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
NOAA is engaging in a nice fudge factor : it seems what they are saying is, that it dosn’t matter if a met site is subject to UHI as long as it is consistant over the period of observation, unfortunately very few airport or inner city stations have an unchanged envelope, old airports which started as grass strips and a few huts are now vast industrial complexes, and most stations in city gardens and reserves have seen huge changes to their envelope as multistory buildings go up. And that does not take into account all the sites that have been shifted from one place to another to suit the city fathers. Even in national parks sites have been effected by tree growth and buildings encroaching on the envelope. The reality is unchanged sites with 100 years or more of observation are increasingly rare making the whole concept of a true temperature or temperature trend for an area extremely problematic hence the “adjustments” being applied to create increasingly artificial figures with limited real value.
What I came across when writing a (QSR) book review and recently in the references of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (2003)-quick view:
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/136.pdf,
is that the Japanesse data may be more reliable than the USA and down-under (NIWA adjusted incl.!) weather stations records
(cf. Tagami, Y. (1993): “Climate change reconstructed from historical data in Japan.”
In Proceedings of International Symposium on Global Change by
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Pg. 720-729.) .
Have you ever thought of doing a short post here with a comparison of Australia-NZ with Japan in this respect? Good cameras too!
Bruce
Gneiss:
“From the replies, I get the impression that many folks have strong opinions about using temperature anomalies, but don’t actually know what they’re for. Is that true?”
Yes, Gneiss. We are too stupid to know that. Can you help us out? I’m too busy counting all the money I get from Big Oil to look into it myself.
Welcome to Sydney Anthony!
I had no idea you were coming even though I look at your blog a couple of times a day??
Anyway if there is anything I could do for you while you are here you have my email address.
Cheers
Michael
Any layman who watches TV weather can see that UHI is real. Daytime highs and Nightime lows tend to be warmer in the city than in the suburbs and surrounding countryside. We also have measurement data from WUWT and others showing cross section temperature changes as the probes are moved into and out of a metropolitan area.
Passive solar considerations (buildings and pavement absorb heat and release it over time) would be a likely significant factor in UHI, plus all those people generating and leaking heat energy into their surroundings as they drive, cook, heat and cool their living and work areas. Heard an interesting off-the-cuff comment that ‘global warming seemed to really kick in’ about the time that Air Conditioning became widespread. That would certainly be true for the rooftop monitoring stations downwind of the AC exhaust (chuckle).
What might be the affect on Average daily temperature? The average temperature for the day has traditionally been to take a simple average of the Max and Min temps
Average = (Max + Min) / 2
I seem to recall that the significant movement in the anomaly temperatures has been from the Minimums being Less Cold. That would certainly fit with the passive solar affects from buildings and pavement reflected into the UHI data. And the wall at the Sydney observatory as mentioned in this blog article.
There are studies that show larger UHI affects with larger populations. Over time, as an area grows, one would then expect a larger UHI affect even at the same location. That would seem to contradict the statement from NOAA. So the question then is – what adjustments are being made to compensate for UHI? Are those adjustments the correct size and in the appropriate direction?
And about those Minimums –
The next time you read an alarming headline about global warming – remind yourself that the claimed affects on crops or lizards or whatever are NOT because it was hotter, but because it was LESS COLD at night.
Why don’t you comment on Miskolczi’s new paper?
This one?
The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness
by Ferenc Miskolczi, Energy & Environment, 21:4 2010.
Not yet available at Energy & Environment
David Stockwell has commented over at Niche Modeling, but he’s got an author’s pre-print.
Nick Stokes:
That’s the problem. The size of the error bars on poorly-placed sites will be much larger than those of well-placed sites. And if the error bars are much larger than the anomaly you’re trying to detect then you really don’t know what you’re looking at.
That would be true if the anomaly was more-or-less the same on all scales. But it’s not. Some areas get warmer, some cooler, at the same or different times. If one area on the globe shows an upward trend, how do you know that some other area which you’re not even measuring isn’t exhibiting a downward trend?
Ed Caryl says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm
“I showed these pictures to my wife. (Not a scientist. She has an MBA.)”
Ed, even an assistant clerk in a patent office can be a scientist.
But, yes, I agree, MBA is a far stretch.
The whole concept of a global climate is ill concieved.
Too many variables in different regions and too many areas for easy mistakes to be made(as we are seeing).
