Well, I found it. Eureka that is, but what I found was rather depressing. I visited the USHCN climate stations of record both old and new at Eureka, California on July 30th and I can’t decide which site is more out of compliance with sitings standards.

The original location was on the 4th story roof of the main Post office in downtown Eureka and had been there since before 1900:
Eureka Post Office
The weather station was on the elevated scaffold above the roof, it is still visible today.

But the station was moved to the National Weather Service Office on Woodley Island in 1994. They had a chance then to do a good site setup and to adhere to published siting standards, but alas, no such luck:

Eureka NWS Office

The site at the Eureka Weather Service Office has several problems: Asphalt parking lot within 100 feet, buildings within 100 feet, and a line of large shade trees about 25 feet to the west and north, making significant shade for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the day, depending on the time of year, plus wind shelter. Plus there is the concrete under the Stevenson Screen, the 3 concrete pillars for rain gauges that can act as heat sinks, and the crushed rock around the station site. “Crushed rock” isn’t generally found in Humboldt county as a natural surface, so the surface under the weather station isn’t representative of the surrounding area.

Eureka NWS Office Detail

A complete photo essay is available here on

If the NWS doesn’t see fit to make the sites at their own offices comply with published site standards, is it any wonder that so many of the other climate stations of record are so far out of compliance?


  1. Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    That looks like a radio tower to me.

    Any correlation between transmitting times and temperature changes? How about cell phones?

    What is the RFI resistance of the measuring eqpt? Is it as good as an automobile?

  2. Gary
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    Pretty little fence at the new site. The barbed wire is a nice touch, too. And it looks like the Stevenson screen is freshly painted. How bad could the data be?

  3. Lawrence Hickey
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    Well it like the three stooges episode. One stooge scientist says Eureka and the other says you don’t smell so good either.

  4. Paul S
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    I know this is off topic (delete if necessary) but Newsweek has a real doozer of an article on “denialists”. I also believe they refer to Steve McIntyre by inference in the article. Like most articles on AGW, my head almost exploded hurtling into space at high velocity ;). Only on this site and a few others can I get some sense of the issues and questions surrounding AGW without everything being presented as dogma. Oh, and good work Anthony.

    The Truth About Denial

  5. TCO
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Oke-dokey. Let’s talk Oke.

    I think just doing a general regression and keeping Tmax1, Tmax2, Tmin1, Tmin2, would give more parameters. Might work better. Get some function based off of that.

    Also don’t see how he has really proved that “R” is such a great metric. I mean, has he compared it to other ones? How about just using daytime temp difference, not “cooling”. Has he done the work to show wehther that works just as good?

  6. Dano
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    Wow. That’s horrible.

    What’s the deviation along the transect?

    Oh, wait: we aren’t measuring temperatures to see.

    I guess I’ll read the paper when it gets accepted to E&E as the new Thermometer Totem.

    Can’t wait.



  7. Stan Palmer
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    Oh, wait: we aren’t measuring temperatures to see

    Isn’t that the problem that this effort addressing. Why was this not done previously?

  8. Stan Palmer
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    re 7

    Come to think of it, the site standards must have been created for a reason. Measurements of the sort described in 6 were likely to have been taken into consideration in their creation.

  9. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 6, 2007 at 9:48 PM | Permalink

    RE 6.

    what’s the deviation along the transect?
    Good question. Go ahead and point to the following.

    1. Hansen’s data for this.
    2. Hansen’s method for calculating this.

    Did you mean deviation BEFORE 2000 or after?

    When Hansen comes clean on his Y2K problemo, then Dano, you can book him.

  10. MarkW
    Posted Aug 7, 2007 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    Speaking of thermometer totems, check out the new “lights = 1” thread.

  11. Posted Aug 7, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    #4 Paul S

    I wonder what Steve M thinks about being referred to as ‘one other doubter’?

  12. Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    Three hours from Eureka I know that it’s temp has NOTHING to do with the asphalt but plenty to do with being next to the OCEAN.

%d bloggers like this: