I’m In Sydney at the moment, on tour. My first stop out of the airport was to visit the Sydney observatory, where BoM maintains an official weather station. Here it is:
Click thumbnails for larger images – quite a nice heatsink in the form of a brick wall that gets full sun just a few feet away. Note my previous story (Sydney’s historic weather station: 150 meters makes all the difference) where researchers found a bias due to a move to this location. Seeing it first hand, it is easy to see why. – Anthony
=======================
Meteorologist Art Horn writes in Pajamas Media:
The following remarkable statement now appears on the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) site:
For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time.
The root of the problem? NOAA’s network for measuring temperature in the United States has become corrupted by artificial heat sources and other issues. These problems introduce warm biases into the temperature measurements that are then used by the government and others to support manmade global warming. So as a reaction to criticism about these problems … NOAA now claims that the accuracy of the measured temperature no longer matters!
Let’s take a closer look at this amazing statement to see what it actually says:
For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature …
Are they truly saying the accuracy of the temperature readings don’t matter? Yes, they are! But why?
The NOAA climate measuring network is so broken there is literally no way to fix it. Reacting to criticism of this annoying fact — and to cover up its significance — NOAA now says accuracy simply doesn’t matter, the temperature reading itself is not as important as the trend. This is clearly a deceptive political statement meant to distract the reader from the truth.
Of course the accuracy of the temperature reading matters!
Remember, a warming of only one degree Fahrenheit over the last 160 years is what the warmists claim to be evidence of manmade global warming. (And of course, half of that warming occurred from 1910 to 1945, before they claim the presence of any significant human influence.)
Temperature changes of tenths of a degree are being used to justify dramatic policy directives by the Environmental Protection Agency, dictums that would profoundly alter life as we know it: taxes levied on virtually anything that produces carbon dioxide. But it’s not only the accuracy of the temperature that is in play. If the temperature readings are off by a few tenths of a degree, this could significantly affect the longer term trend as well. If the temperature trend starts from an artificially elevated reading, the end result will be an artificially inflated measure of any global warming. The slope of the trend itself could be exaggerated by inaccurate temperature measurements.
So what exactly is wrong with NOAA’s temperature readings?
NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:
The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. …
[For categories 1 and 2 there can be] no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). …
[For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be] no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).
The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.
What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement!
Again, that number is ninety percent.
read the rest here at Pajamas Media
Gneiss says:
June 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Anthony, have you published your data on which sites do and do not meet criteria? It should be straightforward from there for anyone to test your hypothesis that below-criteria sites yield steeper trends.
****************************
I think that if a site is bad and is not changed they might have a point. That wall in the picture however, had to cause a temperature spike whenever it was done. To lump this warming in with CO2 warming is sloppy or dishonest.
The other trick they pull is to adjust the good sites to be as bad as the bad sites then claim that siting makes no difference. That is mentally challenged.
The real boogieman is UHI and it changes from year to year. It is 99 % of the time going to increase with time and be more pronounced in small cities with rapid growth.
It seems to be a fair enough sort of thing to say that all they are measuring is the changes in temperature though it could be that a poorly placed station might not do so accurately. If one gives them that anyway one would have to contend that they have no right to use these measurements in any calculations of the actual temperatures.
The trend has been to move weather station thermometers to urban areas while the trend in temps has been towards warming. They are correct it is not the absolute temps that matter but the trend!!! 😮 )
Not to mention increased urbanisation (such as airport expantion, new high rise buildings) around these very thermometers.
Welcome to Aus 🙂
Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Taipan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
Stonefish and the poison thing that lives in a shell…That spikes you when you pick it up
Come to Australia
You might accidentally get killed
Your life’s constantly under threat
Have you been bitten yet?
You’ve only got three minutes left….Before a massive coronary breakdown
Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Taipan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
Big shark just waiting for you to go swimming…
At Bondi Beach
Come to Australia
You might accidentally get killed
Your blood is bound to be spilled
With fear your pants will be filled
Because you might accidentally get killed
http://harlinghoneymoon.blogspot.com/2007/12/welcome-to-australia.html
Gneiss says: “That ‘remarkable statement’ is just a straightforward description of temperature anomalies….”
