While this would certainly put an end to the poor siting problems discovered by the surfacestations.org project, I can’t help but think almost everything related to climate can be solved with money:
Here’s the letter:
PDF with attachments here: USHCN_Letter_-_FINAL_-_7-29-10_SECURED
I also can’t help thinking of this image when 100 MILLION DOLLARS is used:
Now don’t get me wrong, I support a modernized network, but $100 million? That’s a bit steep.
It works out to $100,000 per weather station.
When I visited NCDC in April 2008…
Day 2 at NCDC and Press Release: NOAA to modernize USHCN
…they told me the USHCN-M cost was supposed to be around $25,000 per weather station.
Which looking at the USHCN-M equipment below, allowing for government inflation, sounds about right:
USHCN-M station at Greensboro, AL
But $100K a piece for what you see above? I don’t think so.
See: What the modernized USHCN will look like
Hell, I’ll do it for 10K a piece and do a better job than NOAA ever could.
h/t to Joe D’Aleo
Jim Barker says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I’ve recently read that smart phones are gaining sensors faster than any other device in the world. In line with the other thread on pollution. why not enable the phones to send time, date, GPS
##################
well Phone GPS. last I looked ( in 2008 when I worked on cell phones) roughly 15% of cell phones had GPS, so 85 percent would have to rely on cell tower triangulation. In the case of a a single tower your measurement error is roughly say 6km,
One of the biggest issues with the existing database is the quality of the metadata since data like nightlights comes in at 1km resolution but the positions recorded in the inventory databases can be off by 10s of km. So basically, you would be going in the wrong direction to when it comes to providing metadata.
Now it somebody wants to propose this:
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~emunguia/miteswebsite/index.html
that would be hella cool. just sayin.
Mosher,
You have laid out the case far better than I ever could have. I was just pointing out to Anthony that you have to take the whole cost into account — something he obviously was not doing. I’ll take a look at the cost breakdown, I didn’t have time when I looked at the letter during work. IIRC, USCRN was not cheap to bring online and it is only, what 130 stations or so?
I guess the point is that if you want good quality data over a long period of time you have to pay for it. Otherwise live with the adjustments to minimize known flaws in the data. USHCN was never intended to do the job that is being asked of it.
REPLY: “USHCN was never intended to do the job that is being asked of it.” On that we agree, however the $100K per station “package” is still way too high for what is involved. It can be done far more efficiently. Perhaps my failing to accept the numbers is not thinking like government does. – Anthony
Charles Higley says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:27 pm
How about doubling the cost and hardwiring ALL of the sites to a central point to which the data is delivered absolutely independent of human handling. The central box then spits out the data while concurrently archiving it in itself in a permanent database no one can alter, Read Only!
I’ll have to check but I think they have an uplink to GOES
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/hcnm/
The data quality requirements are the same as ushcrn
you can see those requirements and the legislative requirements here
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/publications/annual_reports/FY09_USCRN_Annual_Report.pdf
Beginning with a pilot project in the Southwest, USHCN-M stations will be deployed at a 100 km spatial resolution to provide for the detection of regional climate change signals. Following completion of the pilot project, the long-term vision is deployment in each of the nine NOAA climate regions of the United States at a 100 km spatial resolution that will allow the detection of regional climate change signals. As with the USCRN, USHCN-M stations have triple redundancy and are placed in pristine environments. About 1000 locations in the United States will have either a USHCN-M or USCRN station at the end of deployment for this project. This project is managed by the Office of Science and Technology in NOAA’s National Weather Service and operated in partnership with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.
an example:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/hcnm/hcnm-map.html
Photos here
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/hcnmweb/StationPhotos.pdf
looks like the job involves heavy lifting or pouring some concrete. Hope EM is up for that. Anyways, I suppose getting the thing to communicate with the satillite is a 5 minute job. its a geo stationary platform.
two of these batteries:
http://www.batteryusa.com/Deka.htm
here is the data sheet
http://www.dekabatteries.com/assets/base/c.pdf
here is the rest of the equipment more or less.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/instrdoc.html
Anyways, with the experience of crn they know a bit more about how to plan and the problems you see in the field
• Aberdeen, SD: A wind generator will help this site significantly.
• Lander, WY: Additional batteries are all that is recommended for the time being,
although the potential for wind energy production is very good.
• Montrose, CO: Increasing the size of the battery bank is recommended.
Installation of a wind generator is justified based on locally measured winds and
the fact that the surface is very rough, and significantly stronger winds than were
locally measured are expected a height of 5 m.
• Northgate, ND: Some combination of a wind generator, additional batteries, and
possibly additional solar panels are needed at this site.
• Sandstone, MN: The size or efficiency of the solar array must be improved.
Doubling size of the solar array is recommended. In addition, the size of the
battery bank may need to be increased.
• Spokane, WA: More solar panels or a wind generator should be added, and the
size of the battery bank should be increased.
• Sundance, WY: A wind generator and additional batteries are recommended.
…..
With the USCRN and USHCN-M, accuracy and reliability are critical attributes which must be
maintained in order for collected climate data to be scientifically credible. To ensure the highest
degree of credibility, all climate stations in these two networks must be constantly monitored for
potential problems. As problems are identified, they must then be prioritized, diagnosed, and
scheduled for maintenance. Traditionally, the operation of each station has been closely watched
by trained engineers and scientists to look for signs of hardware or software failures. This
manual observation approach worked well when the number of climate stations was small
And of course since these 1000 sites will be installed the government way, you should be aware that they tell you exactly how to do things …
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/USCRN%20Installation%20Guide.pdf
Construction Procedure
A 1 in. diameter aluminum conduit pipe shall be placed vertically in the concrete.
The center of the pole shall be 9 in. from the northeast edge and 5 in. from the
northwest edge. The pipe shall extend vertically down into the concrete to a
minimum sub-surface depth of 2 ft with at least 3 ft of vertical length remaining
above the surface of the concrete.
A 2 in. diameter aluminum conduit pipe shall be placed vertically 6 in. from the
southeast edge and 9 in. from the northeast edge. The pipe shall extend vertically
down into the concrete to a minimum sub-surface depth of 2 ft with at least 4 ft of
vertical length remaining above the surface of the concrete.
110 volts of AC power shall be supplied via direct bury cable in a 36 in. deep
trench from the breaker box (use a 20 amp breaker for USCRN Station) located at
the metered source of AC power to a point, 1 ft from Structure A, at which point
the AC power cable shall continue, being contained in 1 in.
and….
5. Wire Datalogger box
a. Connect red 12 AWG from the LVD in battery box to fuse block in 23x box
b. Connect black 12 AWG from LVD in battery box to ground terminal strip in 23x box
c. Connect 16 AWG from transformer in battery box to 23x battery charger
d. Connect yellow wire from the temperature sensor in the east shield to 23x SE 1
e. Connect white wire from the temperature sensor in the east shield to 23x SE 2
f. Connect green wire from the temperature sensor in the east shield to 23x gnd
g. Connect yellow wire from the temperature sensor in the south shield to 23x SE 3
h. Connect white wire from the temperature sensor in the south shield to 23x SE 4
i. Connect green wire from the temperature sensor in the south shield to 23x gnd
j. Connect yellow wire from the temperature sensor in the west shield to 23x SE 5
k. Connect white wire from the temperature sensor in the west shield to 23x SE 6
l. Connect green wire from the temperature sensor in the west shield to 23x gnd
m. Connect orange wires from all three of the temperature sensors to 23x EX 1
n. Connect orange wire from the voltage divider to 23x SE 16
o. Connect black wire from the voltage divider to 23x gnd
p. Connect the white wire from the pyranometer to 23x SE 17
q. Connect the green wire from the pyranometer to 23x SE 18
r. Connect the bare wire from the pyranometer to 23x gnd
s. Connect the red wire from the anemometer to 23x P1
t. Connect the black wire from the anemometer 23x gnd
whew.
Im have what may seem like a trivial, or maybe, a hostile question.
I care not which it is–it is interesting to me and I would like to see it addressed.
Recall, please, that there is often an argument about whether a particular phenomenon or even is “weather” or “climate”. In general, I think the rule of thumb is “if it got cold, it was climate”, whereas “if it got warm it was weather”. Or maybe it was the other way around. (For what it is worth, I choose to think that “climate” is “average weather”, or maybe “summary of past data that can be used to predict future weather. But take your umbrella.”
In the letter above seems to be talking about “weather stations” that report “climate data”.
When I used to call Flight Service or drop into the Weather Bureau Office for a briefing, was I getting “weather”, or “climate”.
And I still wonder if we can predict snowfall 30 years out, why can’t I get a useful statement about the Church Picnic?
Mosher,
You forgot steps aa to zz in the datalogger installation. The checklists, parts lists and documentation requirements associated with the installation are pretty extensive too. Pretty much Anthony’s wet dream for metadata.
But of course this all drives the price up… How much do you want to pay for the data?
Rattus:
Part of the issue here is understanding the data availability rates required by the program. the goal I believe was 99% after years they are hitting rates above that at least the fiscal 2009 program review shows that.
So people see a 100M price tag and they don’t realize all of the requirements that have to be met by the system.
20 Million for equipment deployment. Roughly 20K per system.
As Anthony notes they told him about 25K when he visited,
19 Million for Labor deployment expense. about 19K per sit to prepare the site,
pour the concrete. connect the wires
17 Million for site operation and maintance. less than 200 bucks a month
8 million for system operation and support. call that
4-8 people at the system level (NCDC)
8 million full time staff. again 4-8 people.
and everything else is mouse nuts. taxes, reserves,
Anyways, I dont see much fat in the way of staffing. the maintanance cost comes from EXPERIENCE in the field with how often these puppies need attention.
So you are left with deployment costs.. which are KNOWN from prior experience
and equipment costs which are known
So, not many ways to save money here. A different approach may LOOK like it saves money, but before the government adopts a different approach you have to PROVE that it saves money. Like with an actual test. which costs money. and so if you want to build a prototype approach an operate it for 5 years or so to get the data to prove that your different approach actually saves money on a life cycle basis, you have a break even point…..
Say, you thought you could get the same data with 10K of equipment per site.
Thats a program savings of 10Million. so, a pilot study of 100 of these stations for 5 years would cost what? lets see.. hmm. makes no sense to spend the money to prove your case, because the program cost is NOT dominated by the material cost.
I think what most people miss is that you actually have to prove your idea is better before the government can believe you.
It’s the old “It’s other peoples money” thing again in the UK people talk of all this money that can or should be spent on this or that but get very upset when asked to shell out their own hard earned.
All too high tech when you can use orchids.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68K5CR20100921
I bet they haven’t corrected for UHI effects!
Steven mosher says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:21 pm
are you prepared to change your accounting system so that you comply with the FAR?
Sure. My wife will be secratary, my son will be software engineer, I’ll be site engineer driver and procurement lackey, and my office will be at my home address.
Are you pitching for a consultant role here Mosh? 😉
There does not seem to be a trade-in value for the existing stations in the proposals above. There are already more than 1,000 existing stations in USA. Surely these can be sold, probably at a profit because so many of their once-lonely rural surroundings have now become expensive suburbia.
With a bit of creativity and a short overlap period for calibration, NOAA might find it can turn a quid on this proposal and even get some new, good-quality data as a bonus.
Anthony, you’ll have to stop publishing your work if it leads to projects that make the Government spend $100 million. Or maybe propose an alternative, like siting the new ones on military bases and using existing labour to run and maintain them – which probably happens already.
Well I’ll come back to an old favourite if mine. The proposal seems to be based on 1000 sites and there is now a debate about whether $100M is fair value.
Who has looked at the sampling problem? Who has analysed the dynamic characteristics of the measured variable to determine how many measurement points are required and their distribution? Could be that 100 well positioned stations would be adequate. Could be that 10,000 would still suffer from spatial aliasing.
If some money is spent at the outset, characterising the signal and determining the sampling problem, there would be a chance of an informed debate.
If nobody has bothered to do that, then this proposal has got off to the worst possible start and climatologists are showing the world that they have learned nothing.
Is the data collection automated or does someone need to read it?
$10k to equip the site, $10k a year full cost for data collection?
Then there’s data collation, distribution, QA/QC, station maintenance etc.
Sure it sounds a huge figure, but why not ask to see the breakdown and then see how to do it cheaper?
Primary cost is for the environmental impact studies necessary to preserve the local gnat population and fending off the green protesters who’ll object to ascertaining the truth. That’s in addition to all the other costs and payoffs mentioned earlier.
evanmjones says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Anthony’s original publication was done in March. In May, it was featured on WBZTV. And in June, congress started making inquiries.
And now this!
———————————————-
and still no acknowledge from NOAA/NCDC for Anthony pioneering work, What a shame for a pubic funded institution.
Years ago when I worked at a university I was asked by one of my department’s scientists to call up a supplier of scientific equipment for a price on a 15 mm screwdriver-type box spanner with an insulated handle to service one of the department’s scientific pieces of kit. The supplier of scientific equipment sent me a quote for $40.00 dollars, plus freight and packaging. They also very kindly mentioned the brand of the quoted item. I then drove to the town’s biggest hardware store; they stocked the exact same 15 mm screwdriver-type box with insulated handle – retail price = $2.50.
It seems that when a government budget is going to pay, the world and his brother get into extortionate profit mode!
Steven mosher says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Anthony the land survey expense alone is 3000 per site.
so even before you buy anything, you are down to 7K.
Dear Steve, that adds up to $10,000 per site – $100,000,000 divided by 1000 sites equals $100,000 per site. Back to grade 3 for a little remedial arithmetic
Steven mosher says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm
“So people see a 100M price tag and they don’t realize all of the requirements that have to be met by the system.”
OK, OK Steve. You are obviously very passionate about this, and I agree with your assessments that the costs are in line with any typical government-run project. I actually think that the final cost, like most things in government, would end up being much higher. The main question I have is if we as a country can afford this right now. I really think they should defund something else to pay for it – I can think of a few things…
100 million in 10 years, that means 10 million per years. How expensive!
Indeed that would mean that it would cost something like 0,001% of the annual military expenses in the US.
Steven mosher says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:18 pm
” the issue isnt the standards. The issue would be compliance and audit. just for starters. And the system (like CRN) has to supply reliable data for decades.
just think about the problem of incorporation new data into the old system. after 10 years of the new system supplying data you can start to correlate it to the old and adjust as needed. So any net based approach would have to have people committed to 10 years of supplying data.”
========================================================
Steven, I believe you’re thinking within the proverbial box. The scenario you’re describing is what got it all messed up in the first place. But if we still have to go that way, sure contracts are a nice way to go. As far as the comm goes, one would have to use a variety of forms of communication. One size won’t fit all. Fortunately, the old and new system will have a standardized unit of measure called “temperature”. NOAA says the system is broke. This statement implies they’ve identified problems and problem areas. Yes, compliance is always a difficulty, auditing should not be, we’re still paying NOAA personnel. They should have a function or two in the process.
I thought we already had weather sites. I thought we already had people to monitor them. I thought we already had supervisors? All existing costs of current system must be subtracted from new system. All current budget must be subtracted from new systems proposed budget. Is it not new equipment in better locations within same sites, or on gov land with no purchase price? Production is four things, paint, paint brush, painter and picture. Do each of those four things correctly and no problems. If you have a problem it is in one of those four areas, every time. Do it again 1,000 times.
All costs, taxes pension, medical and payroll for an hourly employee equall about a 55% increase on the hourly rate of say 30 per hour. Yhe supewrvisors and data people are already in place in the current system. Maintance should be minimal at sites, reporting data gathering mostly automated. Only the govt can make it so complicated.
Don`t need weather sites dried flowers will suffice.
How dried flowers picked 150 years ago could give scientists clues about how plants respond to climate change.
Karen Robbirt of UEA, (would this be the same UEA of climategate fame) the study’s lead author, said: ‘The results of our study are exciting.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314213/How-dried-flowers-picked-150-years-ago-scientists-new-clues-plants-respond-climate-change.html#ixzz10GWxJ700
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314213/How-dried-flowers-picked-150-years-ago-scientists-new-clues-plants-respond-climate-change.html#ixzz10GWmxCjo
Ahhhh, I am already giving NOAA/NCDC (via the US Federal gov’t) involuntary donations yearly every April and in a significant amount.
No more, no more, no more . . . . . taxes.
John
Rob Vermeulen says:
September 22, 2010 at 5:01 am
100 million in 10 years, that means 10 million per years. How expensive!
Indeed that would mean that it would cost something like 0,001% of the annual military expenses in the US.
Even though it was a disingenious remark, you might have something there. Let the military do it. We have bases worldwide, supply clerks to staff it, and personnel to install it. Reduce redundancy, cut this away from Jim, Karl and the econut gang.
So essentially I have been right every time in that those schmucks only want more money pretty much every time they open their gutter hole essentially with out having to produce an actual working product or service or in this case a working robust-stand-up-to-critics theory . . . hey that’s a exactly what happened in the “dot com” industry, before it collapsed, and even during and right after the collapse the head in sand for late comers for people still spent billions on in fact an ongoing collapse.
Tim Clark says:
September 22, 2010 at 8:49 am
Even though it was a disingenious remark, you might have something there. Let the military do it. We have bases worldwide, supply clerks to staff it, and personnel to install it. Reduce redundancy, cut this away from Jim, Karl and the econut gang.
—
This is an excellent suggestion. Give this responsibility to a group which is well-removed from the government global warming apparatchiks…