Long Beach WA

surfacestations.org is back online and there are some good improvements in layout. In the page directory for each state, there are now thumbnails for the stations with information. New stations are coming in all the time. Today’s tide brought in another interesting Washington site from Gary Kobes – Long Beach WA (454748; 72791002). Its physical appearance is pretty good as these things go – maybe a little near the road, but in a rural area.

Here’s a thumbnail – go to the site for the portfolio.

So what does the temperature history look like? Does this rural site show the powerful 20th century temperature increase that we see at sites like Phoenix Airport, Fresno Airport and even “rural” sites like Marysville and Petaluma? I’m afraid that you can guess the answer.

Here is a plot of the USHCN, GHCN and GISS versions (7 in all) of the station history (in anomaly deg C). In this case, there is no trend, although there is pronounced multidecadal variation. While the information to date is not sufficient to assess the impact of microsite problems, there does seem to be a pattern in which sites that are in poor compliance with WMO standards tend to have much more pronounced trends than sites that are in relatively good compliance (as with Orland and Marysville that originated the surfacestations.org inquiry.)


In this case, adjustments are not severe. USHCN, GHCN and GISS adjustments are shown in the three following figures.





  1. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    I might have missed this Steve, But have you read Peterson 2006?
    “analyzes” the sites in Colorado, that RP, Sr. found objectional.

    In a nutshell… Homogeniety adjustments fixed everything. No microsite site effect.
    Everyone move along. And toward the end.. this in no way excuses these sites not
    being up to standards.

    Like I said, I’m not sure you’ve posted on Peterson 2006 before so I apologize in advance
    if you have. If you havent, its an interesting paper in that it presents a methodology of sorts
    for finding microsite effects. I merely skimmed it, so more later perhaps.

    One approach, of course, would be to replicate the peterson approach with sites like Marysville etc.

  2. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink


    Might be fun to smooth that Long beach data with a mannian end point pinning.
    Just for grins

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    #1. I drafted a note on PEterson 2006, but haven’t posted it yet. I’m not sure why I didn’t finish it because there’s an interesting take on this, which doesn’t seem to be in play in the present exchange.

  4. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    That temperature pattern is looking very familliar with good sites.

  5. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Looks like a PDO signal. Given the location, hardly a surprise. Someone (I don’t recall who) has been describing records from stations located at lighthouses in British Columbia – very similar.

  6. UC
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    That temperature pattern is looking very familliar with good sites.

    Given these efforts, it shouldn’t be hard to find those 60 good sites that yield a global average annual mean surface air temperature with an error less than 10% compared with the natural variability.

  7. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    Hi Kristen,

    Thanks for dropping by. I was thinking that an inspirational young lady could
    drive an effort to get young folks interesting In auditing the climate stations.
    Just a thought. Somebody needs to be the champion of the Northeast and boost participation in
    that part of the US.

  8. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    Kristen has posted up some stations from Maine at her blog and sent them to me for posting here as well, which I shall do later today.

  9. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    RE Comment 6. ON the laudable goal of Finding 60 good sites.

    1. I am reminded of the Story of Lot.

    2. I don’t think Gavin said that faceiously. I think it is backed up by some analysis.
    I Imagine the sites/ grids are already selected. Maybe The 60 sites that “agree” with ModelE.
    Personally, if I had to calibrate my model against a past empirical record, I’d look at the
    records that made my model look good! Then I’d promote them. Facts ( sites, metrics) that were
    divergent from my model, would not be attacked. They would be ignored.

    Then as you move to a new newtrk with only these sites, you just adjust the past accordingly.
    You defund the historicl network in favor of the new network. You adjust the past.
    Adjusting PAST MEASUREMENT ( cooling the past or heating the past) has the benefit of being
    out of mind. Current records, records within most peoples memory, will never get adjusted.

    The real issue is not finding 60 good sites. The issue is finding the 60 BAD SITES
    that are hidden in 1221 sites. 60 sites is 5%. Here’s my bet.

    You can hide 60 bad sites ( 1C error) in the network and no INDIRECT methodology will ferret them out.
    You can bias a little bit warm, and no test based on normal methods will find it with Confidence
    You can then weasel the record until you fix the network and cover your ass.
    When you fix the network, REWRITE HISTORY.

    we found this problem. we fixed this problem..then change the topic look at how bad things will be in 2100.

    We found errors in the historical network. We built CRN.

  10. Jerry
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    In the last day or so, I saw a pairing of a UHI-infested temperature station with a rural station 50 miles away that showed the results of their realtive temperature histories. The difference in the results was dramatic – UHI=rise in temp, rural= level or dropping temp. The results were jaw-dropping.

