UPDATE: A good photo of one of the Russian stations has been found, see below after the “read more” link.
As most readers know by now, the problematic GISTEMP global temperature anomaly plot for October is heavily weighted by temperatures from weather stations in Russia.
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
Like in the USA, weather stations tend to be distributed according to population density, with the more populated western portion of Russia having more weather stations than the less populated eastern areas such as Siberia. To illustrate this, here is a plot of Russian Weather Station locations from the University of Melbourne:
Click picture for larger image, source image is here
Interestingly, the greatest magnitude of the GISTEMP anomaly plot for October is in these mostly unpopulated areas where the weather station density is the lowest. While I was pondering this curiosity, one of the WUWT readers, Corky Boyd, did a little research and passed this along in email:
…Posters at Watts Up have commented on the ongoing consistently high anomalous temperatures from Russia. I have noticed this too. In light of the erroneously posted data for October, I took a look at the monthly NCDC climate reports back to January 2007. By my eyeball estimate the results from Russia are almost all on the high side. . Some I classified as very highs are massively high. Of the 21 months reported, only 2 appeared to be below average.
Category 2007 2008 (9 months)
Very high 6 4
High 3 1
Average 2 3
Low 0 1
Very Low 1 0
Is there a way to validate or invalidate GISS data by comparing it to RISS? Does it strike you as odd that the verifiably erroneous data has shown up in the same area that was suspect in the first place? Could there be a pattern?
Corky also sent along a series of images depicting global near surface and ocean temperature anomalies from NOAA. Here is the most recent one from September 2008:
I was curious if indeed there was any pattern to the Russian anomaly, so I decided to animate the last year and a half worth of images. You can see this animation below. It is about 1 megabyte in size, so please be patient while it downloads.
Click for full sized animation
What I found interesting was that the January 2007 anomaly (the last time we had a “global heat wave”) was primarily in the northern Russian and Asian. According to January 2007 UAH satellite anomaly data, the Northern Hemisphere had a whopping anomaly of +1.08°C and the “northern extent” was even greater at +1.27°C, the largest anomaly ever in the Northern Extent dataset
Curiously though, the very next month, the Russian anomaly virtually disappears and is replacing with cooling, though a sharp boundary to warming now exists in Asia. It was as if somebody threw a switch in Russia.
Click for larger images
In March 2008, a very large positive anomaly returned in Russia, and again in April evaporated with the same abruptness as the Jan-Feb 2007 transition. Again almost as if a switch was thrown.
Click for larger images
Such abrupt repeated changes don’t seem fully natural to me, particularly when they occur over the same geographic location twice. I realize that two events don’t make a trend, but it is curious, given that we now have had a problem with Russian weather data again that caused GISS to announce the “hottest October on record”.
I also noticed that in the animation from the anomaly maps, there does not seem to be much of an anomaly in the summer months.
This made me wonder what some of those weather stations in Russia might be like. So I went to the Russian Meteorological Institute website at http://www.meteo.ru/english/
I know from John Goetz work as well as this artcle in Nature that Russian weather stations had been closing with regularity due to the trickle down effects of collapse in the former Soviet Union. Though some new ones are being built by outside agencies, such as this one sponsored by NOAA in Tiksi, Russia.
Click for a larger image
What I found interesting in the NOAA press release on Tiksi, was this image, showing weather stations clustered around the Arctic:
Click for a larger image
The interesting thing is that all these stations are manned and heated. The instruments appear to be “on” the buildings themselves, though it is hard to tell. One wonders how much of the building heat in this tiny island of humanity makes it to the sensors. The need for a manned weather station in the Arctic always comes with a need for heat.
I was hoping my visit to the Russian Meteorological institute website might have some particulars on the remaining weather stations that have not been closed. I didn’t find that, but what I did find was a study they posted that seems to point to a significant warm temperature anomaly in Russia during winters between 1961 to 1998:
Fig. 1. Linear trend coefficient (days/10 years) in the series of days with abnormally high air temperatures in winter (December-February), 1961-1998.
