I’ve recently updated the www.surfacestations.org website with the latest surveys and numbers. We have 534 stations surveyed. Here is where we stand now with USHCN station surveys:
click for a larger image
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:
Class 1 – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
Class 2 – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
Class 3 (error ~1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
Class 4 (error >~= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (error >~= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
During the next week, I plan to add a number of stations during my road trip, and Russ Steele is getting many also on his 3 month cross country road trip through the USA by mobile home.
If you are planning trips this summer, why not check out which stations have been surveyed here and see if any at the bottom of the list that have not been surveyed will be near your travels? We still have over 600 stations to go, and your help is needed!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[…] Stations Update Surfacestations Update Watts Up With That? 534 of the USHCN surface stations have now been surveyed, leaving 684 left to go. Yours truly just […]
do you see the problem?
I see what you are saying, but you need to see more carefully what I was saying. I have addressed this problem.
Read again. Thus,
OFFSET = +1.95°C
TREND ~ +o.3°C
Please note I have been quite careful to make this crucial differential between offset and trend.
As for the validity of LeRoy’s offset measurement:
Observe also the Yilmaz study.
There are a couple of qualifications:
On the one hand:
-Yilmaz took the measurements during August, and the effects are presumably at a maximum at that time of year
On the other hand:
-These are 24-hour averages including both day and night.
-The measurements are 2m aboveground and the MMTS sensors are considerably closer to the ground than that.
-The difference would likely be even greater except that it is masked by UHI.
The difference at ground level between asphalt/concrete and grass: 11.79°C
The difference at two meters between asphalt/concrete and grass: 7.54°C
Seems to me that a year-round average at c. 4 feet over ground level would clock in right around 5°C. And a LOT more at some of the more outrageous sites that are a HECK of a lot worse than merely being located above concrete or asphalt.
And, in closing, even if the difference in trend turns out to be as low as 0.15C, which is possible, though I doubt it considering LaDochy (Dec. 2008), it is still quite significant in the scope of post-1980 warming measurements. It would, in fact, knock the top right off the crisis.
FWIW, I agree that there has been warming since 1980, for PDO/AMO effect, if nothing else. But the degree of warming is quite critical in the overall debate. I suspect that the trend has been exaggerated both by classic heat sink effect and by spurious introduced warming offset that has not been accounted for by SHAP.
If I had known about this listing of un-surveyed stations, I could have done a couple this past weekend. I drove from Va through Johnstown Pa, Ridgeway, and ended up in Warren Pa. Those 3 are not done yet. There are a couple near me. Who do I send the images, etc too?
REPLY: See sign up info at http://www.surfacestations.org and signup there to submit to the online database. The list is linked at the top of the page
REPLY: Well perhaps a ~ (approximate) would be appropriate if that’s your whole argument. I’ll add the ~, not that it will make any difference to how the project is carried out.
i think simply adding the phrase “temperature numbers are an estimate” would be a good start.
adding that those numbers are talking about potential MAXIMUM errors would be even better.
but i still would simply imterested in your view on this. what will the difference between the “average” type V and Type I station be (over the year!), according to your opinion?
Seems to me that a year-round average at c. 4 feet over ground level would clock in right around 5°C. And a LOT more at some of the more outrageous sites that are a HECK of a lot worse than merely being located above concrete or asphalt.
evan jones, you are pulling the “Phoenix arizona” trick again.
i wasn t very suprised to see an example in Turkey coming up.
i doubt that you will find many stations that are worse than:
* turkey like temperature
* full concrete surface
* no shadow
AND you have only looked at 15 windless august days…
but i am looking forward to pictures, showing worse stations, that fullfill the conditions above…
evan , OFFSET creates a trend.
.15C is important. But claiming that the average bias error is 1.95C is wrong
and diminishes the credibility of this effort.
The bias error will be DETERMINED by objective comparisons. Not Leroys
subjective estimation.
Yes, the offset can create a trend but only if the entire offset was there to begin with. If it started out as CRN3 and then moved up to CRN4 with the MMTS switchover, there would not be the full CRN4 offset added to the trend.
But I be the offset is that big. Check out that Yilmaz study.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf
Yeah, I bet that offset number is correct. Remember, some of the offset will (presumably) be corrected by SHAP. (Not necessarily, of course, but that IS what SHAP is FOR!)
I recognize we are on the same track, here: IT HAS TO ADD UP!
i doubt that you will find many stations that are worse than: . . .
Heck, the effects are probably masked and muted by UHI. They could even be worse.
And “full concrete surface” is moot. Those US stations are all too often swimming in concrete oceans, even when located in Squeedunk, Montana.
Besides, Anthony doesn’t even rate most stations perched on Parking Lot Paradise as CRN5. He is very, very conservative as to his ratings. You will notice that everyone has been griping at the LeRoy estimates (confirmed, so far, both by Yilmaz and the “HOT-L Baltimore” observations). They have NOT been griping that the Rev has been exaggerating when making his ratings!