    Do you know if we can get more of these “pairings”? Also, do you know if anyone is going to assemble a compilation of the temperature records of all stations and compare them on some scale of UHI-contamination going from rural to urban/corrupted?

    This is exciting!

  11. deweyp
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    Hi. I’m pretty new to this. In looking at the chart comparing ushcn raw to giss raw, shouldn’t they be the same? They are both the raw data from the same station, aren’t they?

  12. JerryB
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    RE #11,


    SteveM uses phrase “giss raw” incorrectly. The GISS wording
    is “raw GHCN data+USHCN corrections”, and since the stations
    being covered by Anthony and associates are (usually) USHCN
    stations, the GISS data are not raw for them.

  13. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    #12. Jerry B, it is “raw” to the GISS correction stage. They may say that it is “raw GHCN + USHCN corrections” and it is often close to that, but, in most cases, the match is not exact, so it is incorrect to say that the series is equal to that. I suppose I could call it GISS dset=0 to be precise.

  14. Harold Pierce Jr
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    RE: #5

    Hi Steve!

    I am Harold Pierce Jr, an organic chemist (the uncomplicated chemist), and have been crunching temp records from B.C. lightstations for several weeks. This is back-breaking donkey work. How would you all come to Super-Natural, Beautiful British Columbia, “The Best Place on Earth to Live!” and give me a hand. We have swimming pools and movie stars, mountains, a pocket desert, fantastic salmon fishing, the River Rock Casino with 25 poker tables, big int. U-20 soccer tourny starting, great hockey, great beer and the most laid back and friendly folks on the planet. Why those guys back in Toronto are uptight Puritans compared to us!

    Over at Univ. of Victoria resides Prof. Andrew Weaver, real heavy hitter of the global warming crowd. [snip – Harold, don’t they carry valium in B.C?]

  15. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    You canadians make me laugh. You friggin knocked my teeth out playin hockey.
    you have the best beer, the best fishin, and when I was a kid we would travel
    to Windsor just to buy fireworks. So why in god’s name do you have blue money?

  16. Gary Kobes
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I hope to post Astoria, OR to SurfaceStations tomorrow. It is an airport based ASOS with records back to the mid 1940’s. It is 16.5 miles SSE of Long Beach, WA site separated by the Columbia River Estuary. Both sites have the same exposure to the prevailing onshore weather patterns which are coming off of the same marine environment. It might be interesting to compare the two. It may give some measurable insight as to the impacts of the more ‘developed’ environment of Astoria. It would also be interesting to see if the two stations were ‘adjusted’ in the same manner.

    Today I also surveyed North Bend, OR–another airport AWOS site which should also be on SS.O in a day or two.

  17. UC
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 11:51 PM | Permalink


    I don’t think Gavin said that faceiously. I think it is backed up by some analysis.

    Hey, I didn’t mention gavin 😉 See Shen et al. An Optimal Regional Averaging Method with Error Estimates and a Test Using Tropical Pacific SST Data, Journal of Climate 1998 Vol 11.

    Shen et al. (1994) developed such an optimal method for the average on the entire globe. They concluded that about 60 well-distributed stations can yield a global average annual mean surface air temperature with an error less than 10% compared with the natural variability.

    Refers to Shen et al Spectral approach to optimal estimation of the global average temperature. J. Climate, 7, 1999’€”2007

    In spite of the limitations just alluded we feel that the magnitude of the sampling error is probably small compared to the other errors in the budget once the number of well-distributed stations is above about 60 and the optimal weighting is applied.

    These and many other interesting papers can be downloaded directly from


    Before going to optimal weighting, I would like to see simple average of 60 well-distributed unadjusted rural stations. Shen et al used gridded UK data, we should start with raw data.

