BIG NEWS – Verified by NOAA – poor weather station siting leads to artificial long term warming

I’ve been saying for years that surface temperature measurements (and long term trends) have been affected by encroachment of urbanization on the placement of weather stations used to measure surface air temperature, and track long term climate. In doing so we found some hilariously bad examples of climate science in action, such as the official USHCN climate monitoring station at the University of Arizona, Tucson:

USHCN weather station in a parking lot. University of Arizona, Tucson

I have published on the topic in the scientific literature, and found this to be true based on the science we’ve done of examining the USHCN and applying the siting methodology of Leroy 2010.

In Fall et al, 2011 we discovered that there was a change to the diurnal temperature range (DTR). It decreased where stations had been encroached upon, because of the heat sink effect of man-made materials (asphalt, concrete, bricks, etc.) that were near stations.

For layman readers that don’t know what diurnal variation is, it is the daily variation of temperature due to the variation of incoming solar radiation from rotation of the earth on its axis.

It looks like this:

Here is what we found; in the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend, but the poorly sited stations had a reduction in DTR:

These results suggest that the DTR in the United States has not decreased due to global warming, and that analyses to the contrary were at least partly contaminated by station siting problems.  Indeed, DTR tended to increase when temperatures were fairly stable and tended to decrease when temperatures rose. 


Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., in press. Copyright (2011) American Geophysical Union.

A few years back in 2012, I noted that NOAA was doing an experiment to prove or disprove what we learned.


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.


They have finally published. (h/t to Steve Mosher) Guess what? Like I’ve said all along (and been excoriated for saying so) they found exactly what we did.

Impacts of Small-Scale Urban Encroachment on Air Temperature Observations

Ronald D. Leeper, John Kochendorfer, Timothy Henderson, and Michael A. Palecki

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1

Abstract (bold mine)

A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C). This was particularly true for evenings following greater daytime solar insolation (20+ MJDay−1) with surface winds from the direction of the built environment where mean differences exceeded 0.80 °C. The impact of the built environment on air temperature diminished with distance with a warm bias only detectable out to tower-B’ located 50 meters away.

The experimental findings were comparable to a known case of urban encroachment at a U. S. Climate Reference Network station in Kingston, RI. The experimental and operational results both lead to reductions in the diurnal temperature range of ~0.39 °C for fan aspirated sensors. Interestingly, the unaspirated sensor had a larger reduction in DTR of 0.48 °C. These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology.


And, we’ve published at AGU on the effects of siting on 30 year temperature trends:

The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends

Anthony Watts / December 17, 2015

30 year trends of temperature are shown to be lower, using well-sited high quality NOAA weather stations that do not require adjustments to the data.

NEW STUDY OF NOAA’S U.S. CLIMATE NETWORK SHOWS A LOWER 30-YEAR TEMPERATURE TREND WHEN HIGH QUALITY TEMPERATURE STATIONS UNPERTURBED BY URBANIZATION ARE CONSIDERED

Figure4-poster

Figure 4 – Comparisons of 30 year trend for compliant Class 1,2 USHCN stations to non-compliant, Class 3,4,5 USHCN stations to NOAA final adjusted V2.5 USHCN data in the Continental United States

EMBARGOED UNTIL 13:30 PST (16:30 EST) December 17th, 2015

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.

Figure 3 - Comparisons of well sited (compliant Class 1&2) USHCN stations to poorly sited USHCN stations (non-compliant, Classes 3,4,&5) by CONUS and region to official NOAA adjusted USHCN data (V2.5) for the entire (compliant and non-compliant) USHCN dataset.

Figure 3 – Tmean Comparisons of well sited (compliant Class 1&2) USHCN stations to poorly sited USHCN stations (non-compliant, Classes 3,4,&5) by CONUS and region to official NOAA adjusted USHCN data (V2.5) for the entire (compliant and non-compliant) USHCN dataset.

Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)1for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement. An example is shown in Figure 2 below, showing the NOAA USHCN temperature sensor for Ardmore, OK.

clip_image004

Figure 1 – USHCN Temperature sensor located on street corner in Ardmore, OK in full viewshed of multiple heatsinks.

Dare I call this new NOAA paper vindication?

Or, by doing so will the rabble of global warming zealots led by schmucks like Dr. Michael Mann find yet another reason to label me a “Koch funded science denier”?

I could use a beer right about now. You can support the work here.

5 6 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

340 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 3, 2019 3:10 am

I will crack a beer in your honour Anthony. You deserve the accolades. Does anyone have a link to the paper…..It is paywalled.

Louis Hooffstetter
May 3, 2019 3:13 am

Anthony, congratulations on being totally vindicated!
You should change “BIG NEWS” in the title to “NO SHIT SHERLOCK!”
Did they credit you or your work in their study?

gerald the Mole
May 3, 2019 3:25 am

Well done Anthony. When will the powers that be start taking an interest in what individual well sited and well maintained temperature recording stations are showing? Mixing junk with good stuff and then using statistics to try and get reliable figures never seemed a good idea to me.

Roy W. Spencer
May 3, 2019 3:40 am

I have always considered this to be very important work, Anthony. I am convinced the global land temperature record has a warming bias, especially when we go back 100+ years since previous studies have shown that the UHI effect comes on the strongest at the start of urbanization.

Latitude
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
May 3, 2019 6:13 am

Doesn’t global warming theory say night time temps would increase the most?…

“Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening”

…now, isn’t that convenient

Ian_UK
May 3, 2019 3:41 am

What this suggests to me is that the problem is so complex, with so many variables, that it’s meaningless, or can mean anything you want, which is a shame, considering the $$$$s spent on dealing with the claimed reasons.

May 3, 2019 3:41 am

It always looked like you were right but to actually have it proven is a big deal.

Frankly, considering the profile of climate change and the importance attached to temperature trends it looks like you should attract the attention of Oslo.
But you won’t, of course.

Reply to  M Courtney
May 3, 2019 10:02 am

MC: I think the elite global gov folk have a lock on the Nobel Committee. Obama got a prize as a bribe to go with totalitarian plans. As it turned out he didn’t need an inducement anyway. But some of the recent clowns and reprobates that have received Nobel Ps have compromised the meaning of it. Greta will get the prize and that will be the final degradation of its value.

Virtually all universities and scholarship in general has been perhaps irredeemably impaired. We probably need to just make new smaller universities of very high standards and let the rest be starved out.

Sceptical Sam
May 3, 2019 3:45 am

A beer?
Never stop at one.
I’ve bought you a carton.
Celebrate.
Now, what’s next?

DHR
May 3, 2019 4:34 am

Griff,

Berkley Earth sorted urban and rural stations by use of satellite measurements of nigh time lights. They provide no information regarding the validity of that means of sorting. For example a temperature station next to a building which operates during the day and is closed at night may have few lights a night but would remain a source of man-made heat nonetheless. They concluded from this work that the urban effect is small. What NOAA has shown by running an experiment whereby temperature stations were placed at increasing distances from a known building heat source is that the urban effect is quite large.

I’ll have to go with NOAA on this one. It seems that Berkley Earth, despite being at a great university, is simply careless.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DHR
May 3, 2019 11:46 am

DHR
Lights make for a good first-order proxy for urban areas, but there are many things that can impact the accuracy. The important actual influences are impervious surfaces, waste heat from cars, heating, and air-conditioning. Humidity plays a role in moderating temperature changes. I have observed that some areas in the mid-west are abnormally bright with lights in areas that are little built up. On the other hand, some suburban areas that are more ‘enlightened’ may work harder at suppressing stray light up into the sky. Older communities tend not to be as well lit along streets as newer ones. There are far too many variables to give credence to lights as being the best indicator of urbanization. I think that a better approach would be the use of GIS shape files that are based on thematic classification of impervious surfaces.

Eyal Porat
May 3, 2019 4:42 am

what’s really amazing is that this should surprise anybody with a mind of his own.
Anybody who ever dealt with temp. measurements knows this problem for years.

May 3, 2019 4:45 am

Congratulations to Mr. Watts.

NOAA temperature data for my region clearly show a downward trend in diurnal temperature range over the past century.

Graemethecat
May 3, 2019 4:47 am

This is a huge win by Anthony Watts. It will be interesting to see how Big Green responds as yet another of its lies is exposed.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 3, 2019 7:59 am

They will handwave it away with “extreme weather”, “polar ice meltdown”, “hottest year EVAH”, SLR “acceleration”, and their latest claim of “species extinction”. Plus others, I’m sure. It’s like playing whack-a-mole with the Climate Liars.

May 3, 2019 4:51 am

Pardon the following off-topic question, which this temperature-record post suggested to me. It’s about “Steve Goddard’s” data. Obviously, there’s nothing that would insulate those data from the siting-caused reduction in diurnal temperature range to which the head post is directed.

But does anyone have a good sense of whether those data are what they purport to be: the longest records from US stations that haven’t moved?

I’m inclined to believe that the data are what Tony Heller says they are. But Mr. Heller’s obvious errors in theory, and his general prickliness, give me pause.

May 3, 2019 4:56 am

Just a related comment : Isn’t there reason to expect that diurnal-temperature-range reduction can additionally be caused by increased CO2 concentration, independently of siting effects? I.e., wouldn’t CO2’s radiation effects would be more pronounced under low-absolute-humidity conditions than under high ones?

looncraz
Reply to  Joe Born
May 3, 2019 8:40 am

DTR would absolutely be impacted by higher CO2. Even by its direct specific heat properties. It is also actually capable of slowing cooling modestly, which keeps moisture in the air longer. This result would be much much more pronounced at night.

If the site can cool to its baseline over night, though, CO2 will have had no net effect on daytime temperatures. If the site can’t cool to baseline by sunrise, then CO2 will have induced some daytime warming.

Night time warming, though, is almost exclusively beneficial – loss of dew excepting.

Chip
May 3, 2019 5:00 am

When I came across your station research years ago it was one of the first cracks in my then trust in climate science.

Nice to see you vindicated.

commieBob
May 3, 2019 5:05 am

So far, the adjustments have been the opposite of what they should have been.

INSTEAD of ‘adjusting’ out the 1-3C differences between urban and rural station data in the latter half of 20th century raw data, agencies like NASA GISS are cooling the past, namely the as warm 1930’s as seen in the US T-max temps in this post. The exact opposite of the adjustments that they should be making to correct UHI caused by urban sprawl. link

I’m not at all confident that the acknowledgement of UHI will have any effect on the adjustments.

CoRev
Reply to  commieBob
May 3, 2019 6:34 am

“I’m not at all confident that the acknowledgement of UHI will have any effect on the adjustments.” On the adjustments”???? How about on the actual average ADJUSTED temperatures by locale?

John Peter
May 3, 2019 5:07 am

Just sent $50 from Scotland. Keep up the good work.

May 3, 2019 5:16 am

Enjoy the moment. Bask in it. Roll it over in your mouth and taste it. No one will blame you.

Old.George
May 3, 2019 5:21 am

It is heartening that NOAA has done this. Now to get the so-called Climate Science community to stop using flawed data, and to stop guessing when there is no data at all because of lack of any temperature records.
Willie Sing has gone one step further and only uses the highs for well sited rural thermometers. He reports a strong (but not perfect) correlation between TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and daylight highs. This would indicated that TSI is a large factor, but not the whole picture.

May 3, 2019 5:31 am

Outrageous !!!
Actual science being used?? (Oak Rridge experiment)

Dr Deanster
May 3, 2019 5:41 am

???? …. how is it that in Wyoming, the good stations are light green, the bad stations are yellow, but the official record is even hotter than the bad stations at orange?

Trentberth’s missing heat?

Bob Thompson
May 3, 2019 5:48 am

Congratulations Anthony. You were right all along and it only took NOAA 15 years to admit it. Surfacestations rules!

May 3, 2019 5:57 am

So, once all land is developed into civilized structures, will there even be such a thing as a temperature reading not affected by human structures?

If most of our lives are lived in or in the vicinity of such structures, then isn’t the temperature of interest the temperature in which humans actually live? Non-human-influenced temperatures, thus, become a fantasy, irrelevant to daily life, especially in the range of less than one degree, seemingly.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 3, 2019 7:10 am

“Isn’t the temperature of interest the temperature in which humans actually live?”

Yes, but what causes it affects what, if anything, we should do about it.

Average temperatures may be trending upward in some region, so “planners” conclude that heat-related deaths will become a bigger problem. Because of the reduction in diurnal temperature range, though, summer highs may actually be trending downward.

Reply to  Joe Born
May 3, 2019 8:14 am

… air conditioning, limited exposure during critical parts of the day, drink enough water, … what we already do about it.

Many people in developed countries rarely experience outdoor temperatures for any duration — they move about from one climate-controlled container to another.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 3, 2019 9:27 am

We’re probably just talking past each other.

I was just trying to make the point, which you probably are not disputing, that failure to appreciate the DTR effects can result in poor public-policy decisions. Basing this https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b4ead40c3c16a711ae78401/t/5c704aa4fa0d6033019e373a/1550863041205/2019CPSR001-ThriveIndianapolis-web.pdf
plan’s page-19 actions on an inference drawn from its page-17 temperature observations may be misguided it seems to rely on the incorrect implicit assumption that summertime highs have similarly increased.

May 3, 2019 6:07 am

For the curious, especially those who might wonder what else is close by, and what else the terrain is doing nearby, here is the location of the experiment in Oak Ridge. (35.9832292, -84.2199978)

Fulco
May 3, 2019 6:08 am

Nice results 🙂
It is not enough to know whether a weather station has not been moved or is in a rural environment. What matters is did land use change during it’s operational period. Even a transition from natural to agricultural will rise temperatures. If you search for weather stations with a long track record and always in a natural environment you will notice that it is hard to find a rising temperature trend. As soon a agricultural activity is employed near a station, temperature trends rise. A century ago 70% of land use was natural, today it is about 30% (following a sigmoid like pattern, hint ?). Human activity changes the rate at which moister can be exchanged between soil and air. And thus hindering cooling by convection. Human activity also changes the emissivity of the ground, mostly towards 1 thus capturing more heat. Heat as a product of energy consumption can be neglected.

JohnWho
May 3, 2019 6:13 am

Vindication for Anthony, acceptance of the true state of land temperature monitoring stations for the scientific community.

Yes, there’s been warming since the end of the LIA but there isn’t certainty regarding how much since even the “pristine” stations’ data collection has an error range.

Reply to  JohnWho
May 3, 2019 7:53 am

+10

Verified by MonsterInsights