UPDATE: A second nearby station has been located, also showing a lower high temperature. See below.
First let me say that the Carefree, AZ Skypark airport, and the airport observer have not done anything wrong. I commend them for their service as a NOAA Cooperative Observer, a volunteer job done for the good of the country. The station was installed by NOAA/NWS Phoenix personnel and it is their responsibility for things like this difference in daytime high temperatures, such as I discovered below.
But after looking at the ground photos of the NOAA climate station, I have only one word to describe it: FUBAR
First some review; read my essay on what I discovered from metadata investigation of the station: A Carefree Record High Temperature in Arizona
I showed a map with all the new records plotted. But, there was a curious red dot record high temperature “anomaly” on it, 109°F in Carefree, AZ on July 8th, the only one for that entire week in the entire state.
From that essay, this image shows the station is surrounded by Asphalt tarmac:
click to enlarge imageAnd thanks to WUWT reader Glen Sheldon, we have photos from the ground (on 07/13/2010) that confirm what I suspected; the station temperature sensor is mounted directly over asphalt at roof level, both of which contribute to anomalously high temperature readings.
I don’t know how often the outdoor fireplace is used, but when it is, I’m sure it helps keep the cold away.
Seasoned surfacestation.org volunteers have seen worse sitings, but this one has severe siting violations worth noting:
- NOAA 100 foot rule ? – pfft!
- Over asphalt plus physically on a building – rates a CRN5 “worst of the worst”
- Wind sheltered on one side due to the beam – southerly wind, not so much
- At roof level – will pick up waste heat from the building when wind blows across the flat roof
- Incorrect height – WMO/NOAA standard is 1.5 meters – this is twice that
- Other heat sources nearby, Pepsi machine – waste heat like an A/C unit, nearby outdoor fireplace
- Nearby tree – listed as an obstruction in the NCDC metadata
- Nearby automobile parking – radiator inward, under the sensor
In case anybody wonders about NOAA rooftop stations that give erroneous high temperature readings, this one should provide an excellent primer because NOAA closed it in 1999 due to similar siting problems.
How not to measure temperature, part 48. NOAA cites errors with Baltimore’s Rooftop USHCN Station
NOAA then wrote an internal technical competency manual on it advising that it is not good practice. I guess WSO Phoenix never read it.
Reference: NOAA Professional Competency Unit 6 (PCU6) manual (PDF)
But the thing that really hit me was the data they compiled, comparing to other nearby stations, and thus proving the case for rooftop bias with this station:
They cite the table with:
The table to its right summarizes a comparison of 12 months of overlapping data that was collected on the rooftop and at the new relocated site (for data continuity), relocated several blocks away at ground level with other nearby standard, ground based stations. A combination of the rooftop and downtown urban siting explain the regular occurrence of extremely warm temperatures. Compared to nearby ground-level instruments and nearby airports and surrounding COOPs, it is clear that a strong warm bias exists, partially because of the rooftop location.
Maximum and minimum temperatures are elevated, especially in the summer. The number of 80 plus minimum temperatures during the one-year of data overlap was 13 on the roof and zero at three surrounding LCD airports, the close by ground-based inner Baltimore harbor site, and all 10 COOPs in the same NCDC climate zone. Eighty-degree minimum are luckily, an extremely rare occurrence in the mid-Atlantic region at standard ground-based stations, urban or otherwise. Temperatures can be elevated on roofs due to the higher solar radiation absorption and re-radiation associated with many roof surfaces including black tar, shingles, stone, and metal. During the colder months, ongoing upward heat transfer through the roof from the heated interior of the building also can contribute to the warm bias although stronger winter winds tend to create better mixing and minimize this impact.
The table shows that the rooftop station has Tmax >90°F more than twice as often as other stations and a Tmax >100°F 13 times where no nearby station achieved it. Similarly we have this station recording a Tmin >80°F where no other stations did.
But here we still find stations just like this in NOAA’s climate monitoring network 11 years after Baltimore’s station was closed for the same reason.
The Carefree Skypark COOP should either be closed, go to rain only, or relocated, as it is not used for airport operations, only for NOAA climate reporting. The station is polluting the climate record. NOAA needs to determine how long this has been going on and if the record is even worth keeping. I doubt it is. Also of note, this station is used to adjust other stations nearby in the “homogenization” process, further polluting the climate record.
I’m looking into doing some longer term data comparisons between the Carefree, AZ AP station and the nearby private observer station. If I’m able to obtaining the data, we’ll have a look in a future post.
Again I close with what I opened with:
The Carefree, AZ Skypark airport, and the airport observer have not done anything wrong. I commend them for their service as a NOAA Cooperative Observer, a volunteer job done for the good of the country. The station was installed by NOAA/NWS Phoenix personnel and it is their responsibility.
UPDATE: A second nearby station has been located, a MESONET station, and it’s high temperature on that day was also considerably lower, 4°F lower than the airport.
Data follows.
08 Jul 7:00 pm 93 49 22 NE 5G13 33 11% OK
08 Jul 6:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 6:45 pm 93 49 22 NE 5G15 33 8% OK
08 Jul 6:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 6:30 pm 95 49 21 E 4G14 93 20% OK
08 Jul 6:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 6:15 pm 99 45 16 E 3G08 93 17% OK
08 Jul 6:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 6:00 pm 100 42 14 SW 3G04 99 16% OK
08 Jul 5:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 5:45 pm 100 42 14 SW 3G08 99 14% OK
08 Jul 5:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 5:30 pm 100 44 15 NNW 3G08 126 16% OK
08 Jul 5:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 5:15 pm 99 45 16 SW 4G10 126 15% OK
08 Jul 5:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 5:00 pm 101 47 16 SSW 4G09 571 63% OK
08 Jul 4:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 4:45 pm 103 45 14 SW 4G15 571 59% OK
08 Jul 4:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 4:30 pm 103 38 11 ENE 4G08 659 64% OK
08 Jul 4:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 4:15 pm 103 38 11 ENE 3G08 659 60% OK
08 Jul 4:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 4:00 pm 100 44 15 SSW 3G13 714 62% OK
08 Jul 3:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 3:45 pm 104 44 13 SW 2G08 714 59% OK
08 Jul 3:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 3:30 pm 103 43 13 SW 4G14 802 64% OK
08 Jul 3:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 3:15 pm 105 42 12 SSW 6G15 802 62% OK
08 Jul 3:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 3:00 pm 101 41 13 SE 6G14 852 63% OK
08 Jul 2:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 2:45 pm 102 47 16 S 5G10 852 62% OK
08 Jul 2:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 2:30 pm 100 42 14 S 5G13 522 37% OK
08 Jul 2:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 2:15 pm 102 44 14 SSE 5G15 522 36% OK
08 Jul 2:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 2:00 pm 100 46 16 SE 2G14 923 63% OK
08 Jul 1:48 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 1:45 pm 101 48 17 S 2G15 923 62% OK
08 Jul 1:33 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 1:30 pm 100 46 16 SSE 6G17 945 63% OK
08 Jul 1:18 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 1:15 pm 99 45 16 SE 4G19 945 63% OK
08 Jul 1:03 pm % 0.00 OK
08 Jul 1:00 pm 99 45 16 ESE 4G10 951 63% OK
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News Snippet
Cooling caused wars, drought
SINGAPORE – AS CHINESE policymakers grapple with an expected increase in extreme weather due to global warming, a study has found that periods of cooling between AD 10 to 1900 also caused a wave of disasters, war and upheaval.
Droughts and locust plagues caused by cooler spells probably triggered internal wars, the authors said.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/TechandScience/Story/STIStory_553415.html
How well does that plastic flange insulate the sensor from the heat absorbed into that heavy steel elbow joint 5″ below it?
Anthony,
You and your team make GREAT detectives to keeping science and the data honest!
Want to bet that this “record high” will be in the anomaly records and will be part of the hostest year ever?
Anthony:
From:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
“NEWS Updated 07/16/2009 ”
Any plans to update the website on at least an annual basis?
I know guys…”hostest” should have been “hotest”.
A honest mistake…………….honest!
“The station was installed by NOAA/NWS Phoenix personnel and it is their responsibility.”
I can hear them saying: “Good enough for government work!”
I’d like to know what these people are thinking when they install a sensor? Are they only following someone’s instruction? Are they going out there and willfully looking for a location that will assure the hottest possible readings? It’s almost like they all got an internal memo instructing them to install these things at the hottest imagineable spots.
An interesting case to say the least.
Again good detective work highlights yet more flawed data. How many times do you need to kick their shins for them to actually do something about it? Whoever is responsible for these networks needs naming and shaming.
Off topic – [snip]
[reply] Take it to tips and notes please. RT-mod
Time for discussion why stations 1200 km apart can be used to reconstruct each other (as in the Antarctic) while stations 1.2 km apart can differ by 5 deg F at about the same hour?
