PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.
Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.
This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.
The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:
I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.
The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues. This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S. General Accounting Office investigation and report titled: Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network
All three papers examining the station siting issue, using early data gathered by the SurfaceStations project, Menne et al (2010), authored by Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC, Fall et al, 2011, authored by Dr. Souleymane Fall of Tuskeegee University and co-authored by Anthony Watts, and Muller et al 2012, authored by Dr. Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) were inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century.
Lead author of the paper, Anthony Watts, commented:
“I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didn’t properly quantify the effects.
The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.”
Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.
Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.
Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.
Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.
Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:
· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.
###
We will continue to investigate other issues related to bias and adjustments such as TOBs in future studies.
FILES:
This press release in PDF form: Watts_et_al 2012_PRESS RELEASE (PDF)
The paper in draft form: Watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease (PDF)
The Figures for the paper: Watts et al 2012 Figures and Tables (PDF)
A PowerPoint presentation of findings with many additional figures is available online:
Overview -Watts et al Station Siting 8-3-12 (PPT) UPDATED
Methodology – Graphs Presentation (.PPT)
Some additional files may be added as needed.
Contact:
Anthony Watts at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/contact-2/
References:
GAO-11-800 August 31, 2011, Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 47 pages) Accessible Text Recommendations (HTML)
Fall, S., Watts, A., Nielsen‐Gammon, J. Jones, E. Niyogi, D. Christy, J. and Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2011, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146, 2011
Leroy, M., 1999: Classification d’un site. Note Technique no. 35. Direction des Systèmes d’Observation, Météo-France, 12 pp.
Leroy, M., 2010: Siting Classification for Surface Observing Stations on Land, Climate, and Upper-air Observations JMA/WMO Workshop on Quality Management in Surface, Tokyo, Japan 27-30 July 2010 http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/qmws_2010/CountryReport/CS202_Leroy.pdf
Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams Jr., and M. A. Palecki, 2010: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, doi:10.1029/2009JD013094
Muller, R.A., Curry, J., Groom, D. Jacobsen, R.,Perlmutter, S. Rohde, R. Rosenfeld, A., Wickham, C., Wurtele, J., 2012: Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States. http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf
Watts, A., 2009: Is the U.S. surface temperature record reliable? Published online at: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
World Meteorological Organization Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation, Fifteenth session, (CIMO-XV, 2010) WMO publication Number 1064, available online at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/CIMO/CIMO15-WMO1064/1064_en.pdf
Notes:
1. The SurfaceStations project was a crowd sourcing project started in June 2007, done entirely with citizen volunteers (over 650), created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey metadata exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. This realization came about from a discussion of a paper and some new information that occurred on Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog. In particular, a thread regarding the paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res.
2. Some files in the initial press release had some small typographical errors. These have been corrected. Please click on links above for new press release and figures files.
3. A work page has been established for Watts et al 2012 for the purpose of managing updates. You can view it here.
==========================================================
Note: This will be top post for a couple of days, new posts will appear below this one. Kinda burned out and have submission to make so don’t expect much new for a day or two. See post below this for a few notes on backstory. Thanks everybody! – Anthony
NOTE: 7/31/12 this thread has gotten large and unable to load for some commenters, it continues here.
Not my field of expertise, but overall looks quite impressive! Well done Anthony et al! 🙂
Even MORE impressive is the amount of detailed commentary, helpful and well-informed discussion, and plain old proofreading that site readers have managed in UNDER THREE HOURS here! Amazing!
🙂
MJM
Well Done, Anthony and thank you all.
Line 395: hygro-“what”?
You may need Google translate to read this but in essence it talks about the temp differences between the old station siting in the Bilt, Netherlands and the moved station. And “Best” does not see a difference because he does not want to see one.
http://www.weer.nl/weer-in-het-nieuws/weernieuws/archive/2009/september/ch/ce28e4a799/article/knmi_verplaatst_thermometer_stilletjes.html
Recall the joke about “celebrate” and “celebate”? Nuff said.
Complete abject gratitude is due to Mrs. Watts and Mrs. Christy as well! (-:
I look forward to hearing more after peer review and how others will interpret this work. Given how famous the hockey stick graph is, I wonder if there isn’t a need for a graph that is a visual that shows the various results in the same format. Even though it covers just the US, it would prove to be an excellent contrast in how the line differs from Mann’s chart.
So pleasant to observe in such a short period of time the evolution from blinded by science one day to blind-sided by science the next. Get the popcorn ready indeed.
Kudos to all…
Gail Combs says:
July 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I’ve been seeing that also. Some regions on the net are having a lot of dropped packets and time-outs. Most odd.
Lucy says: “Neither eye-for-eye nor sour grapes. It’s martial arts.”
I can appreciate that. I can see it both ways actually. But when commenters were previously so against ‘science by press release’ and somehow now there’s resignation that that’s the game, it’s hard not to think in terms of retaliation for a wound. It feels personal. I’m not sure what Anthony actually thinks. Is it good to be so enthusiastic or so bold before others have had a chance to run the numbers? That was the old argument.
Game changer… Could be.
Anthony and team, thank you for all the effort. With apologies to Churchill: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”. Kudos.
Thanks Anthony and every one else involved, maybe science will out after all. Now I guess we don’t have to paint the streets white but our roofs will have to be.
Anthony, Evan, John and Steve,
Congratulations and kudos for your continuing hard work. I am still reading the info you provided on your paper . . . I look forward to completing my homework.
John
Real science.
Well researched, well documented. Carrefully studied.
All the data published, so that everyone can study them.
Wonderful.
Thank you Anthony, you set a great example.
Anthony, thank you you and your team for all the great work. I am tired of the politically inspired propaganda and manipulation of “Catastrophic Global Warming”. Perhaps this work will make it normal to publish all the data for people to see.
1. bill says:
July 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
A few scoffers have popped up to say “yes but USA is only 2% of world’s surface….”
===========================================================================
And Al Capone only cheated on his taxes …………
Robin;
I need help vetting and refuting if so the following statement from a 2009 NOAA report:
“The components and processes of the Earth’s climate system are subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the climate system can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study.”
I think that is a false premise NOAA is asserting but I need help explaining why.
>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of those statements that is completely true and utterly meaningless. By analogy, the laws of supply and demand along with the workings of the stock market are extremely well understood. You could understand those things in excrutiating detail and still get every stock pick you made wrong.
Most people understand how to drive a car. That doesn’t mean that any of them can design an engine.
Thank you for such a momentous amount of work. Well done.
Nice work!
Lots of little errors and/or questionable phrasing but that’s the nature of a draft – so very nice.
However.. What you’ve really done here is shown, again, the folly of drawing climate records from weather data. Great! but now what?
Excellent work, Antony et al.
Now, is it worthwhile to change from straight measurements of temperature to measurements of the heat energy of a mass of gas? The heat energy (more properly, the enthalpy) of a gas at one temperature can actually be higher than the enthalpy of another gas at a higher temperature, depending on the water content of the gas. This looks important to me…..
IanM
Anthony…BRAVA. The common plebes of this planet cannot thank you enough. Don’t know if you or your Mods follow Small Dead Animals in Canada,but you have been followed for a long time(Kate is great,and no,I don’t know her from a hole in the ground.Surprising how much common horse sense a farm gal who hunts from Saskatchewan has,NOT)
Anyhow,I pray this puts one more nail in the coffin of cAGW,and the UN’s Agenda 21.
I shall now retire to my BBQ,which is under assault from an unprecedented thunderstorm in Edmonton,AB,Canada,on July 29th,2012,at this exact time.I won’t mention yesterdays t-storm.
Minor nit on grammer in the paper : “number of recent studies have addressed the myriad of factors and biases associated 69 with temperature surface measurement in the United States.”
Should read “…myriad factors…”
Good work on the paper and congratulations Anthony et al.
I bet us deniers will use this to claim that our denying isn’t in denial.
I’d like add my thanks to Anthony Watts and his team for this paper. I look forward to a robust and informed examination of this work from all sides, in the best traditions of genuine scientific inquiry and hope to see the final results in due course.
Weak. Lots of bluster, lots of editorial showmanship and pizzazz, but underneath it all: Weak – you couldn’t find anything of substance so went after the only thing that showed any margin for scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if these temperature anomalies are within margin for their error function – I imagine they are.
I like the congratulatory cheerleading by 99% of respondents who either/both: haven’t read more than a line or two, wouldn’t understand any of it anyway with all the deliberate obfuscation and bluster.
But it strikes a chord with our confirmation bias, so; WOO! F**K YEAH! WOO HOO! YOU DA MAN!!
Thanks for all your effort and all, but you didn’t really end up saying anything worthwhile – climate science still lacks a credible work to discredit it’s findings.
[REPLY: I’m sorry, you obviously read the paper, but I’m not entirely sure just what your substantive criticisms are. Must be my poor reading comprehension. Thank you for your insightful analysis. -REP]
Now it’s time for your well earned vacation. Thanks for all your work and effort. And thanks also to your collaborators and mods.
I note that a single slope was assigned to the 1979 to 2007 segment of temperatures. This is invalid. Satellite data tell us that global temperature was flat from 1979 to 1997. From 1998 to 2002 we had the super El Nino and its aftermath that raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and stopped. From 2002 to 2007 the temperature curve was flat again. To subsume these three temperature segments into a single curve is to follow the erroneous technique of IPCC. They do it to wipe out the step warming of 1998 – 2002 and create a fictitious, upward sloping temperature curve in the eighties and nineties. They do that in order to cover up the fact that there was no warming in 1988 when Hansen testified that it had started. Satellite temperature measurements are more accurate than ground-based measurements and cover both hemispheres uniformly. They are the only temperatures that can be trusted, but neither IPCC nor the BEST project makes use of them. This is because they can’t be jiggled like the ground station data that this press release is about. The press release makes clear that station temperatures have been adjusted upwards to show more warming than there actually is. I personally consider this a criminal act of tampering with evidence for global warming. They know very well that there has been no actual warming for more than ten years now and are trying every which way to cover it up.
The paper and PowerPoint also needs a summary chart of the overall findings. I have taken a first stab at it together with some summary text in this post: http://nocosurroundsthem.blogspot.com/2012/07/air-temperature-measurement-today.html
I’m sure something better can be done but it’s a pretty powerful start…