How not to measure temperature, part 90

People send me stuff. My Inbox bursts daily with ideas, suggestions, papers, and photos.

Here is a climate monitoring station in Tremonton Utah. Notice anything peculiar about the placement of the temperature sensor? It is the white “bee hive” on the pole on the asphalt.

Tremonton UT COOP-A Climate station looking-south
Tremonton UT COOP-A Climate station looking south - click for larger image

Note the conduit for the cable to the MMTS. This underscores something I’ve been saying about the MMTS installation for some time. The COOP managers that install these aren’t given the tools or time to get past obstructions like asphalt and concrete, thus the MMTS ends up closer to buildings than the “wireless” Stevenson Screen.

Randy Julander writes in:

Randy Julander here, snow survey supervisor, NRCS, USDA. Here are a few pics from the Tremonton Utah MMTS site which is right outside our NRCS field office in Tremonton. Normally there is a large truck parked right next to the sensor. As you can see, next to the building, next to the air conditioner, asphalt everywhere. Nice placement.

I’ll say, right on the pavement, 10 feet from the building. Randy mentions a truck being parked by the sensor. It shows up nicely on the Google aerial view:

Tremonton UT aerial view from Google Earth - click for larger image
Tremonton UT aerial view from Google Earth - click for larger image

A live Google maps interactive view is here

Temperature measurement issues aside, I wonder what the wind tunnel between the vehicles does for the accuracy of the rain gauge?

Here is the view looking north showing the parking lot that doubles as a climate monitoring station.

Tremonton UT COOP-A station looking north - click for larger image
Tremonton UT COOP-A station looking north - click for larger image

In the photo below, notice how the rain gauge and MMTS have been placed in parallel with the diagonal parking. This is not accidental.

Tremonton UT COOP-A looking northwest - click for larger image
Tremonton UT COOP-A looking northwest - click for larger image

While we have many people who are actively surveying the USHCN network, there are still hundreds of other NOAA/NWS COOP stations that are not part of the special USHCN subset of stations.

There is also the COOP-A network, which is used in climate and the is reported to NCDC, just like USHCN.

Tremonton NCDC MMS record
Tremonton NCDC MMS record - click for larger image
Marysville B91 missing data
Click for larger image

Most importantly, these stations are used by NCDC’s FILNET program, which will “fill in” missing data for a single station.

Here’s more on FILNET from NCDC:

FILNET (Fill Missing Original Data in the Network)

Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in SHAP. This adjustment uses the debiased data from the SHAP and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a “network” of the best correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations that moved too often for SHAP to estimate the adjustments needed to debias the data.

The B91 for Marysville is shown at left. Note the significant amount of missing data.

This happened because the volunteer observer was the fire station office manager, who didn’t work weekends or holidays, and had vacation throughout the year. Even though the fire station was manned 24/7, unfortunately the firefighters on-duty did not participate in keeping the records.

See a B91 form page from the Marysville USHCN record at left and note the missing data.

COOP-A stations like Tremonton Utah one are used by NCDC’s FILNET to interpolate missing data for nearby USHCN stations. Thus, it is just as important that they also be properly sited and maintained.

It appears though that they may suffer from the same sort of maintenance and siting issues that the USHCN does. After all, other than being a special subset of the COOP-A network, chosen for continuity of records over a long period and a minimum of site moves, there really is no other difference between USHCN and COOP-A stations.

They are all part of the same group and are maintained by the same people using the same tools and methods.

It seems that the sot of problems we see at Tremonton UT are widespread in the entire COOP-A network as well as USHCN. I’ll have more examples in future posts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bill
July 12, 2009 1:58 pm

Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
London is 1580sq km the UK is 224820sq km i.e. London is 0.7% of the total land area of UK Birmingham 0.1%. This deserves to be included as it is part of the environment

H.R.
July 12, 2009 2:48 pm

That mounting pole doesn’t look to be Regulation-Spec-Niner-Niner-Aught-Stroke-Zulu standard issue. Looks like a re-mount on a chain link fence post to me.
How many times has the unit been hit? As many times as the rain gage?

Andrew P
July 12, 2009 4:58 pm

bill (13:58:55) :
Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
London is 1580sq km the UK is 224820sq km i.e. London is 0.7% of the total land area of UK Birmingham 0.1%. This deserves to be included as it is part of the environment

Bill here’s a little counter thought
If you want to include urban areas like London and Birmingham, what about the upland areas in the Scottish Highlands, i.e. the area over 1500 feet? (This area is of course far greater in areal extent than all the cities and towns in the UK put together). To my knowledge, apart from Braemar there are no Met. Office stations above 1000 feet. In winter our temperatures (in Highland Perthshire in the Southern Highlands) are regularly 3 or 4C colder than the Met Office’s forecasts, and regularly 2 or 3 degrees colder than the minimum’s recorded by the nearest official stations at Tyndrum and Bridge of Allan. And I live next to the River Tay, at only 80m above sea level. Glen Lyon is usually 3C colder than here, and it is only 15 miles further west. And the temperatures above the tree line (1500 feet) and on the snow fields will typically be even colder. But as the Met Office network seems to be incapable of recording (and forecasting) these lower temperatures, maybe they are just my imagination. After all, their computer generated forecasts can’t be wrong.

