Peterson’s “Urban” Sites

I posted up the list of 289 sites from Peterson 2003 purporting to show that the difference between “urban” and rural sites was negligible. (See related posts here and here.)

As noted before, the definition of “urban” includes such metropolises as Wahpeton ND and Hankinson ND. Cottage Grove 1S OR is classified as “urban”, while Cottage Grove Dam OR is classified as “rural”. Some “clusters” lack rural comparanda. Some clusters lack any locations in the Peterson supporting table. The locations are said to be derived from Gallo and David 1999, which had 28 “urban” stations. While most of the sites recur somewhere in this list, the “urban” sites are blended with rural sites before the comparison. Oddly, one of the “urban” Gallo and David sites (Columbia MO) is classified as “rural” in Peterson 2003.

I’ve collated the urban and rural sites in a long table for your edification. Only about 25% of these sites even occur in the USHCN network or GHCN network (and thus in the gridcell composites). It’s hard to see exactly what a comparison of the left column sites and right column sites has to do with whether the urbanization affects the CRU, NOAA or GISS composites.

Urban Rural
35 AL GREENVILLE
35 AL TROY
35 AL MONTGOMERY WSO ARPT
35 AL MARTIN DAM
35 AL MILSTEAD
35 AL HIGHLAND HOME
35 AL UNION SPRINGS 4 S
34 AR SHERIDAN
34 AR BENTON
34 AR LITTLE ROCK FAA ARPT
34 AR NORTH LITTLE ROCK WS
34 AR PINE BLUFF
34 AR KEO
34 AR LEOLA
31 AZ TUCSON CAMP AVE EXP
31 AZ TUCSON MAGNETIC OBSY
31 AZ TUCSON WSO AIRPORT
31 AZ TUCSON UNIV OF ARIZO
31 AZ TUCSON U OF ARIZ
31 AZ ANVIL RANCH
31 AZ ORACLE 2 SE
31 AZ SANTA RITA EXP RANGE
31 AZ TUCSON 17 NW
21 AZ SEDONA RANGER STN
21 AZ FLAGSTAFF 4 SW
21 AZ FORT VALLEY
21 AZ FLAGSTAFF WSO AP
21 AZ MUNDS PARK
21 AZ OAK CREEK CANYON
21 AZ SUNSET CRATER NATL M
21 AZ BEAVER CREEK RANGER
21 AZ HAPPY JACK RANGER ST
21 AZ WUPATKI NATL MONUMEN
29 CA ALPINE
29 CA LA MESA
29 CA EL CAJON
29 CA CHULA VISTA
29 CA SAN DIEGO WSO AIRPOR
 
40 CA DAVIS 2 WSW EXP FARM
40 CA PLACERVILLE
40 CA LODI
40 CA SACRAMENTO FAA ARPT
40 CA SACRAMENTO WSO CITY
40 CA ANTIOCH PUMP PLANT
40 CA FOLSOM DAM
40 CA CAMP PARDEE
23 CO FORT CARSON
23 CO PUEBLO RESERVOIR
23 CO PUEBLO WSO AP
23 CO COLORADO SPRINGS WSO
23 CO RUSH
23 CO TACONY 10 SE
39 FL LAKE ALFRED EXP STN
39 FL MOUNTAIN LAKE
39 FL KISSIMMEE 2
39 FL ORLANDO WSO MCCOY
39 FL SANFORD EXPERIMENT S
39 FL TITUSVILLE
13 IA BELLE PLAINE
13 IA OELWEIN 2 S
13 IA TOLEDO
13 IA VINTON
13 IA WATERLOO WSO AP
13 IA INDEPENDENCE 5 ENE
 
