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
Hello all again.
I’ve posted the three pics I took while attempting to survey Olga, Wa. They’re posted both at SurfaceStations.org and at my site. Here are the links.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4973
http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/surveying_olga_2
Comments at my site are appreciated, no registration is necessary.
Evan,
I may be able to get to Key West next week for those siting photos if you still need someone to go.
I think you will agree that the BOM have a far better siting arrangement for their network than the yanks.
Australian sites are mostly at airports (although not the big urban airports most will be familiar with). With sites in peoples backyards (Bridgetown), on nice patches of green irrigated grass (Geraldton), right next to the main transcontinental railway line (Lake Grace), underneath trees (Tibooburra), and of course the famous site in the middle of the busiest road intersection in downtown Melbourne (now apparently removed from the network, but doubtless preserved in the averages.
If the Australian network is better, it will be because many/most sites are run by paid civil servants rather than volunteers as in the USA.
The locations may be in general be better or they may not. Only a survey similar to Anthony’s will give us an answer to that question.
However, far and away the biggest problem with the Australian network is geographic coverage. Away from the coast and a couple of hundred Ks in from the south east and south west coast, less than 20 stations measure climate over an area of 6 million square kilometers. With the opportunity for biases at one or two sites resulting in biased climate extrapolations over large areas. A problem the USA doesn’t have.
By way of comparison, similar geographic coverage would mean just one site in The UK and Ireland combined.
TonyB, I’m aware of your citations. I don’t feel that they change what I’m saying. I apologize for attributing any confusion over micrositing issues and UHI issues to you.
A couple notes though: A fair quantity of the climactic research uses a definition of “Urban” and “Rural” that doesn’t quite line up as one might expect. The sites deemed Rural are often still large enough to have experienced UHI in their core. Similarly, the nightlights approach is particularly irritating when you find that “No lights” stations appear to have some of the weirdest siting issues. (Forrest for miles in all directions, MMTS is within 10m of the ranger’s AC unit and barbeque pit.)
I think we’re actually discussing at cross-purposes. I don’t care to estimate the size of UHI, nor determine a percentage of the observed warming. I am concerned that the the various issues with the surface stations would appear to cause various biases in the base measurements. At the very least, the error calculations would seem to be compromised.
.
You might need to make a clarification for the ignorant reader (most news reporters). Is level 5 good, or bad?? It is hard to tell at first reading.
.
I may be able to get to Key West next week for those siting photos if you still need someone to go.
Pics from the ground are always best. But check the link I posted earlier (to the virtual survey). It will tell you exactly where the thing is. It may be hard to find, otherwise.
.
It amazing that the authorities did not even test to see if the new paint for their screens did not affect the temperature – or perhaps they did not care.
Anthony’s PDF report is not obvious in the article above, so here it is again.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Presumably, this is a draft copy of the final report.
.
@Alan S. Blue,
The point we are making is this: now it seems that UHI is being portrayed as another terrible result of AGW, while at the same time the IPCC tells us that UHI is insignificant, for the obvious reason. Hopefully you can appreciate the irony, even if it doesn’t necessarily prove anything.
.
One point you made was that city centres where high UHI temperatures may be experienced are a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface. Of course that’s true, but I think it misses the point.
I’m sure that no one is claiming that all the surface stations are subject to several degrees of UHI warming. But the fact is that most of them are in urban locations, for obvious reasons, and the proportion of urban stations actually increased during the previous decade. Although most of the stations don’t have several degrees of UHI warming, the probability is high that the great majority of stations experience some fraction of a degree of UHI warming. As the total 20th century global warming is also a fraction of a degree, then a small amount of UHI could have huge significance.
.
Recently Michaels & McKitrick demonstrated a strong correlation between individual station temperature records and the local environment. In their estimate, if UHI were properly taken into account then the warming over the last few decades is only a half of the generally quoted figure. In turn, this would strongly suggest that the effect of CO2 on climate has been greatly exaggerated.
Chris
OT Mauna Loa CO2 graph has been updated for April. Has the trend slightly flattened since January 2008? Does it match a reduction in GHG because of the global recession or the recent cooling? Perhaps Dr. Spencer would like to take a look at it?
Mike
It seems there now 11% of the stations is considered “good” or “best”, and an additional 20% is considered “fair”. The question that now arises is: When you only take temperatures measured by these stations, how would the avarage temp graph of the twentieth century look? Does it differ, and how much? Is a warming trend still visible?
Good question peeke. Especially since, from a statistical standpoint, about 300 stations is more than enough to perform the needed analysis (as one of R. Pielke Sr.s frequent co-authors, John Nielsen-Gammon, has already attested).
The answer is that you get exactly the same answer as GISSTEMP, and Anthony knows it. The analysis was performed over a year ago.
