US Temperature Records And Therefore Global Records Are Unreliable
oonbz
bias in the temperature measurements.
QUOTE: we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the
National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about
100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
QUOTE: The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º
C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be
cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the US during
the past century.
QUOTE: Since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows that the
global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
Executive Summary
Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the rise
in temperature during the past century was "unprecedented" and proof that immediate action
to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin.
Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.
The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this
debate. We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data.
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network
of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a
department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the
measurement environment of those stations.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually
inspect and photographicallydocument more than 860 of these temperature stations.
We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded
by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and
buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater
treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher
than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet
the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters
(about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat
source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures
because they are badly sited.
It gets worse.
We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has
caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that
were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds
errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º
C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be
cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the US during
the past century.
Since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows
that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the US, many
of them demonstrating vividly the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network.
Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can be found at
www.surfacestations.org, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by
name.
1. Whitewash versus Latex
The research project described in this report was the result of pure serendipity. It began
when I set out to study the
effect of paint changes on the thermometer shelters, known as Stevenson Screens, used by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS)
to track changes in the climate of the US
I had known for a number of years, from my early work in the 1970s
with weather instrumentation, that when the US Weather Bureau was
commissioned in 1890, it used an instrument shelter designed by Thomas
Stevenson (1818-1887), a British civil engineer (and father of the author
Robert Louis Stevenson). (See Figure 1.) That wood-slatted box design
included a coating of whitewash (slaked lime in water), which was a
common outdoor coating of that era. When dried, it leaves a pure white
coating of calcium carbonate on the wood surface.
Whitewash was still specified as the coating of choice for Stevenson
Screens until 1979, when the National Weather Service (NWS), now
an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), made a specification change to switch the surface coating
from whitewash to semigloss latex paint. Latex paints have significantly
different infrared properties due to the pigment, titanium dioxide, which
differs from the calcium carbonate-based whitewash. I wondered if
this change might affect the temperature readings inside the Stevenson
Screens. In the spring of 2007, having time on my hands for the first time
in years, I set off to find the answer.
I purchased three new Stevenson Screen thermometer shelters, shown
in Figure 2. One is bare wood, unpainted, as a control; the middle one is
painted with latex, as sent by the supplier; and the third is painted with
a historically accurate (for early twentieth century) whitewash mixture
that I obtained (both materials and formula) from the head chemist at the National Lime
Company. Whitewash was mixed
after conferring with chemist Richard Godbey of the Chemical Lime Company in Henderson,
Nevada, and after reading a
paper he authored on the history and home creation of whitewash.1
The device on the tripod, also shown in Figure 2, is a stacked plate infrared thermometer
shield with a small fan to pull
air through, called an aspirated shield. I placed it at the same exposure height as the
thermistors (electronic temperature
sensors) in the screens and used it as the air temperature reference. Each Stevenson
Screen and the air temperature
reference sensor were fitted with matched, calibrated thermistors, National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
traceable with calibration certificates, which were connected to a calibrated data-logger,
also with a calibration certificate.
The resolution is .01º F with an accuracy of +/- 0.1º F over the range.
1. P. Mold and R. Godbey, "Limewash: Compatible Coverings for Masonry and Stucco,"
International Building Lime Symposium 2005,
Orlando, Florida, March 9-11, 2005, http://www.lime.org/BLG/Mold.pdf.
This test showed that changes to the surface coatings did
make a difference in the temperatures recorded in these
standard thermometer shelters, shown in Figure 3. I found
a 0.3º F difference in maximum temperature and a 0.8º F
difference in minimum temperature between the whitewashand
latex-painted screens. This is a big difference, especially
when we consider that the concern over anthropogenic
global warming was triggered by what these stations
reported was an increase of about 1.2º F over the entire
twentieth century.