8 ID BOISE 7 N
8 ID BOISE LUCKY PEAK DAM
8 ID EMMETT 2 E
8 ID IDAHO CITY
8 ID MOUNTAIN HOME
8 ID BOISE WSFO AIRPORT
8 ID NAMPA SUGAR FACTORY
8 ID ARROWROCK DAM
8 ID GRAND VIEW 2 W
8 ID SWAN FALLS POWER HOU
24 KS WINFIELD NO. 1
24 KS EL DORADO
24 KS WICHITA WSO ARPT
24 KS WELLINGTON 2 S
38 LA ST BERNARD
38 LA SLIDELL WSFO
38 MS BAY ST LOUIS NASA
38 LA NEW ORLEANS WSCMO AR
38 LA NEW ORLEANS AUDUBON
38 LA LSU CITRUS RESEARCH
17 CT WEST THOMPSON LAKE
17 MA MIDDLETON
17 MA WALPOLE 2
17 MA WEST MEDWAY
17 MA BEDFORD
17 MA BLUE HILL
17 MA BROCKTON
17 MA LOWELL
17 MA READING
17 MA TAUNTON
17 MA WORCESTER WSO AP
17 RI PROVIDENCE WSO AIRPO
17 MA BOSTON WSFO AP
17 MA BUFFUMVILLE LAKE
17 RI NORTH FOSTER 1 E
18 ME ELLSWORTH
18 ME ORONO
18 ME BANGOR AIRPORT
18 ME ACADIA NATIONAL PARK
 
15 MI DEARBORN
15 MI DETROIT CITY AIRPORT
15 MI DETROIT METRO WSO AP
15 MI MONROE
15 MI PONTIAC STATE HOSPIT
15 MI GROSSE POINTE FARMS
25 MO CALIFORNIA
25 MO ELDON
25 MO LAKESIDE
25 MO FULTON
25 MO JEFFERSON CITY WTR P
25 MO FREEDOM
25 MO VIENNA 2 WNW
25 MO COLUMBIA WSO AP
12 IA HARLAN
12 IA RED OAK
12 IA SHENANDOAH
12 IA SIDNEY
12 NE NEBRASKA CITY
12 NE OMAHA EPPLEY AIRFIEL
12 NE OMAHA (NORTH) WSFO A
12 IA GLENWOOD 3 SW
12 IA LOGAN
12 IA OAKLAND 4 WSW
5 ND HANKINSON
5 ND WAHPETON 3 N
5 MN FERGUS FALLS
5 ND FARGO WSO AP
5 MN CAMPBELL 1 SSW
4 ND LINTON
4 ND MANDAN EXPERIMENT ST
4 ND BISMARCK WSFO AP
4 ND FORT YATES
4 ND BREIEN
4 ND MOFFIT 3 SE
22 NM CORRALES
22 NM LOS LUNAS 3 SSW
22 NM SANDIA PARK
22 NM ALBUQUERQUE WSFO AIR
22 NM ESTANCIA
22 NM STANLEY 1 NNE
20 NV RED ROCK CANYON ST P
20 NV BOULDER CITY
20 NV LAS VEGAS WSO AIRPOR
20 AZ WILLOW BEACH
20 NV DESERT NATL WL RANGE
27 OH FRANKLIN
27 OH WILMINGTON 3 N
27 OH CINCINNATI LUNKEN FA
27 OH MILFORD WATER WORKS
27 KY COVINGTON WSO AIRPOR
27 OH CHEVIOT
27 OH CINCINNATI FERNBANK
27 OH FAIRFIELD
27 OH CHILO MELDAHL L&D
27 KY FALMOUTH
27 KY WILLIAMSTOWN 3 W
7 OR COTTAGE GROVE 1 S
7 OR FOSTER DAM
7 OR EUGENE WSO AIRPORT
7 OR FERN RIDGE DAM
7 OR CORVALLIS WATER BURE
7 OR COTTAGE GROVE DAM
7 OR DORENA DAM
7 OR DRAIN
7 OR LEABURG 1 SW
7 OR LOOKOUT POINT DAM
16 PA GRATERFORD 1 E
16 NJ MOORESTOWN
16 PA ALLENTOWN WSO AIRPOR
16 PA NESHAMINY FALLS
16 PA PHILADELPHIA WSCMO A
16 PA PHOENIXVILLE 1 E
 
