Comments on: Peterson’s “Urban” Sites

By: Trends in Peterson 2003 « Climate Audit

Trends in Peterson 2003 « Climate Audit — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:55 +0000

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

By: Peterson (2003) « Climate Audit

Peterson (2003) « Climate Audit — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:41 +0000

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

By: Bill Felk

Bill Felk — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:25:29 +0000

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

By: Brooks Hurd

Brooks Hurd — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:24:28 +0000

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.

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:13:49 +0000

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.

By: SteveSadlov

SteveSadlov — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:45:19 +0000

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!”

By: Joel McDade

Joel McDade — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:02:53 +0000

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?)

By: Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:43:51 +0000

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.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:42:29 +0000

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?

By: Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:39:43 +0000

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.