No, that is not what it says at all. It says: “For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time.”
This says, perhaps a bit sloppily, that station placement doesn’t matter. The independence of trends from station placement has not been proven, and especially not under the conditions of moving, alteration, and replacement of stations during recent years. You took the bait, Gneiss, when you read the first clause. The second part is the hook, and there’s nothing “straightforward” about it.
Gee we get sick of our visiting Americans cousins informing us how to do things.
I wonder if BoM might be aware of urban influences – hmmmmm. I wonder if they’ve ever looked into UHI?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
~SNIP~
I hope Anthony will be visiting all the other network locations on the map to give us an expert evaluation. And you’d better be worth the $25. Your stage mates aren’t.
Absolute temperature is important, unless you have had the same thermometer situated in the same environment for the last thousand years or so.
MikeA said: “As Anthony pointed out before, the Observatory Hill observations are not relied on by the BOM for climate analysis.”
So what MikeA ?
What matters is what the IPCC are quoting – Jones et al 1986 used Sydney data from 1859 as does the UKMO per their Jan 2010 station data release. Just one example of massive UHI contamination direct into IPCC reports.
While you are mentioning the BoM – note that the ACT (Canberra) Commissioner for the Environment has had to in public – rub the BoM’s nose in the facts over urban/site issues re the Canberra Airport data – which the BoM does quote as a Reference Climate Station. So – do not assume the BoM are squeaky clean MikeA.
Anthony, while I agree with your post for the most part, I think you may be slightly misrepresenting NOAA’s statement;
“For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time.”
I don’t think they are saying that it is not important to measure an absolute at each individual site, but that the difference between the two is not really that important granted all else is equal (ie no sig change at site throughout the record.). Of course it will be warmer at the urban site as it relates to a nearby grassland site. ‘Absolutely’ they may not be identical and are not necessarily expected to be. However, over time and all else being equal and no sig changes occurred to either of these sites surroundings one would expect their reconstruction curves to be similar…not their absolute values.
Now if the grassland and urban temp constuctions have large differences in their curve/structure pattern, then we have a beef. If the grassland’s temp change in 30 yrs is flat and the urban areas is +1 and they use the urban site and ignore the grassland site then we can put up a stink. Especially if this urban or paved/cemented area increases it’s paved/cemented surroundings over that 30yr period.
I think all they are saying is the temp diff between the two sites does not matter and I agree…one is urban…one is grassland; they shouldn’t be, right?
For the record, my ideology on this entire AGW subject is right in line with yours, I just think you may have misinterpreted what they meant in this part of their statement.
Thanks!
@ur momisugly Gneiss, Nick Stokes:
If the absolute temperature doesn’t matter, why measure it?
I will enjoy the tap dancing.
Nick Stokes:
Why was GHCN-M created?
Yes well we’ve heard this before. It’s the anomaly stupid.
But those who believe that, think the data is wrong in a constant fashion. It can’t be.
The NOAA has a criteria for a reason, TO GET ACCURATE DATA.
If the siting is bad, the data is bad and not necessarily in a constant fashion.
A brick wall will heat up more on a sunny day of same temperature as that of a cloudy day for instance.
Anomaly shnomaly, the data is unacceptable and shouldn’t be used for policy making decisions, period.
CRN 2 on surfacestations.org has less stringent requirements for bbq pits than CRN1.
Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
I mean UHI is really basic right?
Site 1 in 1900- almost entirely grassland
Nearby Site 2 in 1900- almost entirely grassland
Site 1 in 2000- almost entirely urbanized
Site 2 in 2000- still mostly grassland
Site 1 should show a significantly warmer temperature as it absolutely relates to Site 2 over this 100yr period, right? Now if the ‘Reconstructionists’ use only the urbanized data and ignore the grassland we have issues; and there are certainly issues with the surface data (understatement of the year).
Using urbanized temperature data reconstructions is hazardous. Using said surface data to make trillion dollar decisions is suicidal.
William Dawes was Australia’s first meteorologist (1788-91) and he set up camp on the spot where Anthony took those pics.
His weather journal compared well with others at the time and Sydney appeared to be (by my rough calculation) a degree warmer than average. No heat island effect, so it must have been the strong El Nino driving temps up.
Dave F says: June 12, 2010 at 6:06 pm
“If the absolute temperature doesn’t matter, why measure it?”
Well, you can’t measure the change without measuring the temperature.
It’s been measured for over a century by weather services, not climate scientists. And not for detecting climate change.
Try some tap dancing yourself. For detecting climate change, why does it matter whether a thermometer is on a hill or in a valley? Or over grass or over bare ground?
Nick Stokes says:
June 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm
That’s just obviously not true, Nick. Come on, you had simple algebra didn’t you? They are not “concerned”, that’s the lie, the lack of concern for the truth.
Any temperature time series are but a very complex function curve.
The only way that two temperature stations, one in the grass and one surrounded with brick walls or any other heat source would show identical anomalies is if the temperature curves over time are identical, they can have different absolute temperatures but the curves have to be identical, and that is never true, and the one surrounded by any heat source would always show warming if the every-hour readings are averaged. One the short scale it’s the diurnal problem of retained heat and on the year long scale it is that winter is affected more than in the summer which once again distorts the curve. The same goes for stations ever moved from pristine locations to surrounded locations. Same for stations that have buildings grow up around them.
Of course the simple case above the absolute temperatures would vary, but that is not the problem, if the curves were identical, the anomalies would be identical. It’s the above situation I just stated that is the problem. The same distortion happens over decadal time series if the curves are EVER touched by adjustments that do not adjust every single data point in an identical amount and then never added to for the new readings would not include the adjustment.
Yes ,that is a remarkable statement, I noticed and commented on this very statement about 3 months ago but had no feedback. Look at the first question and how they justify reducing land stations from 6000 to 1500, “modern technology has improved” and is now, wait for it “digitized”. The magic cure-all for the 21st Century.
Welcome to the cold east coast of Australia, Anthony, the dog’s water this morning was frozen for the first time this year, this is a long weekend for the workers and the official start of the skiing season, 10cm at Falls Creek of natural snow (as they report now), but it is a start.
Hello, NOAA? If poor siting exaggerates the absolute temperature, then it must follow that it also exaggerates the magnitude of any upward trend.
Anthony,
The problem with NOAA’s statement,( “For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time.”) is that there appears to be no consideration of changes of the station siting over time. A station by a brick home in Boston can give a reliable trend over the time records are taken. A once rural station in Ohio, now surrounded by city and heat ducts would show site enhanced warming. A station in a cold drainage in a park moved to a warmer ridge would also show a spurious warming. The urban heat effect has been present since records began but the number of sites strongly impacted by UHI has been increasing as more recording sites are engulfed by expanding cities. The warming is further enhanced by the dropout of rural stations you have so elegantly demonstrated. There are other regional factors to consider such as land use changes. For example, the little town (pop.1000) I live in has not grown in the last century and its average temperature is lower than it was in the 30’s. However the amount of irrigation has markedly increased, decreasing the range of daily temperatures. NOAA clearly does not assess each reporting site for changes at the site over time.
The NOAA page is truly jaw dropping, e.g.
The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data. I was not aware of this, apply a correction because of a spurious change of observation times ???
They also bag ship bucket water temperature measurement in favour of ship intake method and I clearly remember reading on WUWT that the bucket method was the measurement of choice in a detailed paper.
By posting the statement in above, NOAA is basically saying they are NOT a scientific organization but a political organization. Can you imagine any other scientific discipline saying “accuracy doesn’t matter” & being taken seriously ??? What a joke!
As a taxpayer, it makes my blood boil! As a scientist, it makes me nauseous ! What an outrage!
They might just as well have posted “We believe in AGW, regardless of what the data says & we are going to cram punitive regulations down your throat, whether you like it or not because we are the government & that will be good for us.”
SICK!
Welcome Anthony. I see you have a busy schedule. I hope you get some time to enjoy the sights. Be prepared to freeze in Hobart. Don’t worry about spiders and snakes, be wary if your host offers you vegemite on toast.
However, less rural measuring stations and more temperature adjustments have been contributing to these “trends.”