An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Seasonal Normal Weather Base
Advertisements

Literature Review Kathryn Westerman Oliver Smith Enrique Hernandez Megan Fowler.
Section 2.2 ~ Dealing With Errors
Siting matters, and the numbers show just how much.
Visit with Anthony Watts April 23, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center U.S. HCN Temperature Trends: A brief overview.
Evolution and future projections of the urban heat island at the coastal urban area of Athens D. Founda 1, C. Giannakopoulos 1, M. Hatzaki 1, M. McCarthy.
Food Accessibility in Wisconsin: Comparison of Self-Report, Direct Observation, and Mapping Data ResultsKey Findings Results Conclusions Background Results.
Group 1 Mobile, Alabama Alana Smith Meredith Karr Charles Edwards Chris Swaim Lindsay Ash.
 Myth: What global warming? Earth has actually been cooling since ◦ 1998 was the warmest summer  It’s been cooler since then ◦ Not supported by.
Strategies for the Selection of Substitute Meteorological Data Ken Sejkora Entergy Nuclear Northeast – Pilgrim Station Presented at the 14 th Annual RETS-REMP.
Nynke Hofstra and Mark New Oxford University Centre for the Environment Trends in extremes in the ENSEMBLES daily gridded observational datasets for Europe.
Estimating Groundwater Recharge Using the Oklahoma Mesonet
Greenhouse Effect. Purpose How does the greenhouse effect occur?
Google Analytics Top 10 Metrics By: Errett Cord Website:
Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics Richard Curtin University of Michigan.
Humans and Ecology: What are we doing, what should we do, what can we do, and does it matter?
Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future Dr. Cameron Wake Climate Change Research Center Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS) University.
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record Current Weather Data Sources Land vs. Ocean Patterns Instrument Siting Concerns Return Exam II For Next Class:
1 Global Ocean Heat Content in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Syd Levitus, John Antonov, Tim Boyer Ocean Climate Laboratory.
The Issue What data should be used for extremes? Current extreme records inconsistent.
CE 401 Climate Change Science and Engineering evolution of climate change since the industrial revolution 9 February 2012
IP Routing table compaction and sampling schemes to enhance TCAM cache performance Author: Ruirui Guo a, Jose G. Delgado-Frias Publisher: Journal of Systems.
Original Graph Set This is the first set of studies that we made after re-rating the stations using the updated Leroy (2010) system. We examine compliant.
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education. All rights reserved Dealing with Errors LEARNING GOAL Understand the difference between random and systematic.
Crystal Reinhart, PhD & Beth Welbes, MSPH Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Social Norms Theory.
Evaluating Self Care in an English Public Hospital Jon Talbot.
Eric M. Gulledge, Luma Akil and H. Anwar Ahmad
Is High Placebo Response Really a Problem in Clinical Trials?
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc.
Investment Analysis and Portfolio management
Power curve loss adjustments at AWS Truepower: a 2016 update
Assessment of Safety and Physical Environment factors in Governmental Primary Schools in Dammam Farhan M Al-Anezi.
Nicole R. Buttermore, Frances M. Barlas, & Randall K. Thomas
Michigan Technological University
Inna Khomenko, Oleksandr Dereviaha
Chapter 5 Comparing Two Means or Two Medians
Active layer and Permafrost monitoring programme in Northern Victoria Land.   Mauro Guglielmin (1) (1) Sciencies Faculty, Insubria University, Via J.H.Dunant.
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
Combining Ocean Observing Systems with Statistical Analysis to Account for a Dynamic Habitat Collin Dobson1,John Manderson2,Josh Kohut1,Laura Palamara1,Oscar.
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
Jackie May* Mark Bourassa * Current affilitation: QinetiQ-NA
2.2 Dealing with Errors LEARNING GOAL
Independent Load Forecast Workshop
The Diurnal Temperature Range and its Recent Evolution
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Analysis based on normal distributions
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Kostas M. Andreadis1, Dennis P. Lettenmaier1
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
Story Line: Bias in data
NOAA/NESDIS/Center for Satellite Applications and Research
Validation of mesoscale generalisation procedure for the WRF model
Story Line: Bias in data
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Jan Horálek (CHMI) Peter de Smet, Frank de Leeuw (RIVM),
Story Line: Bias in data
presented by LCDR Allon Turek, USN 14 March 2008
The Coefficient of Determination (R2) vs Relative Standard Error (RSE)
CTD SVP’s Compared to GDEM
INVESTIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE USING OBSERVED TEMPERATURE DATA
Uncertainties influencing dynamic evaluation of ozone trends
NOAA Objective Sea Surface Salinity Analysis P. Xie, Y. Xue, and A
Alex Gallagher and Dr. Robert Fovell
Instrumental Surface Temperature Record
A Temperature Forecasting Model for the Continental United States
Future Inundation Frequency of Coastal Critical Facilities
Chapter 10: Comparing Two Populations or Groups
Sample Sizes for IE Power Calculations.
Classification of JMA manned stations
PM10 trends in Switzerland using random forest models
Presentation transcript:

