The surfacestations project has now surveyed over 70% of the USHCN. I keep telling myself that there probably aren’t many surprises left. We’ve seen climate monitoring stations in parking lots, next to parked cars, next to burn barrels, near air conditioners, at airports, at sewage treatment plants, at industrial facilities, in people’s front yards, back yards, side yards, near BBQ grills, on top of telephone poles, on main street, next to houses, attached to houses, next to buildings, and yes even on the rooftops. One was painted blue, one brown, some hardly at all. Some were even found out of compliance in the Alaskan white north. We’ve seen them in the desert, on the DEW line and down under.
In all of those, it was either a Stevenson Screen or an MMTS type shelter, or the occasional Davis Vantage Pro weather station when the observer put in their own equipment. It was all within expectations, equipment-wise.
A couple of days ago, I had an IM conversation with Evan Jones, who has been surveying stations in New York state. A lot of them are hard to pin down. The one on Cortland NY particularly so, since it’s NCDC provided lat lon put in a residential area, but it is actually on top of a building downtown, which just happened to be the local newspaper office: the Cortland Standard. It looks like a place where weird things might happen.
The building has been there awhile, so has the weather station. NCDC gives this as the location:
Location Description: ROOF OF BLDG AT MAIN STREET & TOMPKINS ST WITHIN & 150 FEET S OF PO
Evan had called the newspaper editor and confirmed that indeed, it was on the rooftop.The NCDC equipment list was puzzling, because, well, why would they need a “Data Collection Platform – Other”? if they already had the standard MMTS and rain gauge?
| 2000-04-01 | 2006-09-11 | PRCP | SRG | PRIMARY | STANDARD RAIN GAGE | PRECIPITATION | — | — | COOP SOD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIVR | ADR | — | ANALOG DIGITAL RECORDER | — | — | ||||
| TEL | DCPO | DATA COLLECTION PLATFORM-OTHER | |||||||
| TEMP | MMTS | PRIMARY | MMTS ELECTRONIC SENSOR | TEMPERATURE | COOP SOD |
I had a hunch about this station, so I asked him: “Is there any possible way you could get a photo of it?”. Being a “can do” sort of guy, Evan hopped a Greyhound bus there from NYC today.
I figured, well, he’ll just get a picture of the MMTS on the rooftop of the newspaper office, nothing we have not seen before.
Then, this evening, I saw this in my email:
and this:
and this:
Umm, its, ah its, uh…another “high quality” member of the US Historical Climatological Network on the roof of the Cortland Standard newspaper office.
Ok here are a few issues:
- On the roof, near chimneys
- Some sort of Amityville Horror shutters turned sorta Stevenson Screen
- Half painted
- Half open, half enclosed
- The MMTS shield is missing some plates, about half
- It is not a standard MMTS screen, it is something else
- Dirty darkened plates on the interior sensor housing
And I’m sure there is more. Here is the aerial view:
Click here for a live interactive view.
The tar roof makes for a nice albedo.
Oddly, NASA GISS modifies the temperatures circa the year 1900:
What we don’t know is what the plot above would look like if this station was properly sited and sheltered. I wonder how many high temperature records for Cortland are actually real or “roofed”? How many warmest overnight low temperature “highest minimum” records were set there because of this siting? We’ll never know.
In defense of the newspaper editor, Mr. Howe, who was kind enough to grant access for photography and reportedly was “puzzled” by the keen interest shown by Evan Jones in this station, he says that he “inherited it when he came to work there 37 years ago”.
37 Years? And in all this time nobody from NOAA/NWS spots this monstrosity of science and does something about it? Oh the shame. The NWS lack of responsibility makes a mockery out of the hard work these dedicated volunteers put in towards maintaining records.
My heart goes out to the volunteers who manned this station, they had no idea. As for the COOP manager of the National Weather Service Office in Binghamton, NY, who is responsible for this station. I’d like to shake your hand, then give you a well deserved smack upside the head and ask: “what were you thinking’?
The only positive thing I can say about this station is that the station stopped reporting to NCDC in December of 2000. The last B91 form from NCDC’s database is here (PDF). Maybe the decision was made to close the station, but the NCDC database didn’t catch up with that until a 9/11 of 2006.
| [ 2006-09-11 ] | 9999-12-31 | 2006-09-11 | NWS | CSSA | 9 | — | INACTIVATE A STATION |
|---|
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to all for the answers!
Just dig a wee hole and put the instruments down that, then the moose will leave them alone.
Anthony, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I though that equipment consisted of either a Stevenson Screen or an MMTS, not both. Should the MMTS be inside an enclosure at all apart from its plates?
REPLY: No it should not. – Anthony
You do know that with a superman costume, you would have been able to leap such tall buildings. And the safety equipment that comes with a batman suit is not needed with a superman suit. Do they have an exchange policy? I would ask for at least a credit if I were you.
would the factors listed in this article really change any conclusions regarding climate trend/change?
An asphalt roof would. Asphalt decays over time and is prone to algae growth (it’s organic), which would change its albedo and hence the air temperature above it.
Asphalt roofs require periodic relaying of the asphalt, which would ‘reset’ the albedo properties. In addition the technology of asphalt roof tiles has changed over time, which could well have affected the albedo properties of the asphalt surface after each relaying.
The effect of the albedo changes are probably several times larger than any ‘global’ temperature trend over the 20th century. And any apparent trend could be due to changes in the frequency of relaying, the technology used or changes in algal growth as noted below.
Note to the person who earlier referred to changing plant ranges, the algae that colonizes asphalt roofs has dramatically expanded its range over the 20th century. And is an example of how plant ranges are affected by human activity and not ‘climate change’.
only slightly OT but pertinent to Pamala Gray’s blueberry comments of last week:
Pam check out : info@winterportwinery.com
Award winning excellence and I do believe they ship out of state. Definitely a great help for making it through the long winter.
Danimals (07:53:10) :
“I agree in terms of proper setup the site is inadequate. However, could we not assume (aside from the nearby chimney issue) that this device at least gives adequate trends over time, since all the listed shortcomings do not change the possible error between dates of measurments? For example, if temperature on July 30 is compared over 20 years, some conclusions can be drawn? thanks.”
It appears that the responses to your questions did not consider that the shortcomings as you refer are far from predictable or unchanging, they are quite unpredictable. Bias as can result from building heat for instance, is affected by changing conditions. Turning the heater down because of higher fuel costs, for example, would be just one example of many. Aging and condition of the building and chimney flue, fuel used are some others.
Wind conditions alone would affect the amount of innacuracy of any instrument with respect to the location of the chimney alone. My conclusion is garbage in, garbage out, and that scientific experiments that attempt to reconcile changing variables are in danger of providing trends that suit the bias of the researcher.
So let me get this right! The site has not been reporting for almost 7 years now. Which means that any assumptions is being done through, well just that, assumptions. The station is inactive and not reporting any data, is it just that the NWS left the equipment there? Is the paper still recording daily weather information? If so, is that information being sent to anyone? Like the NWS? The State Climatologist at Cornell University? NCDC? If not, did the paper want to keep the antiquated equipment for “old times” sake? If the answer to the questions is… NO, NO, NO, NO! Maybe someone should shake your hand and then smack you upside the head and ask you why would you print a story of inaccuracies. Plus, why not publish the standards for siting equipment back in the 1880’s when the station was put in? Also, why not publish the fact that rooftop sitings up to a certain period of time were allowable and also, the type of roof it was set up on at the beginning, or would that be a tough order for you to handle?? Are you sure you guys don’t work for the National Enquirer?
Good reading though…
JP
Why would meeting standards in 1880 (if such existed and if met) make the data good through 2000?
REPLY to John Peters: I really don’t understand your anger. Perhaps your inability to grasp this as being a factual report may be helped if you look up the data in the NCDC MMS database here:
http://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm use the “guest login” button and the search on Cortland. Look at the different tabs. Note the dates.
You can also see that the NCDC keeps all B91 observer report forms here: http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html
Select New York state, then Cortland, then choose the most recent one. Which is December 2000. If you can find a more recent one, please let me know and I’ll immediately issue a retraction.
Yes, the NWS just “leaves” equipment there. Often they simply abandon it in place. I visited with the observer in Waurika, OK, a widow. Her husband the former curator had died 2 years before. She had told me that she hold told the local NWS this and that she could not continue the observations. They said they would come pick it up. The equipment was still there. You can see it here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=5431
In Kenton OK, the owner of the general store sold the business and left, but took the temperature sensor enclosure with him to use in his new vineyard as shield there, but left the NIMBUS LCD display. The current store operator told me that she had called the local NWS office and asked if they wanted it back, and offered to mail it. They said no.