  18. tetris
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

    Re: #14 [snip a.k.a. Steve M] and #15.
    All jokes aside: I live on one of the more remote Gulf Islands in BC [known as the San Juan Islands in WA/USA]. We don’t have “certified” weather stations on this or the nearby islands but do have a Federal Government station on Entrance Island some 15 NM north of here. People around here, living the way we do, do however, keep records. By way of example: 1] last summer had cycles where temperatures were above the norm and the air very dry, but upon verification not in the same league with the summer/early fall of 1998. 2] Since late last year, temperatures all along the coast and inland plateaus have been well below seasonal norms, anywhere from 3-8 C down. Last week [June 15] most folks on this island had their wood stoves going to keep up with the chill [unheard of at that date over the past 30 years]. Precipitation was up significantly over norm over the winter until April [all coastal/interior mountain areas from Alaska to CA have had record snow packs/rain] and fell off abruptly after that.
    I hold a PhD in a relevant subject matter, have spent the better part of my working life practising scientific and corporate due diligence and served as a senior officer/board member of several companies internationally [with attendant legal obligations]. To simpletons like me and those on this island who have weather/climate data that comes from known instruments that have been in the same spot for a long time [and well away from the BBQ, etc.] and that have not been “re-adjusted” by some government agency from time to time, the proposition that increased CO2 somehow begets increased global temperatures does not compute because we are not seeing the purported effects in terms of the dependent variable. “When does local weather become local climate” is one of the questions that regularly comes up. It would be welcome if someone who actually is not on a “mission” could provide a meaningful definition in the matter. And then, of course, most of us who actually live by the “weather” do remind ourselves of the fact that as a rule we can’t predict what is going to it us more than 24-36 hours out. Which begs the question: “so how about that global climate forecast for 2050”. To which I have come to add: these are very deluded and dangerous people indeed, who think they need to convince the rest of us that because we are increasing the ppm of a 0.04% trace component in the most complex, multi variate, non linear system known to man, therefore we are all going to perish in our own Dante’s Inferno [unless, of course, we stop using hydrocarbons immediately and recant the sins of the capitalist market economy, but I digress…]. Aside from the comfort I derive from the conviction that Dante must have imagined a place for those folks, I can only observe that temperatures around here have gone nowhere but down, since 1998.

  19. Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 2:00 AM | Permalink

    I am a photographer and I have located where our devices are in Wooster, Ohio. it looks like we have 3,


    2 are within a 1/4 mile from each other at our OARDC, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, the other is at our rural airport, that may be interesting. I have a feeling the 2 at OARDC may be up to standards because they have a lot of land and one look to be in the middle of no-where while the other, maybe the precipitation one, is near the front, near a busy route.

    Now if I can get off my lazy rear, it is 4AM here now, and get out and get the photos tomorrow I will have them up on the Watts’ site soon.

    Good ones will also help, as we are not out to find only bad ones. With the Good ones you are proving that they are all over the place, as far as temperature, while the bad ones show an upward trend in temperature.

  20. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 6:23 AM | Permalink

    RE 19.

    SteveM, When looking at California data I sometimes find it useful to have
    a look atthe state Agriculture weather system. They dont do homogeniety.
    The sites, by description ( unaudited) are in open feilds.
    The reliability of the data has financial ramifications. That is,
    economic interest is there to maintain quaility.

    Ohio has a system as well

    An interesting cross check on the “offcial” system..

  21. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 6:38 AM | Permalink

    re 19 Tetris,

    All kidding aside my experiences in Canada and with Canadians have
    all been terrific. I’ve never been to BC, but I drempt about it as a kid.

  22. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    RE: #18 – Here in the coastal hills / mountains in the upper 30s N latitude in California, where the coast live oak, chapparral and mixed evergreen needle and broadleaf forest biomes intersect, about 7 miles from the beach, there has been no discernible effect of so called climate change. Here, innate diurnal, day to day, seasonal and year to year variations still utterly dominate the weather / climate experience. This is true whether one looks at temperature, precip, cloud cover and cloud types, or wind.

  23. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    By the way, I am well into my 40s, so what I describe is a multidecadal view, with statistical ignificance of the sample in time on a multicentury scale.

  24. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    re 18, tetris
    It seems to me you would be experiencing climate and weather that is very greatly influenced by the ocean, and perhaps your air temperatures are more likely to have a high correlation with ocean sea suface temperatures than most locations. It is the land record, as adjusted, that seems to have taken off.

  25. Steven mosher
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink


    Yes its the Irony of mother earth. You will be enticed into living
    by the ocean, will miss the signs of global warming, and be flooded
    out of existence by a melting Greenland.

    I think I’m going to write some climate quatrains in the style of Nostradamus.
    or maybe some Raps from “master of disaster”

  26. tetris
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    Re: 22 and 24
    Steve S. / Joe E.
    Interesting. If it were SST driven, then it would not be unreasonable to see something similar at your location 7 miles inland. However, it is not just the immediate coastal areas/islands where we live that seeing this change. Hunting and fishing acquaintences who live on the high plateaus behind the coast mountains are noticing something very similar. This morning’s temp data for Vanderhoof, BC [near one of my favourite hunting spots, some 500 miles north of Vancouver and approx 200 miles inland] is 15C vs. the normal of 23C, and is forecast to only briefly reach the line around July 3 and then go down again. Any thoughts?

  27. JP
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink


    “… and that have not been “re-adjusted” by some government agency from time to time, the proposition that increased CO2 somehow begets increased global temperatures does not compute because we are not seeing the purported effects in terms of the dependent variable…”

    The Team would simply respond that Climate is not local, and if you are not seeing the effects of AGW then you are under the influence of some teleconnection. I see this in my neck of the woods. NOAA says our zone had the 9th warmest spring ever, despite 11 records lows, 2 late frosts in April that devastated our fruit farms, and only two weeks of normal to above normal temperature days. If the raw data doesn’t fit, adjust it until it does.

  28. tetris
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Re: 24
    Joe E.
    I don’t think I can agree with your blanket contention about land temperatures; the jury is still very out on that one. For one, the temperature record across BC [more than twice the size of Texas or France and Germany put together, your pick] does not bear that out. We now have an 8 year record of milder winters here, as evidenced by “higher lows”. -25/30C as opposed to -35/40C is not enough to kill off pine beetle larvae and has led to massive infestations devastating vast stands of lodge pole pine in the interior. What we are now seeing is “lower highs” across the board. Even Osoyoos at the southern end of the high desert Okanagan Valley 300 miles inland and known for its +40C summers has been running well below the norm [as much as 10C lower].

    Re: 25
    My house is right on the waterfront rock face but 40 feet above highest high tide. So I guess we will not be building a salt water swimming pool in the basement just yet, Mr Gore’s prognostications notwithstanding.

  29. tetris
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    Re: 27
    Yes, I’m sure there is something untoward in my coffee. Have a look at Climate Science, June 18, 2007. Pielke reviews Kevin Trembeck’s Nature blog article which contains some very surprising statements and admissions regarding inter alia IPCC projections and regional climate modeling. Certainly interesting, coming from one of the IPCC’s backroom heavy weights. The RC Team is starting to run desperately short of tape to keep their cherished Hockey Stick together.

  30. jae
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    A good controlled study of the UHI effect, about which some seem to be in denial.

  31. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Good news, my gallery.surfacestations.org server is up and running at full speed and capacity now. Image queries that took 10 + seconds or more now take less than a second on fast connections.

    You can browse and make submissions with any hindrances of bandwidth or server issues.

  32. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    RE: #26 – Innate and expected year to year / decadal variation, in this case, probably the switch to negative PDO phase.

  33. tetris
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

    Re: 32
    Could you pls expand on this. Am not sure I’m following.

  34. Roger Dueck
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    #15 That’s ‘cus the dye package broke when we opened the bag!

  35. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    re 24:
    I was referring to the “official” long term land temp records taking off to the upside when compared to sea surface temperatures.
    Here s a link to the land temps graph:
    Click on the graph to get a bigger picture.
    Sea surface temp changes can be hadhere:
    click on the calculate button.

    The graphs are scaled differently so you might have to stare at them for a bit. Sorry i couldn’t immediately find comparable graphs.

    Mostly I was just musing about the impacts of sea temperatures on island and coastal land temperatures. I wasn’t trying to disagree with what you were saying.

  36. DocMartyn
    Posted Jun 24, 2007 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    “sites that are in poor compliance with WMO standards tend to have much more pronounced trends than sites that are in relatively good compliance”

    Would it be possible to have a program search the records and do a simple calculation such as
    number of moves per decade vs. delta T per decade? In this way you could get an actual polt with a correlation which would show if there was an intrinsic bias in reconstructing histories?

  37. Harold Pierce Jr
    Posted Jun 24, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Hi Doc!

    Here are the links you ask for:


    This site is a work of art and easy to use. The USHCN is pretty clunky and just sucks compared to weather office’s site.


    This is the official site of the BC Lighthouse Keepers Assoc. Check out the geat pic’s of the lighthouses. Notice how isolated and remote these are.


    This is Kirsten Byrnes’ website wgere i got the El Nino/La Nina index chart.

    You should go there and read her attacks on Gore and Hansen.

  38. Harold Pierce Jr
    Posted Jun 26, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    Steve Snip Snip:

    You have been at it again with your censor scissors! Chill out! You defintely need some clonazepam.
    These little orange pills will lay you back and everything will become warm and comfy.

  39. Harold Pierce Jr
    Posted Jun 27, 2007 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    RE #18

    Please break your text into readable paragraphs. Your post looks the fine print from auto finance contract.
    See links in #37 for temp records. The reasons climate is cooling down in BC and along the coasts is that the El Nino cycle is over and we are entering a La Nina cycle.

  40. Posted Mar 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    A very thourough analysis thank you, the reports however do not explain clearly the vast changes that seem to happen the last 30 or so years, or am I wrong?

  41. Robert Waltemate
    Posted Aug 2, 2010 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    Lived in Long Beach for 40 years now (born in 1970), but don’t remember it being overcast so much or is it just me? I know the sun is again starting to make sunspots (sunspot cycle is 11 years right?). Weather just seems strange to me this year here. Hell, I even ice skated in my yard this last DEC. Haven’t done that since 1998 Dec (11 years ago).

    So any guess at when we might see the sun for more than 10 minuets?

%d bloggers like this: