Posted by Dee Norris
Can you figure out what happened at Mohonk Lake, NY?
Get out your slip-sticks and put on your thinking caps, gentle readers. We need to solve the mystery of the temperature record at at Mohonk Lake NY.
On Monday, the New York Times had this to say about the temperature record at Mohonk Lake:
The record shows that on this ridge in the Shawangunk Mountains, about 20 miles south of the better-known Catskills, the average annual temperature has risen 2.7 degrees in 112 years. Of the top 10 warmest years in that time, 7 have come since 1990.
Now I just happen to live in the Catskills (the Shangra-La of New York State, IMBO) and a 2.7 degree (I am assuming F, not C) increase sounded pretty high for the ‘Gunks’ so I turned to this handy tool at www.CO2Science.org for a quick look-see at the USHCN data for the Mohonk Lake (41.77.N, 74.16W; 379m) site. Here is what I found:
Since I live in the general area, I have previously used the data from a site in nearby Maryland, NY (42.52N, 74.97W; 363m) in a local lecture. I was sure I remembered that the station in Maryland had not exhibited a trend like this. Double checking the ol’grey matter, I got this graph:
Both sites are at the same altitude and in the same general vicinity. I know that climate change can’t be that localized, so it has to be something else.
I hope to get down to Mohonk Lake this weekend if possible for a closer inspection, but in the meantime, here is an opportunity for all the climate sleuths out there to take a shot at solving The Mystery at Mohonk Lake.
UPDATE: The Mystery Deepens
In a converstion today with Paul Huth at Mohonk Preserve, I was assured that the station did not have the latest electronic MMTS measurement system and that they still used the original system installed in 1896, but an inquiry at NCDC provided the following equipment:
An appointment for a site inspection has been set up for the middle of next week.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The fact that one person is responsible for taking the readings at the remote station may be a glaring weakness — not the claimed strength — in the process.
It sounds like quite the uphill climb. No disrespect intended, but what if the record-keeper did not make it up to the remote station everyday, yet “estimated” what the readings may have been for the missed day(s). In the summer, especially (as it appears that the reported rise is concentrated in the summer months), the readings are vulnerable to the following scenario:
Instrument reset on Day Zero.
Day 1 has a unseasonably high temp of 90 degrees and a low of 70 degrees on a clear day/night. On Day 2, 4:00pm rolls around, and for whatever reason the reading is not made (busy or too hot to climb — the solitary reader is much older than he used to be). On Day 2, it “felt” just as warm or warmer than Day 1, so when the instrument is read on Day 3, the high was shown as 90 degrees — even though Day 2 may have only been 82 degrees with higher humidity than Day 1 — Day 2 is officially recorded at an estimated 90 degrees, even though the true temperature reading was 82 degrees. If this scenario occurred more often as the years ensued, an upward trend in Max Temp would occur.
I am not calling anyone a liar or cheat — just pointing out that all humans have weaknesses — and the possibility I described above COULD be one many factors (other than AGW) affecting the instrument readings.
“It sounds like quite the uphill climb. No disrespect intended, but what if the record-keeper did not make it up to the remote station everyday, yet “estimated” what the readings may have been for the missed day(s). In the summer, especially (as it appears that the reported rise is concentrated in the summer months), the readings are vulnerable to the following scenario:”
Not to worry, look behind the man at the Stevenson screen in the second picture. Notice the window in the office building? Or is it a house?
http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?weatherdata#warmtrend
I do not wish to appear argumentative with commenter, ‘j.connor’. I only know what I read in the NYT article:
“Every day for the last 112 years, people have trekked up the same gray outcropping to dutifully record temperatures and weather conditions.”
As for the referenced picture, it is unlabeled. I do see the building right beside the weather station. Hmm. I wonder when the building was constructed? Assuming the picture is of the Mohonk weather station, the building could be a factor in the temperature rise. Again, does anyone know when it was erected?
Also, the NYT article states the following:
“The station has never been moved, and the resort, along with the area immediately surrounding the box, has hardly changed over time.”
Personally, I think the Mohonk folks and the NYT have jumped-the-gun carelessly (an all too common trait among the AGWers). Until, the above quoted “hardly changed” is defined and extensively researched and photographed with the survey released publicly, this is, at best, a highly unscientific, anecdotal account of warming.
Finally, is it just me, or does the actual reported warming seem confined to only the Summer Max Temp records?
Dave the Denier says:
“does the actual reported warming seem confined to only the Summer Max Temp records?”
