An update on my Climate Reference Network visualization project

Solar powered USCRN Station in Montrose, Colorado, 2006. Note the siting well away from any influences and the triple redundant air aspirated temperature sensors. The data is sent via satellite uplink (grey cone antenna) Photo: NOAA/NCDC
Readers may recall that when Peter Gleick first sent out the stolen Heartland board documents and the fake document to give the story “legs”, there was a mention in there of a project that I asked Heartland to help me fund. They found a private donor who was interested in my idea, and agreed to fund it. The amount of funding I received, based on the plan I submitted, was $44K, which when compared to many scientific papers and projects that get funded, is a proverbial drop in the bucket. For example, Michael Mann got a boatload of money: Mann’s $1.8 million Malaria grant – “where do we ask for a refund’? to study something outside his normal area of expertise – mosquitoes and malaria.

And as you recall, when the Heartland documents were made public by the “publish first, ask questions later” tabloid reporters at the Guardian and other news outlets, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects, claiming that somehow I’m in the employ of big oil, big coal, big tobacco, yada yada yada. One of the worst offenders was local eco-activist and Chico State University professor Mark Stemen who wrote to me with similar ludicrous charges, calling me a “Koch whore” and adding that “I’m making sure that everyone in town knows it” followed by posting a series of smears on his Facebook page. Stemen’s abusive smearing was typical of the over the top unprofessional and adolescent behavior that was directed at me for daring to do this project related to making climate data more available to the public.

Today, I’m going to offer my first update on it, so that everyone can see for themselves just how terrible and evil it is in the scheme of all things climate.

The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.

Here’s how Heartland Described my project in one of the stolen documents:

Weather Stations Project

Every few months, weathermen report that a temperature record – either high or low – has been broken somewhere in the U.S. This is not surprising, since weather is highly variable and reliable instrument records date back less than 100 years old. Regrettably, news of these broken records is often used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either global warming or the more ambiguous “climate change.”

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts WattsUpwithThat.com, one of the most popular and influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the

temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.

Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t widely publicize data from this new network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.

Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at  WattsUpwithThat.com. Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011.  The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.

Terrible huh?

Since it wasn’t clear in the Heartland description above what data I was going to use, for those who don’t know, here’s some background on the Climate Reference Network, this entry from Wikipedia:

The US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) Program was begun in 2002 and remains under construction with an expected completion date in late 2008. It has the long-term commitment of the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This network will be maintained and modernized during the life of the program.

This is a program that will collect and analyze the highest quality climate data possible. Research based on these data will directly support near and long term policy and decision plans made by senior government and business leaders.

The research community, government agencies, and private businesses have identified significant shortcomings in understanding and examining long-term climate trends and change over the U.S. and surrounding regions. Some of these shortcomings are due to the lack of adequate documentation of operations and changes regarding the existing and earlier observing networks, the observing sites, and the instrumentation over the life of the network. These include inadequate overlapping observations when new instruments were installed and not using well-maintained, calibrated high-quality instruments. These factors increase the level of uncertainty when government and business decision-makers are considering long-range strategic policies and plans. Never before have people been so aware of the impact of the environment and climate variability and change on the quality of life and the economic health of a nation, its citizens, and the population of the world. This project will serve as a model for establishing similar networks in other countries.

Basically, the CRN is NCDC’s response to their realizations of problems in the existing climate observing network, something that I’m long since identified in my own surfacestations.org work, including a peer reviewed paper on the subject. Plus, my conclusions about the problems with the surface network in the USA were backed up by an investigation done by the US General Accounting Office. An example of the kind of problems the many surfacestations.org volunteers found are illustrated well by the fact that some stations used specifically to measure climate, were in the most ridiculous locations, like this USHCN station in downtown Ardmore, Oklahoma:

Ardmore USHCN station , MMTS temperature sensor, January 2009

While NCDC has gone to great lengths to defend the quality of the USHCN network and the highly adjusted data it produces, their actions of closing them (after we pointed out numerous train wrecks like Ardmore) speak far louder than written words and peer reviewed publications:

Ardmore USHCN station , MMTS temperature sensor removed, March 2011

The new CRN has none of these problems. Sites were meticulously chosen, temperature sensors have triple redundancy, there’s a QC process for data collection, and most important, since the data is not measured once a day (as observers did with high and low readings) but is done continuously, there’s no need for the Time Of Observation Adjustment, which we know adds significantly to the overall temperature trend of data used for climate study.