2. Story of Three Stations
Next, I set out to determine if the Stevenson Screens of the
US network of temperature-monitoring stations had been
updated to latex paint as required by NWS specification
changes in 1979. I discovered that a specific network of
stations existed for the purpose of climate monitoring, called
the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). The
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) calls the USHCN
"a high quality, moderate-sized dataset of daily and monthly
records of basic meteorological variables from over 1000
observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States."2
This seemed like a good place to start my investigation of
the whitewash versus latex issue, particularly since there
were three stations near my town of Chico, California
within easy driving distance. I set out to check the paint on
the Stevenson Screens at these locations to see if they had
indeed been converted to latex from whitewash. The first
station, at the Chico University Experiment Farm, had been
converted to latex, but it also contained a surprise. It had
two screens, one of which was converted to automated radio
reporting. I was surprised to find NWS had installed the
radio electronics just inches from the temperature sensor,
inside the screen. (See Figure 4.) Surely this station's
temperature readings would be higher than the actual temperature of ambient air outside
the screen.
The next station, at Orland, California, was much better. It was well-sited and maintained
and had evidence of several
coats of latex paint. It had no electronics, just standard-issue mercury maximum and
minimum temperature-recording
thermometers. The third station, however, in Marysville, California, revealed the Chico
University station was not a fluke.
(See Figure 5.)
As I stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby
cell phone tower
equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the
temperature of a hot zone near a
large parking lot and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents,
and masonry.
I asked to see the official records kept by the fire station office, called B91 forms,
which are mailed monthly to the
National Climatic Data Center. They were woefully incomplete. The observer (the office
manager) didn't work weekends
or holidays, and the B91 form for July 2007 had only 14 of 31 days completed. A copy of
the actual form used to report
appears in Figure 6.
Upon seeing the B91 form for Marysville, my first thought was back to my college days in
lab exercises, where if I were
conducting an experiment and able to complete only 45 percent of the readings, my
instructor would surely tell me to
repeat the experiment until I could "do it right." Yet here we had an official
climate-monitoring station, dubbed part of the
"high quality" USHCN network that provides data for use in scientific studies, actually
measuring the temperature of a
parking lot with air conditioners blowing exhaust air on it, and missing more than half of
its data for the month of July!
I wondered if other researchers had expressed concern about the quality of the US
temperature record and found they
had. In 2003, NCDC recognized that the existing USHCN network had problems and
commissioned the new Climate
Reference Network (CRN) to replace the old USHCN network. A report released at the time
said:
The research community, government agencies, and private businesses have identified
significant shortcomings in
understanding and examining long-term climate trends and change over the US and
surrounding regions. Some
of these shortcomings are due to the lack of adequate documentation of operations and
changes regarding the
existing and earlier observing networks, the observing sites, and the instrumentation over
the life of the network.
These include inadequate overlapping observations when new instruments were installed and
not using wellmaintained,
calibrated high-quality instruments. These factors increase the level of uncertainty when
government
and business decision-makers are considering long-range strategic policies and plans.3
University Experiment Farm. Who puts a
temperature sensor right next to heat-generating
electronics?
3. Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook,
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/
X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
My search also led me to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the
Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder, and professor emeritus
of the Department of
Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Dr. Pielke had done some
studies on the quality of siting and measurements at USHCN climate-monitoring stations in
Colorado and he
confirmed my fears. He too had seen blatant violations of quality control that
contaminated the temperature record.
The missing Marysville data (14 of 31 days) led me to research how missing
data was dealt with in the climate record. I learned about a data algorithm used
by NCDC called FILNET, short for Fill Missing Original Data in the Network,
that is used to "infill" missing data using interpolations of data from surrounding
stations. After reading about it, I came to the conclusion that NCDC uses
FILNET to create "missing" data where none was ever actually. measured.
I looked up FILNET and, sure enough, missing data are created from nearby
station estimates. According to a government report,
Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that
used in SHAP [Station History Adjustment Program]. This adjustment uses
the debiased data from the SHAP and fills in missing original data when
needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a "network" of the best
correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data
adjustment process for stations that moved too often for SHAP to estimate
the adjustments needed to debias the data.4
I asked myself: "With potential heat biases such as temperature measurement
near parking lots, air conditioner vents, and radio equipment, plus significant
amounts of missing data being interpolated from other stations that may also have issues,
how could our national climatic dataset possibly be accurate?" After further discussion
with Dr. Pielke, and evaluating how he had done his study there with photography of
temperature stations, and realizing the importance of documenting the state of quality
control in the US Historical Climatology Network, I decided something needed to be done.
3. The Surface Stations Project
From my discussions with Dr. Pielke, the Surface Stations Project was born. The concept
was simple: Create a network
of volunteers to visit USHCN climate-monitoring stations and document, with photographs
and site surveys, their quality.
I worked with Dr. Pielke to encapsulate his survey methods into simple instructions any
member of the public could
understand and follow. I created a Web site, www.SurfaceStations.org, that featured an
interactive online database that
would allow for the uploading of photographs and site surveys, along with supporting data.
Since the project's inception in the Summer of 2007, more than 650 volunteer surveyors
have registered, and as of this
writing in February 2009, 865 of the 1,221 USHCN climate-monitoring stations have been
surveyed, representing more
than 70 percent of the operational climate-monitoring network in the continental United
States.
To rate the quality of the station siting characteristics, we used the same metric
developed by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center to set up the Climate Reference Network
(CRN). According to Section 2.2. of the Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information
Handbook, "the most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat
open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all
directions except at the lower angles of altitude
above the horizon."
Five classes of sites - ranging from most reliable to least - are defined:
Class 1: Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3
(less than 19º). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than 10 centimeters high. Sensors
located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as
buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if
it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading
for a sun elevation greater than 3 degrees.
Class 2: Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding vegetation less than
25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30 meters. No shading for a sun
elevation greater than 5º.
Class 3: (error 1ºC) Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10
meters.
Class 4: (error greater than 2ºC) Artificial heating sources less than 10 meters.
Class 5: (error greater than 5ºC) Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial
heating source, such as a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
This rating system is duplicated for the Surface Stations Project.
Distances to objects and surfaces are measured by
volunteer surveyors, and in cases where hands-on measurements are not possible, due to the
weather station being in a secured area (such as airports) or other inaccessible area,
measurements are made using aerial survey tools such as Google Earth and other aerial
mapping and measurement systems. When the site is inaccessible and the quality of aerial
photography is poor, photographic analysis of objects of known size and length that appear
with the weather stations (such
as chain link fence segments) are used to determine distances.
Armed with these rating tools provided by NOAA, NWS, and NCDC, the Surface Stations
Project was able to quantify
the quality of the operational USHCN climate-monitoring network. Due to the open and
accessible nature of the project,
having all photographs and data available online for public viewing, the surveys are seen
by dozens to hundreds of people,
who readily point out errors or concerns, such as a misidentified station. In such cases
where an error is identified, surveys
are removed from the database, and the site survey is redone when practical. Each USHCN
site rating, once applied, is
seen by three different individuals, ensuring it represents a true rating.
4. Examples of Poor Siting
The Surface Stations Project found an amazing array of siting issues in the USHCN, many
the product of poor planning
during installation or lack of time to complete a quality job of installation. Others are
almost comical in their ineptitude.
In this section we present some examples that represent the most commonly seen issues.
Infrared photography was used to
illustrate heat sources near the official thermometer.
The most frequent siting issue was proximity to artificial heating or radiative heat
surfaces. These nearby heat sources,
such as concrete and asphalt, have been demonstrated to heat nearby air and bias
thermometer readings upwards by as
much as 7º C (12º F).5 Thermometers are often much closer than the 100 meters required for
Class 1 status in the new
CRN, or even the 100-foot (30.48 meters) standard NOAA recommended for the older USHCN
network.6 The four
locations photographed below show instances where heat from nearby buildings, an electric
transformer, a water treatment
plant, and a sidewalk are all apparent from the infrared photos.
