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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Took a few minutes for the significance to sink in (sorry I’m slow). This is shattering to the CAGW argument.
I just donated USD $10 to Surface Stations project / WUWT. I’m an average working joe with a wife & 3 kids. Call me “Big Oil” from now on 🙂
Andyj says:
July 30, 2012 at 4:05 am
I’m more minimalist than most, but have adopted the leading zero myself. At the very least, it proves that the smudge (or missing smudge) that follows is a decimal point.
I don’t use it when entering numbers on my calculator, though. 🙂
Excellent work as we would expect, one question that does occur to me, given that all the adjustments seem to be in one direction, one is minded to ask who made the call on on deciding that the MMTS stations were likely under reporting and and adjust their data upwards?
Who makes these decisions and on what criteria?
Anthony et al., please accept 50 bucks worth of support from an English admirer. No acknowledgement is necessary; just keep on doing what you do so well.
Sorry if this is a duplicate:
First MSM non-opinion coverage in the Tucson Citizen: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/29/us-temperature-trends-show-a-spurious-doubling-due-to-noaa-station-siting-problems-and-post-measurement-adjustments-says-a-new-study/
Will be interesting to see how many follow!
michaelozanne, champion post!!
We should temper our enthusiasm with closer scrutiny if this important research is going to be published and recognized. Precision in research, methodology and language is as important as precision in the temperature record. As Dr Svalgaard stated, “Fixing a comma here and there does not constitute serious peer-review.” Dr Svalgaard, Jesse Farmer and several others have recommended tightening up the length of the article and abstract to meet publication requirements. Michaelozanne’s comments about quality control are also important. Lastly, critical comments by Mosher et al should not automatically be discounted here as their research has contributed to improved understanding of the temperature datasets. We can agree to disagree but we should listen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/the-impact-of-urbanization-on-land-temperature-trends/
is one among their many articles.
It is a shame, no one points out small town average temperatures since 1940 to today are on a decline. If anyone is interested here is an example: Average temperature of Kenton, Ohio as compiled by Wolfram Alpha. Liner trend -0.031 deg. F per year +or – 0.017 deg. F per year. Even small towns have a heat growth over that many years, so guess what that does to the results.
Late to the party, due to holiday transit. Well done, Anthony et al. I think from comments skimmed that there will be editing and format issues. It needs a more succinct abstract to encapsulate the problems being addressed and your findings, but it is great that the CAGW crowd will finally be presented with a peer-reviewed publication that encapsulates the glaring problems with USHCN surface station records.
Thanks for your continuing dedication – am flinging funds to help in the only way I can (other than sharing this article with others).
To Chris at 4.34 am. Are you a real boy with a real life or do you have an Italian sounding surname. What are you afraid of? I’ve always thought that only the bravest most integral people are those with the capacity, given the evidence, to change their minds even if it means they have to contradict themselves.
You seem to be missing the point. If the paper provides evidence the “problem” is non-existent, then there is no need for a “solution.”
I’ve often used the USHCN webpage to look at rural sites that haven’t grown much in the past century (not as hard to find as you’d think in a state like West Virginia, for example) and noted that there is no real upward trend. Looking at the TMEANTOBS for Pickens 2 N WV shows no net gain at all since 1901. The graph starts at 49.8 F, drops to a low of 45.0 F in 1941-1943, then climbs to a peak of 52.5 F in 1999, and has since dropped back to 48.8 F — 1.0 F lower than in 1901.
Similar results could always be found for similarly rural sites, which to me indicated some kind of problem in the released data set. This paper may just show exactly why that is.
Obvious bias at the BBC in not reporting this but giving Muller web space today!
“Anticlimax. Rather than working on a real solution you promote yet another pile of goop. The swallowers swallow.”
Just what’s needed, more content free ad-hominen drivel…
Some Questions:
Who exactly decided that it was Anthony’s job to “solve” “climate change” I don’t remember that election?
How can we “solve” something when we haven’t accurately or indeed correctly determined its extent?
Have you actually obtained the data and confirmed that it is goop, or asked a grown-up to do ut for you?
Did you bother changing the dressing on your lobotomy wound before approaching the keyboard?
(moderators , you can drop that last one if you want, feeling irritable today…)
David A. Evans says:
July 30, 2012 at 3:33 am
“I was asking when we stopped using max/min thermometers because the era of electronic measurement should have eliminated the necessity of TOBs adjustment. I did appreciate the problems associated with Obs being close to either the Max or Min.”
Judging by this graph
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
It appears the switchover mainly took place at a relatively constant rate between the early 1970’s and the early 1990’s.
The warming TOBS produces from 1970 onward doesn’t look all that suspicious. It’s the cooling it introduces from 1900 to 1920 that looks suspicious. See, there are two ways to fudge the numbers to inflate warming. You can warm the later record or cool the earlier record. Warming the later record is the more difficult because the sensors and record keeping have improved over time. It’s harder to justify fudging the newer, higher quality data. Beginning in 1979 we have the satellite record which is really the only sensor system I feel is adequate in accuracy, precision, and especially spatial coverage to measure global average trend to a precision of hundredths of degrees per decade.
It is safe to make one prediction. The response of the warmistas will be overwhelmingly of the ad hominem variety.
[unlike this? . . mods]
I do not like “global warming in the USA”. If it concerns just the USA, it is not global.
How about this:
Study shows warming in the USA only half of what climatologists say.
I’ll be watching for an accurate report from the Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein. His stories are heavily regurgitated among the AP’s clients.
Here is an important point of clarification, though one that doesn’t affect the results:
The rating system used by Surface Stations in the past and presumably by all subsequent papers until this one is due to CRN, not to Leroy 1999. Although the CRN system is based on Leroy 1999, it greatly simplifies it by just looking at distance to nearest heat source, without compensating for the size of that source. The CRN simplification thus unnecessarily disqualifies many good stations that have nearby walkways, small buidings, etc.
The new Leroy 2010 classification system is almost identical to Leroy 1999, but has not been available in an official English form until 2010. I did a translation of Leroy 1999 that I sent to Anthony back in 10/2007, but I never received permission from Leroy to post it on my website or circulate it widely.
So the big difference in the methodology of the new study and previous ones is between CRN and Leroy, not between Leroy 1999 and Leroy 2010.
The primary (but minor) difference I can find between Leroy and Leroy 2010 is that the latter has relaxed somewhat the angle of altitude below which the sun is allowed to cast shadows on the sensor. For Class 1 this was 3 degrees, but now is 5 degrees. For class 2 this was 5 degrees, but now is 7. For class 3 this was omitted, presumably by an oversight, but now is 7 degrees. For class 4 this was 5 degrees, but now is 20 degrees.
The only other difference I can find is that formerly class 2 allowed vegetation up to 25 cm in the surrounding area, but that has now been reduced to 10 cm.
The Leroy 1999 paper was presented as the position of Meteo-France. The new paper expresses the hope that the system will become the new WMO standard, perhaps at the CIMO XV conference in Sept. 2010. I don’t know how that came out.
When Steve Mosher says his (or BEST?) rural stations are based on NASA classification, does that mean the ‘lights=0’ method? I fail to see how that can be considered an audit of station quality. It certainly wouldn’t be in my field. That would be akin to determining environmental conditions in a climate controlled inspection lab by measuring the temperature and humidity at the receptionist desk.
Can someone help me clarify some details of the WMO-ISO standard please. I’ve had a look the WMO Commission publication referenced above and it indicates that the new classification was endorsed providing there were a couple of clarifications and guidance material was developed. Has this been done?
Also, “The Commission agreed to further develop this classification as a common WMO-ISO standard.”. Does this mean the classification was not finalised? Is it now?
Lastly, the recommendation was to “submit the guidelines to ISO, for approval as an ISO standards, in conjunction with SC5”. Has this happened and if so could someone provide the ISO reference details please.
Nick Stokes (July 30, 2012 at 3:44 am )
“…calculated 1980-2009 instead of 1979-2008. I’m surprised it made so much difference.”
1978-1979 happen to be unusually low compared to the adjacent values, as are 2008-2009. Dropping the low early year 1979 (so taking the trend 1980-2008) changes the trend from 0.32 C/dec to 0.28; adding the low late year 2009 (now back to a 30-year trend 1980-2009) gives your 0.24. Slipping a year the other way, i.e. taking the trend 1978-2007, yields a 0.40 C/decade slope!
…and I concur with your 0.25 C/dec for UAH (over CONUS) for the same period 1979-2008.
@JamesS, nah I get the point. The US is warming. So is the rest of the world.
Hello main stream media?
****
Philip Bradley says:
July 29, 2012 at 8:40 pm
REPLY – Raw, no TOBS. ~ Evan
That is going to be a main line of attack on the paper. There is a sound basis for the TOBS adjustment, although the size of the adjustment is open to question (or questionable if you like).
****
For just the MMTS stations, I don’t think TOBS is applicable.
May a stranger compliment you on this terrific work and offer the comment that beyond the biased “corrections” by NOAA, the data seem also to show that the further away from cities and airports the measurements occur, the less the measurement of increased temperature is. This suggests two important things — first, that the classes of sites are not sufficiently rigorous and second that unless siting practices in the US are unique in the world, the ground-based data from other countries is probably also biased high, even if un-“corrected” by official bodies.