Not enough monitoring stations here, too many there, placed incorrectly, outdated or no maintenance, altitude, which side of hill or mountain, on top of mountain, heart of major city, airport runway, moved, closed down.
And this is suppose to give a reading globally?
~SNIP~
I didn’t realise you had a site policy so I’d better watch my demeanour. [Yes. ~dbs]
UHI is definitely an interesting topic and BoM do know a few things about it. Which is why one should not include it a serious climate change analysis – and they have said so on my link above. Why not focus on temperature analysis in the great many rural centres.
El Gordo remarks about temperatures pre 1900 being higher but gee if we’re into UHI issues – those data were recorded in a Glaisher stand. That’s why.
Farmers are perceptive lot of course and they have noticed a century long decline in frost frequency and the date of last frost in the Emerald (hello to Stockers) to Dubbo wheat cropping zone. So do we need thermometers to be told?
And don’t you find it strange that 2 land data sets, 2 ocean analyses and 2 satellite series all tell the same warming story. As well as the phenology of growth an reproduction in 1000s of species. e.g. Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Cynthia Rosenzweig, David Karoly, Marta Vicarelli, Peter Neofotis, Qigang Wu, Gino Casassa, Annette Menzel, Terry L. Root, Nicole Estrella, Bernard Seguin, Piotr Tryjanowski, Chunzhen Liu, Samuel Rawlins, Anton Imeson
Nature, Vol. 453, No. 7193. (15 May 2008), pp. 353-357.
The ocean data sets themselves show an unambiguous centennial signal. e.g. Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115.
And while you’re here you should visit CSIRO and update yourself on the substantial changes being documented by Aussie researchers on more serious topics such as changes in the southern annular mode, Indian Ocean Dipole, El Nino Modoki, and importantly the intensity of the sub-tropical ridge. Not to mention a rapidly warming Tasman Sea and warming on our NE and NW coastal waters i.e. Lough , J. M. (2008), Shifting climate zones for Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L14708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034634..
All playing havoc with our rainfall.
I’m sure CSIRO and BoM would be glad to host you. That’s host not roast !
Let’s take a closer look at this amazing statement to see what it actually says:
Are they truly saying the accuracy of the temperature readings don’t matter? Yes, they are! But why?
Because it’s undeniably true. The surface records are validated by the satellite records. There is barely a cigarette paper between the trends in any of the records. A ‘true’ trend can be detected using relatively crude equipment providing there are enough measurements taken at enough locations. The proof is seen in the the similarity of the different record trends over the past 20 odd years.
Welcome to Australia Anthony. Not able to attent the Sydney meet on the 13th, which is a shame, but you do have a busy schedule which some wonderful sites, Noosa and Coffs harbour to name two. Personally, I’d give Canberra a miss, nothing but hot air down there (The home of Australian federal politicians).
All the best, and I’ll wait to see if you get any coverage in the CAGW biassed Australian MSM.
‘absolute’ temperature regardless of trend
Nick Stokes says:
June 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm
“Are they truly saying the accuracy of the temperature readings don’t matter? Yes, they are! “
No, they’re not. Read it again:
“For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature … but how that temperature changes over time.”
That’s just obviously true. Tautologous, even.
…………………………………………..
Nick, kindergarten lesson. If you wish to measure a trend, you need accurate absolute temperatures before the trend can be accurate. Tortology, even?
Alex Buddery says:
June 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Welcome to Aus 🙂
Redback, Funnel-Web, Blue-ringed octopus
Taipan, Tigersnake and a Box jellyfish
As an Aussie, I might comment that it’s better than getting shot and mugged by semi-savage ******s who have made whole areas of some USA cities unsafe to enter. My aologies, Alex, if you were an Aussie joking. It is well known that Aussies taking the pi5s from Americans is a well-enjoyed habit.
Anthony, I’ll meet you in Melbourne, night one. You’ll be safe.
John Finn:
Yeah, it’s amazing what you can do with a few minor ‘adjustments’, isn’t it?
It wasn’t too many years ago that people were arguing about the increasing divergence between land and satellite trends – it’s funny how that problem has suddenly ‘fixed’ itself.
What would be interesting would be to compare the land and satellite data for the early part of the 20th century – oops, satellites didn’t exist then.
Luke says:
June 13, 2010 at 4:39 am “All playing havoc with our rainfall.”