There is warming year round in the max temp records over the last couple of decades, but it is certainly more pronounced in the summer, and seems to peak in June/July, at least compared to nearby Falls Village. There is no comparable (relative) warming in the min temp record.
Falls Village is hi-res on Google Earth and still looks fairly rural. For recent 5 year averages the difference FV – ML looks like this (deg C, June/July only, max temp):
1979-1983 2.9
1984-1988 1.6
1989-1993 1.9
1994-1998 1.7
1999-2003 0.3
2004-2008 -1.4
So over 4C relative shift! Just eyeballing the numbers, there seems to be quite a (relative) jump around the beginning of August 2004.
Thanks for the link, j. connor: http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?weatherdata#warmtrend
That looks like wood chips on the ground. Someone’s going to have a fun survey. Incidentally, I’m not finding when wood chippers became common; it was only a few decades ago. Wood chips were not common mulch before wood chippers. And due to the material, I suspect bark chips have different biological and thermal characteristics.
Aren’t Stevenson screen doors supposed to be on the north side? That means the building in that photo is just north of the screen. I think low-angle winter sunlight heats the ground south of buildings more than happens away from buildings (based on observation; I suspect reflection and radiation from warmed wall are both factors).
No worries Dave the Denier
Dratted tiny laptop keyboard..
As I was about to say before my bout of premature posting.
The photo in question is indeed unlabeled, but you will notice the picture of Paul C. Huth on page 2 of the NYT article linked in the main post is the same person standing at the Stevenson screen in the unlabeled picture.
Also, the current NOAA weather sheet linked on the Mohonk Preserve site with the unlabeled photo lists Paul C. Huth as the observer
Now, does any of that mean the Stevenson screen in the picture is the official one? No. For now we will just have to wait for a documented inspection. It was, however, a fun exploration of the circumstantial evidence.
Apart from the wood chips on the ground, look at the height of the screen from the ground. The observer’s eye level is above the top of the enclosure. I’m thinking the specified height is greater than that(?) And the stand that it’s on appears to be some sort of wooden home-made affair…
Very much looking forward to seeing the survey results!
More background information: The spa and pavilion was designed and built by Saratoga Associates
http://www.saratogaassociates.com/portfolio/studios/architecture?proj_arch_mohonkspa.php
completed in 2005, according to these reviews.
http://www.spaindex.com/Features/MohonkFeature.html
and is connected to the main building by covered walkway.
Also, as a continuation of this little exercise, comparing photos of the grounds from this historic collection taken between 1880 and 1920 to the modern google collection shows the term “relatively unchanged” does not mean “just like it was”.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/f?mcc,gottscho,detr,nfor,wpa,aap,cwar,bbpix,cowellbib,calbkbib,consrvbib,bdsbib,dag,fsaall,gmd,pan,vv,presp,varstg,suffrg,nawbib,horyd,wtc,toddbib,mgw,ncr,ngp,musdibib,hlaw,papr,lhbumbib,rbpebib,lbcoll,alad,hh,aaodyssey,magbell,bbcards,dcm,raelbib,runyon,dukesm,lomaxbib,mtj,gottlieb,aep,qlt,coolbib,fpnas,aasm,scsm,denn,relpet,amss,aaeo,mff,afc911bib,mjm,mnwp,rbcmillerbib,molden,ww2map,mfdipbib,afcnyebib,klpmap,hawp,omhbib,rbaapcbib,mal,ncpsbib,ncpm,lhbprbib,ftvbib,afcreed,aipn,cwband,flwpabib,wpapos,upboverbib,mussm,cic,afcpearl,awh,awhbib,sgp,wright,lhbtnbib,cmns,psbib,pin,coplandbib,cola,tccc,curt,mharendt,lhbcbbib,eaa,haybib,mesnbib,fine,cwnyhs,svybib,mmorse,afcwwgbib,mymhiwebib,uncall,afcwip,mtaft,manz,llstbib,fawbib,berl,fmuever,cdn,afcesnbib,hurstonbib,mreynoldsbib,spaldingbib,sgproto:0:./temp/~ammem_lWqS:
I swear, I’ve seen a google photo of the place with rows of window ac units hanging out of them… should have saved the link.
Blah, just enter Mohonk in the search field of the Library of Congress for the historic photos… Should have predicted that one wouldn’t work as I hoped.
“An appointment for a site inspection has been set up for the middle of next week.”
Any information concerning the status of the inspection would be appreciated.
They canceled the appointment with zero intent to reschedule. Subsequent attempts to gain access have been unsuccessful. But hope has not been given up.
Could this be another case of weed blocker under the mulch?