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:

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

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 – 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.

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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I live in the country, as opposed to the city. When I drive from the city back to the house in the countryside, I usually experience a drop in temperature. It is usually enough to feel even without looking at the thermometer. Must be a fluke and have nothing whatsoever to do with all of the trees and absence of pavement.
Congratulations Mr Watts !
Logically, the next steps for NOAA (and other institutions) might (should) be :
– questioning the “selection” rules of weather stations,
– questioning the “homogenization” rules of measured data,
– questioning the several “correction” rules applied to historical data …
Seems to me that you hit a hell of a shot at the very base of the climatistas’ house of cards 🙂
I used to amaze the folks at the university on summer afternoons by pointing my infra-red thermometer at the parking lot pavement and showing them the readings. UHI has been the golden egg for those who further the alarmist indoctrination and protecting that fragile nugget has been vital. What now can support the claims that the planet warms anywhere besides the poles?
Anthony – it was your examination of biases and siting issues that sucked me in to discussions early on here. You’ve endured a lot of mud slinging and worse. From our small acquaintance, I don’t think ‘smug’ is in your nature, but you should feel very pleased. Vindicated? Yup!
Isn’t the whole point of using temperature anomalies instead of actual temps that they are unaffected by things like site movement, calibrated sensor changes, etc.? There is no need to ever adjust historical data, esp when using anomalies
Congratulations, Anthony! This certainly validates the hard work.
Now, when do we get to see the official U.S. temperature history get adjusted downward?
Congratulations Anthony! The truth always wins… eventually.
I looked through their references, but didn’t see your name, even though you were the prime reference for all of this. You deserve the full credit for this with all the work and sweat you have put into this study.
I remember when you posted the info the first time. There were over 1,000 “helpful” comments.
This was the first climate change paper which had public peer reviews. I also remember that peeps got stuck on Time of Observation or whatever the acronym was.
I assume that all the other earlier papers on global warming used hottest temp + coldest temp for the day, and divided by 2, but you weren’t allowed to do that for some reason.
Then you posted it again, and I think got another 1,000 comments.
Hope you can now get this published soon…
You are our “hero”, when it comes to this information….truth vs fiction.
Damn, I tried to donate for a 12 pack for you, but i entered all my VISA debit card info, which was correct, including the security code – everything was OK, but they seem to want me to have a pay pal account…
I had one maybe 6 years ago… seems you can’t donate unless you have a pay pal account…I know I have donated more recently than 6 years ago…They called me and wanted me to enter a pay pal password, so sorry I just gave up – maybe I’ll try later when I have more time to figure out what they want…sorry.
I will try and try again…JPP
Nice work Anthony. I like the term “urban encroachment” rather than using “urban heat island”. The former can occur in large and small communities, whereas the latter is usually most pronounced with large cities. It is the changes over time that can have the most impact on trying to assess temperature trends over time. Your study indicates there is an impact in the US on assessing the regional temperature trend.
The urban encroachment impact is on micro-climates and usually not representative of larger regional and global scales. And yes, micro-climates can be important locally, but these impacts are not caused by increasing CO2 and need to be recognized as separate. Furthermore, these localized impacts need to be removed from global scale assessments if possible, similar to how you removed them from the US regional perspective. Easier said than done, but we have to start somewhere. I would also like to see a Global Climate Reference Network, including ocean buoy sites. A GCRN could easily be funded by a tiny portion of the money being wasted on “green” “renewable” energy.
27% of land based temp data is in Urban areas so we can eliminate that. Add on all the areas of the world that are estimated including Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass.
Not looking good for the alarmist crowd.
Pure, unadulterated, verified and validated vindication! Someone should design a medal in the shape of a thermometer and officially present it to you in a White House Rose Garden Ceremony!!!
Gotta love it!!!
On a larger scale, the HadCRUT 3 vs 4 (warmest year ever quotes) should re-surface(PI) here: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/HadCRUT4.html
Have I ever told you youre my hero?
Anthony, I remember the big row over your being interviewed on NPR, and the extraordinary intervention by their ombudsman. One of the complaints was that your work had “been invalidated”, etc. I doubt that NPR would dare interview you again, despite these findings, such is the sad state of public discourse these days.
Oh, and somewhere, I’m sure John V’s head is exploding about now…
About two yeas ago I was walking around the U.C. Berkeley campus with an old childhood friend of mine, whom I learned during our chat was an AGW True Believer, and he actually became angry with me when I expressed some skepticism on the topic. Then we came across an infamous example of one of these now-poorly-sited temperature stations on campus (not by accident — I steered our tour there on purpose). I pointed to it: “Know what that is?” Him: “A beehive?” Me: “No — it’s a temperature-measuring station. Been there since the 19th century.” Him: “Ooooh, wow.” Me (pointing to adjacent building): “And see that vent? It’s the heating exhaust duct for that building, about 25 feet away. Built in the 1960s. Prior to that, this temperature gauge was isolated out in a field. I call it the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect.'”
Ooooh, boy, did he get mad. He spluttered at first, then fell silent, then broke off the tour and left. Since that time he has never recontacted me. Totally shunned. And yet, I recently went and read his twitter feed, and he STILL rants and raves about Global Warming and fossil fuels. He did NOT learn any lesson.
As devastating as this new study is, I fear that it will have the same affect on the AGW True Believers as my tour did on my friend — i.e. none. They are way past being affected by evidence and data. It has become a religion.
Rather a large swing from withholding the sites from you at the beginning of surface of station, to this. Congratulations. It’s been a while since you were out in the backyard whitewashing boards and who could have seen how long and how much of you it would take. Thanks for that too.
What is NOAA’s siting criteria ? Shouldn’t everyone one of them be moved off or away from asphalt ?
Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer
Even if not necessarily agreeing with all results published by surfacestations.org, an independent person always enjoys the success of independent volunteers in criticising a major institution, especially when the latter accepts and acknowledges their results:
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html
And so I do as well.
But nevertheless, I still have problems with a claim like ‘poor weather station siting leads to artificial long term warming’.
I tried to compare, by using the ‘GHCN daily’ data set, the data provided by those CONUS stations recognised by surfacestations.org as to be ‘well sited’, with all CONUS stations available in the data set. There are in the sum actually a bit over 18000 which were/are active since measurement begin.
If there is a data set containing a considerable amount of poorly sited stations, then it is GHCN daily!
I did not find within surfacestations.org the exact place for the list of these USHCN ‘sirloin’ stations, and used therefore that communicated by NOAA instead, described there as ‘stations identified as having good siting by the volunteers at surfacestations.org.’:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ushcn-surfacestations-ratings-1-2.txt
{ Should the list contain the wrong station set, so I would welcome the correct one, and would restart the comparison. }
This file contains a list of 71 USHCN stations. To have the comparison as fair as possible, it was imho better not to use USHCN data, but rather to search for those GHCN daily stations having a perfect match to those found in the ‘set 1’ list. There were 46 of them, visible in a merging of GHCN daily and USHCN station metadata:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QIpA2Fy809eE_zqbdI78aMOEaeaVSUg1/view
Here is a first comparison of the monthly averaging time series for the 46 stations with the entire set (a mix of daily TMIN, TMAX and TAVG data):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B4TzVe7rFLidKIb-dUOLwdittauW2oVY/view
All anomalies are computed locally for each station; all stations lacking sufficient data for the reference period were rejected (none of the 46 ‘sirloin’ stations was; nearly 8000 were in the full data set).
Linear estimates, in °C / decade
– 1900-2018
– sirloin 46: 0.07 ± 0.01
– full: 0.03 ± 0.01
– 1979-2018
– sirloin 46: 0.21 ± 0.04
– full: 0.21 ± 0.04
If you now restrict the comparison to the daily TMINs, you obtain the following graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lJKO4g3AgdmQniTF89VRJkHesslnP8g/view
The best for the end: a comparison of the ‘sirloin’ and the full set with UAH6.0’s monthly time series for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Khxeii6he3PhW-xKJL-nhlJkA1frWmS/view
You might reply: OK, but GHCN daily is raw, inofficial data!
And… you would be right.
But a worldwide comparison of GHCN daily with GISS land-only looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D5dPWA1rV3wqZGJNbb8Mw7QxZSQG0eR2/view
Linear estimates for 1979-2018, in °C / decade
– GHCN daily: 0.21
– GISS land-only: 0.22
Regards
J.-P. D.
Sources
– GHCN daily
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
– UAH6.0
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt (column 25)
– GISS land-only
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
May I ask , are we just talking about USA weather sites ? Also I am not clear, if the readings are high due to nearby buildings etc.. Will this make any difference to the changes of temps?
How significant do you think this is to the Global average temp?
many thanks
May I ask , are we just talking about USA weather sites ?
While the study appears to be only of US sites, the lessons learned are applicable to any site in the world.
Also I am not clear, if the readings are high due to nearby buildings etc.. Will this make any difference to the changes of temps?
Yes. the “urban heat island” (UHI) effect causes temp readings to be higher than they would be absent the influence of the UHI. So if you want a reading that is uncontaminated by UHI, you need to place your sensors far enough away (something greater than 50m) for UHI sources.
Just wondering how much this is news. Some folks commenting seem to be under the impression that UHI has not been considered, analysed and estimated by NOAA etc. But even the paper says that this factor has been addressed by NOAA. This paper is an addition to an ongoing field of study. What impact it will have on the records remains to be seen.
The UAH temp record for the US shows higher trends than the surface records over the long term, and as I understand it, satellite derived lower trop temperatures are not affected by UHI.
Anthony, I’ve in the past congratulated you on the surfacestations project where it was used purely for science. Were you really excoriated for it? I seem to remember the criticisms were regarding extrapolating a conclusion about the temp records from a handful of stations early in the project’s history. I followed Mosh and John V (at climateaudit?) as they investigated differences between the official record and different classes of weather stations as your project rated them. Fall et al came out and found similar to the experimental study cited here (min/max bias: low to non-existent diurnal range trend), as well as verified the mean US temperature trend.