Comments on: New Pielke et al Article on Microsite Problems

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » The smell of settled science, Next time they say it’s the warmest month/year ever,…

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:42:08 +0000

[...] ⟨ttp://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1657 [...]

By: John F. Pittman

John F. Pittman — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:28:51 +0000

As I have seen several comments about the portability of grills, I would like to use the Hopkinsville, Pielke,to illustrate the value of looking at mico-site information versus making assumptions. I grill every Friday night or better for the past 21 years. I have always periodically grilled since I was 8. Although, grills often have wheels they are cumberson to move. It is easy to roll them on a cement surface especially if you limit the movement to only a step or two. After that, balance, integrity of the wheels, and other factors determine how easy it is to move any particular grill. Expierenced grillers store the grill near their normal cooking spot. You can make a large mess or damage your grill moving it around too much or too far. The problem with anyone assuming that someone would move a grill far from its storage spot fails to understand grilling as shown here. It is apparently a charcoal grill. In fact it appears to be the same model I use. The problem assuming a move is that you would have to move your grill, your charcoal, your utensils, and yes the big white round object appears to be a fold-up table. I have used several in my lifetime. So your griller will now have to move all this, plus what he is cooking, and do not forget the BBQ suace for the meat or the alcohol for the griller, chairs and coolers. Nor is this the only concern. The close proximity of the unit to the shown wall means that any grilling nearby will mean that the building’s impact on heat and wind will draw the hot air towards the unit, whether it is from the cement or from the grill. Finally as a humurous note, a commenter in satirizing the grill comments talked about grilling in a huricane. Been there, done that. It was Hugo that thankfully missed us. I grilled that night to make sure that if we lost electricity we would have something cooked we could eat without heating. I also got an extra bag of charcoal so if we lost electricity, we could still have a cooked meal each day.

By: bobgilman

bobgilman — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:12:24 +0000

i wonder if ed made his cuyamaca trip and if someone has done the survey there iaw surfacestations criteria? i found this image that is arguably a photo of the station. i found its link on this nws page you can see a paved surface at the bottom of the pic. in the near background you can see where there's a road with power poles along it. and the station is within a few yards of the road. is anyone planning to go there? i plan to.

By: Roger Dueck

Roger Dueck — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:42:34 +0000

I've been spurred to seek out some Canadian sites in the Southern and Central Alberta vicinity. Can anyone tell me why most Canadian sites stopped recording around 1989-1990 and the ones that do have data show a strong discontinuity (i.e. jump) in the mid-late 90's? The GISS record in central Alberta has only one post-1990, Edmonton Muni Airport to 2001, in the heart of the UHI. Neither Edmonton Int'l nor Calgary Int'l Airports are current. Oddly, there are many more current sites in the Arctic. Baker Lake is one such site.

By: jmrSudbury

jmrSudbury — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:34:44 +0000

If anyone is interested, re comment 29 by me, I sent Dr Pielke an email. The reply was that a new version will be uploaded in the next couple of days. — John M Reynolds

By: ed

ed — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:36:45 +0000

69#, The thermometers used mechanical means to capture the min and max temperatures. Try goggling “min max mercury thermometer”.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:09:27 +0000

70. Oh. Thanks.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:03:16 +0000

jae,

Another poster has written in that the older style sensors had a mechanical mechanism for recording the high and low. For the high, it was a plug that was pushed up by the mercury, I don’t know what the means was for the low.

Seems to me that the plug marking the high could settle if there was enough vibration, or even if a temperature spike caused the glass to expand enough. Or if years of slidding up and down the glass tube had caused enough wear that the plug no longer fit snuggly inside the tube.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:16:53 +0000

45:

The most significant change in surface temperature instrumentation in the USHCN took
place in the mid- and late-1980s when the standard CRS was replaced with the Maximum-
Minimum Temperature systems (MMTS, these stations represent over 60% of all USHCN
stations).

Whoa, here. If I understand this correctly, there was a dramatic shift in the way temperatures were recorded in the mid-late 80s. Prior to then, someone simply read the thermometer twice or several times per day, obtaining instantaneous temperature measurements, which were not necessarily the highs or lows for the day. Now, they are recording the highs and lows? If this is true, it amounts to a huge inhomogenity. Am I missing something?

By: JG

JG — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:35:29 +0000

Thanks Steve (#64 and &66) and Barry B. (#65), I will contact them to clarify. Further reading of information on both sites found on MMS seems to clarify things but I need to verify.

Here is what I pieced together, and it represents the problems I have always had with the historical data.

The airport location held the coop identity until February 1993. The location with topographic details: TOPO-STATION N WIDE FLAT VALLEY SURROUNDED BY HILLS ALL DIRECTIONS. Pictures on the NCDC website show the current station is unobstructed on all sides, as one would expect with a station in the middle of a municipal airport. The observation time is given as 2400.

For the newer (residential) site, the B44 says it was established in November 1993: STATION REACTIVATION, RELOCATION (NO LONGER AT AIRPORT), NEW OBSERVATION TIME. Relocation was 1.5 miles W to location with topographic details: HEAVILY TREED RESIDENTIAL AREA, MAINLY FLAT. The new observation time is 0700.

This relocation corresponds to the absence of monthly GISTEMP data from 1/1993 through 12/1993.

So it appears the station underwent a significant change in 1993, but as I said, I will verify directly with NOAA. If true, the nice thing is we have pictures representative of the original site (it not the original equipment) already on the NCDC website, and I can try to get pictures of the new site.