In the case of Cortland, it appears they’ve done the same thing. There is no indication whatsoever that the station is reporting now. Evan can elaborate more I’m sure. As for the shelter issue, it’s nonstandard even by 1890 standards. Here is a photo of three eras of Stevenson Screens side by side: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/3stevensonscreens.jpg
The oldest, of the 1890 era, is in the middle, missing many slats, while the modern day screen is on the right, with metal legs. The one on the left is circa the 1940’s and 50’s. The “screen” in Cortland is obviously some sort of homemade contraption. As for the MMTS stacked plate shield, here is what the standard unit looks like: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/aly/COOP/Equipment/MMTS.htm
Note that the Cortland unit looks very little like the standard NOAA issued unit. Why? We have no idea. What we do know is that the entire station is out of the most basic of compliances for siting and equipment.
So please take all this in, then come back and tell me again how I’ve reported an inaccuracy, or that I’m on par with the “National Enquirer”. – Anthony Watts
The station is active and functioning; I saw the data readouts in the Standard office. It is no longer part of the USHCN, but that is pointed out in the article. And the graph showing this is included above.
The paper is continuing to record data information. I saw (and photographed) the functioning data equipment. I do not know if the data is being sent to anyone, but it is reasonable to assume that the paper makes use of the data for reporting purposes (else why maintain the station?).
I see no inaccuracies in the story. I do see unwarranted assumptions and unreasonable comparisons in jp’s post, however.
Sylvia, Reed: I, for one, would certainly not take it amiss if the readers here wish to send thanks to the Standard. In fact, I would personally appreciate it. So put up the link, by all means.
Re Pierre Gosselin (06:59:57) :
Head for the hills!
Appears seas levels are rising again!
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
I don’t take the measurements. I rely on the reports. BUT the reports are different depending upon the source.
So, in relation to sea-level rises – what is “the real” situation? The more I read about the discrepancies between varioius data sets, the less I can accept the idea that sea level rises are in any way exceptional (as compared to, say, the past century).
The more I read, the more convinced I am that it is ALL alarmist twaddle.
john peters (15:02:20) :
“So let me get this right! The site has not been reporting for almost 7 years now. Which means that any assumptions is being done through, well just that, assumptions.”
Yea, let’s assume that in 2000 the Stevenson Screen was not on the roof next to a heat exhaust pipe. that the MMTS wasn’t missing pieces and wasn’t installed inside a wierd looking wooden box resembling a Stevenson screen.
Let’s assume that GISS “homogenized” records only for only the years around 1900 because the Stevenson Screen was on the roof around the heat exhaust at that time.
In fact, Mr. Howe told me it was exactly where it was when he took over the building 37 years ago. This is confirmed by one look at the weathering of the wood of the structure.
With regard to daily temperatures, in New Zealand, many people set great store by the daily maxima displayed in the weather forecast after the evening news. “See – Dunedin was hotter than Auckland!”.
A standard item at local Tourism Board meetings in Dunedin was a motion to get our weather station relocated. It was believed that its coastal location – exposed to nor-easterly sea breezes depressed the temperatures. Locals wanted it moved up to a particularly warm, still and sunny micro-climate. A couple of sites were seen as ideal. The reason for this was to raise the nightly temperature report and make the city more attractive to potential visitors. It might well have worked, too, because our topography gives rise to many varied micro-climates, as witnessed by amateur stations around the city.
It hasn’t been moved as yet, but does this sort of issue ever arise in other countries, and has a station ever been re-sited for such a reason?
Danimals (07:53:10) :
“I agree in terms of proper setup the site is inadequate. However, could we not assume (aside from the nearby chimney issue) that this device at least gives adequate trends over time, since all the listed shortcomings do not change the possible error between dates of measurments? For example, if temperature on July 30 is compared over 20 years, some conclusions can be drawn? thanks.”
That would only work if the trend in UHI and other human influences was identical to the underlying temperature trend one is attempting to measure. What do you think the chances are that the two trends would be identical?
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-3-1.jpg
These are land only series represented here. Neither the NCDC nor the CRUTEM3 series adjust for UHI effects in the temps themselves. (CRUTEM3 adjusts it’s error bars instead.) But GISS does make adjustments to the temp data itself (how accurate the adjustments are is another question).
See the difference in slope between the two especially in the last twenty years or so?
Evan (16:29:08).
I’m not as Internet literate as most of your readers. I tried to find a URL for the Cortland Standard, but failed. I did, however, find an E-mail address for the paper. I had several Cortland Standard E-mail addresses to choose from
(see URL: “http://www.cortlandstandard.net/contactus.html”. )
I sent an E-mail note of appreciation to:
“opinion@cortlandstandard.net”
If I get a response from the paper, I’ll ask them for a URL to which other readers of this blog can respond.
Reed Coray
“Would a weather station on an eco roof be the same as having it in a field or empty lot?”
Let’s apply a little logic to that question. Is an eco roof a perfect insulator? If you light a match in a building with an “eco roof”, does the resulting heat ever escape? If no, then those roofs are some kind of engineering marvel, if yes, then the answer is no. Even if it escapes out of the sides, it will still rise if there is no wind.
Besides, it is poking up through the layer of coldest air on those nights when radiational cooling is most important. The really cold air in on the surrounding streets.
I am not surprised by the lack of much of a trend, since economic activity around Cortland NY probably peaked right about the era of the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” Capra’s mythical Pottersville was in the vicinity.
Bill D,
“I study lakes–there we can look at long term trends in temperature and the number of days of ice cover. ”
There are sometimes news articles around where I live, on Lake Champlain, that point to the fact that the lake freezes over much less since 1970 than it did prior to 1970. It is one of the pieces of evidence cited in an article called “Signs of Global Warming in New England” or something like that. Nowhere do they mention that between 1968 and 1970, ice breaking ferries were put into yr round 24 hour operation north and south of the observation point. As you are probably aware, if you leave a little piece of open water for the wind to work on before the ice sets up thick it will break up entirely when a front comes through, or get blown into a bay and become “shelf ice”. If the entire lake is covered with more than a skim layer though, the wind is no longer a factor, and the lake ice just continues to thicken.
I wonder if your research makes an attempt to identify the operation of ferries on lakes as a factor. It is not the kind of thing that averages out.
Purakanui (18:11:39) :
Back around 1980 I stopped in Needles, CA and had a nice talk with the owner of a mom/pop store about the local [and usually HOT] weather. He told me that the local weather station had recently been re-located…and the the new location was giving reading of about 3 degrees warmer than had the old location. Local busnessmen felt it was hurting the town, by scaring away new comers, so they were doing a petition to get the station moved back to the old location…don’t know if it was really true or how it turned out but it was a nice local story…..cdl
Stimulus Act to the Rescue
I bet with $800B give or take we could:
1) put a lot of unemployed to work building the state-of-the-art fully automated (web accessible) instruments (temperature, absolute humidity, insolation, cloud cover, CO2), choosing appropriate non-corruptible siting (parks, forests) and installing a trully reliable national surface climate observatory –at least on in each Cong. Dist.
2) design, fabricate and launch appropriate satellite and space probes to monitor, the sun (particles, EM waves, magnetic fields), the earths (albedo, detailed atmospheric and surface temperatures), similar data on a couple of other planets
3) a high performance computing / data network
4) web-based data correlation and analysis tools
4) secure access to all the above data to everyone everywhere
Then let’s collect some data through a couple of solar cycles do some analysis
And then we can arrest and try for scientific fraud, inciting fear, and possibly financial scams AlGore, Hansen, Holdren, etc., and the latest Sci-scammer attempting to profit from the AGW hype
Westy
Wow! I shot right past dumbfounded and ran smack into flabbergasted. I’m not sure if there is an english word for anything past that.
I suppose that there are so many problems here that the fact that the shutters appear to be plastic doesn’t even register as a blip on the scope!
In view of the soon-to-be-reimposed Fairness Doctrine, I must point out that the endorsement of “Moose-B-Gone” is not approved by the ruling elite. You should be using “Moose-B-Mildly-Discouraged”, a product which contains already bio-degraded ingredients, with no propellant, thus ensuring it never leaves the can. It doesn’t repel the moose, but at least you can feel superior in every way to anyone using “Moose-B-Gone”, and you can protect our fragile environment. (/sarc off)
@Henry Phipps (15:47:52) :
“[…] “Moose-B-Mildly-Discouraged”, a product which contains already bio-degraded ingredients, with no propellant, thus ensuring it never leaves the can. It doesn’t repel the moose, […]”
I suppose you could just throw the can at the moose, eh?
In lieu of that, I’ve also found that chaining a grizzly bear out in my garden helps keep moose away. Very effective. See, first you go out and catch yourself a grizzly. Then you go down to the hardware store and get some stout chain… well, I don’t have to spell it out for all you sharp’uns out there.