Unintentional Skewing of Temperature Data

[Innoc]

In the January Newsletter of a group to which I belong someone wrote a piece talking about this site called http://www.surfacestations.org/. In the article they talked about temperature monitoring stations and the growth of cities around them. Apparently no one ever considered the impact of "development" on temperatures and those monitoring stations.

A monitoring station that was once in a field....clearing....forest...whatever... is eventually surrounded by asphalt and concrete. No one apparently accounted for the impact that development had.

Honestly, I never considered such an issue myself. Just curious about your thoughts guys.

[FrenchToast]

The entire issue never even entered my mind, but I have a hard time believing nobody involved ever thought of it.

Do you have a link to the article or is it only in hard copy?

[uBeR]

The idea is rubbish, and FrenchToast's supposition is correct. It was thought about, and it has a term, which is called the urban heat island. Scientists have always been aware of the urban heat island, and it's been corrected for, though the impact is not significant at all (see here). For those wondering, the effect has been noted in works that go back 200 years. For a contemporary discussion in the scholarly literature, see here. So, yes, it's well-known, and this is just a very poor (to be kind about it) attempt at discrediting what's been dubbed an "inconvenient truth" for them (that is, science).

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by uBeR

The idea is rubbish, and FrenchToast's supposition is correct. It was thought about, and it has a term, which is called the urban heat island. Scientists have always been aware of the urban heat island, and it's been corrected for, though the impact is not significant at all (see here). For those wondering, the effect has been noted in works that go back 200 years.

Figured as much; I never thought about it because I haven't been giving a lot of thought to global warming, but it would have surprised me if it had never been taken into consideration.

Apparently no one ever considered the impact of "development" on temperatures and those monitoring stations.

It would seem otherwise, as there is a term to describe the effect and a reasonable body of research done on it. I'm not gonna say that the newsletter writers were outright lying - they may not be very educated on the subject and urban heat islands are probably something that requires a degree of familiarity with the topic to know about. That said, they could have searched in Google at the very least and looked for the issue.

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

That said, they could have searched in Google at the very least and looked for the issue.

I think perchance you should read said article before making judgements like that. Or at all.

[YomMamasHouse]

I would like to read it, if an electronic version is available - but I can't imagine a situation where they would have done research and not happened across the term.

I already know what the term is thanks to Uber telling me so I can't actually say for certain, but I am reasonably confident that if I was told to find research on the effects of urban development on local temperatures, that a few well thought out Google/wikipedia searches would at least result in me happening upon the term and the relevant research, which would at least insure that I would not make statements indicating that the scientific community has not given thought to idea.

Innoc - what exactly do they say about it? Do they actually say that no one accounted for the impact of development or is that you interpreting their version of it?

[Hawk Eye]

Newsletters can also be digitally transmitted AFAIK. If at all possible, could you provide the text for us Innoc? If it is a hardcopy, well, there are means to digitize it that aren't as difficult as, say, typing it.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Hawk Eye

Newsletters can also be digitally transmitted AFAIK. If at all possible, could you provide the text for us Innoc? If it is a hardcopy, well, there are means to digitize it that aren't as difficult as, say, typing it.

Maybe they deleted the article so that no one could verify the original temp.. I mean text.

Scuzzy

[Innoc]

The publication and article are something I'm not able to share as it's restricted to membership only. However, I did link the website that was discussed in the article that I found interesting. This group has, apparently, analyzed 1000 or so of the ~1220 temp stations in the US and reported how far off they are due to Urban heating. Some more than 5C off calibration.

Do you guys seriously find it hard to believe that a station that ends up next to a strip of asphalt would be in danger of skewing? Why do you believe that it's not possible that the organizations responsible for such things might have overlooked this issue? It's Govt...where people commonly simply mimic what their predecessor did. Creativity, Innovation and Government rarely overlap.

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Do you guys seriously find it hard to believe that a station that ends up next to a strip of asphalt would be in danger of skewing? Why do you believe that it's not possible that the organizations responsible for such things might have overlooked this issue? It's Govt...where people commonly simply mimic what their predecessor did. Creativity, Innovation and Government rarely overlap.

Definitely not hard to believe, it would actually be hard to believe it were anything other than that, given the effects that development can have on local temperatures.
I do find it hard to believe that any data obtained from those stations that was used in a study on climate change would not have been given special consideration due to heat islands, as it is probably something that any climate scientist is familiar with. If these were just random government officials with some useless business or poli-sci degree than perhaps I could believe it, since they wouldn't know the first thing about climate science.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by uBeR

The idea is rubbish, and FrenchToast's supposition is correct. It was thought about, and it has a term, which is called the urban heat island. Scientists have always been aware of the urban heat island, and it's been corrected for, though the impact is not significant at all (see here). For those wondering, the effect has been noted in works that go back 200 years. For a contemporary discussion in the scholarly literature, see here. So, yes, it's well-known, and this is just a very poor (to be kind about it) attempt at discrediting what's been dubbed an "inconvenient truth" for them (that is, science).

Fantastic articles. I tend to disagree a little on what is significant. When we are talking the small degree of temperature change that facilitates what could be called a "disaster" for mankind. A 10th of a degree screw (US Average as a whole) where it is found, and not account for, is very significant. Key word there is not accounted for and I believe for the most part it is.

[Scuzzy]

What I wouldn't be surprised at is the tempuratures were reported and individual governments, scientists, etc were allowed to make their OWN adjustments to those tempuratures... meaning some looked and kept only the raw data, others adjusted by their own formulas, and others did so to make their case politically.

Scuzzy

[Innoc]

I take it most of you won't bother to read the site and are simply dismissing what they have to say out of hand? I say that as nothing posted ITT yet seems to indicate that anyone has actually gone to it. Here's a couple of excerpts from The "about" page

In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

If you do read the site I am curious as to your thoughts on it.

[stray kitten]

No one is disagreeing with you Innoc. However a very detailed study posted by Uber which is very conservative, I mean generous about what is urban vs earlier studies (more stations in that study were considered urban vs. earlier studies) states very clearly there is a difference of about a tenth of a degree caused by urban warming.

So yes this has to be taken into account. And what is the significance of photographic site evaluations tied to geo location data over superimposing the station location over staletlite soft light imagery?

Unless I am missing something.

Having said that I don't trust hardly anyone to report reliable scientific weather data these days. You have to dig into the studies yourself.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

No one is disagreeing with you Innoc. However a very detailed study posted by Uber which is very conservative, I mean generous about what is urban vs earlier studies (more stations in that study were considered urban vs. earlier studies) states very clearly there is a difference of about a tenth of a degree caused by urban warming.

So yes this has to be taken into account. And what is the significance of photographic site evaluations tied to geo location data over superimposing the station location over staletlite soft light imagery?

Unless I am missing something.

Having said that I don't trust hardly anyone to report reliable scientific weather data these days. You have to dig into the studies yourself.

Here's a link to some examples of photographic site surveys may be significant.
So...how many sites are impacted like this? Honestly, Stray Kitten...did you look at the site yet? Glance though it?

I keep bringing this up as I keep seeing dismissive statements from people posting here and no one seems to indicate that they even looked at what these people had to say. Why are they doing this? Lazy? Hostility directed at me? Worried about anything that might touch upon their faith in Anthropogenic Global Warming? Some other reason? (shrug)

Who uses these sites for data? Why do they matter?

[YomMamasHouse]

I have read the site and it seems like a good idea they are supporting - build stations where human influence is minimal so we have more accurate readings. I would like to know exactly what the article you read stated still; this site is showing how temperature reading will be distorted by the presence of asphalt and heating exhausts and such, but I would not be highly concerned unless the conclusions drawn from all this data by the people who do the interpreting do not compensate for the obvious bias in temperature readings that are coming from poorly placed sensors.

The readings themselves may be biased, but if the article you read actually claimed that no one accounted for biasing factors then that is an entirely different story, as this is an issue that is well understood by the scientific community.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Maybe they deleted the article so that no one could verify their record of saying stupid things

Fixed for appropriate context.

It's funny how Innoc complains that no one's even bothering to read the site that he relies on. Maybe everyone here just has "Hostility directed at me," he supposes. Never even considered is the idea that the Web site was looked at and easily dismissed, which is precisely what I did. I looked at, and it's mostly rubbish. Generally not worth your wasting your time on. This leads one to wonder whether Innoc himself has even bothered to read the other links that have been posted (by myself and reiterated by others).

As I said, the idea that the urban heat island effect has never ever been considered and that these are just dumb scientists too dull to realize that they're doing everything wrong is just pure fantasy by those who don't want to be bothered by that "inconvenient truth" (science).

As I also said, the effect was discussed 200 years ago and it is still discussed in contemporary literature. By that, I mean peer-reviewed academic literature published in scientific journals--not partisan newsletters. What does the literature say? It says the urban heat island has been accounted for but that the effect is not significant. Here, "significant" means statistically significant, which has a precise statistical meaning. In addition to the previous two studies I cited, I think Dr. Parker has recently put the issue to rest (see here and here). For those not interested in reading the scientific literature, here is a popular press article discussing the work I've just cited. Further discussion is provided in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, Chp. 3 of the WGI contribution (link). (They conclude that urban heat islands create about 0.002 degrees centigrade of decadal uncertainty in the temperature record since 1900.)