5. H. Yilmaz, S. Toy, M.A. Irmak, S. Yilmaz, and Y. Bulut, "Determination of Temperature
Differences between asphalt, concrete, soil and grass surfaces in the City of Erzurum,
Turkey," Atmosfera 21, #2 (2008), pp. 135-146.
6. "The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface." NOAA's
National Weather Service, Cooperative Observer
Program, "Proper Siting," http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm, last visited
February 11, 2009.
A trend illustrated by the photos above is for the newer style MMTS/Nimbus thermometers to
be installed much closer to
buildings and radiative surfaces than the older Stevenson Screens. NOAA's sensor cable
specification cites a maximum
distance of 1/4 mile,7 but installers often can't get past simple obstructions such as
roads, driveways, or even some
concrete walkways using the simple hand tools (shovel, pickaxe, etc.) they are provided to
trench a cable run. The photo
on the next page, of the USHCN station in Bainbridge, Georgia, illustrates the systemic
problem.
The original Stevenson Screen can be seen in the grass beyond the road, and the new
MMTS/Nimbus thermometer
appears in the foreground. The new location is just 8.9 feet from an air conditioning heat
exchanger and 14.3 feet from
a heated building. Note the parking spaces near the MMTS as well. Thus, the new station
location may report higher
temperatures than the old station even if ambient temperatures remain unchanged.
The problem illustrated by the Bainbridge, Georgia picture is widespread in the dataset.
Local National Weather Service
Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) managers lack the tools and often the time needed to
install the new cabled
electronic thermometer in locations that comply with NOAA guidelines. As a result, most
MMTS/Nimbus thermometers
get installed close to the building that houses the electronic readout equipment, which is
not weatherproof.
Since these MMTS/Nimbus electronic thermometers have been gradually phased in since their
inception in the mid-1980s,
the bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings,
asphalt, etc. would be gradual, and
likely not noticed in the data. If they had been installed all at once, or even over the
course of a year, there would be a step
function in the annual data announcing the problem.
The impact of moving a station can be dramatic. For example, Figure 16 shows a new
temperature station in Lampasas,
Texas, located in a radio station's parking lot in the very center of town, just 28 feet
from US Highway 183. Previously
the station was in a residential backyard over grass. According to the NCDC metadata
database, the station was moved on
October 1, 2000.
Figure 17 shows the giant step upward in temperature that coincided with the move.
The new station is recording heat from the air conditioning unit, house, cars, and asphalt
parking lot. Shading
issues mean winter temperatures are also affected when leaves are absent.
Figure 17. Since the station was moved in October 2000, temperatures
recorded for Lampasas have soared.
Figure 16. The recently moved temperature station in Lampasas, Texas
- now in the parking lot of a downtown radio station.
Particularly troubling is the frequency with which temperature stations are located at
wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs), given that WWTPs are heat islands due to the process of waste digestion. We found
approximately 68 USHCN climate-monitoring stations located at WWTPs.
Even in this electronic age, the requirement for a manned weather observation continues as
it has since the Weather
Bureau was founded in 1890. The task of observing the thermometer readings, recording them
in a log (the B91 form),
and mailing the log once a month to NCDC for transcription to the database requires a
person to be present seven days a
week. This is why fire stations, ranger stations, power plants, airports, and even sewage
treatment plants were assigned to
be official weather observers. They are always manned.
Figures 18 and 19 show a comparison of visible and infrared photography of a WWTP located
in Ontario, Oregon. The
outside air temperature when this was taken was 0º C (32º F). Note that according to the
infrared camera target, the
WWTP tanks read 13.3º C (55.9º F) You can even see warm water vapor rising off the tanks.
Surely the air near the WWTP tanks in Ontario, Oregon would be warmer than temperatures
measured 100 meters from
the waste tanks. And yet, we have official USHCN climate-monitoring thermometers mounted
directly adjacent to such
tanks throughout the United States. Figures 20 and 21 show two USHCN stations at WWTPs in
Drain, Oregon and Tarboro, North Carolina.
5. Bias in Adjustments by NOAA and NASA
Changing the technology and locations of temperature stations and a blatant disregard for
NOAA's own rules about
keeping sensors at least 100 feet away from heat sources and radiative surfaces have
undoubtedly contaminated the US
temperature record.
But it gets worse.
Adjustments applied to "homogenize" the data (comparing to surrounding stations and
adjusting) impart an even larger false warming trend to the data.
For example, consider the difference between what NOAA publishes and what NASA GISS
publishes after NASA
"homogenized" the Lampasas USHCN station data, shown in Figure 22. The revised data (shown
in red) are made to
appear cooler than the original data (shown in blue) in the past, making the positive
slope of the trend in the last century
even steeper.
It is not only NASA GISS that does this. NOAA adjusts temperature data also, and despite
the pervasive evidence that recent changes in technology and location have introduced an
upward bias in the temperature record over time,8 NOAA has been making adjustments that
increase the warming trend. Figures 23 and 24 show the trend over time of all the
adjustments applied to the USHCN data.
As illustrated in the graphs below, in simplest terms, NOAA adds a positive bias by its
own "adjustment" methodology. It
is important to note that Figure 24 shows a positive adjustment of 0.5º F from 1940 to
1999. The generally agreed-upon
"global warming signal" is said to be about 1.2º F (0.7ºC) over the last century.9
NOAA's "adjustments," in other words, account for nearly one-half of the agreed-upon rise
in temperature in the twentieth century. The same adjustments are applied to the GHCN
global temperature dataset.
Figure 22. USHCN "raw" data and NASA GISS "homogenized" data for Lampasas, Texas. NASA's
adjustments made the recent
temperature increase look even steeper. Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/.
8. R. McKitrick and P.J. Michaels, "A test of corrections for extraneous signals in
gridded surface temperature data," Climate Research
26 (2004), pp. 159-173; G.C. Hegerl and J.M. Wallace, "Influence of patterns of climate
variability on the difference between satellite
and surface temperature trends," Journal of Climate 15 (2002), pp. 2412-2428.
9. National Climatic Data Center, "Global Warming -- Frequently Asked Questions," "Item 3:
Global surface temperatures have increased
about 0.74º C (plus or minus 0.18º C) since the late-19th century."
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html.
Figure 23. NOAA's adjustments to raw temperature data have generally been to increase, not
decrease, recent temperatures. Source:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
Figure 24. The net effect of NOAA's adjustments is to increase the rise in temperature
since 1900 by 0.5º F. Source: http://cdiac.ornl.
gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
6. Findings
Volunteers for the Surface Stations Project have surveyed 865 stations, more than 70
percent of the USHCN's
1,221-station network, as of this writing. I have personally visited more than 100
stations in the states of California, Idaho,
Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas,
and Washington.
I believe it is possible to draw factual conclusions about the state of the USHCN
climate-monitoring network.
Figures 25 and 26 show locations of USHCN surface stations and those that have been
surveyed and rated by the Surface
Stations Project. The images make it dramatically clear that our sample is comprehensive
and representative. They also
show that high- and low-quality stations are well-distributed around the country.
Figure 25. Map of all USHCN surface stations in the US
Figure 26. Map of USHCN surface stations in the US surveyed and given a quality
rating by the Surface Stations Project.
Each station has been assigned a CRN rating based on the quality rating system provided by
NOAA. We found only
3 percent of the stations surveyed meet the requirements of Class 1, while an additional 8
percent meet the requirements of
Class 2. Stations that don't qualify as Class 1 or 2 have artificial heating sources
closer than 10 meters to the thermometer,
a far cry from the gold standard of 100 meters. This means 89 percent - nearly 9 of 10 -
of the stations surveyed produce
unreliable data by NOAA's own definition.
