WUWT readers may recall that I wrote about this experiment being performed at Oak Ridge national Laboratory to test the issues related to station siting that I have long written about.
This effort promises to be greatly useful to understanding climate quality temperature measurements and how they can be influenced by the station site environment.
From the USCRN Annual Report: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/publications/annual_reports/FY11_USCRN_Annual_Report.pdf
Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes about the the first results of this experiment presented at the recent AMS meeting in Austin, TX. The early results confirm what we have learned from the Surface Stations project. Nighttime temperatures are affected the most.
Two talks that caught my eye were on the land surface temperature record. They attacked the problem of land surface temperature accuracy in two completely different, but complementary ways.
One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is a direct test of the importance of siting. They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.
It’ll take a lot more data to sort out the various temperature effects. One way the buildings might affect the nighttime temperature even when the sensor is upwind of the buildings is infrared radiation: the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.
More here: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/01/dispatch-from-ams-looking-at-land-surface-temperatures/
Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings
Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)
John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers
Abstract
Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.
==============================================================
Early results of what has been learned in the surface stations project can be seen here:
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Sweet, sweet vindication, eh?
dog bites man science from NASA….after the video of said dog and man was repeatedly played on national TV, they claimed it was a hoax and then decided maybe they should looked into it.
Can’t believe this experiment wasn’t done many years ago. After all, there is siting criteria for stations. Didn’t they experiment at that time to come up with good siting conditions??
After a while, they re-invent the wheel
For clarity, the four stations are what classes under each of the classification systems: NOAA USHCN, Leroy 1999, Leroy 2010?
Facepalm
Little by little, day by day, the long walk back continues.
The testing will continue until results meet expectations.
First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well duh! Uber duh!
The buildings have vertical surfaces which means they radiate predominantly horizontal instead of vertical. Then to add to their analysis they come up with this utterly brilliant observation:
the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.
Which physics classes did these bozos fail to attend since simply flunking them isn’t a good enough explanation for the stupidity of this remark? Both the open sky and the nearby hills radiate predominantly down and up. The vertical walls of the building radiate predominantly “sideways” or straight AT the nearby sensors. It isn’t the strength of the emission it is the DIRECTION of the emission.
tom streck says:
January 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Can’t believe this experiment wasn’t done many years ago. After all, there is siting criteria for stations. Didn’t they experiment at that time to come up with good siting conditions??
_____________
This^^^
How on earth has no-one thought to do this, and obtained funding, before? Especially considering how vital the record is to justifying saving the planet, surely understanding the effects of these things in detail should have been a very first step? Otherwise, if you try to adjust for them, you’re not “homogenising”, you’re just guessing!
Unless, of course, you worry that the results of such an experiment, when explored fully, might weaken your case. In which case faiing to do it would be entirely understandable.
In attempting the perhaps futile task of taking the earth’s past & present temperature, it appears that proxy data are almost (if not more, since possibly less subject to “adjustment”) important during the thermometer period as before it.
For the repeatedly falsified CAGW hypothesis, shouldn’t lower tropospheric temperature be most significant, anyway? Or sea surface temperature or ocean heat content, rather than the easily faked land stations?
A worthy study but, does it not confirm what we already know? Somebody please explain if this study adds anything new.
They might have to re-do all of their temperature ‘adjustments’ I think, on the basis of this.
@Tom
Probably, then they decided they don’t like those results, so we’ll ignore the issue as it helps their agenda.
Shocked, shocked by the surrender of the modellers to the experimentalists.
Just what the hell do they think they are doing, science?
I so want to know how much I spent on this incredulously fantastic woulda thunk it possible discovery!!!!
In re experimentally confirmed siting requirements; no, the conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. In a word, when two of the millions of Internet-monkeys agree, as they blog-chatter randomly, they have confirmed each other’s hypothesis and it becomes commonsensical.
the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills
It’s not so much the radiation is stronger (although it could be), rather it’s because it’s being emitted from a vertical surface, and more will reach a nearby object near the surface.
It’s called the Urban Canyon Effect and a is a major source of UHI.
It’s a pity they didn’t do the same experiment on the west side as well, as that would allow a quantification of the solar heating component versus internally generated heat in the building.
I am in no way, shape or form a scientist or climatologist, but even I can say without a shred of doubt: DUH.
The Emperor wears no clothes.
That this work had not been done DECADES ago by the NOAA/CRU/GISS mob is utterly bizarre because the level of knowledge required to appreciate the basic issue is high school physics and in any case is reflected in the siting criteria!!.
And they wonder why there are skeptics out there.
Methinks 2013 could be a good year for skepticism and we might even see the AGW bubble burst.
Anthony, can you organise an on line store for hazmat suits because the doodoo will go everywhere when it hits the fan and many of us will just want to watch.
NOAA Appoints New Administrator : Captain Obvious.
So it takes a long overdue, sophisticated scientific experiment to convince scientists that what lay people experience is actually happening?? All I can say is “DUH!!” One wonders whether these folks have ever been outside at night, anywhere, anytime.
P.S. I apologize if I have insulted anyone. But sometimes I just throw my hands up in despair.
Anthony, This seems entirely intuitive to me. Have you ever received any commentary from NASA or the weather service on the major differences between the reported US temperatures and the group of well-sited and technologically sound stations that began to collect data in 2009 (if I recall correctly)?
First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.
So this invalidates the claims against UHI that used wind direction as a metric with the logic that wind blowing toward the UHI would reduce the night time temperature if UHI was significant. Looks like some major reassessments will need to be done.