwJ:ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/118190.pdf+mmts+specification+temperature&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
(The pdf version does not load)
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/91613.pdf
which states:
Quayle et al (1991) examined data from
hundreds MMTS and CRS-LIG stations across the country that were not co-located. Their data comparison methods detected a mean daily maximum temperature change of -0.4 deg. C associated with switching to MMTS and a mean daily minimum temperature change of +0.3 deg. C. In combination, this yielded a significant net reduction in diurnal temperature range of 0.7 deg
C. They also concluded that the MMTS was likely a more accurate temperature measurement than the instruments they replaced.
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/Pielke-etal_BAMS_Jun07.pdf
Davey and Pielke (2005) presented photographic
documentation of poor observation sites within
the U.S. Historical Climate Reference Network
(USHCN) with respect to monitoring long-term surface
air temperature trends. [These photographs were
first shown to the community at the 2002 Asheville,
North Carolina, meeting of the American Association
of State Climatologists (see information online at www.
stateclimate.org/meetings/minutes/2002minutes).]
Peterson (2006) compared the adjusted climate records
of many of these stations and concluded that
. . . the similarity between the homogeneityadjusted
time series from the good and poorly
sited stations supports the view that even stations
that do not, upon visual inspection, appear to be
spatially representative can, with proper homogeneity
adjustments, produce time series that are
indeed representative of the climate variability and
change in the region.
another
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/ExaminationofPotentialBiasesinAirTemp.pdf
and another
http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
The result of GISS’ massaging the data always seems to show temperatures rising faster than they really are. What are the odds, eh?
Can you prove that the adjustment is always one way ?
At least the house isn’t painted white.
MattB (04:50:49) :
“Skewered” data, please. Measuring climate change is like shish kabob – a little of this, a little of that, a lot of sauce to fix the final product.
Not only will the temps be scewed cooler from the evaporative cooling of the clothes on the clothesline, but more serious is the fence which prevents the Sun from melting the snow under the right side of the sensor. Complaints about the barbecue are frivolous.
Uncanny how these sensors attract BBQ grills. Similar to the way trailer parks attract tornadoes, I guess. Amazing how GISS “metadata” identifies 1977 as the year when the grill was installed, too. [/snark]
Seriously, judging by the snow on the ground from the shading by the fence and the proximity to the concrete patio (with humidity enhancing clothes drying apparatus), this station has so many microsite biases up and down that no temperature reading can be trustworthy. I’ll bet the kids (see the small bike?) are hanging on the sensor pole all the time too, causing the tilt and who knows what damage to the equipment.
Once again the homogenized data clearly shows that the “corrections” are not only the wrong size but the wrong direction. Is anyone trying to fix this obviously flawed process? Anyone at USHCN that is?
“I’m not sure why the hinge point is 1978, perhaps that’s when the homeowner acquired the BBQ?”
Hmmm. Wouldn’t they make that adjustment (down) if the homeowner had sold the BBQ in 1978. It ought to bias things upward. Or perhaps they switched to a different brand of charcoal?
What’s on the other side of the fence?
Seems to me like the GISS adjustment should be going the other way. If urban now and rural previously that would mean older temps would have been cooler and should be adjusted UPWARD to match the current situation.
In fairness, the hinge point is probably correct. Only thing is the right side of the hinge, 1978 on, should go down rather than the left side, before 1978 going up.
S
I disagree. This one is spot on-code. The BBQ is exactly where it should be. In addition, they must have read the instructions very carefully because they have no metal boat nearby. That said, there should be evidence of a burn barrel. Without verification of that necessary piece of equipment, my rating is temporary.
I think I have the solution to all those temp sensors located in questionable areas… Paint everything white within a 50 yard radius of the temp sensor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/28/earlyshow/living/main5045666.shtml