Some long time WUWT readers may remember this famous picture of the USHCN climate station of record in Detroit Lakes, MN.
This is what I wrote on July 26th, 2007 about it in:
How Not to Measure Temperature, Part 25
This picture, taken by www.surfacestations.org volunteer Don Kostuch is the Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.
The complete set of pictures is here
From NASA’s GISS, the plot makes it pretty easy to see there was no discernible multi-decadal temperature trend until the A/C units were installed. And it’s not hard to figure out when that was.
And as you know, that curious jump in the GISS record, even though it coincided with the placement of the a/c heat exchangers (I checked with the chief engineer of the radio station and he pulled the invoices to check), it turns out that wasn’t the most important issue.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit saw something else, mainly because other nearby stations had the nearly the same odd jump in the data. That jump turned out to be discovery of a data splicing glitch in the NASA GISS processes joining the data pre and post year 2000.
It became known as The GISS Y2K glitch. It changed the balance of GISS surface temperature reporting, bringing 1998 down as no longer the hottest year on record. Here’s a writeup on it from Steve on the data itself.
Yesterday, volunteer Mark Ewens sent me some updated pictures of the Detroit Lakes site. It appears the embarrasment of having such a terrible station siting has forced the local NWS office into making some siting improvements:
As you can see, the MMTS has been moved away from the a/c units and the building. The Stevenson Screen appears to be gone. Interesting story about the Stevenson Screen, it was originally moved out of that center location where the MMTS has been now, because there was concern that somebody might break the mercury thermometers inside, and the mercury would prompt a “wetlands hazmat response”, which would be any EPA field agent’s dream, a double whammy.
Here are more pictures:
Mark writes:
About a year ago I indicated that the MMTS at the Detroit Lakes 1NNE Coop site was moved. See attachedthe pictures I took last week while on a trip. Obviously not optimal, but much better. Like almost all radio stationsthis one is located in a swamp, so I’ve got limited options to work with. The observer did note that he has noticeda marked decrease in the average temperatures since the move – and not just due to global cooling!The MMTS is ~80 feet from the building. The brown stalks are the left over winter kill of the saw grass thatis common in the swampy area of west central Minnesota.Mark EwensGrand Forks ND
Apparently, the NWS thought enough of the criticism of the siting next to a/c heat exchangers to do something about it. And, I’ve been hearing from time to time, that stations that volunteers have visited and we have showcased in “How Not To Measure Temperature, Part X” have been quietly cleaned up.
While that is encouraging, the fact remains that it took a team of concerned citizens and some international embarrassment to get NOAA to fix quality control problems in climate monitoring stations that they should have recognized and corrected long ago.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Moving them now is as bad as poorly siting them then. You just introduce another discontinuity in the data. Hopefully they at least recorded the move.
REPLY: That’s true, but NOAA believe now with USHCN2 that they will be able to correct such discontinuities, where as before they would go undetected. We’ll see. – Anthony
Thanks for the update on that embarassment of station data integrity.
Still, a location along a fence line, in tall grass of variable height, near a home and a shelterbelt, does not seem to be the ideal spot for even the highest quality sensors.
According to this article the US Government is not interested in any discussion about climate data.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/fieldings-climate-mission-20090605-bylt.html
I really can’t think of a natural location change that would result in a negative variance.
Maybe a tree growing to a hight to create shade?
All that I see would cause average readings to go up. Isn’t that what people want to support their pre suppositions?
That sorta painted red linear structure with legs which appears to the untrained eye as a fence is the support for the coaxial cable going from the transmitter building out to the transmiting antenna. I inquired previously if anyone knew how resistant the MMTS is to strong RF fields, and received no response. This one is in the near field of a radio broadcast antenna with all kinds of implications beyond the simple problem of nearby intermittently hot items. Frying pan to fire, anyone?
lulo, yes, but the siting is supposed to be “typical for the area” or some such. Other than the long grass, it looks reasonable to me, given the area. If it’s 75 feet from the building instead of 100 feet, well, then 2-1/2 cheers for the operator instead of 3.
But thanks are definitely in order to all the volunteers who respond to problems. Yes, in a perfect world there would be overlapping coverage periods whenever a sensor is moved. But that is a problem for program management, which apparently feels that it is OK to try a drive a major realignment of the world economy based on the work of 0.25 FTE (if I recall correctly). That the volunteers are poorly managed is not their fault.
Google Street View link,
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=46.8N,+95.8W&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.177128,90.791016&ie=UTF8&ll=46.837297,-95.837093&spn=0.002723,0.005541&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=46.837115,-95.837102&panoid=eefCGZcP3i2W8KzSb4an-w&cbp=12,295.6,,0,2.65
(gosh that’s horrible code, mods remove if needed)
It will be interesting to see how the adjustment algorithm handles the years that it was next to the AC unit.
So now its a tie? 1934 & 1998?