REPLY: BCL give it up, despite your repeated pronouncements of failure, this project goes forward. Neilsen Gammon’s assumption was wrong then because there are so few CRN1 and 2 stations at the 300 level that the survey did not have a representative sample of the best stations because the network is so flush with badly sited ones. He had no way of knowing that, but seeing the results first hand, I did. That’s the problem with armchair data sampling, you really don’t know firsthand what you’ve got unless you are there in the data measurement environment.
With 300 stations, yes it looked a lot like GISTEMP. Sure it would have been easy to stop there as many like you suggested, but the goal here is a census, not a sample. And with samples that are geographically widespread and diverse, as some people correctly pointed out early on we got the “low hanging fruit”. Getting the best rural stations requires persistence and effort. Getting the best stations surveyed is what it is all about. Finding the CRN1/2 stations is critical, because they represent the unbiased data. With over 900 surveyed now the makeup is different. You’ll have to wait until my paper is published to find out just how much.
Now run along and write another predictably childish smackdown of the project on that angry little blog of yours. In the meantime the project continues. – Anthony
Chris, I acknowledge and don’t dispute that. TonyB just had me confused for a second by terminology choice. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the “True UHI,” the warming due to microsite issues, and the pre-assumed levels of UHI accepted by the climate community.
The contamination of the stations being placed in (even rural) cities is dramatically different from from the contamination of the true global average temperature due to the simple presence of cities.
IOW: We’re both saying the same thing. I was focused on: “If we had perfect temperature measurement, the observed contribution by UHI would be slight due to the sheer area covered.” I also agree that: “In reality, the percentage of surface stations that have both microsite issues and UHI issues would seem to be significant and damaging to the skill of surface temperature measurements.”
I did a quick search for Dr Meier in this topic and came up empty. Please forward this to him because he is willing to listen and is more open minded then most government supported scientists. If the data is this flawed then how can you rely on the conclusions coming from the Computer Models.
I guess the Forcing Function will have to be increased to 3 from 2 to make up for this surprise flaw in the data. Ha Ha just adding a little laughter.
Thanks Anthony.
You may find this of interest- UK met office document you need to register to get it but gives sattellite and other observation corrections (april 2009)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/observations/monitoring/month_rep/pdf/MonGlob_04.pdf
Global Data Monitoring Statistics
Suspect Lists
Data Availability and Quality Maps
Revisions
Appendix (Radiosonde Error Limits)
Base page:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/nwp/observations/monitoring/month_rep/index.html
There is no excuse for stupid placement or poor maintanence of measuring sites but I have a few points that perhaps someone could answer.
1. The screen has to be proof against radiation from the sun. So why does re-radiation of the suns heat from a wall affect the temperature.
2. Shading by trees etc. The screen has to effectively screen agains the sun. Adding another sheild should have no effect?
3. Underlying ground. If this is consistent over the life of the thermometer than surely this is ok if it is grass, concrete, a mirror, asphalt. It will read the wrong temp but it will be consistent. It will be useful for trends only.
4. If a town area is growing fast and the thermometer is centrally located then UHI will increase with time. Most towns do not grow much in area so again the temperature is wrong but the trend is correct. The only problem would be if a rural site suddelny becomes engulfed. In this case will ther not be a sudden increase in temp which is visible?
5. The ratings for some of the stations is for 5C increase. Presumably this is a one off increase and not year on year?
5a. Presumably this 5C influence is visible?
PS
it would be very simple experiment (in a sunny climate) to place an instrument at varying distances from a concrete wall and to measurement the error compared to one at a correct distance away. Has this been done, or is invalid reading just assumed?
Gosh, I look at the Dakotas and MO/AR and think two people could do a tremendous amount of good in a long three day weekend. If we could find reliable volunteers in each of those regions, I personally would be willing to kick in to the kitty for gas/hotel/food to cover their expenses.
Of course, all that needs doing is to show that these estimated CRN biases are robust in each case, which of course they will be, so what’s the point in doing that tedious analysis?
What is BCL gibbering about? He knows that Hansen’s “adjustment” is a fraud. Anthony’s photos alone prove that! There is definitely no need to make any thermometer based measurements supporting these most excellent assertions.
Alan S Blue
Are you accusing me of a terminological inexactitude? Thats fighting talk where I come from-its a good job I don’t come from there. (With apologies to the great Groucho Marx).
I think we are all in agreement on this one. Personally, I think that when ALL the various factors are taken into account many local temperatures records of any length aren’t worth the thermometer they’re written on. Yet despite the local problems we believe we can calculate global temperatures back to 1850 or 1880 that are accurate to fractions of a degree, where the inexactitudes are magnified enormously, compounded by the sheer number of stations (A few dozen back to 1850) with all the maintenance, resiting, methodology issues,interpolation, guesswork and fudging.
