Below is a photo of the USHCN climate station of record in Pascagoula Mississippi. Note the location of the MMTS temperature sensor. The phrase “industrial nightmare” comes to mind.
But the MMTS didn’t always have this sweet location at the water treatment plant. It was moved there after Hurricane Katrina. Craig interviewed the curator and writes:
“Moved to current location after “the storm” (Katrina), which took place in Aug. 2005. Previous location was over pavement. When I told the plant employee that there were problems with the instrument location, he said the NWS guy didn’t think there was anything wrong with it.”
Well, it’s a tough call; pavement or pipes?
Craig describes the location in his site survey report as:
“MMTS is 6’ north of big water pipe, 12’ east of the brick control building, and 10’ west of a concrete canal. There is a metal track with several hoses attached about 10’ overhead.”
Here’s another photo that shows the “brick control building”:
A reminder for the NWS employee from NOAA’s reference on the siting of temperature sensors might be helpful.
The location certainly doesn’t fit the “representative of the area” specification for siting a Cotton Region Shelter in the NOAA/NWS COOP Observers Handbook (PDF available here).
3.1 Shelter Placement. The ground over which the shelter is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by the flow of air. Do not install on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area, or unless data from that type of topographic location is desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the estimated height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). Optimally it should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface. Under no circumstances should a shelter be placed on the roof of a building as this may result in extreme temperature biases.
This aerial view looks representative of the area, right?
There’s two large heat sinks and plenty of humidity via the aeration ponds to go with that tanks and piping.
While GISS hasn’t caught up with the 2008 record yet, it looks like the new location may already be registering. The above is the USHCN data from that location.
Fortunately, NASA GISS knows just what to do with that temperature data from the waste water treatment plant
– spread it around a bit!
There, that makes the historical temperature record in Pascagoula all clear now, right?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s only one word for this climate station. Unbelievable!
[snip – off topic]
Anthony – Thanks again for your on-going series on “How not to measure temperature…”. I think I’ve seen it all, until the next one.
I light of the dreadful state of the climate monitoring network, is it possible to begin an audit of NOAA’s funding for this? Surely, over the years they’ve been given millions of taxpayer dollars ostensibly to maintain an upgrade the system. Where has all this money gone? Are we paying for some people to sit in their offices to write research papers and go on conference trips to Bali rather than improve siting and equipment? I know the the NCDC has a new climate monitoring system ready to roll out – has that been implemented yet? I guess Tom Karl is too busy giving awards to Jim Hansen to be bothered with this…
[snip – off topic]
Why do most of the shelters / MMTS supports shown in this series have a bad case of the “leanies”? Doesn’t anyone at NWS own or know how to use a level?
It seems obvious that the NWS and it’s employees could not care less about these siting issues. The only real world standards seem to be “stick the d*mn thing anywhere you feel like it, we don’t care.”
And why should they care? It’s no longer about data – whatever data is needed will be manufactured post-reading. At the measurement step, they just need a number and any old number will do as long as it can be varnished with some thin veneer of credibility.
This reminds me of an investigation into an industrial accident in which it was revealed that the foreman had been regularly reporting numbers to the head office from a piece of equipment that had been broken for over a month. When the investigator asked him to explain this, the foreman said simply “They wanted a number, so I gave ’em a number. As long as they got a number, they were happy.”
I submit that this is the only actual standard the NWS has anymore.
O/T, but further to the foxnews story et al, this is pretty scary:
NASA’s James Hansen warns, “democratic process isn’t working” in climate change fight:
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen”
[snip -off topic]
Those are not hoses in the “track”, they are electrical cable, laid in cable tray. Certainly could be some electromagnetic interference there..dont know if that could screw with the instruments…
It appears to me that much of the problem with siting of temperature sensors may have to do with accessibility. In this wireless age why can’t we develop a standardized remote sensing package that can be installed properly, independent of easy human accessibility, and monitored remotely. We could even use solar power cells to power it or a little windmill on top. This would also solve the time-of-day problem.
Good use for some of that stimulus money I think.
Anthony, great work again, and thanks to Craig Limesand for the photos and interview. Mind-boggling.
