How not to measure temperature, part 43

 Continuiung our tour of California climate monitoring stations, we visit the Portola train yard, where they not only switch freight, but measure the temperature too. This station is # 04-7085 and is part of the COOP climate monitoring network operated by the NWS.

 The wealth of roadbed ballast gravel and vehicles makes this location almost an urban setting.

The view above, is looking northeast. while the one below is looking southwest. An aerial view of the location is available here.

It seems that no matter which way you look these days, many NWS weather stations have nearby biases. Both photos are courtesy of the Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “How not to measure temperature, part 43

  1. Two questions:
    1. What is the calibration curve for the MMTS, accuracy vs. centerline angle from vertical?

    2. Why does the second rain gauge appear white in one photo and sort of brown/gray from the other angle?

  2. Surface temp apparatus seem to be a ‘forgotten’ component of the National big brother. I have noticed that any piece of apparatus not within the shadow of some established place, Vandals will make utilization next to impossible.

    How do the upscale electronic apparatus – including satellites calibrate and then validate a temp reading? Would any of the surface temp MMTS be used as a baseline?

    Is there any utilization of the RAWS data (all electronic) apparatus positioned throughout California for weather temps etc?

  3. Quick question:

    If the USHCN is a set of 1221 observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States, how mayy locations so far have been removed or have stopped reporting?

    I think I read somewhere about another listing of “sites actually used”. If that’s the case, it might be worthwhile to bump that list against the “all stations” list. That way, a lower priority could be placed on those outside the system.

  4. Fred,
    Satellite temps are calculated independant of any calibration. Christy used to verify his calculations with radiosonde data until the 2005 coup when that data was “corrected” to bring it in line with the surface data.
    I call it a coup because three “independant” papers published at the same time brought satellite, radiosonde, and surface temps into warmist agreement.

  5. davidcobb,
    I would like to see more discussion of this “coop.” As I read the pro AGW concerned sites, I see the conclusions that the “corrections” mean that the satellite, radiosonde, and surface temps all now agree with the alarmist view. I scoured the internet and find very little skeptical response / explanation of these “corrections” — especially the satille and radiosonde “corrections.” I am under the impression that Christy agreed with the first set of corrections for orbital decay, but for the second correction on satillite data — he merely sadi that he did not think they were necessary but that they were within the margin of error.
    When skeptical sites say that satillite and radiosonde show very, very little warming over the last few decades, I am not sure they are used raw data, corrected data (accepted by Christy), or corrected and recorrected data.

Comments are closed.