I’m pleased to announce that the surfacestations.org project has now surveyed over 1000 of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, putting the percentage of the survey at over 82% now.My sincere thanks to the many volunteers who stepped up recently to survey additional stations in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and many other states.
Here is what the coverage looks like as of 7-14-09
Here is the breakdown by state. Note that 5 states are now 100% completed.
| State | Stations | Rated | Pct |
| WY | 30 | 26 | 87% |
| WV | 13 | 9 | 69% |
| WI | 23 | 17 | 74% |
| WA | 44 | 40 | 91% |
| VT | 7 | 6 | 86% |
| VA | 19 | 10 | 53% |
| UT | 40 | 33 | 83% |
| TX | 48 | 29 | 60% |
| TN | 15 | 13 | 87% |
| SD | 25 | 17 | 68% |
| SC | 29 | 22 | 76% |
| RI | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| PA | 24 | 18 | 75% |
| OR | 41 | 37 | 90% |
| OK | 45 | 39 | 87% |
| OH | 26 | 19 | 73% |
| NY | 59 | 42 | 71% |
| NV | 13 | 13 | 100% |
| NM | 28 | 26 | 93% |
| NJ | 12 | 10 | 83% |
| NH | 5 | 4 | 80% |
| NE | 46 | 32 | 70% |
| ND | 24 | 21 | 88% |
| NC | 29 | 28 | 97% |
| MT | 44 | 37 | 84% |
| MS | 32 | 31 | 97% |
| MO | 26 | 11 | 42% |
| MN | 33 | 32 | 97% |
| MI | 24 | 22 | 92% |
| ME | 12 | 10 | 83% |
| MD | 17 | 9 | 53% |
| MA | 12 | 11 | 92% |
| LA | 18 | 17 | 94% |
| KY | 13 | 8 | 62% |
| KS | 31 | 25 | 81% |
| IN | 36 | 35 | 97% |
| IL | 36 | 36 | 100% |
| ID | 28 | 21 | 75% |
| IA | 23 | 17 | 74% |
| GA | 23 | 21 | 91% |
| FL | 22 | 22 | 100% |
| DE | 5 | 4 | 80% |
| CT | 4 | 4 | 100% |
| CO | 25 | 24 | 96% |
| CA | 54 | 54 | 100% |
| AZ | 25 | 22 | 88% |
| AR | 15 | 12 | 80% |
| AL | 15 | 13 | 87% |
| TOTAL | 1221 | 1012 | 82.9% |
Here is a chart to show the table data above:
Note the states that are lacking the most in coverage are Virgina, Missouri, Texas, South Dakota, Maryland, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennesylvania, Iowa, and Idaho. These states are all below 80%. The states I would most like to get more surveys from are Missouri, Virginia, and Upstate New York which has a cluster of stations untouched. Arrangements have been made to get three stations in Texas this coming weekend: Alice, Falfurrias, and Rio Grande City, so anyone who is considering Texas can cross those off the list.
For those that wish to help getting the final stations here is a Google Earth KML file that will help you locate the remaining stations yet to be surveyed in the USA.
Download Google Earth KML file here (sincere thanks to Gary Boden for his preparation of this)
Just download it (right click, save as) and then drag and drop to Google Earth, which can be downloaded free here.
The coordinates are mostly accurate, but it is always a good idea to get station location descriptions from NCDC’s MMS database also. Often they can be located easier by description than by coordinates. Note the the KML file has descriptions also along with the COOP ID number to help you get a match with NCDC’s database.
If you wish to help in surveying the remaining stations, go to the surfacestations.org project and complete the signup process.
I know that many people have been waiting for an analysis of the data. That is in process right now and a paper suitable for peer review is being prepared. I’ll answer the most obvious question ahead of time, and that is: no I will not be posting the results here first. After the paper has been set for publication, and within the rules of the journal, the paper, all of the data, methods, and results will be made public for anyone who wishes to replicate the work or to challenge it. There will be no hidden folders marked “censored” or incomplete MATLAB code. I’ll post the Full Monty once cleared by the journal.
That being said, given the tasks ahead for me, I’ll be posting far less frequently on WUWT. In the meantime, please be patient and let me finish this up with my co-authors.
Some people have wondered why I have taken two years now before going into data analysis mode. There are a couple of reasons.
1- Getting the best stations. The number of well sited stations are so few, getting enough to do a valid comparison to the poorly sited stations was a challenge.This is why I’ll continue to ask for additional surveys until we reach a publication deadline. There are so few “best” stations that even adding a handful more will be statistically significant. So please, keep up the surveys.
2- Coverage. I wanted to be absolutely certain that I had an undisputably large enough sample both in percentage volume and in spatial distribution. There were some folks who did some analysis using data from early in the project, such as John V at about 30% (with very poor spatial distribution) and the recent NCDC Talking points memo at 43% NCDC “thought” they had the most current data, but they don’t have it, nor did they ask before attempting that analysis. That was an error on their part, and they are aware of it now. I’ve been in touch with the principal investigators at NCDC.
3- Patience is a virtue. If I had done analysis at 30 or 40%, as many suggested I do, and the analyzed results suggested that “siting mattered significantly” to the accuracy of the US Temperature record, I would be immediately vilified for having an inadequate sample, and rightly so. Interestingly, no such criticisms have been levied at NCDC by the AGW blog community for their results in the “talking points memo” at 43%, or at John V at 30%. Yet those results are being held up as examples of valid results by some. A double standard for statistical significance is something we’ve seen before in examples demonstrated by Steve McIntyre and others. Yet even without the statistical analysis, it is clear that the USHCN has not been well maintained. NOAA/NWS has closed many stations that we have highlighted, and even some we haven’t. Most recently Telluride, CO which is another story. If nothing else, this project is helping to get the USHCN network cleaned up. NOAA agrees in practice, as does NCDC, otherwise the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) would not have been created nor would there be an HCN modernization program if the USHCN was in an acceptable condition.
I wish to thank everyone who has helped in making this project continue to the level of coverage it has. Regardless of the outcome of the analysis, whether it shows that siting matters or it does not, one thing can always be said with pride: this survey is a one of a kind volunteer accomplishment that NOAA couldn’t do themselves.
It has been a long road, fraught with roadblocks, frustration, and criticisms. I appreciate everyone who has helped me along the road.
Sweet. I’m thinking on this Sunday I’m going to daytrip down to Grand Meadow, MN and get the on-site pics that Evan wanted to supplement his virtual survey.
REPLY: I sent you an email about one station you uploaded that is missing the temperature sensor pics – did you get it? Anthony
You have 6 states with 100% coverage. I’d fix that quick before RealClimate says, “Anthony Watts, who can’t count, has published a paper…”
Regarding the talking points memo, is that the only problem with it, the 43% coverage? Is it possible they were comparing adjusted stations to adjusted overall result?
Steve McIntyre has posted that NOAA rural matches GISTEMP, and GISTEMP does not match NOAA.
Don’t see Alaska or Hawaii listed. If you need some help here in AK, let me know. Cheers –
REPLY: Funny thing about NCDC, they excluded AK and HI when they setup USHCN – Anthony
John Finn (08:14:09) :
Allan M R MacRae (02:29:41) :
John Finn said:
It’s worth repeating that the trends for the US surface record and the UAH satellite record are virtually identical (0.25 deg per decade).
John, I think this is incorrect. I see no net global warming in the UAH data since 1979. It appears we are back to where we started in 1979, and probably cooling, but with significant variability. Comparing UAH LT to Hadcrut3 ST, I see ~0.07C/decade warming bias in Hadcrut3.
No it’s not incorrect. You appear not to have read what I write. The US trend is 0.25 deg per decade for both UAH and GISS. Futhermore, as was pointed out in a recent post, the trends for all 4 datasets are within about 4 hundredths of a degree within each other since 1992.
*****************************
OK John, but for the USA, the warmest year is 1934, and the next is 1998. Can you kindly explain how you reached your conclusion, wth data sources.
I believe there is a significant urban warming bias in the USA Surface Temp data as well as the global ST data. Please show me where I am wrong.
I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
Please see
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/lobalwarminguahsatellitedatasince1979.jpg
and
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsSUNvsPDOAMO.jpg
I am a meteorologist who lives in Grand Forks, ND and if you’d like I can go survey the sites in NE ND and NW MN.
REPLY: Your help would be welcome
I was at my cousins house on the fourth, he had a hard copy of the preliminary surface stations report sitting on his coffee table.
The message is getting out.
Allan M R MacRae (10:36:53) :
I can’t speak for Jon Finn, but perhaps he is referring to the analysis done on this very blog showing that UAH has higher trends than GISS over the US for the entire satellite record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/
So, I will ask again… how can poor siting and UHI be exaggerating North America/US warming when a supposedly more accurate and representative satellite dataset actually has a greater trend?
Allan M R MacRae (10:36:53) :
OK John, but for the USA, the warmest year is 1934, and the next is 1998. Can you kindly explain how you reached your conclusion, wth data sources.
I don’t understand your point. What relevance does the warm 1934 year have with respect to the issue of UHI. I’m not convinced that UH and poor siting have had a significant effect on the US warming trend since ~1975. The fact that the UAH record for the US shows more warming than the GISS US record provides strong support for this belief.
No-one has yet explained how this can be. Do you have an explanation?
I believe there is a significant urban warming bias in the USA Surface Temp data as well as the global ST data. Please show me where I am wrong.
See above. Just to repeat, UAH is warming as much if not more than the surface record. Are the satellites badly sited?
I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
I don’t believe in fitting arbitrary polynomials when there is no justification for doing so.
I do not agree with fitting a straight line to sinusoidal data.
I don’t agree with fitting arbitrary polnomials when there is no scientific justification for doing so.
John Finn,
Allan M R MacRae asked for data sources — and you gave him your unfounded opinion. WUWT? And then you gave your ‘belief’:
Well, here are a few data sources that will help you understand that the Alarmist crowd has cornered the market on misinformation:
click1
click2
click3 [look closely]
click4 Alarmist version with truncated y-axis
click5 Honest CO2 chart
At this point Anthony I think you want a “hit list” Those stations that have a
high probablity of being good.
1. Nightlights = dark
2. Rural = true
3. ASOS = false.
The more of these stations you get the better slices you can get through the data. That will help your S/N since the effect is likely to be small (<.25C) and the effect will change over time.
A. Good ( CRN12, no ASOS) versus Worst (CRN5)
1.) Prior to installation of MMTS (beehive–) Versus 2.) POST MMTS
personally I think there are two hypothesis of interest.
I. there is a measureable microsite bias.
II. That bias impacts the land record in a measurable way.
Good luck!
Where’s Alaska and Hawaii?
Smokey (14:12:15) :
John Finn,
Allan M R MacRae asked for data sources — and you gave him your unfounded opinion. WUWT? And then you gave your ‘belief’
I gave data sources. The UAH trend for the US is warmer than the GISS surface temperature trend. I’m not sure what else you want. If GISS is affected by poor station siting then what is causing the UAH warming.
If someone could please answer this then I’d be happy. Can you answer it, Smokey? Can you tell me why UAH is showing more warming than the surface temperature record, if the surface temperature record is contaminated by the UH effect.
Incidentally, I have no interest in “misinformation” from either side of the argument.
Anthony–
No, I’m sorry. The spam filter must have eaten it.
If that’s Pembina, ND. . . then I screwed up. There is no picture of the temp sensor. I got bamboozled by a raing gauge I hadn’t seen and quit looking. Sorry about that. I’ve tried to contact a guy at the water plant to see if I could sweet talk him into a pic, but no response so far. I’ll try again.
I uploaded what I did have before I realized I screwed the pooch. Delete them if they are of no value.
REPLY: Yes that is the station. The MMTS photo is missing. What you got photos of was the Fisher Porter rain gauge. – Anthony
Anthony–
Yeah, Evan politey (at least he didn’t laugh out loud) informed me of that fact. Luckily, I kept wondering around the Grand Forks NWS site until I stumbled onto the MMTS or I might have made the same mistake there a few hours later!
Tho interestingly, the Grand Forks NWS station had what looked like a MMTS near ground level next to their Fischer-Porter rain gauge visible in the pictures (in addition to the presumably “regular” MMTS back aways in the trees).. Was that a MMTS near the ground next to the Fischer-Porter rain gauge? For what purpose?
Btw, I was just looking at the “USHCN Master Station List” that often gets referenced as something to check out before going to look at a site. It hasn’t been updated since before summer of 2008. In all your copious spare time, etc. . . .
I’ve downloaded the info, signed up at surfacestations.org, and will see if I can get to some of the Northern NY ones or that last VT one within the next month or two. No promises, because my 11-month-old will be in tow, but I travel from Northern VT to Central NY a bit.
I’ve been reading this site for a little while now — you do a great job, Anthony! I learn a lot from the comments, too, not just the posts.
Google Earth rocks. I was generating some KML files to visualize primary election results last year.
REPLY: Thanks, good hunting, Anthony
Anthony,
I live in Central WA State. WA shows as needing 4 stations. Maybe I can help.
Now to show my lack of computer skills. I downloaded the file and have a 123 KB XML file stored on my hard drive. When I drag and drop this to my Google Earth icon on the desktop nothing happens. Do I have to do something else, like set G_E to open in DirectX or OpenGL, or what? Is there some spot of the G_E window to drop to?
Just opening the file and searching for WA, I get: [my comment re loc.]
CLE ELUM – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE WITHIN AND 0.9 MILES SW OF PO AT CLE ELUM WA [lat/long seem OKAY]
COLFAX – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE WITHIN & 0.6 MI NW OF PO AT COLFAX, WA [lat/long seem to be off by .1 or .2 miles in a wheat field]
COLVILLE – OBSERVERS FARM RESIDENCE OUTSIDE AND 5.1 MI NE OF PO AT COLVILLE, WA [lat/long lands us inside town, not on a farm 5.1 miles away]
GRAPEVIEW – OBSERVERS RESIDENCE OUTSIDE AND 2.5 MI SW OF PO AT GRAPEVIEW, WA [lat/long seem to place station in Pickering Passage; houseboat? Again probably off by less than .2 mi.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cle Elum / South Cle Elum is 45 minutes away. Station is in South Cle Elum and I have the person’s name and phone number.
The other three I will have to induce friends who live closer and let them figure out the location. Each is 3 to 4 hours one-way driving time from my home.
I’ll set this plan in motion but would still like to know what’s up with the Google Earth drag and drop concept.
Thanks, John
REPLY: Open Google Earth first and then drag the file into it. Or simply double click on the KML file and that should open Google Earth and load it. As a last resort. Open Google Earth then use the File>Open menu to locate the KML file – Anthony
<Hiding behind averages – The usual approach is to [spacialy] average temperatures then look for changes in the average. This looks wrong to me. A station collects information at one and only one site which gets lost in the average. It would be better to calculate the change for each station and average the change. I hope Anthony tries it both ways in his analysis
Adam (11:56:09) :
The link you give
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/
gives a slope of .0185 for UAH and
0.0159 for the GISS data.
Of course if one used only the data from the last decade, the slope if not negative for both, would be much flatter.
GISS is constistently higher than UAH in absolute anomaly, so they must be measuring hotter. That is the problem with anomalies. One would need a plot of the difference of UAH from GISS in temperature measures to see if they are measuring the same thing.
Now UAH start measuring in 1979 and a lot of the urban sprawl has occurred by then so it is not clear what percentage of the urban heating effect will be included by GISS in these 30 years, or measured by the satellite at that ( one does not exclude from the satellite data the urban areas, right?).
The surface station project will clear this up.
I’m absolutely staggered that nothing has yet been done to rectify the incompetence and neglect of stations revealed by surfacestations.
82% is done. At what point do they even respond (let alone address) the negligence?
Why are these clowns paid? What job do they actually do? I’ve had a big pot-hole out the front of my house for a month, now. They could come and fill that in. That would at least be a useful expenditure of my tax dollars.
Re: John F. Hultquist (23:25:10) :
John,
I am mapping out a vacation/picture taking tour for the week after next. Current plan has me working my way south from Porthill at the top of the Idaho panhandle. I should be able easily to jump over and pick up Colfax.
I do have a question for Anthony, though, if you’re reading this. I see a recent posting for Pullman (I can now pull that off my list), and I have some concern lest the photographer may have some ‘latent’ prints for Colfax already taken but not posted.
Juan
anna v (05:19:55) :
“GISS is constistently higher than UAH in absolute anomaly, so they must be measuring hotter. That is the problem with anomalies. One would need a plot of the difference of UAH from GISS in temperature measures to see if they are measuring the same thing.”
It has been explained countless times that GISS anomalies are higher than UAH (and RSS) because the anomalies are computed with respect to different base periods, not because GISS is “measuring hotter”. So, for an “apples to apples” comparison you’d simply adjust one of the two datasets to account for the different base periods.
If you were to plot the difference in absolute temperatures between GISS and UAH, the differences would be huge because they are measuring two totally different things. GISS measures near surface temps while UAH measures the average temp of the lower to mid troposphere… thus the only meaningful comparison between the two datasets is of the anomalies.
anna v
“Of course if one used only the data from the last decade, the slope if not negative for both, would be much flatter.”
Uh… I’m well aware … But that isn’t relevant to a comparison between UAH and GISS over the satellite record, which is what we were discussing.
I have a Garmin NUVI GPS for my wife. I have not figured out how to get it into LAT/LON Mode. Does anybody have any advice or can recommend a low cost GPS suitabelfor helping on the project?
Followup – it is a Nuvi 260 and my impression is that it does not have a Lat/Lon mode.
juan (08:13:15) : RE: picking up Colfax
Thanks, that would be a long trip for me if I could not get a friend to do it.
Much appreciated, John