And I have no objections whatever if others experiment on this further. In fact, I heartily encourage it. The more, the merrier.
adding that those numbers are talking about potential MAXIMUM errors would be even better.
Where does it say “maximum”? From what i can tell, it only says, “estimated”. And it seems the estimations may have been pretty dead-on.
And “full concrete surface” is moot. Those US stations are all too often swimming in concrete oceans, even when located in Squeedunk, Montana.
not a single one of the “bad” stations on the first page of posts on this blog fullfils the “full concrete, no shade” criteria. (and i guess some of the places are colder than turkey..)
i am curious. any picture of a station, that you think qualifies?
Where does it say “maximum”? From what i can tell, it only says, “estimated”. And it seems the estimations may have been pretty dead-on.
again, a station that is type V because of concrete surface, will NOT show an error “bigger than 5°” during winter, when the concrete is covered with snow.
it can t be an average or minimum error, that leaves max error.
just look at page 142 of the Turkey paper:
“minimum at 06:00 with 3.35°C“
and that is on a windless august day in Turkey…
i am curious. any picture of a station, that you think qualifies?
I’m not sure that the shade from a honking heat sink counts as a cooling bias
it can t be an average or minimum error, that leaves max error.
It can’t be an average error because . . . ?
The Yilmaz studies use 24-hour averages. If only TMax and TMin were used (as they are in US stations), the difference would have been even greater.
But, yes, I would LOVE to see the experiment done year ’round with the height at 1.5 Meter above rather than 2, with separate data for TMax and TMin average (which is how US temps are taken). Also in a rural setting so the differences are not masked by UHI. (Also perhaps at a lower altitude.)
You are twisting in the aspirator on this one, I’m afraid. We are NOT talking a half-degree difference, here!
I’m not sure that the shade from a honking heat sink counts as a cooling bias
neither do i. but neither is a paved walkway the same as a LANDING STRIP!
It can’t be an average error because . . . ?
because if the average on windless sunny august days in TURKEY (on a landing strip, compared to grass) is 7.5°C, then even the yearly average in Turkey won t make 5°C.
i am still waiting for an alaskan type 5 station showing a 5°C variation because of pavement over winter…
If only TMax and TMin were used (as they are in US stations), the difference would have been even greater.
no.
11.7°C+3.3°C=15°C
that would give exactly the 7.5°C that the hour average gives. (both are pretty good estimates of the real daily mean. that is why they are both used for this purpose…)
But, yes, I would LOVE to see the experiment done year ’round with the height at 1.5 Meter above rather than 2,
looking at the data from ground temperature and 2m, i don t expect a major difference for 1.5m.
You are twisting in the aspirator on this one, I’m afraid. We are NOT talking a half-degree difference, here!
i m not sure about this, in this extreme case. (extreme temperature, extreme environment differences.) and as you, i d like to see more data.
but for real stations, the 0.5°C are a FACT, as shown by LaDochy.
oops, my fault. the numbers above are for min/max difference, not temperature. saw the numbers and thought i could skip some calculations…
again: lowest temp 5:00 14.5°C- 10°C=4.5°C
highest temp:38,5-27.0°C= 11.5°C
so min max would give 8°C difference between AC and grass instead of 7.5°
feel free to correct those numbers (pretty tired still, should go and get some sleep..)
Seems about right.
And I agree that it is not the offset that is at issue (unless it gets conflated into the record on account of bad SHAP). It is the trend change that matters.
But heat sinks affect the rate of change as well.
LaDochy, Medina, Patzert. 2007. Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends. Climate Research, 33
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v33/n2/p159-169/
I also acknowledge that this works both ways: a cooling phase would undo itself at the same faster rate it followed “on the way up”.
But FILENET freaks me out. It means that UHI gets calculated off of sites that may well be running ‘way too hot.
I am suggesting that the increase in temps from 1980-1998 may be only around half of what has been measured (roughly a 0.3C or so difference in trend).
I will add, though, that a lot of the surface stations are located in airports on landing strips. I don’t believe the Rev rates them as CRN5, though. He is very careful not to exaggerate the biases (if he did, his critics would come down on him like a ton of bricks).
I would like to see a Yilmaz-type study be done year-round under all conditions. (I also wonder how the almost 2000m altitude affects the findings.)
The LaDochy comparison you cite occurs under LA UHI and neither station looks good, judging by the pictures. And, yes, I think the issue needs to be carefully studied both for offest and for trend.
nice exchange of thoughts. thanks.
You’re welcome. I don’t deny there has been some warming, and neither do do I deny man’s hands are clean.
The whys and wherefores are important, especially as we have to base policy (or lack of policy) on the answers.
trong>REPLY: Getting better, thanks. Aleves are my friends.