Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "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." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".


Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts' conclusion
While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?
The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites. These MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device, and are consequently limited by cable length as to how far they can be sited from the building housing the indoor readout device. As a result, they are often located close to heated buildings, paved surfaces, air conditioner exhausts, etc. It turns out that these MMTS thermometers have a flaw that causes them to measure minimum temperatures that are slightly too warm, and maximum temperatures that are considerably too cool, leading to an overall cool bias in measured average temperatures. In contrast, only 30% of the "good" sites used the MMTS sensors. The "good" sites predominantly used Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked. Since the poorly-sites stations were dominantly equipped with MMTS thermometers, they tended to measure temperatures that were too cool, despite their poor siting.


Figure 3. Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 temperatures. Temperatures were adjusted to correct for changes in instrumentation, station relocations, and changes in the time of observation, making the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org. For comparison, the data between 2004 - 2008 taken by the new high-quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN, black dashed line) is shown, and displays excellent agreement for that time period. Image credit: Menne 2010.

Independent verification of recent USHCN annual temperatures
Clearly, the siting of many of the surface stations used to track climate change in the U.S. is not good. To address this issue, in 2004 NOAA created the U.S. Climate Reference Network, a collection of 114 stations in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The stations were sited and instrumented with climate studies in mind, and can provide an extremely high-quality independent check on the old USHCN network. Each of 114 stations at 107 locations (some stations were installed as nearby pairs) is equipped with very accurate instruments in a triplicate configuration so that each measurement can be checked for internal consistency. As shown in Figure 3, the USCRN air temperature departures for 2004 - 2008 are extremely well aligned with those derived from the USHCN version 2 temperature data. For these five years, the the difference between the mean annual temperatures measured by the old USHCN compared to the new USCRN was just 0.03°C, with a mathematical correlation coefficient (r-squared) of 0.997. Menne et al. concluded, "This finding provides independent verification that the USHCN version 2 data are consistent with research-quality measurements taken at pristine locations and do not contain spurious trends during the recent past even if sampled exclusively at poorly sited stations. While admittedly this period of coincident observations between the networks is rather brief, the value of the USCRN as a benchmark for reducing the uncertainty of historic observations from the USHCN and other networks will only increase with time". The authors finally concluded, "we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor siting".

Crediting Anthony Watts
The surfacestations.org effort coordinated by Anthony Watts has made a valuable contribution to science, helping us better understand the nature of the errors in the U.S. historical temperature data set. In his talk last week at the AMS conference, and in the credits of his paper, Dr. Menne had some genuinely grateful comments on the efforts of Anthony Watts and the volunteers of surfacestations.org. However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.

I'll have a new post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 129 - 79

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

say what????? what planet does he live on?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
no we are chatting about canewarnings 1200 dollar a month hydro bill
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
what are we talking about now? are we still on GW? is it time for an Al Gore moment?

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I live on Davis Islands, so maybe my proximity to water causes me to use more electricity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
are ya runnin the ac 24 7 or something when it gets warm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Yeah that's pretty normal.


dang, how big is your house?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339
Quoting tornadodude:


is it normally that high?


Yeah that's pretty normal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


the hydro bill for building runs about 25 to 30 thousand a month
in the winter we have additional 15 to 20 thousand a month for gas depending on how cold so in all the utilities are between 30 and 50 thousand dollars a month
for a 140 unit high rise apartment building


Oh my, but he is in a house, im pretty sure. Must be a big house.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Nope! I don't know why it's so high. I guess I use a lot of electricity.


Whadda ya got there --- a 3800 sq. ft. bungalow?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:


With a power bill like that our you cultivating an illegal crop?


the hydro bill for building runs about 25 to 30 thousand a month
in the winter we have additional 15 to 20 thousand a month for gas depending on how cold so in all the utilities are between 30 and 50 thousand dollars a month
for a 140 unit high rise apartment building
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Nope! I don't know why it's so high. I guess I use a lot of electricity.


is it normally that high?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339
More snow headed for the southern Miss. valley,tennessee valley,and Middle Atlantic.
I'll gladly let you people to the south hog all the snow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:


Nope! I don't know why it's so high. I guess I use a lot of electricity.


Might want to check for a cord going to the neighbor across the street, I think there stealing power.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
That includes a $48 fuel credit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:


With a power bill like that our you cultivating an illegal crop?


Nope! I don't know why it's so high. I guess I use a lot of electricity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
My bill last month was all the way down to $350. Most months in the summer it runs around $1000-$1200.


With a power bill like that our you cultivating an illegal crop? j/k
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Just received my electric bill...which included the cold spell earlier in the month...$58!!! Going to have to frame that one :) Not going to see that again for a long time.


Is that before or after the FPL one time fuel credit in the Jan bill? I was happy with mine until I noticed the credit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jeff9641:


Saints could be in trouble against the Colts. The Colts are playing the best football right now. Also, there are hints that SB 44 could be rainy as the sub-tropical jet really gets cranked up.

