NOAA’s impersonation of the two faced god Janus just proved my point about station siting issues with their actions that speak louder than words.
While there’s all this caterwauling about my PBS News hour interview, and my statements were apparently so threatening that NOAA itself asked PBS to publish a rebuttal in their apologetic story about having my interview, in the real world, NOAA is actually taking my concerns seriously and funding a research project to study my concern. But NOAA of course wouldn’t own up to that on PBS, instead they wrote essentially “all is well, nothing to see here, move along”.
Here’s Spencer Michels commentary and NOAA’s statement as published at the PBS website yesterday:
==============================================================
Let’s start on the question of whether temperature data is flawed. That was raised by Watts, and his views on that are being heavily criticized on the web today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:
The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that U.S. temperatures have risen and continue to rise with recent widespread record-setting temperatures in the USA. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.
Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting. A subsequent research study led by university and private sector scientists reached the same conclusion (Fall et al. 2011). Additionally, the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the US Historical Climatology Network dataset in July 2010 and concluded that “the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset.”
Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.
=============================================================
Now, while NOAA is claiming at PBS that the surface temperature record is “accurate” and “The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record…” they quietly fund a new project to look into EXACTLY the questions I’ve been raising. It’s a Janus moment for NOAA.
From the USCRN Annual Report: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/publications/annual_reports/FY11_USCRN_Annual_Report.pdf
===============================================================
5.1.3 Planning for Thermal Impacts Experiment
Initial funding was provided this year by the USRCRN Program for a multi-year experiment to better understand the thermal impacts of buildings with parking lots on air temperature measurements. A site near the offices of ATDD will be instrumented to measure accurately the air temperature and other variables at multiple distances from the potential thermal heat source, corresponding to the distances from thermal sources used in classifying USCRN stations (Figure 7).
This study will have several applied and practical outcomes. Determining the downwind range of influence of a typical building will be important for understanding built environment impacts on surface air temperature measurements. Other measurements of radiation and heat fluxes will help illuminate the physical processes responsible for any detected heat transfers. Finally, this information will help influence future USCRN/USRCRN siting decisions. Additional insight is being sought by collaborating with National Weather Service (NWS) and National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) on extensions of the basic project. This effort promises to be greatly useful to understanding climate quality temperature measurements and how they can be influenced by the station site environment.
================================================================
So why would NOAA say “all is well” with the surface temperature record, on one hand to PBS, while on the other hand fund a project to examine exactly my issues that they say “don’t matter”? It seems they took Spencer Michels and PBS for a ride with their Janus duplicity.
I predict that unless they figure in surface area of heat sinks/sources as well as distance, the experiment will show no significant effects. Of course, given what we’ve seen, that may be the goal.
We’ve already learned about what happens when you figure in distance AND surface area of biasing elements around climate monitoring stations and published about it here in my announcement of Watts et al 2012. Not looking at the surface area issue is why Menne et al 2010 and Fall et al 2011 found no significant effects. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has endorsed this as the new standard for station siting analysis:
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
See Michel Leroy’s study listed in there. When we applied Leroy’s surface area metrics to the siting bias equation, bingo, station siting effects popped right out:
Our new reanalysis (taking into account the TOBS issue raised) says the siting related heat sink/source effect is real and affects not only the absolute temperatures (for record highs/lows) but also the trend of temperatures. NOAA compounds the issue by making adjustments that mask the problem, and make it worse.
I’ll have more in a future post. (h/t to Steve Mosher)
I so hope this ruckus doesn’t affect the impartiality of your 2012 paper’s reviewers.
Good luck and keep up the good work.
The way modern science works is you fund people to publish papers that support your pre-arrived at conclusions. The scientists know the drill and make sure they perform properly. I suspect NOAA is simply funding a paper that shows that the record is “robust” and beyond criticism.
Yep, as Dr. Spencer notes:
“1) even at “zero” population density (rural siting), the USHCN temperatures are on average warmer than their Climate Reference Network counterparts, by close to 0.5 deg. C in summer.
2) across all USHCN stations, from rural to urban, they average 0.9 deg. C warmer than USCRN (which approaches Anthony Watt’s 2 deg. F estimate for July 2012).
This evidence suggests that much of the reported U.S. warming in the last 100+ years could be spurious, assuming that thermometer measurements made around 1880-1900 were largely free of spurious warming effects. This is a serious issue that NOAA needs to address in an open and transparent manner.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/spurious-warmth-in-noaas-ushcn-from-comparison-to-uscrn/
NOAA: “all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.”
But nothing about the systematic sensor measurement error documented in the literature. Systematic measurement error can’t be separated from data. When it correlates among nearby sites, as systematic temperature sensor error will do, cross-comparisons do not distinguish good data from systematically erroneous data.
It’s criminal that only now is NOAA starting to address siting issues. The sources of error in surface air temperature measurements should have been fully investigated beginning 20 years ago, when AGW became such a big issue. Instead of taking professional care, NOAA winged the whole thing, pandered to alarm, and purveyed garbage as diamonds. Negligence on that scale and for that long is indistinguishable from incompetence. The whole lot deserves to be fired.
Starting off by putting the sensor over brown dirt. The vegetation doesn’t appear to be representative.
Experiment appears to line up to the NNE side of the building. There is less sun on that side, than the SE side.
The closest sensor while over asphalt, is at the corner of the building. The angle of the building minimizes reflected heat from the building to that sensor.
Not one of those sampling locations is in that green belt around the location. The surface looks to be slightly green in the picture, but in some way surface treated. Plowed. Now what’s going to happen in summer when that dry brown dirt is in the sun? Hmmm?