16 NJ BELVIDERE BRIDGE
16 NJ FLEMINGTON 5 NNW
16 NJ LAMBERTVILLE
16 PA BELTZVILLE DAM
16 PA HOPEWELL FURNACE NHS
16 PA PALMERTON
16 PA RODALE RESEARCH CENT
36 SC WEDGEFIELD
36 SC WINNSBORO
36 SC CAMDEN 3 W
36 SC SANDHILL EXPERIMENT
36 SC COLUMBIA WSFO AP
36 SC COLUMBIA UNIV OF SC
36 SC LITTLE MOUNTAIN
36 SC PARR
36 SC PELION 4 NW
11 SD KENNEBEC
11 SD PIERRE FAA AIRPORT
11 SD OAHE DAM
11 SD FORT PIERRE 17 WSW
11 SD HARROLD 12 SSW
11 SD PRESHO 7 NW
26 TN MURFREESBORO 5 N
26 TN FRANKLIN SEWAGE PLAN
26 TN LAFAYETTE
26 TN LEBANON 3 W
26 TN NEAPOLIS EXP STN
26 TN PORTLAND SEWAGE PLAN
26 TN WOODBURY 1 WNW
26 TN NASHVILLE NWSCMO AP
26 TN SPRINGFIELD EXP STN
37 TX FLORESVILLE
37 TX KARNES CITY
37 TX SAN ANTONIO WSFO
37 TX SAN ANTONIO SEAWORLD
37 TX CHARLOTTE 5 NNW
37 TX POTEET
32 TX CROSBYTON
32 TX TAHOKA
32 TX POST 3 ENE
32 TX LUBBOCK WSFO AIRPORT
33 TX WILLS POINT
33 TX DALLAS FAA AP
33 TX CORSICANA
33 TX WAXAHACHIE
33 TX KAUFMAN 3 SE
33 TX BARDWELL DAM
33 TX FERRIS
9 UT ALTA
9 UT KAMAS 3 NW
9 UT PLEASANT GROVE
9 UT SILVER LAKE BRIGHTON
9 UT SNAKE CREEK POWERHOU
9 UT SPANISH FORK PWR HOU
9 UT TIMPANOGOS CAVE
9 UT BOUNTIFUL-VAL VERDA
9 UT COTTONWOOD WEIR
9 UT DRAPER POINT OF THE
9 UT OLMSTEAD POWERHOUSE
9 UT OREM TREATMENT PLANT
9 UT PROVO BYU
9 UT SALT LAKE CITY NWSFO
9 UT SALT LAKE TRIAD CENT
9 UT UTAH LAKE LEHI
9 UT DEER CREEK DAM
9 UT SANTAQUIN CHLORINATO
9 UT WANSHIP DAM
28 VA ASHLAND
28 VA RICHMOND WSO AIRPORT
28 VA HOPEWELL
28 VA WALKERTON 2 NW
28 VA WEST POINT 2 SW
1 WA BUCKLEY 1 NE
1 WA LANDSBURG
1 WA MC MILLIN RESERVOIR
1 WA MONROE
1 WA SNOQUALMIE FALLS
1 WA PUYALLUP 2 W EXP STN
1 WA SEATTLE TACOMA WSO A
1 WA BREMERTON
1 WA SEATTLE URBAN SITE
1 WA TACOMA 1
1 WA CEDAR LAKE
1 WA MUD MOUNTAIN DAM
1 WA PALMER 3 ESE
2 WA SPOKANE WSO AIRPORT 2 ID PLUMMER 3 WSW
2 ID POTLATCH 3 NNE
2 WA ROSALIA
2 WA SAINT JOHN
14 WI MILWAUKEE MT MARY CO
14 WI MILWAUKEE WSO AIRPOR
14 WI PORT WASHINGTON
14 WI KENOSHA
14 WI RACINE
6 WI DANBURY
6 WI SOLON SPRINGS
6 MN CLOQUET
6 MN DULUTH WSO AP
6 MN DULUTH HARBOR STN
6 WI SUPERIOR
6 WI FOXBORO
6 WI GORDON
 
10 WY GLENROCK 5 ESE
10 WY CASPER WSO AP
10 WY BATES CREEK 2
10 WY SHIRLEY BASIN STN

27 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    I’ve posted up a script for extracting monthly averages from the Peterson daily data. You can extract the read function using the first line below and then extract a data set of monthly information using the second line.

    source (“http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/station/read.ghcnd.txt”)
    usid=”051778″; test=read.ghcnd(paste(“42500″,usid,sep=””))

  2. Tom Brogle
    Posted Aug 3, 2007 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    I have done a study of Australian temperatures which
    appear to have UHI added to UHI leading to a claim that
    the the temperature is now 2 degrees warmer than it was
    100 years ago.
    There are rural stations that show no overall temperature
    rise at all.
    There is one “rural” station that was in an aboriginal settlement
    in 1880 which has now developed into a small town with a main road.
    and a railway line running through it.It has shown considerable warming.
    The station has recently been moved out of town where no doubt it will indicate more warming as the town encroaches upon it.