From the Russian study they write:
For the winter period 1961-1998, most of the stations under considerations exhibit a tendency for fewer minimum temperature extremes. Maximum (in absolute value) coefficients of the linear trend were obtained in the south of the country and in eastern Yakutia.
Whenever I read about elevated minimum temperatures, I tend to suspect some sort of human influences such as UHI, station siting, or irrigation (humidity) which tend to affect Tmin more than Tmax.
In Northern Russia Siberia, I wouldn’t expect much in the way of irrigation. So that leaves station siting and UHI as possible biases. UHI seemed doubtful, given that many of these Russian Stations in Siberia are in remote areas and small towns.
So I decided to put Google Earth to work to see what I could see. One of the stations mentioned in a recent post at Climate Audit cited the station of Verhojansk, Russia, which has temperatures conveniently online here at Weather Underground.
From the Navy Meteorological exercise I found that Verhojansk has a wide variance in temperature:
Verkhojansk is located in a treeless shallow valley. There is snow on the ground during winter months; it melts in the spring. Verhojansk experiences the coldest winter temperatures of any official weather station outside of Antarctica. Verhojansk has Earth’s most extreme temperature contrast (65oC) between summer and winter. Which of the following indirect factors contribute to this extreme seasonal variation?
From the GHCN station inventory file at NCDC I found that Verhojansk, Russia had a lat/lon of 67.55 133.38 which when I put it in Google Earth, ended up in a mud flat. The Google Maps link from Weather Underground was no better, also off in a field.
Looking in NCDC’s MMS station database yeilded better luck, and I found a more precise lat/lon of 67.55,133.38333 There was very little other helpful information there on the station.
The station appeared to be located in town, though I have no way of verifying the exact location. The lat/lon may be imprecise. But something curious popped out at me as I was scanning the Google Earth image of Verhojansk looking for what might be a weather station – it looks like pipes running across the surface:
Click for larger image
These “pipes” appear to go all over town. Here is a closer view, note the arrow to what I think might be the weather station location based on the fencing, objects on the ground that could be rain gauges or shelters, and what looks like an instrument tower:
Click for larger image
I was curious about what these pipes could be, it certainly didn’t look like oil pipelines, and why where they so close to houses and building and seem to network all over town. Doing a little research on Russian history, I found my answer in the pervasive “central planning” thinking that characterized Russian government and infrastructure. It’s called “District Heating“
From Wikipedia:
District heating (less commonly called teleheating) is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and commercial heating requirements such as space heating and water heating.
But for Russia there was this caveat:
Russia
In most Russian cities, district-level combined heat and power plants (Russian: ТЭЦ, Тепло-электро централь) produce more than 50 % of the nation’s electricity and simultaneously provide hot water for neighbouring city blocks. They mostly use coal and oil-powered steam turbines for cogeneration of heat. Now, gas turbines and combined cycle designs are beginning to be widely used as well. A Soviet-era approach of using very large central stations to heat large districts of a big city or entire small cities is fading away as due to inefficiency, much heat is lost in the piping network because of leakages and lack of proper thermal insulation [10].
I should also point out that district heating is not limited to Russia, but is in many northern European countries. It seems quite prevalent in cold Euro-climates, and even extends into Great Britain.
So I searched a bit more, and found some pictures of what Russian district heating looks like from the ground. Here is one from Picasaweb from somebody’s trip to Russia:

Click for source image.
Note the pipes in the photo above are not insulated.
I also found a very interesting picture of steam pipes, also uninsulated, from a trip report to the “hot zone” of Chernobyl:

And finally a picture of Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 that has recently been in the news, according to Reuters due to a burst steam pipe:

Click for larger image – Note the pipes coming out to the left of the power station. You can see steam pipes around the city in this Google Maps view here.
So all this begs the question:
If Russian weather stations are located in cities that have this district heating plan, and a good percentage of the pipes are uninsulated, how much of the waste heat from the pipes ends up creating a local micro-climate of warmth?
Remember when I said that the NOAA map anomalies centered over Russia seemed to be prevalent in winter but not summer? It stands to reason that as winter temperature gets colder, more waste heat is dumped out of these inefficient systems to meet the demand. Basically, we have an active UHI situation in the city that increases in output as temperatures drop.
In the areal photos above of Verhojansk, it appears that some pipes are insulated (white, what appears to be main lines) while others are rust brown, and appear near buildings and dwellings.
I got to thinking about why these pipes might be uninsulated. First there is the classic inefficiency and carelessness of Soviet workmanship, but another thought occurred to me: Russian people might like it that way. Why? Well imagine a place where you walk to the market every day, even in subzero temperatures. Since many of these pipes seem to follow streets and sidewalks, wouldn’t it be a more pleasant walk in winter next to a nice toasty steam pipe?
Steve Mcintyre wrote about this station at Climate Audit, citing a puzzle in the data, here is an excerpt of his post:
Verhojansk
Now there are many puzzles in GHCN adjustments, to say the least, and these adjustments are inhaled into GISS. Verhojansk is in the heart of the Siberian “hot spot”, presently a balmy minus 22 deg C. The graphics below compare GISS dset0 in the most recent scribal version to GISS dset 2 (showing identity other than small discrepancies at the start of the segment); the right compares GISS dset0 to the GHCN-Daily Average.
Over the past 20 years, the GISS version (presumably obtained from GHCN monthly) has risen 1.7 deg C (!) relative to the average taken from GHCN Daily results.
Left- GISS dset 2 minus Giss dset0 [[7]]; fight – Giss minus GHCN Daily
What causes this? I have no idea.
Maybe it’s the steam pipes. We need to send somebody to Russia to find out. Of the many station lat/lons I looked at, Verhojansk was the only one I found with enough Google Earth resolution to see the steam pipes. Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating.
George Costanza could be right.
UPDATE: The photo below shows the Verhojansk Meteorological station and it’s instruments. Hat tip to Jeff C. for the photo below:

Direct URL to the photo above here
Note the cable going to the Stevenson Screen suggesting automated readings. Also note the vertical plume at left.
The station can be seen from Google Earth here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer guaranteed success in 1z0-050 exam with JN0-304 online training. Also get free download link for HP0-S26 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.














On the question of rapid temperature changes see:
Chinooks – Warm West Winds
Are there any similar weather patterns in the Siberia?
See: hi – Warm West Winds
http://www.mountainnature.com/climate/Chinook.htm
Great work. But just a ‘grammar check’:
You mean “invite the question” not “beg the question”. The later refers to a logical error in which the answer is assumed in the question.
(Clearification: “…a bias of tenth of degrees in total” *in Russia* of course.)
One thing that impacts temperature is snow cover (I’m from Minnesota so I’ve experienced this firsthand). As air sits over snow and ice it gets relatively cooler compared to the the same air over open land. An early fall snow in Russia would seem to lead to cooler temps. A later snow to warmer temps. It seems that percipitation patterns could significantly impact temps in Russia, especially in the spring and fall. Of course, Russia is large and shouldn’t be completely covered in snow. However, if there are only a few stations being used couldn’t the temps be biased (or would this average out over time)?
Thinking about this also made me wonder about the GCMs. Isn’t additional snow cover likely if temperatures rise (more percipitation in general). So, isn’t this a negative feedback just like the cloud albedo I’ve read about? Is this factored into the GCMs? Like I said, I’m new at this and trying to understand.
Thanks.
Good sense at last.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/LTTPeiser-Nov08.pdf
H/T to http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/14_Mad_Dogs_And_Englishmen.html
Wouldn’t satellite temps be affected by the same UHI effect?
An excellent piece of investigative work. Makes me wonder if any of the official reporting bodies do any significant field work, even if from the confines of a desk utilizing Google. Though I suppose that such work from a bureaucratic body would be fruitless. It would not produce scientific data and would probably be categorized as anecdotal.
I was surprised to see that piece in the Telegraph that was mentioned in several comments above. I’d expected that that little whoopsie from NOAA/NASA would be conveniently ignored by the media. It was good to see credit for the work done at WUWT & CA in that piece. BTW, that piece was also picked up by Drudge.
The only fly in the ointment I can think of is that the stations that are reporting temps today would be the same ones that helped establish the baseline. So these locations would have been influenced by the same heating effects of being located on heated structures or being warmed by the radiative heat of steam pipes. It may be, however, that the baseline was established when there were more stations reporting and that the stations that have since closed were those with fewer amenities such as heat.
I was struck most by that map of Russia showing the distribution of reporting stations. I suppose that there’s an algorithm used that fills in the gap between stations to guesstimate temperatures for large underrepresented regions, so that if any single station introduces heating bias from being on a warm structure or being warmed by radiative heating from steam pipes, that heating bias would be seen to affect hundreds of square kilometers.
Another thought comes to mind when looking at those maps shown above. I can understand how the maps show how much warmer or cooler a region is from a certain baseline period, but now, in this age of computers, why limit a baseline period to just thirty years? After all, the period in use is one of convenience no doubt established when there were no computers and the data was manually crunched. So no doubt there had to be a certain limit placed on the data to keep it from becoming unwiedly yet carry some validity in establishing an average for a region.
Sunspot revelations.
http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/News/Pal+Brekke+Internationally+renowned+climate+sceptic+and+solar+expert/1203528336519
From http://iceagenow.com/
Regards,
Perry
This weather station site does look very bad, with a significant possibility of UHI enhancement-related heating. However, instead of all the Google Earth business, why don’t you just ask someone from the town to provide you with information? Heck, you could even get someone to measure heat differences. 1989 was a while ago, and it’s not hard to find someone to ask the questions in Russian.
GISS has again adjusted october data, 10 nov: +0.88 12 nov: +0,65 and now +0,61.
As you can see on the images, now the dark red area of Sibiria has been reduced markedly again.
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/opdaterede-sol-is-hav-temp-grafer-osv–d12-e424-s120.php#post_8913
My question: Howcome Giss is still extrapolating very hot temperatures out in the polar ocean even now that the land stations are not so warm?
I believe they have no monitoring in the polar ocean.
Another thing. When comparing with sattelite data, GISS STILL has South america and the area south west of south America way too warm.
Ron (01:06:08) :
No.
UK TELEGRAPH
Looks like some major media outlets are picking up on this story…further adding to the GISS embarassment.
http://www.drudgereport.com/ (see 3rd column)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
“The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures.”
Ron:
No, UHI from steam pipes warms up surface station thermometers close by, not Russia and the world as a whole.
Compare the size of these towns to the whole of Siberia. 0.0…01% 😉
central services
Whether or not the pipes are insulated is meaningless. Let me explain Barrow’s heat island to show you why.
The town of Barrow is quite small, 4,600 people in 2000. Has a nearby gas field. As part of the deal with the locals to allow the extraction of the gas, the town gets gas dirt cheap. So they burn a whacking great lot of it to heat their homes.
This home-warming heat must, of course, eventually escape into the environment. This leads to the up to six degree heat island warming observed on calm nights in Barrow.
That’s why it doesn’t matter if the steam pipes are insulated or not … the main heat loss is from the houses and factories that are heated by the steam. All of the heat piped around the town ends up warming the environment.
When I was young and broke, living on the streets in NY in December, I guarantee we’d huddle around the steam grates …
Finally, UHI is easier to create the colder it gets. If you open a house door on a warm day, it’s about the same temperature inside and out. No heat flow, no environmental heating.
Open the door at ten degrees below freezing, on the other hand, and warm air immediately comes out and warms the environment.
Conclusion? I can definitely see the central heating of the Siberian cities affecting the winter temperatures. I would expect the greatest differential on calm nights. However, calm days would also see heating.
This leads to an interesting speculation … my guess is that the greatest heat loss is during the daytime, and during the week. I would think that heating the factories and the office buildings during the week would consume more steam than just heating the residences on the weekends.
So … a study could be done to see if any sign of this weekday/weekend effect shows up in the records. Another project for a bright young graduate student.
Finally, it strikes me that there is likely more gas being burned up there, in line with the extraction of oil and gas from the region.
w.
Ron. A quite large amount of the stations is in our close to cities. (Probably due to practical matters – someone needed to read the thermometers -, and also, I guess, there was no awareness of UHI when measurement started a long time ago.)
Only a very small fraction of the earth has cities, and when satellites measure the whole earth the UHI affected area is, say, less than 1/10000 of the area. This effect is of course added and that’s perfectly okay! It’s a true human effect on the earth. For GISS maybe 1/10 of the stations is close to city areas, but 1/10000 of the area is not city areas! Therefor GISS fails to describe the earth’s temperature.
“Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating.”
I think the heart of the Russian temperature (and other) lies in the climate shift around 1977. All of the winter-warming of Europe and Russia took place between 1979 and 1995. In fact these areas probably saw a larger winter cooling during 1990-2007 than 1945-1979.
Also note that the trend (not anomaly) is reversed over most of the globe 1990-2007 compared to 1979-1995. CO2 works in mysterious ways 🙂
http://virakkraft.com/climatemodes.ppt
The story goes that during the post-war Soviet era, Siberian towns would exaggerate the cold in winter to get more fuel allocation from Moscow. When the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, there was no longer any incentive to falsify data and winter temperatures suddenly ‘rose’. John Daly talked about this years ago on his website; don’t know if has been really proven.
I’ve also posted this at CA (well, pending a spam glitch) but I wonder if it might be of interest here as well?
——————————-
Here’s some food for thought. I’ve calculated NH and SH Oct SST anomaly averages for the peak years of the 1930s/40s “bump” in temperatures, from HadSST2 as follows:
NH average SST anomaly, Oct 1937-1945: +0.26C
SH average SST anomaly, Oct 1937-1945: -0.18C
Now here’s the equivalent figures for Oct 2008:
NH: +0.46C
SH: +0.17C
Hence compared with the earlier period, Oct 2008 is 0.20C warmer for the NH oceans, but 0.35C warmer for the SH oceans. In other words, the SH oceans show almost double the warming (and thus are much more significant in raising global temperatures)
There’s been a lot of discussion of the “bucket correction” issue, which presumably affected the NH more than the SH (?). In any event, the adjustments were made up to 1941, so the period of 1937-1945 I used above could be seen as a fair compromise re: the bucket issue.
I’ve just located the annual series graphs of NH and SH SST anomalies from 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/hemispheric/northern/
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/hemispheric/southern/
Straight away, I notice two things. Firstly, the drop in SST anomalies at the end of the 1940s was significantly greater in the SH than the NH (despite the relative remoteness from the main action of WW2?) [I can’t see how further bucket or aerosol theories could ever approach the much greater plausibility of the ~1946 PDO shift in explaining the drop]
Secondly, the graphs confirm that since the mid-twentieth century, the SH oceans appear to have warmed much more than the NH oceans.
Yet it is accepted wisdom that global warming thus far has been much greater in the NH, because NH land masses have warmed the most [Asia, Siberia…..groan……] whereas the oceans are slower to warm (more ocean in the SH). Eh, but the SH oceans have warmed much more?
It seems to me that a lot of analysis of the bucket issue has been aimed at explaining away the drop in SST anomalies from the mid-1940s, and hence the dip in global temperatures. But has the same energy been directed at trying to explain (away?) the surprisingly large increases in SH SST anomalies since that time? What kind of quality control was in place for measurements of SST’s south of 40S (i.e. south of the vast majority of SH habitation) in the 1940s and 1950s for example??
More accepted wisdom seems to be that the greater warming of the NH has resulted in a particularly marked long-term decline in Arctic sea ice extent, whereas lesser warming of the SH and the relative protection of Antarctica from warming by its surrounding jet streams has meant a much smaller decline in Antarctic sea ice.
But Antarctica is exposed to the SH oceans in every single direction. And if they have warmed much more than the NH oceans since the mid-20th century, then surely, surely this would have had a significant effect on sea ice extent. I can just about buy the argument that the Antarctic continental interior has been relatively sheltered from warming, this effect enhanced further perhaps by (i) its high altitude and (ii) its ultra-low humidity. But I can’t buy the argument that the surrounding seas have been nearly as sheltered, especially the seas out to ~60S where the ice extends in SH winter (significantly further from the pole than in the NH, because you have a whole continent before you get to the oceans).
Here’s the graph of recent trends in Antarctic sea ice (area) from CT that many will already be familiar with. Does anyone have the links for graphs going further back (for extent as well as area) ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
And for anyone who says ah but the Arctic is surrounded by land which has warmed more than anywhere else on the earth?
Well it may have warmed a lot in recent decades relative to circa 1980, but how did such warmth fail to have the kind of sustained record-breaking impact (relative to circa 1940) you would expect at so many of the furthest north met stations? (even if we take the figures at face value and assume that they have not seen any micro-scale (from extra nearby buildings etc) heating effects in recent decades [see Hinkel et al – thanks again Staffan for your original link to this])
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222202920005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222214320004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=652060110003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
How does ice extent north of that area of Russia compare? — John M Reynolds
David L. Hagen (00:01:06) :
Not for the same reason. This article describes a Chinook wind, a local
name for a wind that comes down from nearby mountains, compressing and hence
warming and drying as it goes. The Santa Ana winds in California are similar
but a bit more complex because they travel around the lower mountains of
Southern CA.
In 1974 I was on a 2700 mile bicycle trip and road a Chinook from Banff to
near Calgary and was only comfortable going up the foothills. On flats I
was riding faster than my gearing could handle. It was so hard to turn
south and I spent the rest of the day figuring out the physics about why
a crosswind means more work than no wind.
I imagine that Siberian warm and cold fronts can have remarkable temperature
changes, but that effect would be more like what Americans see in the Dakotas
to Oklahoma.
The stories of the last few days have been truly amazing.
First there was globally the hottest October in history reported by GISS, a 0.3 centigrade jump compared to September – not seen in the October satellite data published ahead of GISS. This was caused by Russian September data taken for October data and resulting in an enormous ‘heat wave’ over Sibiria – while along the Sibirian arctic coast, sea ice was forming at unprecedented speed.
When this blunder was fixed, the new October surface anomaly data of GISS (as well as those of HADCRUT) still show a ‘heat wave’ anomaly over Sibiria, now resulting in a 0.05 centigrade increase of October values over September, Hadcrut has 0.07, the satellite data have less than 0.01 centigrade change.
Next comes Corky Boyd, I guess he is a retired meteorologist, or you may call him amateur researcher, or ‘dilettant’ researcher, or ‘after work’ researcher, in any case a ‘non-funded’ researcher. Corky Boyd is showing convincingly, where the systematic error of GISS (as well as HADCRUT) data compared to satellite data seems to arise from: it is a specific sort of Russian UHI – in the data since long and not seen by all those professionals.
Finally there was the story, that old GISS data have been altered, all with the argument of eliminating systematic errors of the past, but all going, of course accidentally, towards an increase of global warming. (HADCRUT does not seem to have a story of this kind).
How much change these events have caused concerning the reputation of Dr. James Hansen as a scientist, he who is the principal investigator of the GISS project?
Locally of course none, I mean for the heart of the WUWT community all reputation judgments on Dr. Hansen remain more or less the same.
But gobally, there might be some change. Let’s spread the news.
I don’t see any expansion joints. Typical exterior steam pipe installations have a U shaped offset every 100 yards or so in long runs to provide flexibility for expansion/contraction of the pipes. The expansion joints in the steam pies at the Navy Base in Rota, Spain are clearly seen in the Google satellite photos. I haven’t checked US refineries and chemical plants, but I suspect those are also visible. They certainly are from the ground.
REPLY: You can see the U-bend expansion joints in the Google Earth imagery – Anthony
I know this is sort of off subject and while I still hold with the idea we should be in much colder phase that is being partially masked by AGW – but we have just had our first frost of the season in southeast Texas. This is four weeks ahead of the average date December 15th. There are probably a lot of people who didn’t cover their sub tropical plants last night. I think we are in for a cold one.