At a guess, I calculate the back board of the MMST, which is on where the min-max thermometer (or dig. sensor) should be fixed, is at ~ 1.7 yards from the AC exhaust fan. The protocol for the minimum distance recommends that the MMST must be placed, at least, 5 yards distant from any reflecting surface or source of heat, or paved streets, and at least at 10 yards far away from water ponds, water streams and houses (because of the inherent warmth from houses during winter and heat radiated from the houses’ walls during summer). Some stations are placed at 3 yards distant from concrete walls; however, the diameter of hot air bubbles produced from heat sources or reflecting surfaces could expand up to more than 5 yards. The Stevenson screen seems to be at ~ 2.2 yards from the AC exhaust fan. I think that Stevenson screens and weather stations should be placed at a minimum distance of 10 yards distant from sources of heat or reflecting surfaces.
So how long did they run parallel equipment at old and new spots to compare the difference and at least be able to estimate a bias at the old spot? What, nobody thought of that? Is it stupidity, arrogance, or bureaucratic incompetence? Whatever it is, it isn’t science.
I think the cable to the transmission tower is probably only carrying low-power audio. All the high power RF equipment is probably right at the transmission tower. I can’t tell from the photos how the electrical power is delivered to the transmitter.
The MMTS is a temperature-sensitive resistor; the display unit is basically measuring resistance and displaying the temperature equivalent. This type of electronics should not be affected much by RF, and although bad connections might convert RF into some electrical power that is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to affect the readings. A greater risk is anything which damages the cable and affects the resistance.
George M.
Definitely fire. Now I’m going to have to research the electronic character of the MMTS and see if I can find my old books on antenna propagation. Could be there’s a microwave waveguide in that sorta red structure too. How do you like your data cooked?
The MMTS pole seems to be touching the coax duct. Is this going to affect the readings? Does anyone know what the MMTS pole is made of? Plastic? Steel?
Criticism of your surface station study fascinates me.
With all their grim predictions of climate doom, you would think the folks at NOAA would be vigilant about maintaining surface station requirements.
Wouldn’t the scientific community and the public also expect higher standards?
I hope the NWS obtained any required environmental permits to disturb the wetland when they relocated instrument and installed the cable supports! I also wonder if there is any localized thermal effect from the decomposing vegetation in the wetland.
1. I’ll guess the current location has standing water part of the time, maybe in early spring after snow-melt. Probably common in that part of the world but water does have interesting properties.
2. “. . . there was concern that somebody might break the mercury
thermometers”
Many years ago high school science classrooms included a box that contained wood-vials of mercury. Each student could pour the mercury onto a table top or into their hand and push it around and break it into smaller bits to see how it behaved. Then – from the palm, it could be run back into the vial. Great fun. That was before Hazmat existed.
Congratulations Anthony – it would seem that things are being done to improve matters as a direct result of you and your volunteer supporters’ efforts. A great deal of hard work and thorough analysis is beginning to have a clear impact.
H/T to you especially and everyone who has helped in this mammoth effort.
So, for managers of the USHCN, the solution to bad siting issues is simple:
Find egg on face — clean it up.
Wonder how many before/after scenes are out there to reveal the extent of the influence of the surfacestations project. And I wonder how they’ll fix one of my favs – Tucson, AZ.
It should be mandatory for WEB CAMS to be pointed at the temperature devices with the video recordings being publicly available via a public web site LIVE! At least two to four cameras per site. Infrared cameras at that! That way you can see the effects of the local temperature zone on the temperature measurements.
Actually why don’t they have infrared cameras mounted high up on a pole so that they can measure the temperature of a wide area rather than just on tiny spot? Wouldn’t an infrared camera with it’s area of temperatures (say at least 640 x 480 resolution but 12 mega pixels would be better at 4000×3000) be a better way to measure temperature? That way we could see anomalies?
I guess that’s the next generation of temperature monitoring. Sorta like a little local satellite not in orbit but sitting there 100 feet in the air with a view of an area.
Damn us computer scientists. ;-0
AnonyMoose (10:04:00) :
I think the cable to the transmission tower is probably only carrying low-power audio. All the high power RF equipment is probably right at the transmission tower. I can’t tell from the photos how the electrical power is delivered to the transmitter.
The cable connects the final RF amplifier to the antenna. It carries very high power at high frequency. (When I went to my rich uncle’s radio school, we were shown pictures of what happens when rings, metal watchbands, etc. were touching any part of the antenna feed while powered up. Not pretty.)
pwl, IR cameras would measure the heat of nearby surfaces, not the heat content of the air itself. Useful for showing possible local biases but not useful for the primary measurement.
Tom: fair enough.
Putting the MMTS sensor in the middle of a swamp might prevent some vandalism but it wouldn’t be my first choice of location.
Would there be much difference in hourly readings above dry land versus swampy conditions?
Thats it chaps, no more food for you. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1702534/food_produces_greenhouse_gases_in_canada/index.html