  3. James Lane
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    #2 I had a similar experience a few years ago when I read a paper purporting to “link” the recent Australian drought with global warming. I didn’t think the argument presented was very convincing, but it did prompt me to look at the data for as many rural/inland sites that I could find. I couldn’t find a rising trend in any of them.

    This led me to email one of the authors (a climate scientist in Melbourne) who responded that they got their temperature series from the Aust. Bureau of Meteorology. Of course this was long before Climate Audit, otherwise I would have persisted in identifying the source of the data. It may have been CRU, reticulated back by the BoM, who knows?

    I apologise for not having citations, Iost all this stuff years ago in a computer theft. However I was stuck by the fact that it was asserted that rural Australia was warming, while there is no evidence of warming in Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie, Esperance, Albany, Giles, Geraldton, Mt Isa or Tennant Creek. Regarding the last two, the late John Daly has a CRU plot of Australian warming, with the greatest warming adjacent to Mt Isa and Tennant Creek:

    And CRU’s version:

    That must have taken some adustment, as there are very few other possible candidate stations, possibly Weipa (bauxite mine) and possibly Gove. (All are remote and all except Gove are mining towns).

    (Note – all data I’m talking about only go up to 1999/2000). Someone mentioned there’s site where you can click on a map of Australia and see the temperature record. Could you post the link?)

  4. MrPete
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    Interesting. For my area (six sites in Colorado), the rural sites seem well chosen, two urban sites are “OK”, two are rather questionable. And I’d add a different rural site (Ruxton Park) that brings a different flavor to the mix.

    Reasonable selection:
    – Rush and Tacony are quite rural (more than 25 miles east of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, respectively)
    – Pueblo WSO (airport). Site is east of the city, with generally prevailaing winds from the west. Less urban than many (miles of open farmland to north and east) but I’d give this an “OK” for Urban. (Don’t imagine its in the middle of a city though!)
    – Colorado Springs WSO (airport). Site is SE of the city, again with prevailing winds from the west. Like Pueblo, to the east is open space for many many miles, but this is reasonably urban.

    Questionable selection:
    – Fort Carson should be rural not urban. Site is in the middle of a huge open space, with miles of prairie all around. (Fort Carson is mostly a huge military exercise area.) Yes, there are microsite issues, but that seems common these days. (If the siting is accurate, the station is on grass between a parking lot and a small private air strip.)
    – Pueblo Reservoir should be discarded or rural, not urban. Yes, near a city. West of the city, downwind from a lonnng rural stretch of the Arkansas River valley through the mountains. If it weren’t for other confounding factors, I’d call it decidedly rural. (Other factors: 1/2mi east of a reservoir with highly variable water level; station (GE siting) is in the corner of a paved parking lot.) Either this is rural, or (my preference) simply a poor site to choose.

  5. John F. Pittman
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    The selections make sense for South Carolina as well. Though Pelion in the last 10 years has been turned into a burb for the greater metropolitan Columbia area.

  6. Chris D
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

    Re: 5 I think Camden being classified as urban is a bit of a stretch, though. The site loc for the longest duration (1950-1995) was 34.25,-80.65 per the MMS, which is now a cluster of shopping centers a considerable distance to the west of the town. The remarks in the MMS indicate that the site was the observer’s residence. I’ve driven past those businesses and most of them appear to have been built post 1995. After ’95 to ’01, the loc is given as 34.24291, -80.65652, which shows up on the other side of the river. The latter loc might be more accurate, as there is an abandoned property there which I’ve seen. It’s quite wooded right there. There is very little else nearby besides woods and the Wateree river, although that nylon plant is to the southwest. Does this area qualify as urban in the opinion of folks here? I have to admit, though, that the MMS locs and actual siting rarely match from my experience, so far.

  7. L Nettles
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    I doubt Wedgefield as a urban site, as a posted before I suspect its about the same as Little Mountain.