What a tragic, ignorant statement. The BoM has recently reported on the last 11 decades of Australian rainfall. The decade ending 2009 was the second wettest in this record, but not by much. There was not a great deal of decadal variation in 110 years. How does this create “havoc” when you can’t even define “normal” because the observation period is too short?
Maybe year 1252 was a havoc year, but I don’t know how much more havoc there was. Niether do you, nor the BoM.
Is “havoc ” to become a new in-word like rigorous, peer-reviewed and unprecedented?
Yep, the one which says this:
“The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.”
“a remarkable statement from NOAA”
There is nothing “remarkable” about the NOAA statement. It is all too typical of a national agency trying to keep its “public credibility” and annual budget funding in this day and age. One of the repercussions in the aftermath of the Great Cold War is that government will attempt to “maintain” itself even when the underlying reason has been eliminated. AGW is an excuse, a ploy, a sham, in order to convince the taxpayers that the services of huge government are still critical to winning the new war against “””Climate Change”””.
The smell of decay in the wind is coming from the heap we built to win a long and expensive war, no doubt about it. Elect new representatives, downsize, cut budgets. These will result in real and major improvements — including scientific advances. And significant “changes” –for the better– in Global Climate.
The only statement that we can truly make on climate from the majority of GISS/NOAA/CRU is that with larger airports/airplanes average temperature at airports has increased.
So, most on this site believe that siting problems have created spurious trends in the GISTEMP, NCDC and HadCRUT global indexes. To me that sounds like an empirical question, so I asked above,
“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.”
Steele wrote in response,
“You must be a new reader. Here’s a good place to start – http://www.surfacestations.org/”
Maybe not as new as you think. I’ve used the surfacestation site’s photos before, in a qualitative way, to check out specific stations of interest. In those instances the results were encouraging, and it’s handy that such a site exists. The project’s larger value should come from its database, when that is made public, because that should allow anyone to carry out their own analysis and test the hypotheses on all sides — such as those expressed on this thread.
The surfacestations home page, with a 7/16/2009 update, says that an analysis will be forthcoming soon. I hope the raw data will be too.
“Now at 80%, and with a majority sample that is spatially well distributed, a full analysis will be coming in the next few months. We will however continue to survey stations in the hope of locating more CRN1 and CRN2 stations due to their rarity.
The upcoming papers will feature statistical analysis of the nationwide USHCN network in the context of siting.”
>> Nick Stokes says:
June 12, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Every site has something different. Some are on hill tops, some in valleys. Some get sea breezes. But if the climate changes, they’ll all be affected. And it’s the change that you need to focus on. That’s all they are saying. <<
If it were just hills vs. valleys there would be no problem. Those can both be category 1 sites.
The problem occurs when you have man-made artifacts near the thermometer. Even in NOAA's best-case scenario where nothing else is added, an artifact will need to be maintained, giving rise to different errors in the readings at different times, and thus in the trend. If the artifact is not maintained, that would also change the local microclimate from albedo change (the building gets dirty) or other factors (such as unrepaired holes in a fence changing the local air flow).
In actual practice, most of the cat 3-5 sites have had significant changes in nearby human development over time, meaning NOAA's statement is misleading, if not flat out spin to gloss over their siting failures.
>> John Finn says:
June 13, 2010 at 4:48 am
The surface records are validated by the satellite records. There is barely a cigarette paper between the trends in any of the records. A ‘true’ trend can be detected using relatively crude equipment providing there are enough measurements taken at enough locations. The proof is seen in the the similarity of the different record trends over the past 20 odd years. <<
The surface trend is about 0.5 C over a hundred years. A 'cigarette paper' difference of 0.1 C in 20 years is all that's required to invalidate the entire surface record.
@ammonite
Do you suppose it was the same brick wall that melted the arctic ice cap enough for Amundson to sail the Northwest Passage in 1906? The passage didn’t open up again until 2007 and now it’s closed up again just like it closed back up 100 years ago.
Someone’s got some ‘splainin to do…
Ref – Gneiss says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:05 am
Regarding –
http://www.surfacestations.org/
You seem to have a handle on the issue. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. There’s more to life than a paycheck.
So, walling it in, and keeping it warmer at night, will not affect a trend? When that trend is measured in 1/10th of a degree? and claim that 4 or 5 of those 1/10th of a degree is catastrophic
Yeah, right