Note suspected spelling error: “…but this one has sever siting violations worth noting…”
sever should be severe
Reply: sever spelling error fixed. ~ ctm
FUBAR indeed !!!!!!!!!!!!
How many examples can be shown like this will it take for the AGW alarmists to at least question the validity of the data???????????????????
pgosselin says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:34 am
Are they going out there and willfully looking for a location that will assure the hottest possible readings? It’s almost like they all got an internal memo instructing them to install these things at the hottest imagineable spots.
================================
Yet after they do that, they still adjust the data UP later !!!!!!!!!!!
Bad data X 2
They certainly were carefree when they installed it ! An unbelieveable lack of professionalism which appears to go to the heart of the whole organisation.
Anthony, had I been head of this organisation (national) I would not have wasted my time trying to prove you and your team wrong. I would not have wasted time trying to prove that poor siting makes no difference. I would have kicked some backsides into action and resited all the badly sited stations this one among them.
If scientists never calibrate their instruments, is it really science? Calibrate?! Oops, I meant never bother to check them at all. Welcome to climate science — where instruments are never accurate, studies are never replicated, dissent is never tolerated, and the incompetents running the circus are convinced they are never wrong.
It was probably installed there due to ease of installation. From the pictures you can see a light fixture near by and the security camera and other electronic equipment. What probably happened was that NOAA contracted the install out, the installers have no clue of siting requirements, they show up and ask the airport facilities manager where they can install the electonic sensors. The manager takes them around and shows them where all the other electronic and power cables run from inside to outside the building. So the installers piggy back the MMTS through the existing cable runs. This is something that anyone that has any electronic or electrical cable running experience would look for when running cables: It’s much easier and cheaper to run through an existing run then make a new one. Then they installed it up high like that because trenching through the asphalt, running a conduit and then re paving is even more money. Remember the contractor is going to try to do the job as cheap as he can to maximize his profit after being “low bidder”. Trust me I have seen this type of crap before when I was an Electronics Tech in the Navy and dealing with civilian contractors. Sometimes they have no clue about special requirements, they are just trying to do a job as fast as they can.
I’d love to see some FLIR thermal images of that station…
What’s a few acres of black asphalt among friends?
Not so much record air temperature as record amounts of charcoal on the BBQ.
NOAA’s website also states that approx. 50 of their 11,700 COOP stations are rooftop stations, and that a study was to be done about 10 yrs. ago. From what I’ve seen on the WUWT and Surfacestations websites, this 50 number seems to be low. Does anybody know if the actual study by NOAA was performed?
“I’d like to know what these people are thinking when they install a sensor?”
Oh, that’s easy to see if you’ve ever hired workmen to do any job. (and no insult, I’ve been there myself) If whoever gives them the job doesn’t say anything besides “go out and do it!” (typical) then they will always grab the closest and quickest path to completion. Why a roofbeam? It’s already there, and the wiring is short! Plus, putting it up above everyone ensures no one will drive their car into it or trip over it, meaning nobody will ever call up and complain and make you go back and do it over.
Well, except those science guys, but they take years to figure out something like this. It’ll probably be someone else’s job by then.
I guess they have some Carefree barbecue summers there, and probably some winters, too!
Geoff Sherrington
Yes, I’ve wondered the same thing. Of course the anomaly method corrects for that 🙂
It amazes me how sloppy processes are with NOAA. Write site guides, don’t bother checking they’ve been followed.
Years ago when digital cameras became cheap, we equipped all our field guys with cameras. Any time they visited a site, they’d take pictures and they’d be added to the site records. We then had a much better idea what we were working with, and saved a lot of time and money. We could plan work, mark up photos with what to install, where to install and connect. Field engineers knew what they were facing on a trip and had much better site guides to work with, and records if there was any dispute over the quality of the work.
Given the problems already discovered by the volunteers and the importance placed on the data collected, why hasn’t NOAA done their own field survey by now?
Maximal incompetency over decades can only mean lack of any routine installation, monitoring or supervisory operating authority. Yet we’d bet that NOAA is overrun with administrators (sic) thick as cockroaches, who have no more interest in field-work than vetting prima facie discordant temperature results. Unless and until a civic-minded volunteer network supplants these swarms of “placemen” (Jefferson), full-throated AGW propaganda assaults at public expense will continue unabated.
So, with the recorded data having an error of +-5 oc, we can confidently assert that global temperatures have risen by +-0.1 oc per decade.
Something does not compute.
.