Twenty percent of stations were rated as Class 3, 58 percent as Class 4, and 11 percent as
Class 5. Recall that a Class
3 station has an expected error greater than 1ºC, Class 4 stations have an expected error
greater than 2ºC, and Class
5 stations have an expected error greater than 5ºC. These are enormous error ranges in
light of the fact that climate
change during the entire twentieth century is estimated to have been only 0.7º C. In other
words, the reported increase in
temperature during the twentieth century falls well within the margin of error for the
instrument record.
This project has shown that the vast majority of the temperature stations in the USHCN
network have proximity to
biasing elements that make them unreliable. Figure 27 offers a visual representation of
how low-quality stations greatly
outnumber high-quality stations.
The USHCN has stations in venues that are incompatible with continuous quality of
measurements due to localized
operational factors that likely impart a warm bias to measurements due to waste heat from
industrial, government, and
business processes. Examples include:
Prior to the Surface Stations Project, the weather stations that produced data for
inclusion into the USHCN dataset had
never been subject to a network-wide site quality assessment. The placement, maintenance,
and calibration of each site is
left up to the COOP manager at local National Weather Service Forecast Offices (NWSFO).
The gradual introduction of
the MMTS/Nimbus electronic thermometers since their inception in the mid-1980s has likely
introduced a slow and likely
undetectable warming bias due to thermometers being moved closer to buildings, asphalt,
concrete, and other man-made
influences as they were upgraded.
Figure 27. Most of the surveyed temperature stations in the US fall into categories that
mean they are unreliable. Only stations in CRN=1 and CRN=2 - 11 percent of all stations -
are reliable.
. Small and large city airports
. Industrial/factory complexes
. Fire and Ranger stations
. Electrical substations
. City water purification plants
. City wastewater treatment plants
7. Policy Implications and Recommendations
This report reveals a serious deterioration in the reliability of the US temperature
record due to siting decisions that
violate NOAA's own rules. With only 11 percent of surveyed stations being of acceptable
quality, the raw temperature
data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific
studies or as a basis for public
policy decisions. Adjustments to the data by NOAA/NCDC and NASA add significant additional
warming biases, which
compound the errors present from localized site biases. With 89 percent of the stations in
the USHCN network having
been shown not to meet NOAA's own criteria, the use of data from adjacent stations to
infill, adjust, or homogenize data
likely results in a greater distribution of error through the network.
These findings have significant implications for the scientific and policymaking
communities in the US and around the
world.
The USHCN data are widely used and cited by many major scientific centers for climate
analysis. These include but are not limited to:
. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) managed by Dr. James Hansen
. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge Laboratory
. Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK managed by Dr. Phil Jones
. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) managed by Mr. Thomas Karl
. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
The findings and recommendations of these highly respected and influential scientific and
political organizations are now
in doubt.
The data currently used to claim that the twentieth century witnessed a statistically
significant warming trend are unreliable. The truth of that claim can be established only
with new and more-reliable data. Since the US temperature record is widely regarded as
being the most reliable of the international databases, it follows that data used to
estimate the
change in global temperatures over the past century must also be revisited.
These findings lead me to make the following suggestions to NOAA/NCDC:
. An independently managed and comprehensive quality-control program should be implemented
by NOAA/NWS to
determine the best stations in the network.
. A pristine dataset should be produced from the best stations and then compared to the
remainder of the USHCN
network to quantify the total magnitude of bias.
. Users of the current USHCN data should be advised of the quality-control issues so that
they may reexamine results
derived from such data.
. NOAA should undertake a comprehensive effort to improve the siting of the stations and
correct the temperature
record for contamination that has been observed to occur during the past two decades.
On the following pages are examples of stations around the country, in
alphabetical order by city name, with descriptions of their siting conditions,
and temperature charts. The USHCN station temperature graphs
were provided by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Amherst, Mass., sited on gravel bed near
driveway.
Ardmore, Okla., between city hall and sidewalk,
main street.
Ashland, Ore., patch of green, sea of gray.
Blacksburg, Va., nearby concrete platforms,
satellite dish.
Block Island, R.I., adjacent to parking lot
and aircraft parking area.
Brinkley, Ark., nearby building with 3 air
blowers, dirt mound, raw sewage.
Atchison, Kan., near corner of large stone
buildings.
Baltimore, Md., sited on red platform on
city rooftop.
Bartow, Fla., nearby building, road, parking
lot.
Brookville, Ind., nearby driveway, building. Buffalo Bill Dam, Wyo., sited on concrete,
between two buildings.
Bunkie, La., too close to sidewalk and
building.
Cornwall, Vt., nearby building. Crosby, N.D., nearby building, patio. Dayton, Wash. Water
plant, over cinder
rock, near vents, buildings.
Champion, Mich., nearby road, parking
area, house.
Clarksville, Tenn., surrounded by sewage
plant and parking lot.
Conway, S.C., near large asphalt area,
building.
Detroit Lakes, Minn., nearby air-conditioning
unit, building, gas tank.
Dillon, Mont., tanks, building, sited on concrete
border of sidewalk.
Durham, N.H., nearby building, parking lot.
Fort Scott, Kan., overwhelmed by large
paved area, nearby building.
Fort Morgan, Colo., huge industrial building,
parking lot.
Gainesville, Ga., between two driveways.
Ennis, Mont., nearby building, trailer,
assorted junk.
Enosburg Falls, Vt., adjacent to driveway,
nearby building.
Falls Village, Conn., nearby building and
parking lot.
Grace, Idaho, industrial nightmare. Greenville, Texas, nearby building, satellite
dish, two air-conditioning units.
Greenwood, Del., sited on concrete
platform.
Hendersonville, N.C., nearby parking lot,
satellite dish, building.
Heppner, Ore., sea of crushed rock, city
disposal plant.
Hillsdale, Mich., near large paved area.
Gunnison, Colo., nearby parking lot. Haskell, Texas, between road and parking
lot, nearby building.
Hay Springs, Neb., next to building, narrow
sidewalk, telephone pole.
Hopkinsville, Ky., adjacent building,
driveway, accumulated junk, BBQ.
Hot Springs, S.D., partially obscured by
foliage.
Kennebec, S.D., sited on gravel path, nearby
shed.
Lexington, Va., sewage plant, near building,
sidewalks, road, parking lot.
Logan, Iowa, nearby building, concrete
slabs.
Lovelock, Nev., nearby building, U-Haul
unit.
Lampasas, Texas, next to sidewalk, near
satellite dish, road, parking lot, building.
Lebanon, Mo., nearby building. Lenoir, N.C., nearby sidewalk, road, building.
Marengo, Ill., nearby buildings, parking lot. Miami, Ariz., sited on gravel, next to
building.
Midland, Mich., next to vent at wastewater
treatment plant.
Morrison, Ill., sited on concrete, between
open wastewater tanks.
Mount Vernon, Ind., nearby road, building,
ironwork.
Napoleon, Ohio, over concrete, wastewater
tank.
Milwaukee, Wis., nearby road. Mohonk Lake, N.Y., much too close to
ground, shading issues, nearby building.
Monticello, Miss., between two buildings,
nearby sidewalk.
Neosho, Mo., nearby driveway and house. Northfield, Vt., nearby driveway, building.
Okemah, Okla., sited on edge of driveway,
nearby street.
Paris, Ill., adjacent rooftop. Paso Robles, Calif., sited on concrete slab
next to sidewalk, nearby road.
Pocahontas, Ark., fairly well sited. (Note
cooling trend.)
Orangeburg, S.C., nearby metal coverings,
parking lot, building.
Orono, Maine, sited on roof of large
building with parking lot.
Panguitch, Utah, former location (screen
removed) on concrete, by parking lot.
Racine, Wis., between building and road. Red Cloud, Neb., on premises of city power
plant. Nearby wall, structures.
Richardton Abbey, N.D., at edge of sidewalk,
nearby road, building.
Santa Rosa, N.M., exposed cabling, nearby
metal boats, burn barrel, junk.
Searchlight, Nev., in Department of Transportation
parking lot, heavy equipment.
Spanish Fork, Utah, sited on gravel, near
concrete wall.
Rock Rapids, Iowa, nearby building, sidewalk,
driveway.
Salisbury, Md., nearby building, airconditioning
unit.
Sandpoint, Idaho, heavy gravel base.
Spooner, Wis., nearby road and building. St. George, Utah, between building and
raised parking lot, car radiator level.
St. Joseph, La., well-sited station. (Note
temperature trend.)
Tifton, Ga., nearby air-conditioning units,
sidewalk, road.
Titusville, Fla., mounted near sewage digester,
near air-conditioning unit, generator.
Troy, Ala., nearby parking lot, satellite dish,
assorted junk.
State College, Pa., nearby concrete path,
building.
Staunton, Va., sewage plant, between tank
wall and paved road.
Thompson, Utah, nonstandard equipment,
over asphalt, nearby building.
Troy, N.Y., nearby parking lot, sidewalk,
building.
Tuckerton, N.J., unshielded sensor attached
to building.
Tucson, Ariz., sited on concrete in a
parking lot.
Uniontown, Pa., nearby building, road,
parking areas.
Urbana, Ohio, at sewage plant, multiple
violations (see labels).
Vale, Ore., next to road, screen facing wrong
direction.
Tularosa, N.M., at edge of gravel road. Tullahoma, Tenn., sewage plant, electrical
transformer, cement path.
Union Springs, Ala., nearby building.
Waterville, Wash., adjacent to sidewalk,
parking lots.
West Point, N.Y., sited on edge of paved
path, nearby stone building.
Wickenburg, Ariz., adjacent building, parking
lot, accumulated junk.
Woodville, Miss., nearby building. Worland, Wyo., nearby sidewalk, brick
mounting, gravel at base, outbuilding.
Yreka, Calif., sited on cinder rock, nearby
concrete driveway, parking lot.
Williamsburg, Ky., next to building (note
the adjacent exhaust vent).
Winfield, W. Va., up on the roof. Winnebago, Minn., nearby sewage tanks.
The stakes in the debate over global warming are high. If human activities are causing a
major warming of the earth's atmosphere, then actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
costing hundreds of billions of dollars would be necessary.
But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature
record?
This report, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, presents the results of the first-ever
comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the National Weather Service's
network of temperature stations.
Watts and a team of volunteers visually inspected and took pictures
of more than 850 of these stations. What they found will shock you:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units,
surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near
sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to
be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail
to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30
meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.
The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US
record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows that the global database is
likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
What A. Fool
>It appears that global warming is a figment of the imagination propagated by a warming
>bias in the temperature measurements.
>
>
>
>QUOTE: we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the
>National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about
>100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
>
>
>
>QUOTE: The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable.
Well, is there a better reporting system in operation?
Hey, maintenance and complying with specifications is
boring, it's more fun to sit in front of a computer and "adjust" the
data, I mean, nobody wants to be bored only receiving a 5-figure
salary!
netvegetable
[snip]
>
> QUOTE: we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
> fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
> stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an
> artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
You spend far too much of your life on those rightwing seppo blogs Bonzo.
When are you going to learn that the US is not the world?
[snip]
>
> QUOTE: Since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it
> follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and
> unreliable.
>
So how come the surface station record matches almost perfectly with sea
station and radiosonde record (HadCRUT), and satellite record (UAH, and
RSS)?
<http://tinyurl.com/dzbzlh>
--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
onservatives."- John Stuart Mill