An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends An updated evaluation of the U.S. Historical Climate Network as it relates to siting biases Supplement to Watts et al., 2012 Updated 8/3/12

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………. page 2 STATION QUALITY RATINGS (“Microsite”) …………... page 3 GENERAL STATION ENVIRONMENT (“Mesosite”) ….. page 4 PART1 ………………………………………………………... page 5 All Rated Stations PART 2 ……………………………………………………….. page 14 Airports Excluded PART 3 ……………………………………………………….. page 24 Rural Stations Only PART 4 ……………………………………………………….. page 33 PART 5 ……………………………………………………….. page 43 MMTS Equipment (modernized sensors) only

Introduction This study compares of the rate of warming of well sited and poorly sited stations to determine whether improper location engenders spurious warming biases in the data trends. There are two bases of comparison: Microsite: Immediate surroundings (Proximity to buildings, asphalt surfaces, etc. Stations are rated from Class 1 to 5.) Mesosite: General environment (Rural, Semi-Urban, Urban, etc.) Ideally, only properly sited, i.e., Class 1&2, Rural, Non-Airport, stations should be used to measure historical temperature trends.

Station Quality Ratings (Microsite) Class 1&2 (Compliant) Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. Class 3 (Non-Compliant) Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. Class 4 (Non-Compliant) Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. Class 5 (Non-Compliant) Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters.

General Environment (Mesosite) Rural Semi-Urban Urban Airports

Part 1 Sample: All Stations This includes all stations in place prior to 2003 that we were able to observe and rate. Includes: Rural Semi-Urban Urban Airports Sample size (All Stations, All Classes): 779 Compliant: 160 Non-Compliant: 619

Class 1\2 (Compliant) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. Airports and urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 160

Class 3 (Non-Compliant) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. Sample size: 247

Class 4 (Non-Compliant) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. Airports and urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 277

Class 5 (Non-Compliant) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters. Airports and urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 95

Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Sample includes all Class 3, 4, and 5 stations. These stations are not in compliance with NOAA microsite requirements. Sample size: 619

Class 1-5 (All Rated Stations) All Rated Stations Gridded Average Sample includes all rated stations, Class 1-5, including all NOAA compliant and non-compliant stations. Sample size: 779

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) All Rated Stations Gridded Average This is the data for all 779 rated stations as adjusted by NOAA. Instead of adjusting the poorly sited station trends downward to the levels of the well located stations, the well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends. The “official” trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Comparison All Rated Stations What the compliant thermometers actually say: +.155 What the non-compliant thermometers say: +.248 What NOAA says: +.309 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant)

Part 2 Airports Excluded This includes stations in place prior to 2003 that we were able to observe and rate. Includes: Rural Semi-Urban Urban (Airports Excluded) Sample size (All Stations, All Classes): 727 Compliant: 126 Non-Compliant: 601

Class 1\2 (Compliant) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. Airports are excluded, urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 126

Class 3 (Non-Compliant) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. Airports are excluded, urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 238

Class 4 (Non-Compliant) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. Airports are excluded, and urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 269

Class 5 (Non-Compliant) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters. Airports are excluded, urbanized areas are included. Sample size: 94

Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Sample includes all Class 3, 4, and 5 stations. These stations are not in compliance with NOAA microsite requirements. Sample size: 601

Class 1-5 (All Rated Stations) Airports Excluded Gridded Average Sample excludes airports, urbanized areas are included. Class 1-5, including both NOAA compliant and non-compliant stations. Sample Size: 727

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Airports Excluded Gridded Average This is the data for the 727 non-airport stations as adjusted by NOAA. The well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends (also adjusted upward. The adjusted trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Comparison Airports Excluded What the compliant thermometers actually say: +.124 What the non-compliant thermometers say: +.246 What NOAA says: +.308 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant)

Comparison Airports vs. Non-Airports Compliant Stations, Non-Airports: Comparison Airports vs. Non-Airports Compliant Stations, Non-Airports: .124 Compliant Stations, Airports: .251 Class 1\2 (Compliant) AIRPORTS REMOVED Class 1\2 (Compliant) AIRPORTS ONLY

Part 3 Rural Only This includes stations in place prior to 2003 that we were able to observe and rate. Includes: Rural Rural Airports (Semi-Urban Excluded) (Urban Excluded) Sample size (All Stations, All Classes): 502 Compliant: 105 Non-Compliant: 397

Class 1\2 (Compliant) Rural Only Gridded Average Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. Rural airports are included, all urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 105

Class 3 (Non-Compliant) Rural Only Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. Rural airports are included, all urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 158

Class 4 (Non-Compliant) Rural Only Gridded Average Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. Rural airports are included, all urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 187

Class 5 (Non-Compliant) Rural Only Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters. Rural airports are included, all urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 52

Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant) Rural Only Gridded Average Sample includes all Class 3, 4, and 5 stations. These stations are not in compliance with NOAA microsite requirements. Rural airports are included, all urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 397

