I know many of you have wondered when I would post an update about the www.surfacestations.org project. That wait is over.
You can now download the PDF of the publication reporting on what the project has found with 70% of the network surveyed, See the link at the end of the article.
I’ve been exceptionally busy in the past few months. Since November 08, I’ve made 4 trips in the US to get more stations surveyed in areas that were lacking, and these trips have been funded entirely by donations from individuals.
Evan Jones and I have been actively working on logging new aerial surveys. Plus there has been a lot of review and quality control taking place to make sure that surveys and ratings are correct. Google imagery has now improved in many places, and it is now fairly easy to spot some stations from the air. To make certain that we’ve actually got the right station location, telephone calls are made to the curator and descriptions and measurements compared to the aerial photos. I also have 4 digital cameras that have been sent to station curators for them to “self survey” with and mail the cameras back.
With additional aerial surveys done plus a few new hands-on surveys that have now come in, we are now at about 79% of the USHCN network surveyed. The sample is large and representative, with good spatial distribution and broad coverage.
The figures below from my Spring 2009 report represent coverage @ 70% of the network surveyed.
See the PDF report below for references on how the surveys were done and how the site rating system was arrived at, based on original work at the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) new Climate Reference Network.
For those WUWT readers that want to survey stations, there is still time to do so before my final report is issued in late summer/fall 2009.
My advice is to visit the Surfacestations Gallery and see what stations remain in your state, or states you may be traveling through.
I realize that we’ll never get 100% of the network surveyed, as over 30 stations have been closed, and some are inaccessible, but with a sample size exceeding 80% and broad spatial distribution as shown above I am confident that we’ll have the character of the network quantified and representative. Sure, there will be critics, but with an 80% or more sample size it will be an uphill battle to criticize the sample. Thousands of peer reviewed papers have been written with much smaller sample sizes. I prefer a “brute force” approach to getting the maximum sample possible compared to statistical extrapolation of a small sample.
The push has been on to get as many surveys done as possible, so I haven’t had a lot of time to update web pages and the like. WUWT itself has been becoming a black hole of time, sucking up more time than I care to admit. My email load has become huge also. Just a note to everyone who has emailed me. I read everything, but I can’t always respond, especially when I’m asked to do additional research to answer questions.
I’m also a bit under the gun as like many of you, my business has taken a financial hit due to the economy, and I’m short a person who is out for extended medical leave. So I’ve been doing 4 jobs instead of my usual 2 or three 😉 Even so, progress is being made.
Finally, I want to take a moment to thank Evan Jones, a frequent WUWT commenter and sometimes contributor. Evan has been working tirelessly to help me with this project, and now like many of you, is unemployed thanks to our current economic situation. Even through this, he has worked very hard to help me on all levels, doing everything from hands-on surveys himself, to QC checks, to aerial surveys, to data analysis.
Without Evan, this project would be a lot further behind. Please give him your thanks. He is truly a “screeching mercury monkey, first grade“. Evan, download your patch and wear it proudly.
Sadly, the alternate weekly that coined the phrase is now out of business.
Since Evan suffered the same fate as the alternate weekly editor (unemployed) and still doing a yeoman’s work for this effort, I have an offer for interested readers to help him out.
I have 25 professionally glossy color printed and bound copies of the report which I’ll provide signed, postpaid via US mail, to anyone who wants a copy that donates $30 or more. Just use the PayPal button at right, and I’ll make sure he gets it. (NOTE: SOLD OUT BACK IN STOCK Thanks to everyone who helped!)
For those that just want to read the report, please feel free to download and read the free copy here (PDF, 4 MB).
I also offer my sincere thanks to everyone who has helped make this project go from an idea to now near completion. The data analysis report will determine once and for all if station siting matters or not.
– Anthony
I see that you still need Key West. I will volunteer if you send me the proper methods. What are the particulars to photograph? What are the particulars to measure? No need to do the survey incorrectly and waste both your effort and mine. BTW: I’ve been in Key West in the ’70’s, ’80’s, and 90’s. I can’t imagine that there is a space on the island that is 100 meters from pavement. But on the other hand, I can’t imagine that it is more urban than it was in the 1970’s.
My thoughts exactly PHE.
All these low-lying islands and no mention of them being inundated.
An excellent piece of research by Mr Watts & helpers. Doubtless it will attract the usual snide remarks from the “official” climate sites.
TonyB (14:45:33)
In reading the article you posted it seems that the tactic now is to acknowledge the heat island effect but to blame it on climate change. And then to super exaggerate the temperature effect.
So much for Vickie Pope’s plea not to exaggerate climate events.
KBOB said
“I have been making the claim to many AGWers that the UHI has been the largest contributor to the increases in the temperature date base over the past 50-100 years or so. Warming from the UHI is the cause of high minimum’s, not CO2! Yet higher minimums are being claimed by AGWers as proof of AGW. While I don’t doubt that “human released” CO2 may be causing a very slight increase in global temperature, it is trivial compared to the “dirty” land based temperature records.”
Did you see my earlier post when I posted a link re a new study on UHI?
“I have always been very sceptical of the notion that UHI only accounts for a fraction of a degree rise in temperarure so this latest report confirming the current and likely future impact of uhi therefore makes interesting reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6256520.ece
In effect UHI dwarfs the notional impact of co2 and is something that observationally can be felt to happen. As over half the worlds population now live in cities perhaps the city temperature becomes the ‘norm.’
Short of drastically reducing the population and curbing our instinct to cover everything with concrete in order to create homes, jobs and leisure opportunities, it is difficult to see how we can reduce any uhi effect by any appreciable amount in the future.”
I would be interested in anyones comments, especially as it relates to the surface stations project.
Tonyb
Is there a chance someone could make a video with simple explanations of what constitutes a good and a bad surface station with a couple of examples of each, then a summary of the findings of the surface stations survey, then a link to surfacestations.org? It could then be youtubed and circulated. It would be nice to have.
Anthony…is this study for open posting. I know a few forums I’d like to post this to. Thanks.
@TonyB
Tony,
Isn’t it wonderful how selective these people can be? Now, it seems that UHI is yet another horror to be visited on us because of our CO2 emissions. But when we’re discussing the quality of the surface station record, suddenly UHI ceases to exist!
Chris
Many many kudos to Anthony and Evan!
I’ve made one meager attempt to survey a station near me, you can read about the attempt at my site here: http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/surveying_olga
I will be posting the pictures I took, since I have permission from the curator/resident to do a proper survey when we can coordinate. I’ll post those pictures tonight (US Eastern time), and I’ll post them to the SurfaceStations gallery at the same time.
I was pretty shocked when I saw the station, but refrained from making any snap judgments, at least I hope I did.
There’s a whole lot of red and orange on that map….
Adam Gallon (00:50:43) :
“My thoughts exactly PHE.
All these low-lying islands and no mention of them being inundated.
An excellent piece of research by Mr Watts & helpers. Doubtless it will attract the usual snide remarks from the “official” climate sites.”
Adam,
Any attack on this report will explode in their face.
They will look stupid or they will be lying.
The report needs a big promotion so the general public knows they are conned by the AGW scheme.
I am sure it will cause an outrage.
My thoughts exactly PHE.
All these low-lying islands and no mention of them being inundated.
An excellent piece of research by Mr Watts & helpers. Doubtless it will attract the usual snide remarks from the “official” climate sites.
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!
Anthony,
I can get over to Poughkeepsie, and take som ground pictures. The location is Duthess County Airport. which is a pretty low traffic field. Will be glad to help
Erichsen
Anthony,
Why worry about data integrity?
Why not just say the raw data are personal property and not available to the public? Why not just say the data withstood rigorous scrutiny and was found to be of sound integrity?
Why not say the survey was subjected to rigorous peer review, and that the raw code for the calculations is missing somewhere?
Why not just say that there is universal consensus on surface station shoddiness, and that it is time to move on.
Why not point out that critics of the survey are just flat-earthers who are in denial?
Hi Anthony,
Would it help if someone like me were to make a list of the sites still needing attn?