Note that the TOBS adjustment (in black) amounts to the lions share.

Here’s how NCDC describes the CRN:

The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds, and are being expanded to include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity. Experimental stations have been located in Alaska since 2002 and Hawaii since 2005, providing network experience in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29 station USCRN network into Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.

More here. Given the advanced way it is measured, there’s no need to adjust the CRN station data whatsoever.

In addition, many USHCN stations are being modernized and added to the CRN network as I’ve described in detail here: What the modernized USHCN will look like.

Overall I’m pleased with that CRN project and the USHCN modernization, and I endorse it. But little of the data from it is finding its way into the public realm, and I aim to change that.

The first job was to arrange for and to program data ingestion. Initially it looked like the project was designated to be done with an Internet based FTP fetching, which can be fraught with problems related to network delays, timeouts, server load, etc. Fortunately it was discovered that the entire CRN data set was delivered on an hourly basis via one of NOAA’s satellite feeds. This was a godsend, because I worried about NCDC trying to cut off web access (like they did once before) when they decided they didn’t like what I was doing or if my bandwidth usages got to be too high. Similar issues plagued Steve McIntyre when he went to fetch a large amount of data once, the Gavinator of GISS blocked him. So unless NOAA/NCDC decides to pull the CRN data from the sat feed that services NWS WSFO’s nationwide, there should not be any access issues and no complaining over bandwidth and server loads.

Using the funds provided with the help of Heartland’s private donor, I hired a specialist programmer familiar with NOAA systems to trap and convert the NOAA sat feed data to look like any other hourly station (like ASOS hourly stations at airports etc) so that we’d be able to start the visualization and comparison process. This is just one phase of the project before it is ready for public consumption. When finished, there will be a website free and open to the public that will allow tracking and visualization of temperatures from the CRN right alongside that of the regular surface network

I’m happy to report that ingest programming is now completed and in the Alpha stage of testing. I have some “first light” imagery and data produced by the custom ingest system to share.

Below are some screen captures of the first output.

Click the images above to enlarge them.

As you can see for yourself, the project is pure evil.  I’m sure people like Professor Mark Stemen will be just shocked at what the *Koch Brothers/Big Oil hath wrought. /sarc

I’ll have updates when I have news from my programmer that he has completed the next phase of programming.

* For the record there’s no funding from either in this project, nor is any US taxpayer money being used, and anyone who says otherwise is a damned liar.
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
2 1 vote
Article Rating
92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2012 9:29 pm

In the past month I have used the regional CRN site BWEA3 in SE Arizona to quality control a problem with the ASOS temperature observations at Douglas AZ. Some of you may recall the NWS record report at the beginning of Jan 2012 which reported on the many heat records supposedly established at KDUG in 2011:
http://climate-of-the-west.com/2012/01/01/2011-record-warm-year-in-douglas-az/
We now realize many of these records were spurious due to an ASOS sensor with an artificial warm bias of +3 to +4 deg F. Douglas is a rural station which I have been using to compare against the Phoenix urban heat island. By February 2012 I became suspicious something was amiss with the Douglas ASOS.
It now appears since August 2011 the Douglas ASOS had been recording temperatures with a spurious warm bias of +3 to +4 deg F over the 6 months from Aug 2011 through Feb 2012. From the numbers below it looks like the Douglas AZ warm bias of nearly 4 deg F developed around August 2011. I have compared KDUG max temperatures over the past year against the new RCRN site BWEA3 on the western slope of the Chiricahua Mountains. Here are the monthly mean differences between the 2 sites which are separated by 1,000 ft in elevation. Lapse rate considerations suggest the high temperatures should differ by no more than 5-6 degrees, which is indeed what we find until August 2011. The mean monthly difference in max temperature in early 2012 had widened to nearly 10 degrees compared to an average of about 6 degrees in early 2011. RCRN sites such as BWEA3 use 3 redundant temperature sensors to insure high quality temperature observations. Finally at the end of February 2012 the NWS replaced the KDUG ASOS temperature sensor which seems to have removed the spurious warm bias as seen below in March 2012.
KDUG elevation 4150 ft, BWEA2 elevation 5150 ft
—————————-
KDUG-BWEA2 (deg F)
—————————-
Jan 2011 6.3
Feb 6.1
Mar 6.1
Apr 5.6
May 5.6
Jun 5.9
Jul 6.2
—>warm bias begins
Aug 8.4
Sep 8.3
Oct 9.8
Nov 9.4
Dec 8.8
Jan 2012 9.9
Feb 9.9
—>sensor replaced
Mar 6.5