Class 1-5 (All Rated Stations) Rural Only Gridded Average Sample includes rural airports; all urbanized areas are excluded. Class 1-5, including both NOAA compliant and non-compliant stations. Sample Size: 502

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Rural Only Gridded Average This is the data for the 502 rural stations, as adjusted by NOAA. The well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends (also adjusted upward. The adjusted trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Comparison Rural Only What the compliant thermometers actually say: +.123 What the non-compliant thermometers say: +.228 What NOAA says: +.304 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant)

Part 4 Rural, Airports Excluded This includes stations in place prior to 2003 that we were able to observe and rate. Includes: Rural, Non-Airport (All Airports, including Rural, Excluded) (Semi-Urban Excluded) (Urban Excluded) Sample size (All Stations, All Classes): 491 Compliant: 98 Non-Compliant: 393

Class 1\2 (Compliant) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. All airports and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 98

Class 3 (Non-Compliant) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. All airports and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 157

Class 4 (Non-Compliant) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. All airports and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 185

Class 5 (Non-Compliant) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters. All airports and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 51

Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Sample includes all Class 3, 4, and 5 stations. These stations are not in compliance with NOAA microsite requirements. All airports and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 393

Class 1-5 (All Rated Stations) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average Sample includes rural non-airports; all urbanized areas and airports are excluded. Class 1-5, including both NOAA compliant and non-compliant stations. Sample Size: 491

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Rural, no Airports Gridded Average This is the data for the 491 rural non-airport stations, as adjusted by NOAA. The well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends (also adjusted upward. The adjusted trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Comparison Rural, no Airports What the compliant thermometers actually say: +.108 What the non-compliant thermometers say: +.228 What NOAA says: +.307 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant)

Rural, no Airports, NOAA ADJUSTED Comparison Rural, no Airports Compliant Raw vs. Compliant Adjusted Compliant Stations, Raw Data: .108 Compliant Stations, NOAA Adjusted Data: .310 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Rural, no Airports, RAW Class 1\2 (Compliant) Rural, no Airports, NOAA ADJUSTED

Part 5 Rural MMTS, Airports Excluded This includes stations in place prior to 2003 that we were able to observe and rate. Includes: Rural MMTS, Non-Airport (All Non-MMTS post 1994 or plurality CRS or ASOS Excluded) (All Airports, including Rural, Excluded) (Semi-Urban Excluded) (Urban Excluded) Sample size (All Stations, All Classes): 312 Compliant: 56 Non-Compliant: 256

Class 1\2 (Compliant) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover under 10% of area within a 30-meter radius of sensor, under 1% of within 5 meters, and under 5% of an annulus from 5 to 10 meters. All non-MMTS, airports, and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 56

Class 3 (Non-Compliant) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 10% of area within a 30-meter radius but under 10% within 10 meters and under 5% within 5 meters. All non-MMTS, airports, and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 97

Class 4 (Non-Compliant) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover from 10% to 50% of area within a 10-meter radius of sensor but under 30% within 3 meters. All non-MMTS, airports, and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 132

Class 5 (Non-Compliant) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Heat sinks cover over 50% or more area within a 10-meter radius of sensor or over 30% within 3 meters. All non-MMTS, airports, and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 27

Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Sample includes all Class 3, 4, and 5 stations. These stations are not in compliance with NOAA microsite requirements. All non-MMTS, airports, and urbanized areas are excluded. Sample size: 256

Class 1-5 (All Rated Stations) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average Sample excludes all non-MMTS equipment, urbanized areas, and airports. Class 1-5, including both NOAA compliant and non-compliant stations. Sample Size: 312

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Rural MMTS, no Airports Gridded Average This is the data for the 312 rural non-airport MMTS stations, as adjusted by NOAA. The well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends (also adjusted upward. The adjusted trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.

Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Comparison Rural MMTS, no Airports What the compliant thermometers actually say: +.032 What the non-compliant thermometers say: +.183 What NOAA says: +.300 Class 1\2 (Compliant) Class 1-5 (After NOAA Adjustments) Class 3\4\5 (All Non-Compliant)

CONCLUSIONS It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are small.

It is demonstrated that stations with poor mesosite (airports and urbanized areas) show an increase in temperature trends of both well and poorly microsited stations, alike. Over a third of all stations are located in a poor mesosite environment. This is extremely unrepresentative of the topography the stations purport to represent. Poor mesosite has its greatest effect on Class 1, 2 stations (over 40% spurious exaggeration of trend), as so many of them are located in airports.

NOAA adjustment procedure fails to address these issues NOAA adjustment procedure fails to address these issues. Instead, poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward (not downward), and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations. Well sited rural, non-airport stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

There is the further issue of equipment inhomogeneity There is the further issue of equipment inhomogeneity. Modern MMTS sensors show a significantly lower warming trend than the obsolete CRS shelters. Yet rather than lowering the trends of CRS stations, the trends of MMTS stations are sharply adjusted upwards. (It is difficult, however, to be certain of the true effect thanks to the relatively small number of Class 1,2, rural, non-airport stations.)