You’d think the answer would be obvious, but here we have a NOAA operated USHCN climate station of record providing a live experiment. It always helps to illustrate with photos. Today I surveyed a sewage treatment plant, one of 4 stations surveyed today (though I tried for 5) and found that for convenience, they had made a nice concrete walkway to allow servicing the Fisher-Porter rain gauge, which needs a paper punch tape replaced one a month.
Here is what you see in visible light:
Here is what the infrared camera sees:
Note that the concrete surface is around 22-24°C, while the grassy areas are between 12-19°C
This station will be rated a CRN5 by this definition from the NOAA Climate Reference Network handbook, section 2.2.1:
Class 5 (error >~= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
Now a caveat: There had just been a light rain, and skies had been overcast, it had just started to clear and you can see some light shadows in the visible image. Had this rainfall and overcast not occurred, the differences between grass and concrete temperatures would likely be greater. Unfortunately I was unable to wait around for full sun conditions. The air temperature was 58°F (14.4°C) according to my thermometer at the time.
Here is another view which shows the NOAA sensor array, the sky, and the evidence of recent rainfall as evidenced by the wet parking lot:
Why NOAA allows installations like this I’ll never understand. And this station is a USHCN climate station of record, used in who knows how many climate studies.
I’ll tell you more on this station and others I surveyed tomorrow.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My question is why is the media not reporting this .There is odviously a problem with the way these temps are recorded. It’s as though they want the temps to be warm.We already know the media is bias on this issue.Maybe in a couple years we could start having cold day,like earth day,Oh wait that would mean the earth may accualty be cooling and that could spell the end the global warming .
We’ve got 2 sunspots!
Cycle 24, as they are not near the equator?
From Marohasy’s website…
Cooling cometh
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
John B, I had the same thoughts, but I have since realized that there are other factors. I will use the site in this post as an example. On a year that had more clouds during the day, the bias of a nearby slab of concrete would be less. Similarly, if a high pressure system stalls over the area for months, then the bias would be much more due to the lack of clouds. The bias is just not realiable. That is the reason the standards were created. — John M Reynolds
My thoughts would be that the USHCN record has been compromised and I doubt that any algorithm would be able to completely remove all micro-site bias.
Considering the deplorable state of the station histories, I would be forced to agree. It’s obvious that if the microsite violations are not being adjusted for, they never would have been recorded in the first place. (Giving NOAA the benefit of the doubt.)
Pierre Gosselin, they have the magnetism of solar cycle 23:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
John M Reynolds
Has there been a gradual “creep” of these UHI / methods / materials problems, or was the system poorly-designed from the beginning?
If UHI is calculated from surrounding CRN4 & 5rural stations, it is patently obvious that the UHI is woefully lowballed. To me that’s a “D-uh” conclusion.
It would be intersting to actually have two temperature sensors for experimental use and then put one in similar conditions as above and the other over grass at a safe distance.
See Yilmaz et al. (2008 ).
However, the darkness of the concrete isn’t from weathering. It’s wet
Admitedly it’s hard to tell from a picture, but the albedo of concrete is known to change over time as it weathers (from higher to lower albedo). This would introduce a trend to temperature measurement nearby. How large a trend, is anyone’s guess.
http://www.solarcycle24.com says the news sunspot(s) have cycle 23 polarity.
Is CO2 headed down?
Here’s an interesting report from the European Institute for Climate and Energy in Jena, Germany
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/?WCMSGroup_4_3=6&WCMSGroup_6_3=1247&WCMSArticle_3_1247=342
Quick translation into English:
Is the trend of constantly rising CO2 now ending?
Scientists at the European Institute for Climate and Energy in Jena have recently observed signals of a CO2 trend change, delayed, but similar to the current methane trend. Methane hasn’t risen in a long time. E.G. Beck writes about this in his paper (see file): “During the last two years, CO2 data from the measuring stations of the WDCGG (World Data Center of Greenhouse Gases) and the NOAA now show a change in trends, especially for the northern hemisphere.”
Atmospheric physicist Dr. Borchert, who has worked closely for years on the Svensmark Effect; the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, has reached the same conclusion. Taken by aback by the stagnating trend in methane concentrations seen for years, he has also studied recorded data from the major CO2 measuring stations worldwide. He has reached identical results.
It matches up excellently with the report from the AWI, which states the oceans have again started to cool down. Should we be indeed witnessing a change in trends, then temperatures begin to fall, then methane, and then the CO2? The near future will be suspenseful.
Edited by Michael Limburg
And the sunspots have suddenly returned – cycle 24
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I just went to ,sun cycle 24, web site. A new sunspot has formed just north of the equator but they say it ‘t with cycle 23 magnestism.
Hmm… What about the temperature of the pole holding the MMTS? I notice it’s a bit warmer than the MMTS itself and of course is directly below it. Has anyone examined measured temperature of an MMTS with a pole vs without? Stevenson Screens didn’t have such a heat source directly below them. Could this be a reason why a switch from Stevenson Screen to MMTS might show a slight jump in average temperature?
Anthony:
Thank you, Thank you for the work you are doing. I have a comment along the line of measurement integrity of instrumentation aside from the terrible conditions in which the instruments are placed. Most of my professional life work was in the field of Metrology (science of Measurement) – NOT METEOROLOGY. In the last years of my employment, I was the chief scientist of a large military organization responsible for the calibration and repair of test and measurement equipment used throughout the US Air Force. (Something like 1.2 million instruments) We had responsibility for the oversight of over 150 calibration labs worldwide, and the Primary Standards Laboratory. When measurement audits were conducted of the labs, I was always amazed how far off of the true value some of the measurements were. That was in spite of fairly uniform training of personnel, calibrations standards used, and a most benign environment in which to make their measurements. Further, their traceability was checked to make sure that all certificates of measurements for their standards and cal lab instruments were on hand and current.
