Oak Ridge start walking the talk about Met Station siting

Posted: January 20, 2013 by tchannon in Surfacestation

Image

From WUWT “Via experiment, NOAA establishes a fact about station siting: ‘nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory’”

Link here

The UK surface station project here at the Talkshop is sleeping, not dead, some takes ages over talking to outsiders and perhaps choosing the right time.

Most of what has been done as a first pass is listed here or via catagory search left sidebar.

Posted by Tim Channon

Comments
  1. Tried to find info on this experiment – Nothing found (apart from Noaa mention) – any help please?

    If there is no released data then how does WUWT make their claim about increased (by how much?) night time temps?

  2. tchannon says:

    I’m not party to the experiment so I am guessing there is backchannel.

  3. Roger Andrews says:

    Sending you something :-)

  4. Roger Andrews says:

    The Oak Ridge experiment was one of two surface temperature projects discussed at the AMS meeting, but I found the other to be a lot more interesting. John Neilsen-Gammon described it thus:

    “The other, by Gil Compo of NOAA at Boulder, Colorado, is an analysis of land surface temperature trends without using any land surface temperature measurements.”

    Huh?  

    “This makes it independent of any problems with land surface stations and the issues that go along with them, such as siting, changes of equipment, or urban heat islands.”

    Well, if they’re not using any surface station data I guess it would be.

    “They did their analysis using what’s called the 20th Century Reanalysis.  This reanalysis dataset was constructed by collecting surface air pressure and sea surface temperature observations and feeding them into a weather simulation model using something called the Ensemble Kalman Filter.  Basically, what happens is that the weather simulation model figures out what weather patterns are most consistent with the observations of air pressure and sea surface temperature over time.  The output is the full analyzed state of the atmosphere, including winds, rainfall, and (most important for our purposes here) land surface temperatures.”

    Ah, they used sea surface temperatures, did they? And a model too …..

    “The reanalysis does a very good job reproducing the year-to-year land surface temperature variations, which the in situ measurements can accurately detect.  Given that ability, what sort of long-term trend does the reanalysis produce over land?  I haven’t had a close look at the numbers, but it appears that the long-term land-surface trend in the reanalysis is similar to the trend in the conventional land surface temperature analysis such as GISTemp and CRUTEM.” 

    And so it should be, given that the SST data they used to reconstruct air temperature trends are “corrected” to match air temperature trends.

    “Also, the differences do not behave as though there is a steadily-increasing urban heat island effect contaminating the land surface data.”

    Dunno about a UHI effect, but the land surface data are certainly contaminated by bogus warming corrections. I guess they just slipped through the cracks.

    Next they’ll be announcing that they’ve figured out how to make an omelet without breaking any eggs.

  5. thefordprefect says:

    Hmmm would seem to be supposition at this stage, no “back channel”.
    From WUWT
    Anthony Watts says:

    January 20, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    @Duncan, don’t know for certain, since I can’t get the whole presentation yet. I will say that if it were not a significant value, John N-G would not have written about it.

  6. tchannon says:

    I can make no further public statement, have to let others say, sorry. If you wish to take this further please do so directly with Anthony Watts.

    What I wrote in the article should not be a problem. If the subject of instrumentation interests you I expect there will be content from me at some point. Known issues are many but few are likely to be of general interest, technical, nor really for this blog..