Carsten Arnholm, Norway
April 8, 2012 1:19 am

Very interesting. This is going to be extremely valuable.
I can see you are using a 14 year old compiler & MFC 🙂

BioBob
April 8, 2012 1:40 am

Thanks Anthony !! It will be very interesting to see what the temperature-variability-magnitude of USCRN within-station data versus nearby USHCN (etc) stations looks like. It will be a real treat to see decent scientific data versus the usual likely-trash and I would expect the data to be illuminating.
Thanks again for keeping us up to date on the progress of this project.

sophocles
April 8, 2012 1:41 am

Danger: “Terrorist” Watts at work!
It’s going to be really interesting, especially as the database builds
over the years.
Great idea Anthony. Great execution, too.

Melissa M.
April 8, 2012 2:47 am

Whatmenaresayingaboutwomen Jay says: “in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there where a number of record setting high”
I think that should “were” not “where”.
Dear “whatmenaresayingaboutwomen Jay”, I think what you meant was “I think that should BE ‘were’, not ‘where’. ” You forgot the “be”. I don’t understand why people point out other people’s grammar/spelling mistakes like it really matters if they messed up one where/were while they were typing something up. If you really feel like you need to correct people on their mistakes, maybe you should correct your own first!

Editor
April 8, 2012 2:59 am

@Brent Hargreaves
Paul Homewood’s website ‘Notalotofpeopleknowthat’ has found a similar rewriring of the historical record in South America:
And Australia as well.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/adjustmentgateaustralia/

Michael D Smith
April 8, 2012 7:44 am

It’s a very cool program and will need a catchy name on the title bar. The Watts Meter?
How about a cute phrase for the “About” page, like “Real, pure, unhomogenized, untortured, non-spindled, or mutilated data brought to you as a public service by Anthony Watts, Heartland Institute, big oil and other imaginary evildoers, for pennies on the dollar” Could be a fun contest.
And then the motto:
“Doing things Big Government Can’t Do. For under $50k”

oMan
April 8, 2012 9:18 am

Anthony: this is gorgeous. We are getting real science for a change; and the existence of the CRN seems to be due in large part to efforts like yours to ask the right questions, and keep asking them, and demonstrate how embarrassingly weak the old answers were, and forcing the Climate Establishment to do what it should have done long ago. I also appreciate that you have not tried to compete with the Establishment by constructing a parallel infrastructure of observation stations, but instead have applied pressure to their own system to ensure high standards of station design, siting and data feed; and have then used their own data –at source, before “improvement”– to create transparent and rich presentations for public users at every level of sophistication and interest.
The leverage here –the bang from these modest bucks– is very great. We are all in your debt, and in debt to Heartland and your donor.

tinyHall
April 8, 2012 10:48 am

Regarding problems with ASOS temperatures… I have recently retired from NWS, and have noted that there is no indicator as to whether the ventilation fan in the ASOS temperature sensor is operating properly. Since the average life of the ventilation fan is about 10 years, and, if not caught during the 3 month routine maintenance cycle as not operating, or is moving slowly, the only way to correct the fault is by comparison with surrounding sensing systems. An additional problem is that the old mirror dewpoint sensor has not been turned off at sites where the new and improved sensor has been installed. This is a great source of heat, if the vent fan fails, raising the indicated temperature by 2 to 8 degrees as well.
The only way to get the problem solved is to go through the AOMC and have them label the sensor as “out of tolerance.” Then a visit is scheduled by the nearest forecast office ASOS technician to check the equipment. Unless there are obvious problems with the temperatures, such as comparison with surrounding RAWS or similar sensors, or with COOP sites which are in the general area, the problem could persist until the next routine maintenance check (Quarterly Check) of the equipment.
Just for your information…
JHall

PaulH
April 8, 2012 11:10 am

Cool stuff! I look forward to seeing the beta. 🙂

Bloke down the pub
April 8, 2012 11:23 am

It would be nice if they named it the Anthony Watts CRN.
REPLY: The idea for it well preceded my involvement, but thanks for the sentiment – Anthony

Brandon
April 8, 2012 12:07 pm

Increasing access to knowledge is always a worthwhile. Keep up the good work. Real data is worth its weight in gold.
I often get acussed of being anti-science because of my position on AGW and some of the anti-chemical garbage, that hurts because I have been extremely pro-science my whole life. It pains me to see science perverted by the activists and it also hurts to see the science community close ranks around climate scientists instead of demanding they act like proper scientists.
My position is not a war on science, it is the defense of the non-political science I grew up with and love. The science that was all about the truth and not worried about spin and perception. It is good to see stuff like this which rises above politics and returns to the idea that data is precious and not to be adjusted or changed without multiple levels of diligence….and even then very sparingly.

cromagnum
April 9, 2012 6:00 am

Great Job
I would recommend a 5 year review cycle of the new stations, just set it up, and let the volunteers run the legwork.
Track any problems
Track any changes
Compare changes

April 9, 2012 6:01 am

Thanks Anthony!
It is encouraging, but regarding remote sites like these powered with solar panels, I can tell you from experience that they are hard to keep up. I trust they have regular scheduled maintenance. CRN is obviously a good and worthy endeavor, but it will not last if someone doesn’t keep up with it. Solar and batteries are not as reliable as folks like to think.

April 9, 2012 1:19 pm

Anthony do not apologize for your work, nor accepting money from Heartland or a donor facilitated by them. (Or anyone else, as you do.)
Neo-Marxists will always to pull what I call the “dis-interested scam”. They’ll claim that that their opposition has some bias, but they do not. (What a lie! Anyone associated with business is a favourite target, consistent with Marxist exploitation theory. More fundamentally, life is impossible without an interest, as values guide actions and action is necessary to sustain life. (They are hypocrites of course, eager to control others’ lives but screaming if restrained themselves.)

April 10, 2012 2:32 pm

cui bono says: April 7, 2012 at 2:10 pm
“Why are University professors sometimes the most pathetic, juvenile moroons on the planet?”
I suspect two causes:
– universities are bureaucracies, thus full of politics.
Rational thinking and integration (looking at the whole picture) are not rewarded, appearances and sound bites are. All same in dysfunctional companies, except taxpayers aren’t so much on the hook for them.
– they operate in an environment more isolated from reality

pwl
May 9, 2012 2:49 pm

“Remember Anthony Watts, the meteorologist and vocal climate change denier? Turns out he was pulling a 5-figure salary from the Heartland Institute. Neglected to mention that, he did.” – Nichole Stephonavich.
+Nichole Steponavich you are lying about Anthony Watts and are liable for slandering him; time to get your facts straight before you dig a deeper legal hole for yourself.
First off $44,000 funding for a scientific study is peanuts especially considering that Watts hired a programmer for implementing web site back end programming to collect climate data from other sources and process it for presentation.
Not only that but the USA budget alone for climate research each year is USD$2.4 Billion dollars. That’s billion. So $44,000 is irrelevant peanuts for a project that sets up a useful web site so that people can visualize climate data.
$44,000 is one fifty four thousandth and five hundred and forty fifth of the USA $2.4 billion dollar climate budget.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.4%20billion%20%2F%2044000&t=wvg01
“Readers may recall that when Peter Gleick first sent out the stolen Heartland board documents and the fake document to give the story “legs”, there was a mention in there of a project that I asked Heartland to help me fund. They found a private donor who was interested in my idea, and agreed to fund it. The amount of funding I received, based on the plan I submitted, was $44K, which when compared to many scientific papers and projects that get funded, is a proverbial drop in the bucket. For example, Michael Mann got a boatload of money: Mann’s $1.8 million Malaria grant – “where do we ask for a refund’? to study something outside his normal area of expertise – mosquitoes and malaria.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/
$44,000 for a scientific study is not a five figure “salary”, it’s to get work done on a science study. Also by calling it a “salary” you imply that Watts will continue to receive that each year, not so as it’s a one time project and in fact Watts asked for $88,000 but only got $44,000 from a Heartland donor.
“Today, I’m going to offer my first update on it, so that everyone can see for themselves just how terrible and evil it is in the scheme of all things climate.
The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.”
Your misrepresentation of Watts leads one to wonder how many other facts you’re misrepresenting Nicole.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110894791780183617931/posts/AtVeGUMoPtk