I suggest finding a place nearby in the trees and putting a station there. I think it would be fascinating as a true control on the ‘experiment’…
In short, it isn’t just the buildings that matter, it is the surface changes too.
This is widely seen in the actual temperature data, that mostly comes from airports now. Look at any airport. Buildings are far away, but the surface is all concrete, asphalt / tarmac, and dirt. Sometimes brown plowed dirt. Sometimes dead stubble. Sometimes short grasses if you are in a wet place that doesn’t have a weed problem. ( I’ve found several airports bidding folks to kill the weeds, plough the surface, etc. They want a bare or nearly bare weed-free surface.)
What they are doing here, IMHO looking at the picture, is recreating that same airport like environment. Looked at from above, it has high similarities. Cluster of buildings surrounded by tarmac. Plowed field. Concrete ribbon ‘nearby’ with fuel burn. If I were trying to make an airport analog, I doubt I could do much better (other than adding vertical air mixing).
I don’t know how much money it would take, but buying a bit of dirt with trees nearby and instrumenting it with identical equipment would be a great way to “police” this “study”…
Not much reflected heat on the north side of a steel building.
IMO, we should be studying what causes UHI, because from what I have read lack of evapotranspiration (humidity) and reflected heat are the main causes. And by the look of this location they will not detect much of either of these 2 effects.
Hmmmmm.
“The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record . . . . ” [per their statement quoted above].
‘Can’ be confident.
The American public can beliveve every word uttered by a politician.
The American public can think that cutting the deficit actully reduces the amount of money owed [like the public of the United Kingdom, too. My sucker compatriots, in thrall to a load of Euro-bedazzle politicians (see apove).]
The Russian public can have confidence in the democratic credentials of whoever succeeds Tsar Vladimir I (Of the Putin dynasty).
Any wined-up fifteen year-old can trust the intentions of the older man . . . .
Can – but, perhaps, might be wiser not to.
Or has a decade of Tony Blur, Saviour of the Planet, Victor of lots of wars, and Gordon Brown’s bestest friend ever, left me just a bit cynical?
Storage radiators in the 60`s were popular in the UK, they were made of bricks and absorbed heat during the night (cheap off peak electric) then omitted that heat during the day, seems NOAA have no idea how this works.
What does Menne have that supports this?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/screenhunter_203-sep-06-07-00.jpg?w=640&h=496&h=496
A site near the offices of ATDD will be instrumented to measure accurately the air temperature and other variables at multiple distances from the potential thermal heat source, corresponding to the distances from thermal sources used in classifying USCRN stations
One site? For all the good it will do, save the money, use inverse-square law, apply positive fudge, and call it “corrected” …
Good thing Watts et. al. 2012, documenting the spurious doubling of the claimed temperature trend, will be released in a week or two …
REPLY: No claims were made of this except by you. As you know publishing in journals is a long and arduous process. – Anthony
Did I miss a post showing new information on the TOBS that was being addressed for Anthony’s new paper?? In the above post he alluded to it ” Our new reanalysis (taking into account the TOBS issue raised) “
I hope this study is an honest examination of siting issues that would lead to improvement but I suspect it is a study designed to be able to claim they’ve studied the siting issue and there’s no problem.
I’m being stalked by something called ad-choices at the top of the page which won’t let me opt out. I’ll be back at WUWT when they’ve gone.
This is the wrong approach. NOAA has stated that their temperature metrics are accurate and take account of all the possible siting induced errors. Fine. Let us all agree that NOAA is correct and take them at their word.
Now make a report to NOAA’s auditors and GAO that NOAA is wasting money on a research project to obtain figures that they have stated they already have and have accounted for in their super accurate USHCN. This proposed new siting project is unjustifiable and is therefore a direct waste of government funds.
So why would NOAA say “all is well” with the surface temperature record, on one hand to PBS, while on the other hand fund a project to examine exactly my issues that they say “don’t matter”?
————
It’s called checking and rechecking your work.
The real test would be to get permission to place your own equipment next to theirs and do a dual study. Compare the outcomes when the studies are done, if there is a difference each side must defend their findings.
A govt agency investigating itself. Yeah, that’ll work
I predict that unless they figure in surface area of heat sinks/sources as well as distance, the experiment will show no significant effects. Of course, given what we’ve seen, that may be the goal.
————
What if this study does not give the result that you want?
One station. One direction. No rigor.
Priceless… the study will have no value at all.
Also, we musn’t do anything on a scale large enought that might show up an Urban Heat Island signature, should we?
If you were to analyse the comments from the folks who have so vigorously objected, I wonder if you’d be able to statistically detect the organized opposition from common phrases and wording? That is to say, it has been shown the Team has set up a Rapid Response group for such events, I expect that includes swamping NPR and associated comments, and there appears to be a common script being used repeatedly.
And no, I don’t think the moon landings were faked.
Gerry Parker
There should be reflection in June and part of July to the North side of the buildings there. Not much though.
Bob, Missoula says:
“The real test would be to get permission to place your own equipment next to theirs and do a dual study.”
Their response to that request would be interesting in itself.
REPLY: No claims were made of this except by you. As you know publishing in journals is a long and arduous process. – Anthony
=====
“Release” is not the same as “publish”. Maybe I’m not using the proper terminology. Last I knew you stated that, baring significant unexpected issues, you’d have a submittable revised version of your paper ready before the end of September. Is that your schedule? Will you be publishing it on WUWT, as you did with the initial version? Do you know which journal will be handling the peer review process?