Two straight SB's in the rain down here? Well, that will make another interesting game. But I got the Saints in this one. If that Colts starting CB who got injured doesn't heal, the back-up is gonna be in a world of hurt.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting taco2me61:


Holy Cow if mine was that high I would get some solar panals and get my heat for free.....



I ran the heat some during the cold snap. I assume it must be the landscape lighting and outside lights that account for much of my energy use. I have a newer home with energy efficient everything.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This does not prove global warming but north poletic warming .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In all my considerable number of years living on this plant, I have found two things to be true about weather in the Northern Hemisphere.

1) When it's summer, it's hot.

2) When it's winter, it's cold.

I'm really sick of this GW, CC, hoax BS....just sick of it.

If you're into it (a green lifestyle,) that's okay by me. Ride your bike in traffic, spend hours sorting garbage to recycle, turn your house into a giant solarium solar collector...no problem.

Just don't force me to do it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
My bill last month was all the way down to $350. Most months in the summer it runs around $1000-$1200.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
My bill last month was all the way down to $350. Most months in the summer it runs around $1000-$1200.


Holy Cow if mine was that high I would get some solar panals and get my heat for free.....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


yeah, the brief warmup was nice, but back to the cold. there seems to always be a brief january thaw, then it goes bitter
yeah i kinda like to refer to it as the second half and other than the cold snap the first half hasn't been all that bad a very snowless winter for my area so far lets see what this second half got left
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


Revis Island?
Saints vs Colts...Yep tdude, got my wish...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My bill last month was all the way down to $350. Most months in the summer it runs around $1000-$1200.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Always, and I'd venture a guess that my "island" is fairly crowded with like minded people.


Well I have to say it sure has been a lot of good reading on here today....

Thanks to all that said something right or left....

Taco :0)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting caneswatch:


Revis can't cover for anything. He got burned by the world's worst receiver on MNF and Wayne caught 3 for 55, and he usually gets the leagues' top receivers below 40 yards.


But anyways, when does the cold weather get back here in S FL?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Just received my electric bill...which included the cold spell earlier in the month...$58!!! Going to have to frame that one :) Not going to see that again for a long time.


I had $50.40 last month, I thought there was a mistake, but not running heater or A/C with power saver lights makes a huge difference. Have to admit I ran my heat a little when it got into the 30's so probably not going to be that cheap this time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


Revis Island?


Revis can't cover for anything. He got burned by the world's worst receiver on MNF and Wayne caught 3 for 55, and he usually gets the leagues' top receivers below 40 yards.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
ours just startin to fall down to 38.3 from a high of 45 at 8 am this morning yesterday we had a 49 degree day but so much for that jan thaw by end of week we will be below 0f windchills again or -18c


yeah, the brief warmup was nice, but back to the cold. there seems to always be a brief january thaw, then it goes bitter
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339
Quoting tornadodude:


yeah, the temps here are back to below normal after a couple days above
ours just startin to fall down to 37.6 from a high of 45 at 8 am this morning yesterday we had a 49 degree day but so much for that jan thaw by end of week we will be below 0f windchills again or -18c
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Liberal far Left and Radical far Right comments are for other blogs here please. There are enough of them elsewhere on this site without bringing that to this blog.


Book 'em Dano!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The gist of what I read is that siting issues are a non-issue because the instruments themselves are inaccurate. Therefore trust us that the numbers given to the public are accurate, even though we can explain how we got those numbers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Always, and I'd venture a guess that my "island" is fairly crowded with like minded people.


Revis Island?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339
Dan, I wish you were around earlier when the main topic of conversation was sports.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


Have fun on your Island DAn! I'm out!


Always, and I'd venture a guess that my "island" is fairly crowded with like minded people.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Just received my electric bill...which included the cold spell earlier in the month...$58!!! Going to have to frame that one :) Not going to see that again for a long time.


Wow, that's nice.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Just received my electric bill...which included the cold spell earlier in the month...$58!!! Going to have to frame that one :) Not going to see that again for a long time.


pretty sure my parents would love a $58 electric bill in the winter! :P
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


yep just a little bit on the way back to jan coming up


yeah, the temps here are back to below normal after a couple days above
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8339
Just received my electric bill...which included the cold spell earlier in the month...$58!!! Going to have to frame that one :) Not going to see that again for a long time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Liberal far Left and Radical far Right comments are for other blogs here please. There are enough of them elsewhere on this site without bringing that to this blog.


Have fun on your Island DAn! I'm out!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 178 Comments: 20439
Quoting tornadodude:
Pretty good sized area of snow on the way:



yep just a little bit on the way back to jan coming up
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Awesome! Global warming talk!


Bye!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


Liberal far Left and Radical far Right comments are for other blogs here please. There are enough of them elsewhere on this site without bringing that to this blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 129 - 79

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.