Hopefully someone will write an article (when Anthony’s survey is complete) drawing all these factors together and pointing out that the most fundamental pillar of AGW is cracked from top to bottom.
Tonyb
evanmjones (00:50:12) :
I may be able to get to Key West next week for those siting photos if you still need someone to go.
Pics from the ground are always best. But check the link I posted earlier (to the virtual survey). It will tell you exactly where the thing is. It may be hard to find, otherwise.
Will do.
Ron
Anthony,
Will we be able to observe the progress of data analysis as we did at climateaudit through 2007 for good stations? I’d like to stress again how important it is to do this openly and publicly rather than present the results as a fait a complis. Not just because it was fascinating to watch the stats and conversation unfold, but primarily to demonstrate transparency in the scientific process (particularly when we castigate others for keeping data and methods secret). You may elect to publish the results all at once, with data and methodology included, but it can only give confidence to the work if the world can see it being done step by step.
I can’t think of a good reason not to do it that way, as exemplified in the climateaudit analysis – surely one of the most focussed thread evolutions on just about any subject – no snark, just honest analysis and effective exchanges dedicated to revealing the truth. This shows the best of us.
Heh. No, I was misunderstanding. 😉 The whole reason I brought up the scale of cities was to point out how much UHI would actually affect a true, complete surface temperature average. (Which is what I thought you were discussing.) Whereas you were discussing their impact on the surface temperature average we’ve actually got (significantly larger).
The ratings for some of the stations is for 5C increase. Presumably this is a one off increase and not year on year?
Yes, it’s offset not trend.
Spurious warming data will be due to station moves with offsets getting conflated into the trends.
Bad stations tend to warm a bit faster if there is a warming trend already (see Yilmaz, et al, 2008, and extend daily logic to the longterm).
Good/Bad stations are – not – evenly distributed among naturally cooling/warming areas. This complicates matters (but is being dealt with).
It seems there now 11% of the stations is considered “good” or “best”, and an additional 20% is considered “fair”.
It’s barely 10% now, if that. Plus, a lot of the better sites are in airports which have seen huge expansion both in traffic and asphalt in recent decades.
>>it would be very simple experiment (in a sunny climate) to
>>place an instrument at varying distances from a concrete
>>wall and to measurement the error compared to one at a
>>correct distance away.
Anthony –
Yes, this needs to be done, otherwise it will be the first thing that critics will raise. My own opinion is that radiative heat is not the problem here, but the convective heat from hot surfaces – which is what thermometers measure.
.
Regards the rest of Bill’s post.
Yes, If the poor siting remained constant the readings would be inflated, but consistent. However, things have been changing.
a. Towns are growing around established met stations.
b. Towns are producing more of their own heat, as we consume more energy (cars, air conditioning etc:)
c. The new equipment is getting closer and closer to buildings (as Anthony mentions)
c. The equipment is nearer to things like air conditioning outlets which produce convective heat (which the thermometers measure), and would not have been there 50 years ago.
ralph ellis (01:58:28) :
Thanks for the response
As I said above there is no excuse for stupid placement or poor maintanence of measuring sites. On many sewage treatment works (UK) I have seen the usual cluster of instrumentation – thermometer (presumably), wind speed and direction etc. I have assumed that the site requires this info to adjust “digestion” times, stirring time etc. I presume the instruments shown in the document on these sites is actually fed to the network and used? It seems a ludicrous placement if this is the case.
My 3rd statement:
3. Underlying ground. If this is consistent over the life of the thermometer than surely this is ok if it is grass, concrete, a mirror, asphalt. It will read the wrong temp but it will be consistent. It will be useful for trends only.
This must be hell for unattended instruments. Snow/rain/grass growth/season will affect the absorption and convection of heat under an instrument. This cannot be taken into account. Somewhere on the UK met office site I found a document describing UK set up (idealised presumably). It went to dreat detail on things like the slab used for precitation and I think grass length! Cannot find it now.
As you have pointed out only air temperature should affect the reading and if this is from sewage tanks, airconditioners,jet engines it is invalid (and dependant on wind direction.
It would also be interesting to see how a large flat tarmac stand affects readings, and if wind direction has an effect.
I would have thought that closeness (within reason!) to a building has less effect – re-radiation should be ignored by a screened thermometer. Convection of the walls will predominantly straight up. Only wind will be heated and could find its way to a thermometer but it is difficult for wind to blow at 90deg from a wall.
How does rain affect the screen of a thermometer – evapouration will cool the air as it enters the box. is this this why the paint was changed to a waterproof variety?