Ignored by the septics, of course, is that this is not the only evidence to show anthropogenic global warming. Far from it, actually. Two other obvious examples that are ignored are ocean temperatures and satellite monitoring. I'm guessing the septics are going to have a tough time trying to explain how ocean temperatures are increasing when the instruments used are not being affected by those pesky concrete cities. The septics are also unable to explain why temperature readings observed by satellites also show the same warming the land instruments do (because, as far as I know, there no urban islands in space). It's telling that virtually no one denies that the globe is warming with the exception of those way out in the extreme. And extreme is probably not a strong enough word.

But maybe it's just stupid government workers not knowing what they're doing, as Innoc contends. The evidence will allow us to judge the merits of the opposing claims.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

I have read the site and it seems like a good idea they are supporting - build stations where human influence is minimal so we have more accurate readings. I would like to know exactly what the article you read stated still; this site is showing how temperature reading will be distorted by the presence of asphalt and heating exhausts and such, but I would not be highly concerned unless the conclusions drawn from all this data by the people who do the interpreting do not compensate for the obvious bias in temperature readings that are coming from poorly placed sensors.

The readings themselves may be biased, but if the article you read actually claimed that no one accounted for biasing factors then that is an entirely different story, as this is an issue that is well understood by the scientific community.

That site suggests that the organization(s) responsible for those sites were made aware of the need to understand the placement of their monitoring stations and the immediate surroundings. The site also indicates that nothing was done to address what was pointed out. That's why this grassroots effort was made. If those controlling organization don't understand the placement and surroundings how can they compensate for skewing? Seriously...how do you compensate if you've never seen the site and don't know what's around it?

The article I read is immaterial. The site I linked contains that which I found interesting.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Here's a link to some examples of photographic site surveys may be significant.
So...how many sites are impacted like this? Honestly, Stray Kitten...did you look at the site yet? Glance though it?

I keep bringing this up as I keep seeing dismissive statements from people posting here and no one seems to indicate that they even looked at what these people had to say. Why are they doing this? Lazy? Hostility directed at me? Worried about anything that might touch upon their faith in Anthropogenic Global Warming? Some other reason? (shrug)

Who uses these sites for data? Why do they matter?

Yeah I looked at the site and i am not attacking you. I don't even think you will make a statement that the earth is NOT warming up. My point was they do realize there are bad ground stations out there and they try and make up for it. They know some ground stations are warm biased. You can make up for those with some analytical equations assuming you as the data manipulator do it. And as far as I can see NASA tries really hard too. Your point was that no one pays attention to this. My point is they try too.

Those stations referenced in the site are one data source used by by NASA to come up with their numbers. Even if you look at the stations the site considers are excellent - They still show a increase in temperature averages. Just not as drastic and if you just took that raw mean temperatures without adjustments they would be way off and I think that is what you are trying to point out. By my understanding as much at 5 c. Is the system perfect? No, would I move some of those stations and worry about them. Yes.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

Yeah I looked at the site and i am not attacking you. I don't even think you will make a statement that the earth is NOT warming up. My point was they do realize there are bad ground stations out there and they try and make up for it. They know some ground stations are warm biased. You can make up for those with some analytical equations assuming you as the data manipulator do it. And as far as I can see NASA tries really hard too. Your point was that no one pays attention to this. My point is they try too.

Those stations referenced in the site are one data source used by by NASA to come up with their numbers. Even if you look at the stations the site considers are excellent - They still show a increase in temperature averages. Just not as drastic and if you just took that raw mean temperatures without adjustments they would be way off and I think that is what you are trying to point out. By my understanding as much at 5 c. Is the system perfect? No, would I move some of those stations and worry about them. Yes.

I agree that there is evidence of warming. Where is disagree with some is that I do not take for granted that anthropogenic warming is a significant factor.

Perhaps there is honest effort to adjust skewed data in other areas. We aren't talking about them in this thread. I brought up this issue, this website and the lack of effort to correct and adjust by those controlling authorities. 10 years of no effort is what's claimed. I think that's pretty bad considering how much noise there's been about warming in the past 10 years.

You want to expand it out? How far do you want to go? There's quite alot out there. I suspect that this Bureaucratic "it's not my problem and I don't have the budget for it" BS is alot bigger than what I raised in this thread. I get that you prefer to look for yourself when it comes to data like this. I appreciate and respect that. If something is interesting to me I tend to do the same.