Click image for a live interactive view of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC
Today started off terrible. I slipped in the bathtub last night at the hotel, and strained a back muscle and was so sore that just getting dressed and into the car was a chore. As a result, I was late getting to NCDC this morning. I’ve been popping Aleves today. Fortunately, they had slack built in so the day got started cheerfully with a review of the new Climate Reference Network with the principal scientists. It was a super meeting and I took many notes, I’ll have much to share later.
Next came a briefing on “Climate Science” from Tom Peterson, but I’m afraid I stole his thunder a little bit when I announced that I had already seen his presentation, which included an analysis of the Marysville USHCN Station. See the powerpoint he presented here:aapg-san-antonio-peterson
Then came a personal tour of the Asheville CRN station by Dr. Bruce Baker. In addition to taking visible light photos, I also took matching IR photos from many angles. Bruce and his team were quite impressed with the IR camera I use, and he says he plans to buy a couple in use for siting surveys. He also plans to post the IR photos I took today on the CRN site to show how well the design and siting is free of IR influences.
I’ll have much more on all of this but I still have 8 more stations to survey plus an unexpected customer detour service call Friday to WDNN-TV in Dalton, GA which has some trouble with our weather display system there. So stay tuned for more details on the visit and questions that were asked and answered.
But the big news came with Dr. Baker providing me with a press release (new today) to post here for you all to see. CRN is getting completed and USHCN modernization is starting:
NOAA today announced it will install the last nine of the 114 stations as part of its new, high-tech climate monitoring network. The stations track national average changes in temperature and precipitation trends. The U.S. Climate Reference Network (CRN) is on schedule to activate these final stations by the end of the summer.
NOAA also is modernizing 1,000 stations in the Historical Climatology Network (HCN), a regional system of ground-based observing sites that collect climate, weather and water measurements. NOAA’s goal is to have both networks work in tandem to feed consistently accurate, high-quality data to scientists studying climate trends.
See the full press release here:
press_release_042408_climatereferencenetwork
What this means: No more adjusted data, the raw data from CRN and from HCN-M is the real data and will be pristine, assuming the network is maintained. No more torturous gyrations of FILNET, SHAP, and TOBS. The downside is that a track record needs to be built up, the older data is also going to be revised with USHCN2 algorithms soon, and I’ll touch on that later.
One thing that Debra Braun said to me today in the meeting hit home: “our funding had been cut for the last two years, and we were unable to move forward until this year”. This made me think that perhaps some of the focus the surfacestations.org project brought to illuminating the deplorable condition of the network may have helped a little bit in convincing some legislators that it was time to get serious about allocating funding to complete the CRN and fix the USHCN. A little public embarrassment of the USHCN provided by all of us that have contributed to surfacestations.org may have helped. I’d sure like to think so.
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Baker, Debra Braun, Grant Goodge, and the entire CRN science team, plus Jeff Arnfield, and Steven Del Greco for answering all my questions and taking such careful time with me. Additionally I wish to thank Dr. Karl, and Assistant Director Sharon LeDuc for hearing my concerns and offering ideas.
Everyone there at NCDC made me feel welcome and appreciated.
Most importantly, I want to thank you, my loyal readers and volunteers, because without your help, the trip and presentation I made would not be possible.
A step in the right direction. One potential gotcha: if the new siting and system shows lower temps (as might be expected by eliminating local influence) and we have entered a cooling period, the alarmists will claim it is all due to the system change, The world is still melting and we need massive government action to fix it. Better data will show what is really going on, but the people in power have to believe it.
Still, better off than before.
Well done, Anthony.
I wonder what kinds of physical changes they are proposing / guaranteeing?
Some transparency equal to that which you’ve modelled would be nice.
Anthony,
You deserve a lot of credit for taking on the issue of bias in the network, and your science seems to have convinced the right people that garbage-in garbage-out is a real issue with some of these measurements.
Congrats!
Lon
Nothing convinces like sound, precise data. Looks to me like NCDC has made a commitment to and is serious about setting up a system that’s second to none.
I think many Americans will feel they are now getting their tax dollars worth at the NCDC. Hats off! Those are the vibes I’m getting from the results of this trip.
Maybe Anthony can acknowledge this.
I feel them inviting Anthony was truly a sign they are genuinely open to positive criticism with the aim of mutually moving forward technically and scientifically. Two heads are always better than one.
Indeed it’s refreshing to see there are still agencies which are not stuck in the mindset of stubbornness, narrow-mindedness and combativeness. My faith in US climate data is beginning to make a comeback.
Great work, Anthony and all volunteers and contributors of $ (and all other currencies).
I see the present situation relative to the near-surface temperature measurements and data as follows.
A model is being applied to the raw measured data to obtain modified variations of that data. The data-modification model has some heuristic aspects and one part, the TOBS modification, is an empirical correlation that is about two decades old (IIRC). Like all models the data-modification model is required to be Independently Validated before being put into production use. One objective of the CRN might be to provide data that will allow Validation of the model presently in use. If the data-modification model fails Validation, CRN data might be useful for replacing the previous approach.
And the software tools into which the data-modification model has been implemented are required to be Independently Verified prior to production applications. All the pieces that form the complete implementation tools require Verification. Specific calculations and applications additionally require Verification.
It looks like the work of Anthony and all the volunteers and contributors has resulted in an excellent start toward Independent Verification and Validation of these important models, methods, and software, and their applications.
Anthony- I am glad you had a good trip. I have always been treated courteously when I have visited NCDC.
With respect to their news release, however, they perpetuate the myth that they can correct “less-than-ideal” sites. The news release writes
“Data gathered by those existing HCN stations that were located in less-than-ideal areas have been statistically corrected in the analysis of climate trends routinely reported by NOAA. Though some individual stations were placed in less-than-ideal areas, these data anomalies did not significantly alter overall climate measurements. The modernization will relocate these
stations in areas that are closer to ideal.”
This ignores the evidence to the contrary that we have published in the peer reviewed papers:
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-318.pdf
and
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
NCDC continues to have blinders on in terms of the seriousness of their errors in assessing long temperature near-surface air temperature trends and anomalies. There is a warm bias in their assessments which we have documented in the literature but they have chosen to ignore instead of seeking to refute in the literature or accept.
Anthony, great job all the way around! Some of this I agree with, some I don’t
Mostly disagree with the adjustments statement. We know how hard it is to collect valid and “identical quality” data. So some adjustments will certainly be needed to standardize, but these should be transparent and relatively small. Otherwise a huge improvement over the 5 degrees C in today’s stations.
CoRev, editor
globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
This is good news although it still leaves the question of; what did the earth’s temperature really do over the last 100 years? Hopefully Anthony’s work will eventually answer that question.
Great work, Anthony! And an excellent result. Does this signal a “tipping point” in the way climate data is handled? Hope so!
Also hoping your back recovers swiftly.
When I was a little kid, one of my favorite stories (I confess that I had a bunch) was “The Little Engine That Could”. Another was “Seven With One Blow” (hmmm…not sure if that was the title or not.
And “Pigs is Pigs”.
One of the few movies I have ever really enjoyed was “The Mouse That Roared”.
I like this blog.
Great Work, Anthony!
The real problem from here forward (as indicated by some prior posters) will be how they construct the seam between the old and new data streams. Back when the MMTS system was installed, NCDC couldn’t be bothered with keeping the Stevenson screens running in tandem at their intial locations. In fact, some of their papers on the subject appeared to give the impression (by a crude method of photo-shopping some images, a technique which didn’t exist electronically at that time) that the two instrument systems were running side-by-side at the same time.
Find the AMS BAMS article here and click on the pdf option, and check out the doctored photograph.
A more appropriate technique for doing a comparison of the various instruments under nearly identical exposures can be found in this paper from the Netherlands.
Trying again with a corrected(?) link to the Netherlands paper; this may do it. If that doesn’t work, here is the url:
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/vandermeulenbrandsma2.pdf
Andrew, sorry to hear about your back but glad to hear your meetings went so successfully. And give yourself more credit, I’m sure your efforts prodded the NOAA to act more quickly then they likely would have. Good news all around, except for your back. 🙁
I’ve found that the extreme pain from pulled back muscles can be somewhat alleviated by a back support pulled tight.
I’m glad you received a warm welcome at NCDC. Please thank them for me. Sorry to hear about your back. I hope it will heal quickly.
I can’t tell you how important the weather and climate is to the building industry. It could mean the differnece between a just breaking even or making a profit.
You have my greatest admiration and I do believe that one day you will be addressed as Dr. Watts.
“Doc Rev”. (Has a ring, doesn’t it?)
AEG: Take it easy (glad you saved your dog).
Well, it looks like progress will be made! Sorry about the accident, Anthony. You know, I think that NCDC has always been the least suspicious of the surface data sets to me, since unlike Jones or Hansen, the creators of that data aren’t heavily involved in the politics of AGW. And I can see that I was right to think they are interested in getting the best data they can! Bravo NCDC! Oh, sure, I know that many of them passionately believe in their adjusting ability to, but I think that this is a tremendous show of good faith on their part.
Mosher-I never understand the running to the ice thing. It is so full of holes! Basically he wants to say, looking, warming isn’t going to go away, no matter what you find is wrong with the record. Well, duh, but he could have just used the satellites or balloons to tell us that (but then we get speculation as to what satellites would show if they were around back then) so why not? Maybe he doesn’t like them very much?
[…] Day 2 at NCDC and Press Release: NOAA to modernize USHCN Watts Up With That? Quote: […]
R.A. Pielke Sr.
I agree 100% with your concern.
I also found this: “…have been statistically corrected in the analysis…” claim completely premature. Methodology may improve in the FUTURE, but the data from the PAST still need to be dealt with. With this data, we’re still talking about a lot of rubbish, which must not be simply swept away under the rug.
Hopefully people surveying the sites will not stop doing so because they think the site problems have been solved by Anthony’s single visit. The site surveys have to continue. Many in this forum are hoping to see temperature anomalies calculated using only the CRN1 and CRN2 sites. As Anthony has already mentioned, not enough sites have been surveyed till now to allow this.
Dr. Pielke, that clause about statistically corrected sites jumped out at me too, but I think you misinterpret the point.
This is simply bureaucratic ass covering. They know there are problems and are now working to correct them. To admit publicly how horrendous the actual state of the problems are is too much. There are too many careers on the line to say: “The state of our network is so bad, we haven’t a clue as to what’s been happening for the last 30 years”. They want to say it, but they just can’t.
Is there a need / plan for other surface station monitoring / auditing (volunteer) programs for other counties.
(Apologies if that’s already been covered before, I do not visit here as often as I should.)
I imagine the UK’s surface station network (if we have one large enough to bother with ?)
would be very interesting,
or should that be “predictable”..
(Small island, high population, Green fashionable politics…)
REPLY: yes we’ll expand at some point but still have our hands full here, Canada and Britain are likely next
Found at the site of Marohasy:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html
Yes, we’re making great progress.
Retired Engineer said: “A step in the right direction. One potential gotcha: if the new siting and system shows lower temps (as might be expected by eliminating local influence) and we have entered a cooling period, the alarmists will claim it is all due to the system change, The world is still melting and we need massive government action to fix it. Better data will show what is really going on, but the people in power have to believe it.”
That’s exactly what they are doing. In spite of research by NOAA (and others) showing the Arctic melt waters are doing little if anything to increase sea level rise (Greenland Ice May Not Be Headed Down Too Slippery A Slope – Science Daily 4-20-08), Reuters (the biggest Poggie of all) published an article on 4-24-08 entitled “Arctic ice seen melting faster than anticipated.” Their source: the “experts” at the WWF.
Their are tens of thousands of reputations, billions (if not trillions) of dollars, and power empires throughout the world resting on the Poggie’s ability to keep the AGW ball in play.
Even though I agree with Joe Bast at the Heartland institute that the tide has begun to turn in our favor, the battle is far from over!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
I just want to say thanks. Thanks to you, your volunteers, the NCDC and even NOAA. It is about time we got something like the CRN up and going. Next is to do the same internationally.
Fear of AGW has been hawked since the 80’s. Billions have been spent on AGW research. This should have been a major priority. I am glad someone is finally doing it.
We banned CFCs in the 80’s and only recently has someone measured a key reaction, and found it was an order of magnitude too small to have caused such a large hole. At the same time other researchers showed the Ozone Hole wasn’t healing as fast as the old theories predicted it should have, having banned CFCs. (Note: all research can be overturned, but those two are self consistant, and not having done the measurement at all is inexcusable.)
No one has yet proven that DDT caused thinning of eagle egg shells, but that is why we banned it so long ago. Eagles were protected, so they force fed DDT to other birds to no ill effect. We cleaned up a lot of messes back then, so we also haven’t proved that banning DDT helped the Eagles to recover. Some other pollution could easily have been the culprit. And only recently have we moved towards a sensible plan of banning it in the rich countries who can afford other ways of insect contol, but letting the poor countries use it indoors. Such unreason cost millions of lives.
These bans may yet prove themselves to be right, but it is clear that when we made the bans, we had not yet done the science needed to justify them. Again and again, we face serious accusations that have enough logic behind them to justify testing them, but not enough science behind them to prove them true. And we rush to make corrections before the science is really in.
These things should not be about what the majority of experts think, they should be about what the majority of experts can prove. And nothing makes more sense in proving AGW than setting up a network designed specifically to measure GW and the effects A has on it. Getting the GW measurement part nailed should have been the first thing done.
Maybe I should blame scientific ego. No sexy papers are going to come out of such a project. But politics are heavily involved, even in the science community. And arguing that the present system isn’t good enough to make proper conclusions greatly undermines the political goals. So instead of doing it right, we get inundated with science arguments justifying the old system and the horrendous manipulations that have to be done on it just to knit it into a cohesive whole.
So once again,
Thank you Anthony and volunteers for taking the effort to show that those arguments weren’t based on reality.
And thank you NCDC and NOAA for sticking with it until you finally got approval to set up and maintain a network designed to do the measurement, and fixing some of the old network to make proper measurements.
And since you are sticking your head in, thanks too to Roger Pielke Sr. for sticking to your guns about the incompleteness of the present effort. It should be obvious that increased CO2 is just one thing man is doing that can effect our environment, and it should also be obvious that we don’t know enough about the interactions to be able to make models that can show the effects of increasing CO2 on the water cycle, which is where most of the feared warming is said to come from.
I am happy that you were treated well, but am I missing something? The presentation by Peterson seems to minimize problems with the USHCN, so why the planned upgrade? Aside from the obvious reduction of world data requiring more interpolation and apparent cherry-picking of databases, the presentation dwelled on effects of warming and fell back on modeling as the answer to all of it. I just cannot believe that the corrected USHCN info has been accounted for in their work. Also, 7 of 10 of the references cited were works of Peterson.
REPLY: No you aren’t missing anything, you got it.