Adam
July 12, 2009 4:59 pm

Charlie,
Those pics are from Bob Tisdale’s blog. Bob did an interesting series comparing UAH to GISSTEMP for different regions.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
If you ‘trust’ the UAH data more than GISS, then you should be much more worried about surface station reliability/coverage in areas of the world other than the US… at least that’s how I interpret Bob’s analysis. Bob’s posts didn’t recieve much attention here, but I suppose that’s understandable given Anthony’s focus on the US stations.

How about the CO2 measurements?
July 12, 2009 6:14 pm

Apparently other places in the world keep CO2 statistics, but the IPCC will only use the Mauna Loa figures…
Please say it ain’t so! I was afraid that might be the case – so all the AGW stuff is based on a single measuring point, partway down the side of an active volcano? It truly boggles the mind. Well… I assume that other locations being measured must be showing fairly similar values?
Thanks to both Gillian and h.oldeboom — I’m off to check out your recommendations.

timetochooseagain
July 12, 2009 6:45 pm

How about the CO2 measurements? (18:14:08) : No. CO2 is measured at numerous locations all over the world. See this map from Earth System Research Laboratory:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.png
A rise is observed similarly everywhere. ESRL also provides global means here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt
There is lots one might question about AGW but this really isn’t one of them. And WTR to Beck:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

July 12, 2009 7:22 pm

Gillian Lord (03:33:45) :
How about the CO2 measurements?
To get the 2008 figures in WUWT you need to go to the Archives section at the bottom of the right hand side of the page.
Apparently other places in the world keep CO2 statistics, but the IPCC will only use the Mauna Loa figures. Here in Tasmania they are kept at Cape Grim, but I have not seen them – I’ll make further enquiries.

You can find them here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-cgrim.html

bill
July 12, 2009 7:48 pm

timetochooseagain (18:45:37) and others. I produced this plot of CO2 levels (same scales, not normalised) The levels are similar fron NH to SH. The peaks vary in time slightly with much less variation in SH:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6153/co2manysitesch4.jpg

Oliver Ramsay
July 12, 2009 8:30 pm

bill (13:58:55) :
Here’s a little thought
With all this talk of UHI wrecking the temperature record. Surely some actual temperatures recorded in cities must be included, with UHI effect intact.
——-
If you want an idea of how ambient temperatures in cities have changed over the years, you can keep on taking daily readings, rounding them, averaging them and then adjusting them. Then you’ll have something interesting.
If you get really carried away, you can toss in a random assortment of readings from rural sites and the bilge-water of ocean-going vessels, then you can convince yourself that you know just how warm the air is today, yesterday and in 50 years’ time. Furthermore, you will know exactly how it came to be that temperature and you’ll know just how to correct it to your preferred value.

Tim Clark
July 13, 2009 5:40 am

Adam (16:59:49) :
Charlie,
Those pics are from Bob Tisdale’s blog. Bob did an interesting series comparing UAH to GISSTEMP for different regions.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
If you ‘trust’ the UAH data more than GISS, then you should be much more worried about surface station reliability/coverage in areas of the world other than the US… at least that’s how I interpret Bob’s analysis. Bob’s posts didn’t recieve much attention here, but I suppose that’s understandable given Anthony’s focus on the US stations.

Ooohh, not good Adam. How come Bob’s global trend for gisstemp is higher than the UAH trend. someone fudging the data?

July 13, 2009 12:30 pm

Adam (20:10:38) :
If the US surface station network suffers from so many UHI and siting deficiencies that result in a false warming trend, then why does the UAH satellite data, which should be more representative, have a higher trend than GISS for the US and surrounding regions?

Artificial adjustments like GISS’s will deviate from reality over time, even to the point of not taking advantage of temporary “favorable” (pro-warming) trends in the actual temperature. You have to take the bad with the good to avoid being overtly biased. Just keep your eyes on the prize, so to speak.
If you compare the raw data charts with homogenized temperature charts for many stations, you’ll find the number of sites with pro-warming (overall slope increased) GISS adjustments feels about the same as the number of sites adjusted to show less warming. There’s no obvious finagling. Not until you see the average adjustment for the whole system does the warming bias appear. It’s subtle, but it’s there.

Verified by MonsterInsights