Something like this:
COLORADO
51294 CANON CITY 38.42 -105.23 72468001 5330 aerial only
51528 CHEESMAN 39.22 -105.28 74531002 6880 aerial only
51564 CHEYENNE WELLS 38.82 -102.35 72465001 4250 yes no data
52184 DEL NORTE 37.67 -106.35 72462007 7880 no
52432 DURANGO 37.28 -107.88 74521002 6600 no
52446 EADS 2S 38.48 -102.78 74530005 4211 yes no data
53951 HERMIT 7ESE 37.77 -107.13 74521004 9000 no
54076 HOLLY 38.05 -102.12 74530002 3390 yes no data
54834 LAS ANIMAS 38.07 -103.22 74530003 3890 yes no data
57167 ROCKY FORD 2SE 38.03 -103.7 72464003 4170 yes no data
57936 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS 40.5 -106.83 74421002 6840 aerial only
58204 TELLURIDE 37.95 -107.87 74521006 8672 no
Doesn’t format very well as a message. You or Evan would need to keep me on track some. Takes more effort to do than to maintain.
Gilbert
Sylvia
Many of what used to be Forest Service weather stations are now RAWS stations, and many of these are indeed situated in the woods away from habitations.
Anthony,
I note at the end of your report you say:
“The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”
I think that the only people who think that the US station network is the best in the world is the Americans. The Australian climate reference network would beat yours hands down for better siting. It is by no means perfect but far superior to the US network.
see: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml (complete with photos of the stations)
I think you will agree that the BOM have a far better siting arrangement for their network than the yanks.
Admittedly though, the RCS network is the pick of the bunch of the Australian Observation Network.
Chris Wright
An Inconvenient UHI-what a great title for a movie!
On the one hand you have a study emphasing the threat of UHI (which we can all feel in a built up area ) and on the other you have the IPCC saying UHI is unimportant. UHI is a reality irrespective of co2-too many people, buildings, concrete, roads. When that formula is combined with weather stations now within a UHI area when previously it wasn’t, it is going to skew the data.
IMHO UHI is likely to be a far greater factor than any miniscule warming by the very weak co2 driver and much harder to do anything about it..
Article repeated here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6256520.ece
I would be interested in anyones comments, especially as it relates to the surface stations project.
Tonyb
Anthony,
After reading the intro to your report, one thing that strikes me about missing data infilling and that the automated weather stations being more likely closer to sources of heat is that that probably further exacerbates the problem. It’s probably the best sources (more rural, further from the UHIs asphalt, buildings) have older, less filled data that get infilled with bias from more urbanized, ‘overheated’ data sets.
Dennis, that’s interesting. I haven’t been up there to visit my kin since ’96 so am uncertain whether the site was moved to the woods. As a general rule, though, if you ventured into that part of the woods back then you were likely to get shot by a pot grower so I’m a little surprised…
Great work Anthony, Evan and all others involved. A quick and simple analysis of the numbers for the whole system, counting the CRN 1&2 bias as zero, yields +1.9C or +3.4F. This should be the minimum error since the CRN are greater than or equal to the error number used, and I set CRN 1 & 2 to zero though they may have some bias. Throw in the +.5F from the USHCN adjustment and it’s +3.9F. Then let Hansen have his way with the dataset, and who knows what bias we end up with in GISS. I notice a vacuum of comments from the usual naysayers that like to keep this site apprised of the AGW/CO2 perspective.
When I look at the map of the rating it looks like about all of the stations where I live , weatern North Carolina,are faulty or major bias toward the warm side just as I expected.
Anthony,
Congratulations are indeed in order. Your work has been singled out in Gavin Schmidt’s latest sneering post on unReal Climate. He is blaming you for “undermining the science”, of AGW. How dare you intrude on Gavin’s computer generated fantasy world with actual observation? As Steve McIntyre once concluded, he is one nasty piece of work.
I shouldn’t be too harsh, seeing your life’s work fail utterly, to the point where a chimp on crack could do better, has to be a difficult experience, clearly he is still in the denial stage of grief. There is a tipping point coming, all right, I don’t think the alarmists will enjoy it very much. I just wonder who will get hung out to dry when the politicians go into CYA mode and search for villians to blame. Pretty unReal to think that Gavin will not be at the top of that list.
I just can´t believe those +5°C!!. How do they take temps there, wetting the finger and rising it?
Congratulations! That graph of ratings is for a presentation of just ONE SLIDE..just demolishing! (…if presented after the thousands of the prophet of Climate Change)
Thank you so much, Anthony.
Fellow WUWTr’s, forget Drudge or MSM, send links to everyone you know and post links to this in every community you take part in.