WUWT readers may recall that I wrote about this experiment being performed at Oak Ridge national Laboratory to test the issues related to station siting that I have long written about.
This effort promises to be greatly useful to understanding climate quality temperature measurements and how they can be influenced by the station site environment.
From the USCRN Annual Report: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/publications/annual_reports/FY11_USCRN_Annual_Report.pdf
Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes about the the first results of this experiment presented at the recent AMS meeting in Austin, TX. The early results confirm what we have learned from the Surface Stations project. Nighttime temperatures are affected the most.
Two talks that caught my eye were on the land surface temperature record. They attacked the problem of land surface temperature accuracy in two completely different, but complementary ways.
One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is a direct test of the importance of siting. They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.
It’ll take a lot more data to sort out the various temperature effects. One way the buildings might affect the nighttime temperature even when the sensor is upwind of the buildings is infrared radiation: the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.
More here: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/01/dispatch-from-ams-looking-at-land-surface-temperatures/
Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings
Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)
John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers
Abstract
Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.
==============================================================
Early results of what has been learned in the surface stations project can be seen here:
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Mike Haseler:
At January 21, 2013 at 1:44 am you say
There is no need for cynicism. Pewrelw1tz (a NASA climate modeller) makes exactly that claim in his most recent post (at January 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm) in the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/
He there says
So, according to Perlw1tz, “a discrepancy between observed and simulated temperatures” “doesn’t say anything about a falsification of the models”.
The NOAA falsification criterion is on p23 of the NOAA ‘State of the Climate’ Report (2008). It says
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak. And, contrary to Perw1tz’s assertion, this falsifies the models.
Richard
Hadn`t they ever heard of storage radiators,
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tutoring/NSH/HowNSH.html
John Hounslow says:
January 20, 2013 at 11:03 pm
I rather deplored your original heading to this story – Janus, and two-faced. I think they’re to be commended for re-examining the validity of their methods, and all should encourage such actions as good practice. (Sorry to be the Tart at the christening!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is Janus, and two-faced.
They have been shamed, beaten and bludgeoned into doing this study by the skeptic community. And they HAD to do it before a skeptic (Anthony or Roy Spencer…) did it. Please note they picked the direction from the building that would yield the lowest possible change, the north east direction.
I am in mid North Carolina not all that far from Oak Ridge (less than a days drive) and the west or south west side of a building gets very very hot. So hot you will burn you hand touching the inside wall of my horse trailer. Mean while the northeast side has had since around noon to cool off and never actually got that hot in the first place.
In other words if they did this experiment at 180 ° from the present experiment they are very likely to get a much larger difference and they darn well KNEW that if they had lived in the South for over a year. (You learn to wear gloves in the summer for driving so you do not burn your hands on the seatbelt buckle or other metal parts if you live in South Carolina.)
The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years, and as the majority of stations are sited in urban areas affected by UHI which has now pretty much reached saturation, there will probably be NO further detectable warming other than natural variability, I see no further warming in our lifetimes.
I should add that #3 and #4 are not far from an asphalt road (less than the building length) and even # 5 has some sort of asphalt/gravel path near it. So the experiment is not really “clean”
PPPS: Or maybe the site-owner had installed an air conditioner, a very common add-on since 1950. This would, like the other add-ons I mentioned, have added to the site’s “UHI.”
I think you guys are missing the big picture.
Bad microsite does not merely affect the offset. It affects the trends.
On average, a badly sited station WARMS FASTER than a well sited station even if the station has not moved and there has been no additional development around it for the study period.
Not because structures are being built near it. Not because the area has become more urbanized over time. Even if there has been NO CHANGE IN ANY OF THIS, the trends (sic, Sic, SIC!!! TRENDS, DAMMIT) are higher for poorly sited stations than for well sited stations.
The difference between well and poorly sited stations is greater in rural areas where there has been no environmental change than in urbanized areas.
So that Badly Sited Station Near You is producing a higher trend even if those bad siting conditions have not changed one whit in decades.
We already know badly sited station are WARMER. That is not even controversial. But they are also WARMIER. Their TRENDS are higher. And that his HIGHLY controversial.
Even the BBC (!) are beginning to acknowledge the existence of UHI. For the last few months, we’ve been getting weather forecasts, some of which have included something like this:
“Temperatures tonight will dip to around minus five degrees … that’s if you live in a city. In country areas you may experience temperatures four or five degrees lower than this.“
why no graph showing the difference in night time temps… could it be we are talking about .0001-.0004 of a degree? and while it is measureable it might be well less than statisticly significant . I want to see the data.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
January 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Theo @ur momisugly 4:10 “The experimental work must be done”
Precisely. That is what I was asking. Have they looked at the effect on anomalies. Nearly everyone here is assuming that finding different temperatures near the building is critical. I am pointing out that it is only critical if it affects the temperature differences from the long term average as measured using the same apparatus, located at the same point, and measured at the same time of day. Otherwise no big deal.
—————————————————-
Jimmy, it doesn’t actually matter whether or not this particular result affects the temperature records. What matters is that it’s such an absolutely basic bit of grade school science that it’s inexcuseable it hasn’t been done long before now.
the reflection isn’t on the quality of the data so much as it’s on the quality of the scientists – these world-leading experts who are shaping the future of our world – who appear to have been so caught up in clever manipulations to homogenise data tat they’ve missed something so obvious.
It’s a bit like finding you’ve just paid a mechanic £1000 to replace your faulty fuel pump when he forgot to check there was fuel in the tank first!
John F Hultquist says – In the USA just showing up at an airport and asking such a question would trigger a visit from “friendly” government anti-terrorists agents – with guns.
We all know there are too many guns in USA. That’s not the point.
Any regular commercial pilot can grab the approximate amount of an airport’s fuel use from his own observations. Some corporatised airports publish it in annual reports. Fuel companies are not likely to invoke swat squads if you ask them the q and the reason for it. Manuals for aircraft give consumption on taxi and take-off, as well as landing especially with thrust reversed.
Can I put it to you that this is a significant, unresolved question that badly needs an answer. Don’t be too put off by a gut reaction, be inventive and find the figures whichever way is non-alarming. They do exist as public knowledge in many places.
There is no good reason why release is a security problem.
Steven Mosher says January 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm
ahem. arnt you forgetting who first pointed this experiment out to you?
Was it me in a post on CA about similar BOM experiments at Broadmeadows by Jane Warne about 4 years ago?
I wonder if anyone has even done a study of airport station temps during the period before, during, and after the 9/11 airport shutdown as compared to other non-airport stations in the vicinity. That shutdown lasted 3-4 days and could show the singular heat effects of the takeoffs, landings, trucks, etc that influence temps there on a daily basis. The buildings and runways would still radiate, but at least you’d be able to separate the combustion component from the heat sink component. Just a thought…
Odd – i’ve just realised that every time i load the homepage my subconscious is reading the title of this as “Vile experiment….”
Does that mean I’m an AGW supporter in denial?????
richardscourtney says: January 21, 2013 at 2:39 am
============================
The modelers have a problem with distance. They have great difficulty in taking a viewpoint that is not distorted with personal/ideological commitment. Jan Perlwitz is a good example. In his hands the principles of physics become quite elastic as he stretches them this way and that to maintain his fantasy land of unimpeachable climate models. His type of scientist never achieves the top rank of science because they cannot shift their psychological burdens away from from their treatment of scientific questions.
richardscourtney says: January 21, 2013 at 2:39 am
============================
The modelers have a problem with distance. They have great difficulty in taking a viewpoint that is not distorted with personal/ideological commitment. Jan Perlwitz is a good example. In his hands the principles of physics become quite elastic as he stretches them this way and that to maintain his fantasy land of unimpeachable climate models. His type of scientist never achieves the t
op rank of science because they cannot shift their psychological burdens away from from their treatment of scientific questions.
I always wondered why we planted early and late season crops next to the barn……………..
Can I claim back the additional fees for electricity and gasoline which came due because of the nonsensical carbon-tax slapped on both now, please?
One thing to remember is the paper covered on WUWT that found building structures in open areas led to warming. This was due to better mixing of the air. So, it isn’t just UHI. Even rural sites may be impacted by the building of barns, silos, etc. It’s kind of a double whammy.
In addition, the other paper mentioned on the n-g blog could be important. It mentions how a modelled view of land temperatures in the 1940s based on SSTs produced results that were too high. However, if they were comparing the modelled results to adjusted temps rather than raw data, then maybe it is the adjustments that are wrong and the model (a weather model) is showing this.
If you have ever ridden a motorcycle in the country on a cold frosty night you can instantly detect when you come to the outskirts of a village by the sudden ‘warmth’ – even when the buildings are several hundred metres back from the road and even if the day has been a cold frosty one too – so sensors anywhere near buildings are bound to be effected to some degree (or fraction of a degree?).
It is just amazing to me. Experiments we did in the sixties as part of beginning Meteorology and Climatology class now have to be repeated to these supposedly brightest of the bright.
Geoff Sherrington says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:37 am
John F Hultquist says – In the USA just showing up at an airport and asking such a question would trigger a visit from “friendly” government anti-terrorists agents – with guns.
“We all know there are too many guns in USA. That’s not the point.”
__________________________
No, we all don’t know that, but you’re right, that is nowhere near the point.
I think one reason the temperatures started be recorded closer to buildings had to do with, of all things, getting Dopplar Radars. The radars were so expencive that Congress insisted the NWS had to make cuts in other areas, and one area that saw cuts involved paying actual people to walk out and look at thermometers. Instead “automatic” thermometers were put in, but back at that time the “cordless” ones hadn’t been invented. Because the automatic thermometers had to have a buried cable, and couldn’t cross under streets or highways, they were closer to buildings. Temperatures seemed to rise, and Alarmists could freak out about “Global Warming.” Now that we have “cordless” thermometers we can place them farther away from buildings, Global Temperatures will apparently fall, and Alarmists can utterly freak out about “Global Cooling.”
As usual, Congress was behind the funding glitch. However I’m glad we got Dopplar Radar out of the deal. Prior to Dopplar meteorologists didn’t understand how amazing and complex thunderstorms actually are.
Now what is needed is the second part of the experiment: what changes in the temperature sensor housing need to be made to eliminate or greatly reduce the influence of radiation from nearby structures? We cannot expect to hold the immediate environment around these stations unchanged in any way for 30 or more years, nor do I like the process of “adjusting” historical data to compensate (as we imagine) for non-natural influences. The larger the “buffer zone” required to avoid artificial heating, the greater the expense to site and maintain these stations.
So, what kind of IR screen can eliminate influence of nearby construction (buildins, roads), with a natural buffer zone no larger than 100 meters around the sensor?
The university of Minnesota is doing some work on the UHI. I have a sensor in my yard. About 4 months so far. They have a large number scattered throughout the Minneapolis St Paul area and suburbs. They assume UHI exists and are looking for ways to minimize it.
http://islands.environment.umn.edu/