  8. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    SteveM

    from the Oke article, Anthony has posted it

    Nocturnal cooling is a physically relevant processdriven
    phenomenon related to the microclimatic environment
    of climate stations. Cooling ratios are therefore
    likely to be a physically meaningful measure of the
    degree of thermal modification of the surroundings of a
    climate station. This is likely to be distinctly superior to
    surrogate measures of the degree of anthropogenic site
    disturbance such as population in the surrounding census
    tract (Karl et al. 1988; Jones et al. 1990), or satellitederived
    night-light intensities (Hansen et al. 2001) or
    normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI; Gallo
    and Owen 1999), which are commonly used to designate
    stations as either rural or urban in attempts to
    study long-term temperature trends free of the effects
    of urban development. Analysis of cooling ratio time
    series is potentially useful as a tool to identify sitespecific
    microclimatic biases in temperature series.

  9. RomanM
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    For what it is worth, there seem to be other factors mixed in as well. For example, for the state of Maine, the rural site, 18 ME ACADIA NATIONAL PARK, is on an island surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. For the “urban” sites, 18 ME ELLSWORTH is not too far from the water, however,18 ME ORONO and 18 ME BANGOR AIRPORT are each of the order of 30 to 40 km. from the closest ocean water. I would think that any comparisons would have to be affected by this.

  10. Steve Reynolds
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    I’ll second MrPete’s comments about Colorado, especially Pueblo Reservoir. I been there several times; it is not even close to being urban.

  11. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    The locations are said to be derived from Gallo and David 1999, which had 28 “urban” stations.

    My curiosity was put on alert by Peterson’s seemingly hurry to attribute that choice of rural and urban sites to Gallo and David. One would think that the author’s firm assurance of the validity these selections would be part of detailed discussion in his paper, since these choices are the very basis of his conclusions. As Parker did in his paper discussed here, it is rather easy to find no correlation between occurrences. The difficult part is showing why there should be a connection between the occurrences.

    By the way, while I find Peterson, like Parker, seeming to be a very nice gentleman, I see no point in offering a special thanks to either one of them for providing the information that they have. It is the way it should be all the time — not the exception. Do not think you need to go out of your way to thank me for stopping at all stop signs and lights — I’ll stop anyway.

  12. John F. Pittman
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    #6, #7 Until we have a photo record for SC sites, I would accept that the urban/rural of Peterson is better than lights=0 of others.

  13. Jon
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Re #4, are these sites you have visited personally or just known to be in generally rural areas. I ask because we’ve seen sites that otherwise have the potential to be rural are rendered somewhat urban as a result of the exact placement of the site.

  14. captdallas2
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    Lights = whatever is an indirect measure of UHI. IR surface temperatures, one hour or so after sunset, should show interesting information. Does anyone have a site that would show LST instead of SST for the nighttime US? I would love to watch a loop of nightly temperature changes on land at near sea level. Then compare urban and rural sites.

    If this has been addressed, my apologies.

  15. Clyde Adams III
    Posted Aug 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    You say

    Cottage Grove 1S OR is classified as “urban”, while Cottage Grove Dam OR is classified as “urban”.

    I think you meant to say that Cottage Grove Dam OR is classified as “rural”; that would agree with your table.

  16. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 4:23 AM | Permalink

    Steve, the story keeps getting better … you say:

    the definition of “urban” includes such metropolises as Wahpeton ND

    Here’s the aerial view of the “urban” Wahpeton site per the USHCN information (USHCN ID 329100; GHCN ID 72753002) …

    Looks like it’s a quarter mile from any habitation, in the middle of the fields …

    w.

  17. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    Willis,

    The farm buildings are likely well illuminated all night, leading to the designation of “urban.”

    Dano keeps trying to convince people that pictures don’t show anything. Can’t understand this. I have always felt that pictures, like in your post, were very convincing.

  18. MrPete
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

    #13 — I’ve been to these places, but not searched out the exact station placement. OTOH, these places are not towns and don’t have three story brick walls like found at Ft Morgan. Rural Colorado is truly rural… don’t blink when you go by, you’ll miss the house :)

    As noted, it’s still possible to have microsite issues, but that’s not enough to make a site urban.

    For my (tax) money, my sense is retaining rural “purity” is more important than urban… just a sense but I think “pollution” of UHI with rural sites is less significant than pollution of rural sites with UHI.

