Regarding the location of the COOP Station at the University of Arizona, it’s current location has been properly listed by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and has been at this location since May of 1997. Prior to that, it was at a location approximately 1 mile to the NNE, at the old Polo Field which is now the location of the Hospital and Medical School. The station record that is available from the NCDC indicates nine changes in the station record. One of these is the move from the area of the Medical Center to the current site at the Physics Building on Campus. The other changes in the record are the result of minor adjustments to location or altitude resulting from actual small relocations or improved location data. Overall, there was one significant relocation since 1948.
The comments on our site state that the instruments are located over asphalt in a parking lot. This is partially true but the instruments are located over a layer of gravel spread over the parking lot material to simulate the local desert environment. An accompanying comment noted that the station could have been placed over the neighboring grassy area. This was not done because the local environment is desert. This is in accordance with WMO standards. See the World Meteorological Organization, Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation. The Seventh Edition, WMO - No. 8, 2006, describes station siting in detail. This station is in accordance with that report, and is listed in NCDC records as an urban station,
“CITY AREA”.
The height of the temperature sensor is claimed to be 1.5 feet too low. This is incorrect, the WMO specification is 1.5 meters (4.92 feet) above the surface. Our sensor is located 4.83 feet above the surface. It’s actually 1.1 inches low.
The temperature sensor that was installed in 1997 is an aspirated device built by R.M. Young that is part of an electronic station package. Data from this device entered the record sometime in 1998. Prior to that time, the devices used were non-aspirated. Discounting the extremity of the first data point caused by El Nino in ‘98, this accounts for most of the sudden lower temperatures reported by the University of Arizona site from that time forward.
The long-term rise in the record has been commented on. Tucson is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the country. The population has increased by a factor of 4, from approximately 250,000 in 1960 to about 1 million today. This suggests that a good part of this rise is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.
When the site was originally installed, the area was closed off and not available for parking. Since then, the University opened this area to parking for some University vehicles which was out of our area of control. However, there is not a continuous flow of traffic in and out and most vehicles leave in the morning and return in the evening, or don’t leave at all.
Since the relocation at the current site, the only major changes have been the growth of trees whose locations, along with those of all the buildings, are carefully documented in the station records. These records are easily available to climate researchers online.
When the station was first located at the current site, the location and instrumentation were approved as an official COOP station by NOAA. When the current electronic instrument package was installed, the local NWS station provided direct input and final approval.
Figure 1
The accompanying Fig 1 shows a comparison of our data with the official NOAA data taken at Tucson International airport. From 1993 to 1996, the data was from our old site at the Medical School, taken with a non-aspirated temperature sensor. In May 0f 1997 the site was changed to its current location but data was still being taken with a non-aspirated sensor. The aspirated RM Young instrument was installed early in 1998 and has been in use since then. The installation of this new system is responsible for the drop in U of A temperatures relative to the NOAA temperatures since 1998. Indeed, non-aspirated instruments can read 4-5 degrees warmer than aspirated instruments during our hot sunny days.
Figure 2
The second figure presents our temperature data back to 1945 and also data from the NOAA airport station from 1948. I think it is quite clear that the 2 records follow each other very closely. Both show a definite warming trend. How much of this is due to the growth of Tucson and how much can be attributed to other causes is impossible to determine at this time, but the trend is clearly present in both data sets.
Finally, the current location of our site was the best site available to us that was able to be maintained and be representative of the desert/urban environment. It was originally established as a coop station in the late 1800’s, and has always been a coop station. If anyone wishes to use it for climate or climate change purposes, the site location, obstacles, trees, etc. are clearly described in the station description which can be found at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html
Don’t WMO standards say a station should be at least 100 feet from any paved area?
Comment by SteveSadlov — August 6, 2007 @ 11:09 am
WMO standards and good practice say also that a station must be representative.
A site located in the middle of a courtyard…is representative of what? All those tall buildings around, in my point of wiew, badly affect the readings, probably more than asphalt.
The normal standard for a urban area is to locate a thermometer at the mean altitude of the roof tops!
The Tucson site is indefensible, even for a climatological use.
Comment by Paolo M. — August 6, 2007 @ 11:42 am
I did the site survey for Mr. Watts blog, and I am glad the folks who operate the station have had a chance to comment.
I don’t know enough to judge whether a 5×8 foot patch of gravel in the midst of a parking lot is sufficient to simulate the desert. I suspect that it is not (I don’t have the link, but Steve McItyre on Climate Audit had a nice post with data from… the University of Arizona on asphalt temperatures).
However, my layman’s guess at this, or even an expert’s guess, should be irrelevant. This seems like a proposition that would be almost trivial to test. Two sensors, one in an open space with at least 100′ clearance on all sides, and a second one within a mile or so that was portable, so it could be near asphalt, concrete, buildings, air conditioners, etc. See how the measurements differ. Repeat for different wind conditions, through several diurnal cycles, etc.
Any masters candidates who need a thesis? Unfortunately, they are all out fiddling with computer models. Heck, a group of undergraduates could do this.
I have been trying to find a Tucson-area weather station that is well-sited to compare the UofA site to. I was hoping that the one at the ranger station at 17NW might qualify, but from aerial photography, though the whole open area of the park was available, it appears the instrument is right on an asphalt parking lot. I will have to go there to make sure.
Comment by coyote — August 6, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
How often is the temperature sensor calibrated? What is the long-term drift of the temperature sensor if calibration is not checked at least annually? Please amend your graphs with proper error bars on the temperatures to reflect your responses to calibration issues and drift of the temperature sensor.
Comment by paminator — August 6, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
I’m confused. Is this representative of “desert” or “CITY AREA”?
If the former, then I’m led to believe the Arizona desert is a vast sea of asphalt punctuated by the occasional pile of gravel. By the way, is that limestone gravel?
I suppose I could buy an argument for the latter, considering that most of the local suburban yards are largely composed of gravel, iirc.
Comment by Chris D — August 6, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I appreciate the response on the issue. I have particular interest in these questions:
1) You mention that the R.M. Young aspirated air temperature sensor is very close to the standard observing height of 1.5 meters. This creates a new question; given how it is mounted to the base of the screen, and that height is supposed correct, then that would mean the observing height of the Stevenson Screen mercury thermometers is too high. According to WMO standards, the height of the thermometers inside the shelter is to be at 1.5 meters, not the base of the screen. Since according to MMS metadata, there appears to be a period of time (5/28/97 to 10/22/98) where both mercury max/min and the aspirated sensor existed, was then the shelter always at an incorrect observing height? Or was it removed from the concrete base anchor and then height adjusted? There appears to be no metadata to ascertain this. Some clarification and perhaps a photo with a tape measure visible might clear this uncertainty up.
2) In the case of the aspirated air temperature sensor, while by design appearing to be more accurate, it is not a standardized and approved NOAA issued instrument. Instrumentation homogeneity is also very important, which is why only two types of temperature sensors are used in the network, each with known response. What is the basis then for making this substitution when the NOAA USHCN climate network uses sensors from the known list? How would a researcher using the data from your station know what bias was introduced by this sensor since the MMS metadata does not list the sensor used, simply referring to it in MMS as “OTHER TEMPERATURE EQUIPMENT”?
3) While there is an attempt to recreate the surroundings of a desert area, I’d point out that a concrete pad exists directly under the Stevenson Screen rather than gravel. Given that it is known that albedo and emissivity are different for desert earth, concrete, and gravel, and given that many hundred square feet of the surfaces immediately surrounding the Stevenson Screen also consist of concrete, how does the application a few square feet of gravel near the screen equate to an observing surface that is representative of the area?
4) In the case of precipitation measurement, how has effects from the wind change due to parking of vehicles nearby been accounted for?
I certainly understand the siting constraints associated with proximity to the campus, but as a March 2006 paper in the Journal of Climate by K.E. Runnalls and T.R. Oke points out, “Distinct régime transitions can be caused by seemingly minor instrument relocations (such as from one side of the airport to another, or even within the same instrument enclosure) or due to vegetation clearance. This contradicts the view that only substantial station moves, involving significant changes in elevation and/or exposure are detectable in temperature data.” see http://www.climatesci.org/2006/07/28/298/
Care with the siting and instrumentation of such a station of importance given its long history would seem to be of utmost priority in order to maintain a contiguous and unbiased record series. I hope that your response to these new questions will demonstrate that this has been the case.
I agree with your statement that “…a good part of this rise is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect”, in fact the positive trend for this station is the largest of any USHCN station after the TOB adjustement is applied. Given that, I’m not convinced that this station is free of micro-site biases in addition to UHI.
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 6, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Statement above
“The height of the temperature sensor is claimed to be 1.5 feet too low” is not correct. ” It was noted that the height had changed. The actual comment was:
“Originally the inside standard mounting board for the mercury max/min thermometers were mounted about 1.5 foot higher than the air inlet of the precision aspirated temperature sensor. So the lower mounting height for the precision sensor adds a positive bias.”
Comment by BarryW — August 6, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
The points I take away are:
Comment by Bruce Hall — August 6, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Ben and Cyrus:
I would like to thank you fo r your detailed response to some of the issues raised on Watts’ site. I would also appreciate any comments you have on Paolo’s interpretation of the WMO standards. Is there anything that you feel needs to be done to bring the site into alignment with current WMO standards?
Comment by Bernie — August 6, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I believe the CRN site in Arizona is located at the Senora desert museum. Which site in Arizona will this
site be correlated to?
The airport site or the U of A?
Comment by steven mosher — August 6, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
I think the reaction to the placement of this station, and the reaction to these comments, is frankly typical of the surface stations gang. At the beginning, the basic thrust of Watts’ argument was that the station was sited as it was due to the fact that the operators were sloppy idiots. Now we get a reasoned defense of the siting location, and the response is the peanut gallery suddenly becomes experts and knit-picks the defense.
There is just no pleasing some people.
And it is frankly examples like this that make me disappointed in Pielke Sr. Here are real scientists dealing with the real pragmatics of placing a station, and he is silent when they are under assault by Watts and his band of camera wielding nutters.
Comment by bigcitylib — August 6, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
bigcitylib - As soon as I can post, you will see substantive evidence from federal meteorologists that what Anthony Watts and colleagues are doing is very constructive and much overdue. I suggest you wait until all of the information is out before you prejudge the value of what they are doing.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 6, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Mr. Pielke,
Perhaps while we are waiting you could offer your views on their particular claims re this particular station. Apparently, the guy from SS couldn’t tell the difference between ashphalt and a layer of gravel.
Comment by bigcitylib — August 6, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
I think all these rural site violations and al this unaccounted for exurban creep has resulted in a high rural read. Since UHIE is calculated off the rural read, might the current offset be too small? Could there be a double bias at work in the adjusted NOAA figures?
Will the site survey allow you to take a new look at UHI effect?
Comment by Evan Jones — August 6, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Re #12: Why? You’ve certainly already prejudged it. Ben and Cyrus should be clear that you deserve full credit for this little enterprise.
We’ll see what the federal meteorologists have to say, but maybe it’s that the USHCN needs modernizing. What a great idea! I know, we could call it… USHCN-M.
Now, if the surfacestations crowd wants to start an active lobbying effort to get more funding for climate observation, that would be great. It’s also not going to happen, because most or maybe even all of them are interested in this subject solely because they are AGW denialists. Once the surface station stuff has outlived it’s usefulness, it’ll be back to the hockeystick or on to the models or the ever-popular solar irradiance trends or some other load of complete hooey.
In the meantime, the planet continues to heat up and the symptoms become more obvious, speaking of which we’re now about three days from a new record low Arctic sea ice area that’s going to set about six weeks early.
Comment by Steve Bloom — August 6, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Ben and Cyrus,
Thanks for your discussion of the Tuscon situation. Beyond the important change over from nonaspirated to aspirated thermometers, do you have any information concerning how the measurement of the maximum and minimum temperatures of the day is calculated? Is it the highest/lowest single sample of the 24 hour period as with the newest generation of mmts units ( which sample the temperature every 16 seconds…older mmts units sampled every 2 seconds), or is it similar to ASOS units which define the max/min of the day as the highest/lowest 5 minute average of 5 consecutive 1 minute averages that are calculated using a 10 second sampling frequency? Differences in the definition/methodology/algorithim of calculating a high/low temperature can have quite an impact on those values, particularly Tmax and Tdaily range.
Comment by Richard Berler — August 6, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Whilst there are always issues with what we want to do and what we can do, the issue is that if you are artificially trying to recreate a certain environment, you may or may not have it correctly. If you are trying to measure asphalt, gravel, grass, or whatever it is, as you see it, above the sensor, the surface underneath will affect the readings, as will environment in the air around the sensor also. If it is indicative of the rest of the area around the sensor, or the general terrain of areas regarding the entire locale, or not; that is another question. One which I do not have the answer for, and I doubt no one has that particular answer or group of answers.
Comment by SM — August 6, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
bigcitylib, I’m not sure if it is your political outlook upon life, or if it’s because you’re in a state of denial, but that “camera wielding nutters” bother you makes no sense or tells us what your problem is. You should really decide if your strident tone helps your arguement or not. We all know that sometimes circumstances dictate placement, but randomly deciding asphalt and gravel near a parking lot and buildings represents the area, that failing needs no excuse or explanation, it is crude guessing and trying to defend it just makes you look silly. Especially with your choice of phrases: “surface stations gang” “sloppy idiots” “peanut gallery” “knit-picks the defense”. This may or may not be a “reasoned defense of the siting location” but if all that’s discussed is “We had no choice, so we had to make it as well as we can get it, so we tried to make the surface as to ‘how Arizona is’.” that’s not a reasoned defence, it’s a “we guessed and we can’t back up that guess as true with facts”. I have no problem with that, and agree with the feeling, but let’s let facts be facts.
Comment by SM — August 6, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Re: Post #13 by bigcitlib
=”Apparently, the guy from SS couldn’t tell the difference between ashphalt and a layer of gravel.”=
The parking lot appears to be asphalt bigcitylib and they do not normally spray stripes on gravel. It appears only the small enclosed area the sensor resides in is composed of gravel.
Comment by Paul G. — August 7, 2007 @ 2:17 am
The reaction to this exercise is increasingly bizarre. Exactly what is wrong with photographing stations to check they are compliant with their own standards? Anthony and co. are only doing this because those responsible wouldn’t do it themselves. Does walking across the road and taking photos of your own station really require more climate funding? In fact anyone can judge from the photos that Tucson is good for city temperatures and bad for calculating a world temperature average but the observers knew that anyway so why the fuss?
Instead of GISS running computer programs and using expensive satellite photos, why didn’t they just pick up the phone and ask the observers for a few photos? Hands down the best data comes from stations that need no adjustments whatsoever - even if it comes down to a dozen stations they are surely better than several hundred corrected ones. So we could have had a system that is better, quicker and cheaper. Too obvious? Likely this is the system that would have been used if climate funding had been a lot less - and nobody would have argued about bad data.
The “world” temperature rise seems to be largely an arctic rise anyway. It is likely that even excluding all the US stations would make no difference to the overall GISS graph. What is very clear though is that data accuracy doesn’t matter to the zealots and some (hopefully few) scientists. They’d have been wiser to have kept quiet.
Comment by JamesG — August 7, 2007 @ 5:26 am
Ben and Cyrus, thank you for your information. I was puzzled by your statement that:
In fact, the R^2 coefficient of the two is only 0.43, well below 50%. This is hardly following each other “very closely”. In addition, the Durbin-Watson statistic of the residuals of one temperature set regressed on the other is only 0.6, further strengthening the case that they are not closely related.
Also, the overall trends in both cases (1948-2005) are not significantly different from zero. Adjusted for autocorrelation, we find the following:
UA: Trend +0.10°/decade, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.25°C
Airport: Trend +0.15°/decade, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.32°C
From the data sets you have presented, it cannot be said that the Tucson temperature even contains a warming trend.
Finally, I found your statement that
to be unclear. The site, as you point out, is an urban site. Urban sites obviously do not have the restrictions against being sited over paved areas, otherwise none would exist (see T. R. Oke, SITING AND EXPOSURE OF METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS AT URBAN SITES).
But given that it is an urban temperature site, what is the purpose of the gravel? Surely you can’t be saying that a ten foot square of gravel in the middle of a parking lot is typical of the desert, but it is also not typical of the urban environment either. I’m confused.
In any case, your contribution to the discussion is greatly appreciated.
w.
Comment by Willis Eschenbach — August 7, 2007 @ 6:22 am
1) The thermal and reflective properties of gravel are not the same as those of sand.
2) I doubt that the bedrock is found only a few inches under the surface for most of that region.
3) Unless the asphault under the sensor is thermally isolated from the rest of the parking lot, then the heat generated by the sun shining on the rest of the lot will still be piped into the area directly under the sensor.
4) The standard states that the area around the sensor, for a distance of 100 feet, is to be similar to that of the region in general. 5 feet is than 100 feet.
Comment by MarkW — August 7, 2007 @ 7:13 am
BCL,
While this was a defense of the siting choices, and it was toned reasonably, as opposed to your usual hysterics.
But it was not a reasoned defense. Certainly not a well reasoned one.
Comment by MarkW — August 7, 2007 @ 7:14 am
There does appear to be a newer satellite image for anyone interested:
32°13′45.79″N, 110°57′15.45″W or:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=32.229318,-110.95427&spn=0.001103,0.001808&z=19&om=1
Perhaps noteworthy that this does continue to appear to be an active parking area, while the adjacent grass appears to be quite green compared to that found within the overall “city area”.
Comment by Chris D — August 7, 2007 @ 7:39 am
Steve B. - Regarding #15, what does the arctic sea ice content have to do with this weblog? The reason to photograph the HCN sites in not to refute or suprort global warming, but simply to assure we have the most accurate, spatially representative surface temperature trend data. That is good science.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 7, 2007 @ 7:51 am
SM,
You see the direction this argument is going? Surface Stations photographed the site and they were APPALLED! How could the site operators be so careless as to put a site there? Now we have the station operators providing their reasons, and the same gang is APPALLED! at the reasoning. Give it another week and you’ll be wondering if the operators wear the approved footware when they take measurements, and will be APPALLED! at the answer.
Mr. Pielke,
Anthony Watts seems to be playing a double game. On this blog and other climate science blogs he’s claims that he’s assuring we have the most yada yada yada. However, every reporter that talks with him comes away thinking that he’s single-handed refuted global warming. One reprter has even claimed your helping him in this.
Comment by bigcitylib — August 7, 2007 @ 8:16 am
bigcitylib - If you have followed my weblog for sometime, you realize that the news often inaccurately reports on information. For my views on the value of the station photographs, please refer to my peer reviewed, multi-authored papers on this subject. For Anthony Watt’s views, please go to his website.
That there is any issue with seeking better data (and actually regardless of any exterior motive!) is quite disappointing in science.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 7, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Having worked in a climate controlled laboratory environment requiring daily records of temperature, humidity etc. for many years, this subject is interesting to say the least.
Given the task of monitoring environmental conditions such as is currently being done in realm of climate science with respect to surface stations, if I were to present a report it would include among other things, uncertainty of both the equipment and measurements. Determining uncertainty can be a tricky affair.
The idea of arguing over tenths of a degree (C or F) given the many variables of sensor/thermometer location, quality of the equipment and external influences on the measurements is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. I highly doubt 100 years ago meteorologists contemplated the notion we would expect such precision.
Further, without performing actual physical onsite surveys to arrive at any degree of certainty, as I see it there should be no expectation of acquiring data worthy of such scrutiny as is being bandied about today. Use of “correction software� and the like are just throwing more mud into the water. How is it possible to perform such corrections without knowing the error? It seems to me many fields of science have become so reliant on models and computers we are losing the ability to perform actual work. Nobody likes the idea of tossing out data from questionable sites, but in my business not only would the data be sacked, so would I!
The informal surveys performed by participants at Anthony Watts’ website are performing a much needed service, that being shining light on a degrading neglected system of temperature monitoring. Be it budget cuts, poor management or whatever the case, from purely a Quality Control point of view, for anyone to believe the current state of the surface station network is anything better than substandard is living in a fantasy world in my humble opinion.
It is also my understanding the number of sites has decreased from ~6000 to ~2000. If so, how in the world can any conclusions be drawn as to “average� temperatures today compared to 100 years ago based on that alone? This leads to another suspect methodology; how exactly are average temperatures calculated? Is it even possible?
I digress. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best, my anecdotal score of surface temperature reliability for purposes of arriving at such high degrees of accuracy would be a miserable 4.
Comment by DR — August 7, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I think a key distinction is being overlooked.
The “quality” of a station can be considered from different standpoints. One standpoint is whether the absolute temperature recorded by the device is typical of the area at the time. Another standpoint is whether the variations (anomalies) in the temperature record over decades are representative of long-term trends in the temperature of the troposphere over that point on the earth’s surface.
Given the huge changes in land use over the last century, one set of standards, however good or closely adhered to, cannot meet both of these needs.
The people administering this weather station have obviously done their best to make its readings as representative as they can of the area the way it is now. Their comparison with the nearby airport record suggests to me that their work is solid and that the temperatures they give are representative of the area in which the readings are taken. That is really what a weather station is for.
On the other hand, using this station record to estimate changes over a century in tropospheric temperatures above the site, to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree or so, would be absurd, since siting and instrumentation changes, as well as land use changes in the vicinity of the site, would swamp any tropospheric signal. It would be idle to pretend that all these changes could be identified and then quantified to an accuracy sufficient to extract the “climatological” change in lower troposphere temperature.
For tropospheric temperature trends related to possible “global warming” we need to look to satellite or balloon data and to make sure that these are as accurate as possible. Before the end of the 1950s, when balloon data became widely available, it is going to be very difficult to construct a temperature aggregate that really gives a reliable view of overall trends. The present methods, using thousands of stations around the world for most of which we have almost no information about changes in the measuring location, surroundings or instruments, are practically worthless. Perhaps one day someone will attempt to compile an aggregate for these earlier years of the 20th century solely from well-controlled scientific and military stations in remote areas that did not change much over the period. That might give us some idea. Until then, statements such as the IPCC’s recent finding that average global temperature have risen 0.74 degrees since 1905 need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Comment by David Brewer — August 7, 2007 @ 10:47 am
As usual, it’s attack the people, and not the science. Way to go BCL and Bloom, you’re wonderful representatives of the propaganda machine.
Comment by Jeff — August 7, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Jeff,
Others, including the station operators, have already pointed out the errors in the description of the station site supplied to Surface Stations (you would think an inability to distinguish asphalt from gravel, or the inability to count how many stories tall the surrounding buildings are, would raise a few red flags as to the quality of the site audit, but apparently Pielke thinks otherwise). What interests me is how 1) Watts and followers keep shifting the terms of the debate as their origonal rationale crumbles: “we’re STILL appalled, but for a different reason than we were appalled yesterday!”
And 2)how, almost miraculously,every reporter (usually from outlets like Fox or, worse, Newsbusters) keeps misinterpreting Watts message in precisely the same manner.
Comment by bigcitylib — August 7, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
DR and David Brewer have struck at the core of the issue: this network was not designed for, and is probably not capable of, detecting a trend as small as .74 degrees over the last 100 years. At least not with a high degree of certainty, which is the real rub of course. And the law of large numbers will not help either since it would be difficult to show that even the raw data is iid, not to mention the adjusted data from which the averages are produced.
Comment by Paul Penrose — August 7, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
RE 29: I think that what you are saying fits the old maxim, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The surface temperature measurements from these stations provided what was a first glimpse at temperature trends by Jones and others who’ve accummulated them. Their effort should not be denigrated. But considering the need to monitor the results from any fixes made for climate, we need yardsticks that don’t have to under go constant adjustments. The effort to examine the sites has shown that if we do we’ll essentially have bought a pig in a poke.
Comment by Darwin — August 7, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
28, 29, 30….. There’s only one way to describe this all…. Appalling!
Comment by Mike Nee — August 7, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
BCL please spare us. Trying to change the argument from USHCN sites don’t comply with NOAA standards to EDITED OUT don’t comply your standards is really pathetic. Unlike those in charge at NOAA, those documenting these sites are not professionals making six figure incomes for their “expertise”. So an DELETED volunteer missed a 8′ by 8′ gravel patch in a 2000 sq ft plus parking lot. We get it, the audits are not perfect. You’ve pointed it out over and over and over. Whining about counting building stories is embarrassing.
Stick with the tried and true. Accuse Coyote of being a paid shill for Exxon-Mobil or perhaps a tool of the gravel-industrial complex. Sow dissention in the ranks as the rest of us DELETED did our corporate flacking without making a nickel.
Comment by Jeff C. — August 7, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
What has supercharged this situation is the fact that Watts was interviewed by Sean Hanity. That is what is at the root of the extreme reactions. Prior to that, it was somewhat limited, but since then, those are are protective of GISS are pushing hard against auditing.
Comment by SteveSadlov — August 7, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
RE: #15 - That is a bogus chart. Look at the US Navy sea ice site and you’ll see why. Totally up to you, assuming you want to learn.
Comment by SteveSadlov — August 7, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Jeff C.
My standards? The surface station site still contains a captioned photo reading something to the effect that “station is surrounded by four to ten story buildings” when clearly the tallest building in the photo is four stories tall. Is it peculiar to me that you would expect DELETED volunteers to be able to count to five? I would hope Mr. Pielke, for example, would demand more of their students.
And the question is, how is the DELETED project supposed to tell us anything useful about these stations if it is riddled with these kinds of errors?
Comment by bigcitylib — August 7, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Steve Bloom, You wrote:
“In the meantime, the planet continues to heat up and the symptoms become more obvious, speaking of which we’re now about three days from a new record low Arctic sea ice area that’s going to set about six weeks early.”
Wouldn’t you also get record low Arctic sea ice area whether the record anomaly was +0.2C or +1.0C, as long as we were currently at that record anomaly? Wouldn’t you also get record low Arctic sea ice are if we had a sustained period at the record anomaly, even if there was no recent growth in temperatures, given the obvious lag in the system?
Comment by Alan Woods — August 7, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
#37
Steve, Do you have the link to the Navy site?
Thanks
Comment by Bernie — August 7, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
ALL - Some of the comments are deteriorating into name-calling and use of inappropriate terms. These will be edited/deleted out, and if they continue, those comments will not be posted.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 7, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
#41
Fair enough Dr. Pielke, I apologize for the incivility. BCL - I appreciate your point regarding some inaccuracies in the survey. Why not clearly document them and present them for correction? Give the survey owner the opportunity to correct mistakes before jumping to conclusions. The survey is being done by unpaid volunteers who will make mistakes. I’m sure criticism offered constructively will be accepted in the spirit which it is offered.
Comment by Jeff C. — August 7, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Re #39: I wouldn’t look for too precise of a short-term correspondence between Arctic sea ice levels and temperature. It’s the long term relationship that matters, although it’s likely that unusual warmth is one of the factors needed for setting a record low sea ice level.
I think the point you make about equilibrium is probably right, all else being equal, but the reason why the recent sudden drop in Arctic sea ice is so alarming is that below a certain level the ice will lose persistence and not re-form (other than a thin skin that will disappear rapidly each spring). IIRC the reason for the persistence is that the sea ice is in a sort of symbiotic relationship with a thin “lens” of cold, relatively fresh water. Once the ice retreats beyond a certain point, the fresh water will mix with the warmer, saltier water below and thick ice will no longer be able to form.
While this outcome will have its benefits in the form of navigation and resource exploitation, an essentially ice-free summer Arctic will gain heat much more rapidly (and not lose it during the winter since enough ice will still form to act as insulation), which in turn will have bad consequences for the adjacent Greenland ice sheet.
Re #40: Bernie, this is where you find out that Steve S. just sort of says things sometimes. Ironically it’s the U.S. Navy’s own sea ice expert, Wieslaw Maslowski, who first noted that the sea ice is in a downward trend much more rapid than predicted by the models.
Comment by Steve Bloom — August 8, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Herman and Jones compare the UA station with the station at the airport. Eschenbach (21) shows that the trend at the airport is greater than that at UA, but not statistically different from each other. Photos of the airport station can be seen here.
Comment by N. Johnson — August 8, 2007 @ 1:14 am
From their figures:
“Indeed, non-aspirated instruments can read 4-5 degrees warmer than aspirated instruments during our hot sunny days.”
In that case, how many of the USHCN sites use non-aspirated instruments? Wouldn’t even a few sites with non-aspirated instruments give an overall warm bias to the averages?
Comment by Henry — August 8, 2007 @ 7:46 am
There is a new image clearly showing what appears to be a 10-story (+/- 1 story) building directly NW and in close proximity of the lot. It appears there was no error in the survey report re: building height.
Comment by Chris D — August 8, 2007 @ 9:41 am
re: #41
Dr. Pielke,
The practice of attacking the messenger rather than the message is a fairly common one use by those who have their own special interest “jihad” going.
Back in January, I spent some time at Economist’s View where one “Anne” [I gathered from the Boston area] spent a lot of time spewing venom at anyone who did not agree with her take… rather than actually using data and logic.
bcl fits that stereotype.
Comment by Bruce Hall — August 8, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Steve Bloom says: “an essentially ice-free summer Arctic will gain heat much more rapidly (and not lose it during the winter since enough ice will still form to act as insulation)”
Steve Bloom raises some interesting science questions? I hope he will educate the readership of Climate Science how an increase of heat lost due to increased evaporation across an ice-free ocean surface compares to the increase of shortwave reaching the ocean surface due to the decreased albedo? It might be important to note that evaporative cooling is the dominant process by which the ocean loses heat. Please direct us to a peer-reviewed study showing how ocean heat content is altered by sea ice anomolies during the short arctic summer and early autumn. I’ll read it.
Also, how sure is Steve B. that the loss of ice is promted by abnormally warm weather patterns in the Arctic, and not more controlled by warm ocean currents flowing north into the Arctic out of the North Atlantic?
Does Steve B. have some meteorology data across the Arctic this summer which supports his hypothesis that warm weather is the controlling factor? I would like to see the 850 mb temp anomolies juxtaposed to where the negative seaice anomolies are actually occuring. Maybe Steve B. can undertake this research and report back to us.
None of this deals with the post, so Sorry Roger.
Comment by Bryan — August 8, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Big City Lib, regarding your claim there are no 10 story buildings nearby and that the surfacestations.org surveyors are unable to count, please have a look:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19658&g2_imageViewsIndex=2
The name of the surveyor is Warren Meyers, just in case you want to offer an apology for hurling an insult that had no basis in fact.
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 8, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
I don’t think one is necessary, Anthony. Here are the origonal comments by the site operator:
“However, there are a few gems hidden in that link. In the caption to that image, it says that the station is “ringed with 4-10 story buildings.â€? Granted, there is at least one building 10 stories tall nearby, seen best in tucson looking NW2. The building I’m in, directly to the north, is 4 stories. The buildings to the south and southwest are also around 4 stories. The building to the east is, at most, 7 stories tall. Here’s a tip for estimating the size of buildings… count the windows!”
I assume your still working on your answer to the “why do all the media that report on your project think you’re out to refute the existance of global warming?” question.
Comment by bigcitylib — August 8, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Incidentally, Anthony, the Lodi CA site appears to be in an enclosure similarly bedded with gravel. Do you know it its there for a reason?
Comment by bigcitylib — August 8, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
BCL, I think we need to draw some distinction between what is posted on surfacestations.org and Anthony Watt’s personal blog and other blogs, such as this one, RealClimate, and Climate Audit.
surfacestations.org is not a blog. It is a place to post data. As much data as possible. I think, for the most part, the surveyors who post data try to avoid drawing conclusions in their captions and reports, which are the only places conclusions can be drawn on that site. Some conclusions do get through as adjectives (e.g. “good” and “poor”) when a surveyor describes a site. I know I have made that slip at least once before when I noted a site as being well-sited. When errors are found we correct them. I posted an aerial photo of the Staunton, VA site with an arrow pointing to the wrong cluster of white pixels as the MMTS. Anthony and another volunteer emailed me and noted the error, which was easily identified by looking at another photo, and I corrected the error. (After writing that I realize that is how peer review works)
Now, the blogs obviously pick up on the data posted on surface stations and conclusions are drawn by the bloggers. Certainly some of those posting conclusions on the blogs are surface stations volunteers, but others are not. That’s what the blogosphere is for.
I think we are seeing the system work. Mr. Meyer posted pictures (data) on surface stations, and one of those pictures had the caption “The Tucson USHCN station is located in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, in the center of urban Tucson”. The caption does not note the 8×8 patch of gravel, but it is a bit hard to see in that image and I don’t think we can really fault him for not noting it in a picture caption. I don’t see the caption as inaccurate, only (arguably) incomplete. However, the blogs pick up on the images, draw conclusions, Messirs Herman and Jones respond, and debate continues. But the pictures never change, and they are there for all to see, study, and draw conclusions upon.
Comment by John Goetz — August 8, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Well I count 9 floors of windows, top to bottom, plus a floor without windows, thats 10.
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 8, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
RE52 There are lots of sites that have unexpected surfaces near the screen. Here are some examples.
Redding has weed mat and wood chips for example. Reason: “its easier to maintain that way”.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1152
Orland has gravel, for the same reason.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=554
Many ASOS stations that are USHCN have gravel under the sensors, for no apparent reason other than ease of maintenance, except this one in Mt. Shasts, CA next to a parking lot but becoming overgrown with weeds.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=18576
Comment by Anthony Watts — August 8, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Re #48: That’s a complete mis-read of my comments, Bryan. Also, has it occurred to you that your reasoning that an Arctic Ocean with less ice will somehow lose more heat is a bit, um, unphysical?
Comment by Steve Bloom — August 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Re #48,
Steve B has what he thinks is a good handle on the science. Unfortunately it doesn’t include thermodynamics - but that’s okay to him - he thinks physics doesn’t apply to climatology anyway…
Comment by Steve Hemphill — August 8, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Bad, good, indiferent. Meets standards vs doesn’t meet standards and how, this is not a moral or value judgement. Either it does or it doesn’t. Next!
Comment by Mike Nee — August 9, 2007 @ 3:58 pm