Further, the act of making scientifically valid measurements requires a generally accepted process or procedure, properly calibrated and certified equipment and standards, qualified personnel, an error analysis of the process, and proper statistical treatment, handling, and interpretation of the data.
That being said, I see no way on this God’s Green Earth that the temperature measurements going back over 100 years could be expected to have any validity. The measurements from NOAA and other sources fail almost every criteria for accurate measurements that I have mentioned above. It looks to me like most of the temperature measurements made are pure garbage considering the conditions under which they are made, both from the standpoint of environment and instrumentation integrity.
I believe that the Global Warming theory will turn out to be far more hoax than fact as time passes, and the truth comes to light.
That will be extremely unfortunate as I believe we need to conserve carbon resources for future generations. We may have already passed the peak of the ability of the world to produce petroleum. We have a longer lasting supply of coal, but those reserves will diminish all too quickly. The US and the world definitely need to find alternative sources of energy. Ethanol, wind power, sea waves, geothermal, and solar panels just will not get the job done. Nuclear energy is some help, but not the total answer.
We need to conserve petroleum for the things it alone can provide such as chemicals, medicines, lubricants, plastics, and a host of other products.
Hope you find these comments of interest. I have not found anyone yet who commented on the total lack of measurement integrity of NOAA and other temperature measurements made around the world. Everyone knows the old cliche: Garbage In – Garbage Out. And that is what we have. I just do not think there is any way anyone can go back and retrieve measurements that mean anything with one possible exception.
I do believe the Satellite temperature and radiation measurement intruments are more trustworthy than almost anything else for their purpose. From my understanding of their design, they are almost continuously compared with a stable (once calibrated) on-board reference standard. And from what I have read, their results almost always refute global warming claims.
Big M
REPLY: An error here, and error there and pretty soon you’re talking real garbage. 😉
Sat measurements show a warming trend, a bit less than that of the surface trend. But the question is, what is the on-board reference calibrated to? What is the science and error band behind it?
Admitedly it’s hard to tell from a picture, but the albedo of concrete is known to change over time as it weathers (from higher to lower albedo). This would introduce a trend to temperature measurement nearby. How large a trend, is anyone’s guess.
True enough. But that would be a warming trend, not cooling, as asphalt has an even worse effect than concrete. (I think.)
La Dochy (Dec. 2007) says that not only offset, but also trends [SIC] are increased by UHI heat sink effect!
And Yilmaz rousingly vindicates the LaRoy “estimates” (as does our humble Rev with his “HOT-L Baltimore” observations).
Anthony,
Have you located an example of an “ideal” weather monitoring station and published a picture of that?
REPLY: Corvallis, OR, operated by the soon to be retired George Taylor, the OFFICIAL STATE CLIMATOLOGIST OF OREGON, is a good example of a CRN1 station.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=3343
Karma is going to come back and bite that idiot Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon on the ass.
I wonder if the bias of small items like the pole would be small enough not to register. I thought the thermometers had a single decimal place as its last significant, and thus most error prone, digit. i do get a chuckle when GISS tries to claim that the temp anomoly has changed by 0.67 C. Perhaps this pole test would be another good test. Does anyone have 3 MMTS sensors? And do the specs have anything to say about the material of the mounting pole?
John M Reynolds
NitWits
Notice the concrete is still wet and it was 22-24c. Had it been dry it would be interesting to see how much of a difference there would have been between the concrete and the grass. Why would they change the way they have recorded temps for years at there stations unless they’re wanting to get a different reading.If you’ll notice concrete turns darker as it ages too.
On a slightly different subject, The International Climate Science Coalition has released the list of signatories to the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change”
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1
The text of the declaration is at;
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
I was happy to see one Anthony Watts among the signatories. Although I was a bit disappointed that Prof Lindzen was not among them.
Jennifer: RE: Australian article: Could be a watershed.
J. Peden
Indeed, grass is probably not the best reference either, but some kind of reference area is needed still.
Temperature sensors meassures local temperatures. With local i mean it often meassures the area close to the sensor, not what it is 10-1000m away.
What would an optimal senosor position be? It very much depends on where it is.
In a small city that is surronded by a forrest the sensor should be in the forrest. In agricultural areas it should be placed out in the fields.
Now considering how much of the earths surface that is covered with forests and deserts, how many sensors are placed in the middle of those? Not many I would guess.
Also as jmrSudbury mentioned above, even the material for the mounting pole could affect the readings if it is not well defined.
It is so rare that information on the Internet is not derivative. Here is an original story, with insight and interpretation (not to mention legwork.) My highest regard for some push-back against the corporate media who abuse science to advance taxation agendas.
True enough. But that would be a warming trend
I’m no expert on concrete, but I understand that the albedo of most concrete will decrease over time. Decreasing albedo will turn a heat reflector into a heat sink. So the daytime trend (as albedo decreases) would be cooling and the nighttime trend probably warming. Of course there would be a warming step change when the concrete is first laid.
Anthony may I ask what type of equipment you are using to take those infra red photos? I have a use for something like that (not climate related).
REPLY: See this http://www.professionalequipment.com/flir-thermacam-bcam-sd-infrared-thermal-imaging-camera-bcam-sd/flir-thermacam-infrared-cameras/