GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – "It's all pipes!"

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_after_october_correction

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:

russian_met_stations

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:

anomaly-map-blended-mntp-200809-pg

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.

noaa_world_temperature_anomaly_animation

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.

anomaly-map_blended_mntp_01_2007_pganomaly-map_blended_mntp_02_2007_pg

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.

anomaly-map-blended-mntp-200803-pganomaly-map-blended-mntp-200804-pg

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:

ru_temp_anomaly

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:

verhojansk_station1-520

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:

verhojansk_station2-520

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:

russian_heating_pipes1
The caption was telling: Smaller Russian era dwelling - blue is typical colour. Pipes outside are for the steam heat that is distributed to all buildings.

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:

127chernobylpipes
Caption: Driving through Chernobyl. Steam pipes carry heat through the city

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:

Caption: A general view shows the Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 where a main pipeline burst depriving some ten thousand people of central heating, January 5, 2008. The flats of tens of thousands of people in Siberia's Krasnoyarsk and some of its suburbs continue to stay cold for the second day at temperatures of about -20 degrees Celsius (minus 4 Fahrenheit) after a pipeline rupture in a thermal power station that supplies the central heating system, the Emergencies Ministry told local media. Source: REUTERS/Ilya Naymushin (RUSSIA)

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.


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.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
304 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 16, 2008 6:01 am

I can’t stop wondering that a relatively few number of stations can make the world average go much higher. There are so few stations in northern Russia that if there is a little skew in some of them, the whole average for the region goes up, and so does the rest of the world… So, the issue here is clearly that it’s hotter in those little towns (good for them!), but not in the rest of Siberia.
Ecotretas

Steve M.
November 16, 2008 6:15 am

Who wants to merge the top anomaly graph and the station location graph? It LOOKS like the hottest areas have the fewest stations.

Steven Hill
November 16, 2008 6:30 am

Obama will soo be shutting this site down due to the new fairness doctrine. You have been warned, the truth does NOT set you free.
LOL
Steve

November 16, 2008 6:32 am

From Telegraph article, feedback:
Say what you will, but Moscow has the warmest November in 126 years, there is no snow and no sign if winter, temperatures across much of Russia are at record highs. This is a fact, not a statistical manipulation or data error. Posted by Alex, Moscow on November 16, 2008 3:27 AM

Basil
Editor
November 16, 2008 6:54 am

If the data at
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
there actually was a global “heat wave” in the last week or so of October. Could this rise have been centered in Siberia?

An Inquirer
November 16, 2008 7:04 am

While I am sure that micro site issues exist and that sloppy work has had an impact on the Siberian on GISTEMP, I am under the impression that satellite data from RSS and UHA also show warming in Siberia.

Denis Hopkins
November 16, 2008 7:21 am

christopher booker is an avid reader of your blog. He refers to it 2 sundays out of 3 in his column in the sunday telegraph and must be responsible for a lot of hits on your site :-0
I am one of them who came and stayed! as a result of Mr Booker

Chris
November 16, 2008 7:28 am

just a note to say, hope my last post makes it through, as i didn’t save it, and my original at CA may have been lost by its spam filter

Paul Demmert
November 16, 2008 7:29 am

Anthony check out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker in the UK Telegraph

Mike C
November 16, 2008 7:39 am

Anthony,
This is pretty astounding stuff. Normally I would disagree with you because I have faith in the homogeneity adjustments. But I’m flabbergasted by the fact that the GISS site shows none for the Verhojansk station. In the last 100 years this station is up about 3 degrees. It is obviously in an urban heat island but does not get an Urbanization adjustment, nothing. Just shocking.

BarryW
November 16, 2008 7:51 am

Ron,
No because the temperature stations are used to represent a value over a much larger area (grid cell) than the UHI actually affects. Hansen attempts to correct for this using rural stations to adjust the urban but if the rural stations are compromised then you’re SOL. Satellites use an average value measured over their grid cells so the effect is much smaller.

B Buckner
November 16, 2008 8:04 am

Don’t forget that these northermost land weather stations are used by GISS to extrapolate temperatures in the Arctic Ocean. Any errors/biases in these data are projected over a large area.

redneck
November 16, 2008 8:42 am

A phenomena often seen in cold climates in the winter are temperature inversions. A temperture inversion is a layer of cold air situated above warmer air that is trapped along the ground. The phenomena can be particularly dramatic on very cold and still days when the air is clear. If a city is large enough to have sky scrappers a person looking towards the city will see the skyscrappers poking out of a grey/brown ground fog/smog in to the overlying clear air. I have seen this phenomena on a number of occasions. In light of what I have read here I wonder how much this phenomena exacerbates the effects of UHI in the winter time.

Phillip Bratby
November 16, 2008 8:52 am

Looking at all the Sunday Telegraph feedback at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml&posted=true&_requestid=81724, there’s an awful lot of people out there who are not convinced by the AGW mantra and the Hansen/Gore scam.
I know Christopher Booker is a fan of Anthony and Steve McKintyre, but he is one of very few who gets his voice heard in the MSM.

John
November 16, 2008 9:19 am

If this turns out to be true that “it’s the pipes” and the temperature difference is as significant as the Pt. Barrow study indicates (~2 degrees C) and it extends back in time to when the central heating was installed by the soviets (WWII era?) and it affects the huge portion of the earth’s surface covered by Siberia and points north, then what will that do to the world global temperature record over that time? Is this as big of a deal as I’m beginning to think?

November 16, 2008 9:24 am

Perry Debell (02:01:12) :
Sunspot revelations.
Note that Brekke says:
If it is true that the sun’s activity is of great significance in determining the earth’s climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans”.
That is, of course, correct, but does not establish that it is so, and he makes no claim that it does.

Tom Bakewell
November 16, 2008 9:33 am

I believe Iceland uses geothermal heat delivered by pipes. A reasonable pair of question is “How do they measure temperatures?” and “What do their temp records look like?”
This is a stunning piece of work. Great Job!

Chris
November 16, 2008 9:35 am

“mrSudbury (05:37:25) :
How does ice extent north of that area of Russia compare? — John M Reynolds”
Latest research shows a running 10-year mean summer ice extent of 5.2 million km2 for the Russian Arctic in the mid 20th century, increasing to 5.6 million km2 in the early 1980s, before decreasing to 4.8 million km2 as of 2006
– see fig 2 of http://instaar.colorado.edu/meetings/AW2008/abstract_detail.php?abstract_id=51
It will be more like 4.5 million km2 after the last couple of summers. Personally, I would suggest this is consistent with an increase in Russian temperatures since the mid-twentieth century which is not substantially greater than any global temperature increase. (Summer that are ~0.5C warmer in the Arctic melt a lot more ice).

tty
November 16, 2008 9:42 am

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. There certainly is UHI effects in Siberia as elsewhere, but they would not cause one month “blips”. And the warmth in Siberia in March and October was real – you could see it in the early snow-melt and a late first snow, as well as in the satellite temperature record.
As for what caused it, my guess would be a slight increase in cloudiness. The extreme cold in Siberia is due to the very clear and dry air. Perhaps chinese pollutants could be the ultimate cause.
Ric Werme:
No Siberia has nothing like as violent weather as the Midwest. The abrupt temperature changes there (and the resulting thunderstorms and tornados) is due to the fact that it is the only place in the World where tropical and arctic air masses meet. Siberia is very effectively shielded from wet, tropical air masses by the mountains of Central Asia. Siberia just has an extremely continental climate.
Incidentally heat-pipes (usually warm water rather than steam) in Siberia are insulated, though the insulation isn’t up to western standards.

JamesG
November 16, 2008 9:46 am

Before overdosing on the anti-Russian comments, remember that Russian scientists are the most skeptical of AGW while the US scientists are the least skeptical. That says a great deal imho! You might also consider that despite extreme lack of money and those oft-supposed, but never demonstrated, industrial inefficiencies, they have always produced guns, tanks, missiles and aircraft that usually easily outclass the US-made stuff at a tiny fraction of the cost. You can define efficiency as producing a lot with little money. And you can also define the epitome of inefficiency as pouring billions of dollars down an inexhaustable pit in order to save companies with chronically bad business models. Bad governance is the same whether Soviet-style or born in the USA.
As for those conspiracy theories – someone like Gavin or Atmoz etc, will happily troll through this site, sift those few comments and use them to demonstrate that the commenters at WUWT are a bunch of wingnut conspiracy theorists. Is that the desired outcome?

Harold Ambler
November 16, 2008 10:03 am

The actual heat wave in Russia does not negate the uncorrected-for UHI in Siberia (and, no doubt, elsewhere in Russia), the problematic baseline for Siberian anomalies, the disastrous lack of data oversight at GISS, or for the HUGE PROBLEM alluded to in Anthony’s original post:
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.

Bill Wirtanen
November 16, 2008 10:13 am

But something curious popped out at me as well while I looking at the Google Earth image of Verhojansk. Just close to the supposed weather station – a long shadow of a power plant and even more; the colour of the basin just beside the station is very dark blue – a cooling/condense water basin of the plant perhaps?

Flanagan
November 16, 2008 10:15 am

I don’t get it. Followig the “skeptic rationale” surface mesaurements in populated area tend to be too high due to the most acclaimed urban heat island effect. Now, you’re trying to convince us that temperatures in remote locations are also too high due to some other fantastic effect – the pipe effect.
So what next? Is the arctic warming because of increased flatulence from bears? The sea surface temperatures are increasing because fishes are using air conditioning? Bah…
REPLY: See the MUHI study from Barrow, Alaska, quoted in earlier comments. It is remote, small, and has a measurable UHI effect. It’s character is not unlike that of many of the Russian Siberian stations. We’ll do some studies and we’ll see if the effect is “fantastic” or not. As for your other comments, stop being juvenile. – Anthony

Harold Ambler
November 16, 2008 10:18 am

Sorry, quoted remarks are by Steve McIntyre, as quoted by Anthony. The greater point, like the work done by Anthony on weather stations in the U.S., is that when you put pressure on a single data-collection location, it is astonishing what you find.

EW
November 16, 2008 10:32 am

More Russian data:
There’s a server “Russian Weather”, which covers Russian, European and Asian stations. In Russia, there are available downloads of raw data for 1341 stations, from today back to 1997-2000. I found that sometimes these data differ from those of GHCN. There is also more stations in the “Waldo” region of Siberia, so maybe there is a possibility to check for the recent development in the area of 70-80N
http://meteo.infospace.ru/wcarch/html/e_sel_admin.sht?country=176

1 3 4 5 6 7 13