So, how much does it cost to install one of these weather stations *correctly*? There’s the measuring hardware, the enclosure, fencing, land preparation, trenching, cable, and some sort of indoor monitoring unit? Do they have a standard lease agreement for long-term use of the land within the fence?
REPLY: It is more about finding a good location than cost. This is a volunteer network, so the available volunteer pool often dictates placement. Even so, getting the MMTS away from buildings is the cost of a rented trencher to lay the cable a few tens to a hundred feet away. Something rarely done. – Anthony
Anthony are there any sites that are correct that were there 50 to 100 years ago that haven’t been moved?JI just found out James Hanson is head of GISS.Just when I thought i’d seen it all the EPA says global warming is a public danger.Then from the White House they say it’s first step in regulating carbon dioxide.QUICK EVERYONE HOLD YOUR BREATH WE ARE HEATING UP THE WORLD.
[snip – off topic]
OT, but this is awfully interesting….
The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-part-1/
I think everyone visiting Anthony’s site should look at the pictures of all of weather monitoring sites in their home states,
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=52
adn pick their favorite. Being from Washington state, this is my favorite:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19357
Port Angeles, Washington. It’s a hoot! I can’t wait for our government to tax energy 2-trillion dollars based on data partially supported by the Port Angeles MMTS, NOT.
I am sure Cuba it is one of the less contaminating countries in the world…a good example to follow
Interesting – everything seems pretty much stable for a while, then I see a big drop in 1958 (or so) in average temperatures; from that year, the trend is upwards.
What happened in 1958 – did they relocate the station, or perhaps that’s when the plant was built?
It continues, and I don’t know why, to amaze me just how inept some of our public servants are. While we take the proper measurement of weather information serious, it is painfully obvious that our friends at NOAA could care less.
Keep up the excellent work Anthony…we will continue to follow these crazy cases of improper siting.
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
Sylvia (06:33:49)
Please excuse my ignorance on exactly what a MMTS is and how it needs to be installed but in this day and age does it have to be hard-wired? If we can sense atmospheric temps using a satelite (certainly a wireless device) why can’t transmit weather data from an MMTS using wireless technology (no trenching, etc.)?
“In the interests of national security, climate stations will be off-limits to the public, and people caught photographing them will be harassed and prosecuted.”
As a photographer relative of mine has discovered, it is already illegal in some states to photograph public buildings and in some cases, public parks. He is convinced he could win in court, but when a guy with a gun tells you to pack up and get out, you get out.
Don’t solve the problem, just change the rules.
Since the surface sensor network and all the associated adjustments continue to show what they already know is happening, there will not be any official investigation of its accuracy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The ARGO data was obviously wrong since it showed the oceans cooling in a direct contradiction of what the GCM’s say is actually happening. Since that can’t be the case, they did an intense investigation, found the “problem”, and “fixed” the data.
Gary Plyler (06:54:47)
I’m from the dry side of WA State.
Seems the Port Angeles, WA weather station was put on top of a pole because of “repeated acts of vandalism” along the walk-way at City Hall. These reports suggest that, more often than not, the least of the priorities for a station’s location is providing accurate information.
I’ve yet to go look at our local weather stations but know one is at the sewage treatment facility south of the town and one at the small airport north of the town. If and when we get a nice day, I may go investigate.
Well that one is surely a humdinger. You could make it a bit worse by putting the device next to the pipes from a geo-thermal power plant.
Does this scene remind one of Jurascic park ?
This story reminded me of daily temperature data (in degrees Celsius) for a weather station (in a jurisdiction that will remain anonymous). These are not the exact data – but they convey the most striking aspect of the trend:
5, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 3, 6, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 …
For those who think in Farenheit, 0 is the freezing point in Celsius – and during those strings of 0’s I assure you the temperature went below zero (to varying extents on different days). The technician can’t fool you so easily when the data are for your own locality.
Whoops — they did it again!
That blinker comparison shows ’em adjusting the early years down and later years up. No wonder there’s global warming. They get funny data due to bad siting giving warmer readings than in the surrounding area and then they adjust it even more upwards.
My tax dollars hard at work.