  19. Chris D
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    #16: This is from the MMS “Location” tab for the most recent site of Wahpeton 3 N:

    [1998-12-23] 1999-11-01 46.323330 (46°19’23″N) -96.610830 (96°36’38″W) GROUND: 956 FEET
    Location Description: WATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTSIDE AND 3.4 MI N OF PO AT WAHPETON, ND
    Topographic Details: TOPO-LEVEL SOUTH RED RIVER VALLEY FARMLAND.

    Temp was taken daily at 1800 – site appears to have been discontinued in 1999.

  20. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    RE16,19

    “Water Treatment Plant” aka Sewage Treatment Plant from my experiences thus far would have essentially a UHI effect due to the significant waste heat that is released by the processes. From the aerial pix above, it’s clear that the marker should be to the NW about 1/4 mile.

    One thing is becoming clear from my survey; no matter how “rural” the site is, you’ll almost always find (there are a few exceptions) the sensor in direct proximity to human habitation. This is because no matter if it is a max/min mercury thermometer or a MMTS, there needs to be a “body” assigned to reading it daily. Those “bodies” won’t walk or drive a 1/4 mile or more to take a reading and NWS doesn’t want the shelters out of eyesight due to vandalism concerns. In the case of MMTS, cable length issues (I suspect it’s actually trench length issues – i.e. easier to dig a short trench than long one) have almost without exception forced the sensor closer to buildings because the MMTS display console must be inside as its not weatherproof and needs AC power.

    Automated sites can be located anywhere, yet for some reason still get stuck next to habitation. Perhaps it’s just easier rather than acquiring a new land use agreement. For example the USHCN in Ojai, CA at the fire station there.

    I have recently surveyed a COOP site (not HCN or GISS) in NE California that was pointed out to me by former state climatologist Jim Goodridge as being exceptionally rural, but having a positive trend of .06-.08 degrees per year. It didn’t make any sense. Jim surmised they’d placed it next to an air conditioner or some other heat source. When I got there, I found no such bias. But I found something else that speaks to the heart of the matter on MMTS -vs- Stevenson Screens and siting.

    I have to do a little more work before I can post this, but I’ll try to post in the next week.

  21. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

    Chris D, thanks for the more accurate information on Wahpeton, which puts it in the middle of the sewage treatment plant. What is the source of the more precise location you gave?

    w.

  22. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    Re21 Willis, it is from the Multi Metadata System at NCDC which gives metadata for each COOP station in the USA

    They don’t allow direct links, but go here:

    http://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm

    Press “Guest Login” button

    Then enter “Wahpeton” in the search box

    Select from list, then you’ll (via popup) be at the station metadata, choose tabs to look at different info.

  23. Joel McDade
    Posted Aug 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    Yeah, even the MMS coordinates listed to five or six digits are almost always off by 0.1 mile or more. Only ONCE have I driven right up to a site using my GPS.

    Others require advanced CSI skills. (btw, whatever happened to the CSI t-shirts?)

  24. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    Did Peterson design this experiment with agenda aforethought? “Let’s see …. if I pick a few podunk cities, annnnnd, mwahhahhhahhaaaa, some suburbanized or concretized “rural” sites….. I can really tell a story …. mwaaaahaaaahaaahaaa!” :evil:

  25. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    It seems to be more and more clear that there’s a reason some folks are rather upset by the fact we’re actually finding out what the sites are like.

    But of course, we don’t need to check, only the rural sites are used for the anomaly readings, and they’re all high quality. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

  26. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    At some point in the future it is inevitble that a few reporters with solid AGW credentials will realize what has been going on and run some expose stories. They will realize that the “denier” lable is a straw man used to silence constructive criticism. They will become angry when they realize that they have believed distorted science. They will realize that the distortions have been greatly benefitting the distorters.

  27. Bill Felk
    Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    Interesting. I always wondered what the difference between urban and rural was. Most of Williamson County TN, where I live is rural. Where I work Cool Springs, is rural and urban depending on where you are. Franklin is more rural and Brentwood is more urban.

    Bill Felk
    Brentwood TN

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Peterson (2003) « Climate Audit on Mar 31, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    [...] Though the basis for selection of these comparisons seems very unclear. See related posts here and [...]

  2. By Trends in Peterson 2003 « Climate Audit on Mar 31, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    [...] (Lead-in posts are here and here.) [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,252 other followers

%d bloggers like this: