By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
NCDC has done an first rate job raising Arizona summer temperatures, as seen in the graph below.
How did they accomplish this? – by magic! My favorite Arizona station is Ajo, near the Mexican border. Until 1984, temperatures were dropping – as seen in the USHCN (RAW) plot below.
Apparently someone at USHCN didn’t like that trend, so they made up homogenized an extra 25 years of data with a sharp upwards trend. This spreadsheet shows the USHCN data. Note that there aren’t any years after 1985 which have a full year’s data, and no years after 1985 with a full summer’s data.
For example, note this B91 form from the Ajo observer for July 1987, missing 10 out of 31 days of data:
Here is the adjusted monthly mean maximum data plotted from NCDC:
The image below shows Ajo adjusted maximum mean (black) on top of raw maximum mean (red.) Note that they are identical until 1970, when the magical adjustments kicked in. Click on it for a clearer image.
The station is not well sited. Note the MMTS temperature sensor is inside the white stucco patio wall enclosure at right:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=33437
Here’s another view:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=33463
Photos by surfacestations.org volunteer Bob Thompson
While the near A/C heat exchanger units are comical, wind sheltering and building proximity are also likely contributors. According to NCDC MMS metadatabase, in 2002 the station was switched from a Stevenson Screen to the MMTS sensor in the location shown above. Since NCDC does not make the site sketches that exist for all stations public, we can’t see the plan map showing where the Stevenson Screen was. However, the site survey from Bob Thompson tells us:
Site description and known history: The station was previously located on a nearby hilltop, but is now close behind a Phelps Dodge administration building adjacent to an open mine. I did not find any record of the relocation, but there is nothing any longer atop the hill.
There was a notation in the NCDC MMS Metadata remarks though, saying that the station had been moved 845 feet to the northeast.
The dates don’t match the date of the equipment change in 2002 though, and since the MMTS sensor requires a cable, it is likely that it was moved when the equipment change was noted in 2002.
Most likely the metadata citing the date of the move is wrong, and/or it took NCDC time to catch up with the change made by NWS personnel.
This Google Earth view, dated July 13th, 2006 shows the location of the temperature sensor at Ajo at the Phelps Dodge plant. Basically in the middle of an industrial zone:
In this more recent aerial photo from Bing Maps, it appears the facility has been closed down, and the buildings removed. They even abandoned 3 locomotives previously used to shuttle ore cars:
Note while the buildings are missing, the asphalt parking lot to the SE of the office is new.
Here’s a view with the GE ruler, showing where the Stevenson Screen likely was:
Here’s a closeup view of where the MMTS and rain gauges are:
Interactive view at Bing Maps is here
The point of all this is that this station has the following problems:
- Poor siting – building proximity
- Station move
- Sensor change from Mercury/Stevenson Screen to MMTS
- A nearby dynamic industrial environment with rapidly changing infrastructure and albedo as shown by aerial maps
- Missing/incomplete observer data over a long period, likely due to observer not recording data on weekends, holidays, vacation days, sick days.
- Incorrect/conflicting metadata at NCDC
- post facto adjustments to infill missing/incomplete observer data
That’s a lot of uncertainty added to the base measurement. Many stations have similar problems. The measurement environment is hardly static, yet we are looking for small variations in the climate in the midst of all this noise and uncertainty.
Other Arizona USHCN raw station data is below, showing about equal numbers of stations with declining and increasing maximum mean temperatures over the last 80 years. In Arizona, it’s all about the daytime heat, not the nighttime low.
Raising Arizona was probably Nicholas Cage’s best movie. In the end, they decided to be honest and give Nathan Arizona’s baby back. Can we expect the same?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s a radical idea, given that all the western countries are broke, why not just admit that the figures are made up. Then we can save all that money that running the weather stations cost.
Mike Haseler said on July 10, 2010 at 5:27 am:
But not unexpected. Which is also appalling.
There are reasons why data is adjusted rather than used raw. If you want you actually critique NCDC’s analysis you would need to review these reasons and then see if there were grounds for disagreement. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
Does anyone at all put even the slightest bit of credence to these politically drawn graphs from the NCDC…
At the state of the union address, everyone laughed at this blatant scam…
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyVXlaThZU ]
Miami also stands out like a very Sore Thumb.
Excuse my ignorance but are tax dollars paying for this? If so, what is the tax payer doing about it?
This “hide the decline” stuff is “worse than we thought!” Just how did they add 25 years of data that aren’t there?
Thanks for all this research on temperatures.
It is very sad that the scientists changing the data to show false warming (and the simple investigation of source data problems, like airport asphalt or builing heat is not considered).
You present photographic evidence from many angles to verify your claims (excellent research work). I am sad that the scientists involved with NCDC have such low integrity. Science is only as good as the scientists who are doing the research. I guess they have to sell out to the Truth to feed their families. Really really sad for science though!
Then they wonder why many people just don’t trust the ‘adjusted’ data published by climate scientists. How can one find a warming signal of a tenths of a degree among all that noise?
Here are some arguments from a pro-AGWer stating:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/
These articles in WUWT casting doubt on the reliability and accuracy of temperature collection are interesting and worrisome. Is this just sloppy work or is it a conspiracy? Even if all the stations are properly sited, will the data still be manipulated to show a rising trend? Is WUWT being looked at as crying wolf all the time? Is the system so politicized that none of this analysis matters? How do we sort through all this and get a look at the real picture of climate change or lack of? There is always two sides to every story. It would be interesting to hear a response to some of these concerns about siting from the people responsible for collecting this data (probably not going to happen). I think:
1) Your surface stations project is a great start.
2) More empirical data on how much difference poor siting has on the temperature results would add credibility to the complaints.
3) Keep hammering away at this.
4) Hope that someday, somewhere, someone in a position to make a difference will have a light bulb go off in their head and actually care.
If you plot the summer temperatures for Michigan:
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
they show a COOLING of -0.08 degrees per decade…and this is from the transmogrified data. Many Michiganders are a little upset that we seem to be missing out on “global” warming. The yearly trend is down also.
Well exposed, Anthony.
Anthony, no matter how many bad ones we find (siting, or sets of data) there are many, many more out there waiting to be found. I never cease to be shocked by all this. Keep at it!
And the skeptics are accused of bending the facts. Remember, always accuse your enemy of your own deepest crime.
“The point of all this is that this station has the following problems:…”
But other than that…
Te Soviet National anthem activates in my head every time I read about the state of our reality. Shine the light of truth, is all we can do Anthony. If man is too stupid, we’ll become slaves. We have nothing to lose by fighting, other than gain our country back.
Again, Captain Renault says:”I am shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in this establishment.” “Captain Renault, here are your winnings from last night.” “Oh, thank you.”
Sorry, but I love that scene. In reality, though, we can no longer be shocked.
Ah yes… here, yet again, we have more inconvenient information illustrating that the inconvenient truth is alive and well in climate *cough* science *cough*.
No data ?
Unsure ?
Not warming enough to cause alarmism ?
Need more funding ?
No problem !
Just take your best guesstimate, plug a few extra numbers in and voila !
We should be hearing about how it is an insignificant piece of land compared to the total surface area of earth, soon.
Question, why is the TMAX and TMAXraw so different? It appears, not only did they invent hotter temps as we move closer to present, but they also simply moved the data down about 1.5 degrees for the past reads so we get the double illusion of warming up. I’d like to say I’m outraged by this manipulation of our temp history, but we’ve seen it here far too often.
Another question or two: Anthony and Steve, after the many temp sites shown to be fraudulent, at this web site and others, has anyone, be it NOAA, USHCN, NCDC or any other “official” entity corrected the errors? Can’t we simply state the official global temps are just a bunch of numbers known to be false. In my view, you two have already shown this. From Arizona to California to Australia, and just about everywhere else on the globe, we know that someone manipulates the numbers to give the false appearance of warming. You guys have presented your case well and I think it is time to simply state we know the global temp average is in error and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, especially scientists and politicians………oh, wait, that was redundant.
Mike
I am quite familiar with the adjustments being made by USHCN.
Suppose that a station changed their time of observation, which produced a biasing of its max or min temperature readings. That would cause a one time shift in the data – not a steady divergence like we see in so many “adjusted” USHCN plots.
The fact that nearly every station has been adjusted upwards wreaks of a bias in the methodology. Random errors should produce equal numbers of up and down corrections.
That is why the best data is the raw data, using Monte Carlo theory.
Mod—– I didn’t see my post immediately after submitting and the usual accompaniment with the words “Your post is awaiting moderation”….or something of that nature. Did it go into the black hole?
REPLY: Yes, liberated
You’re comparing TMAX (maximum temperature) against average temperature. It’s not the same thing and cannot be compared like that. You’re misleading your followers and no one of them was smart enought to see it so far.
If you look at the same database for the average temperature and compare it to the NOAA, you’ll find that it fits. Further, you will find that temps are continuously raising since the 70s.
I don’t mind if you find errors as this will help improve the system, but try to find real error.
“REPLY: For the record, no Dr. here. The satellite record shows a bit of warming. I trust it more. -A”
Yes, it does, but there is no historical context to view it in. Further, we know an actual thermometer on the ground isn’t the same as a sat read and we can’t make the historical merc readings compare to the present sat readings. So, the only thing we can say about sat readings is sat reading show a slight warming trend from the 1980’s onward.
Any guesses as to what the mean US temperatures would read in two years time if over the next 6 months 90%+ of US thermometers were correctly sited according to guidelines?
Answer = hottest year on record.
If it ain’t badly sited they will tweak the raw data because the Earth must be getting warmer due to increasing co2 output and positive feedback. What a bunch of jokers! :o)
Should NCDC and NOAA simply switch to Autodesk’s Green Building Studio subscription for all their weather needs??
…Thought you guys might find this interesting, as it suggests somebody knows something somebody else doesn’t….