Fun with Thermometers

A guest post by David Smith

Recently I completed my tenth survey for Surfacestations.org. These surveys are fun, almost like treasure hunts where the clues are good but not always great, thus requiring some ingenuity. Also, the surveyor gets to see areas which may otherwise never be visited. And, they’re for a good cause.

While I found no “poster-child” poor quality sites I did observe an array of siting problems. Some thermometers were near the drip-lines of trees, some next to buildings, one was near a concrete patio, one at a sewage plant, several sat above poorly-drained soil and so forth.

These conditions are less than ideal, obviously. Perhaps more importantly, these conditions can change over time. Trees and shrubs grow and die, ground cover changes, concrete is added (and tends to darken over time), drainage may improve or deteriorate, fences and other construction are added or removed, and so forth. Each of these can subtly change the local temperature, a situation which is especially important if one is looking for changes of a fraction of a degree.

To what extent do these imperfections affect local temperature?  Well, we really don’t know (or if anyone knows they’re not talking!).

So, to make a small and imperfect step in that direction, I’m running a few local experiments. My goal is to examine, at least qualitatively, how local microclimate factors like trees and concrete affect temperature. As you’ll see, my methods are too crude to allow fractions of a degree determinations but I should be able to quantify the magnitudes of the impacts of trees, concrete, etc. Or at least that is my goal.

First, my instruments:

I’m using several temperature detector/recorders (”USB1″) like the gray object shown in the photo. These electronic devices measure and log the temperature to the nearest degree F and allow sampling on various schedules. I use 30-minute sampling.

Note: Interested readers can buy these at:

http://www.weathershop.com/USB1_temperature_logger.htm

At this point I’m testing the hardware and developing my experimental plan. But, I have made a few (literally) backyard tests and I’d like to share one of those. This is to help illustrate the approach and, I hope, stimulate helpful comments from other readers.

This initial run (sort of a beta test) was made in my backyard. It involved two extremes. One is near my garage, above a dark-soil flower bed and landscape bricks. This is near a wooden deck and walkway gravel. This spot gets direct sunlight about 50% of the day.

The second extreme is deep shade, beneath low-tree (crepe myrtle) cover and above thick, semi-tropical shrubbery.This is about twenty feet from sunlight. A photo of the backyard is below, with red boxes marking the two locations:

I also use the temperature readings from an airport/airbase located four miles west of my house. This airport provides professional-grade open-field temperature readings which should reasonably approximate regional ambient conditions.

A representative backyard temperature time series is below:

This shows pretty good agreement between the deep-shade max/min and the local airport open-field max/min, which frankly surprised me. I’d expected the deep-shade readings to show less variability (lower highs and higher lows).

More importantly is the contrast between #1 (sunlight and plant beds) and #2 (deep shade). The #1 spot stayed 5 to 10F hotter at midday than #2 (deep shade) less than 50 feet away (and, as a matter of fact, #1 was 5 to 10 F warmer than the high-quality nearby airport).

Why does this matter? well, suppose a co-op station had slowly drifted, over several decades, from open-field conditions to those found at site #1. What would that do to the apparent trend?  That’s an important question which is at the heart of the surfacestation effort.

This backyard demonstration involved convoluted conditions. There is little chance to untangle the relative contributions of so many variables (bricks, soil, tomato plants, trees, etc). So, my plan is to reduce the number of variables in the tests such that we might be able to make broad conclusions about the relative impacts of trees, concrete, drainage and other factors which may change over time.

This should be fun! Suggestions welcome.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dscott
April 28, 2008 10:01 am

I find it curious that the deep shade was a degree warmer at night, was this an artifact of calibration? Were both sensors reading the same temperature before you placed them? Otherwise this might be an example of radiational cooling at night, where the overhead trees are acting like cloud cover reflecting the IR back to the ground or possibly reducing convection.

DR
April 28, 2008 10:02 am

I agree with Doug on the subject of calibration as I too have an extensive background in metrology.
When error bars are reported for surface temperatures, it makes me cringe. Our climate controlled labs don’t have the uncertainty claimed by climate “scientists”.
Doug is also correct in saying:
“Unfortunately assurances are costly but errors should be known and stated or they will be exploited by those who need to support some issue other than the science.”
All sources of error must be identified before before reporting the uncertainty. It is not an easy task, but the integrity of the data relies on correct calculations of the uncertainty. And true as well, the data can be exploited. Honestly, the idea that wind balances out the UHI/microsite issues (Parker et al) is completely laughable to those of us in the real world of the science of measurement (metrology). It seems Pielke and a few others (obviously Anthony Watts) are the only ones who fully understand this concept. Common sense goes a long way for certain things in this world, and it doesn’t take a PhD to see them.
Now we have NOAA on the one hand announcing a renovation of the surface station network, which is good, but on the other they say all the previous records have been “statistically corrected”. Surely they must have been blushing when making that statement.
I have little doubt Doug and Retired Engineer would agree if in our fields we turned in a study using the same sloppy methods used by climate “science”, we’d be out on the street.
There are lies, damned lies, and temperature records 🙂

Pierre Gosselin
April 28, 2008 10:55 am

Thanks for the delivery time David.
2 weeks! Darn it!
So I won’t get it for my birthday tomorrow. 😉

Jeff B.
April 28, 2008 12:03 pm
Doug Taylor
April 28, 2008 2:03 pm

Doug and DR–Excellent brief exposition of measurement theory and near earth temperature measurements. We should continue this discussion, and how it affects climate model predictions.

Eduardo Carreras
April 28, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: Very Damaging to the AGW crowd.
All periods of low solar activity have been named (Sporer, Maunder, Dalton, Kristen…). How about we name the current one “The Gore Minimum.”

DR
April 28, 2008 5:53 pm

For those interested in uncertainty, a link to free software to play with:
http://www.isgmax.com/uncertainty_freeware.htm

davidsmith1
April 28, 2008 6:08 pm

Today we had a north wind and full sunshine. The two backyard thermometers recorded only a 1F difference in maximum temperature, versus the 5F to nearly 10F of last week.
The difference is that last week the wind was from the southeast. Why does that matter?
Well, the layout of adjacent parts of my backyard, which can’t be seen from the camera, is here:
http://davidsmith1.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/0428081.jpg
What this shows is that, when the wind is southeast, the breeze travels over about 50 feet of sunlit concrete, through a breezeway and across a brown wooden deck in a manner that probably swirls to the right. Pass that warmed, weakened breeze across the darker compost and bricks beneath the sensor and I suspect that a +5F local temperature rise resulted.
On the other hand, when the wind is northerly it travels across my neighbor’s grass backyard, through about 20 feet feet of shade and then across 10 feet of low vegetation. That’s a zero-concrete “cool” path.
This backyard comparison is simply an exercise, but it suggests the contamination possible by placing temperature sensors too close to human habitation.

Harold Vance
April 28, 2008 9:16 pm

This is off-topic for your post, but today in the Houston Chronicle, Eric Berger posted a story to the effect that CSU is thinking about ending support for William Gray’s hurricane forecasts. The excuse proffered by CSU is that “handling the media inquiries… requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors’ work.”
Here is the URL:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html
It’s just hard to imagine a university actually complaining about getting too much national and world recognition. lol.

Pierre Gosselin
April 29, 2008 12:48 am

Jeff B.
I’ve read it. He was quite general about it. Just another guy with nothing really new chiming in with the Ice Age scare.
The more I think about all this, the more I believe we have to watch what the oceans do. How the oceans react will tell us what’s in the pipeline, and will confirm solar correlations. Temperatures have been dropping slowly, but not alarmingly.
Many climate signals are still mixed. The AGW alarmists still have enough melting, weather anomalies, changes, warm records at their hands to keep their story going for quite some time.

Pierre Gosselin
April 29, 2008 12:49 am

For every cold, snowy incident us skeptics point to, the alarmists can still always come with “Yeah, but look at the blah blah blah”.

dscott
April 29, 2008 5:46 am

One would think that over time the sum total vectors of wind direction would equal zero on an annual basis since each season has a prevailing wind direction. Which means seasonal temperature is dependent also on prevailing wind direction. I believe this is an important point missed in the discussion since the atmospheric temperature is dependent on wind to convect heat away from the surface. The slower the wind, the greater the heat build up.

dsmith
May 1, 2008 5:03 pm

You have heard of evaporative cooling from plants, right? The point is not so much the shading from large trees, its the cooling in the evening hours as plants release water from photosynthesis. It’s quite obvious is drier locales that are heavily shaded by large older trees versus open areas with lots of concrete/blacktop or rock (granite/basalts/gravels/sand). Human habitation (as a source of thermal anomaly as the shift from ”natural’ vegetation density/type to locale.
Best place to measure would be nonperturbed environments; ain’t gonna be easy to find. And it is worthwhile to measure thermal trends in non-natural environments. Consider the difference in evening desert thermal regimes in say, downtown Las Vegas (roof top or street paved surfaces) and fifty miles away in rural desert setting.

May 26, 2008 10:49 am

[…] is an update on recent field tests with remote thermometers (see the ”Fun with Thermometers” post for  […]