A Natural Laboratory And The Western South Dakota Blizzard Of 2013
A recent essay (https://principia-scientific.com/a-natural-laboratory-and-an-eastern-south-dakota-blizzard-part-1/) was an attempt to validate the U.S. Climate Reference Network’s (USCRN’s) measurement of the surface skin (radiative) temperature.
John O’Sullivan, the editor of PSI, always places three references to previous PSI postings which seem to be related to the current posting. Because of this I have just learned about the fall western South Dakota blizzard of October 29, 2013. (https://principia-scientific.com/record-breaking-blizzard-kills-75-000-cattle-ignored-by-biased-global-warming-msm/)
The USCRN project has a site, Buffalo SD, which, according to its data, had to have been located in the midst of this 2013 blizzard. Which gives me opportunity to call attention to this USCRN data which further validates the measurement of the surface skin (radiative) temperature.
First, from 10/28/ 2013 at 4pm to 10/30/2013 at 7am the temperature difference between the average air temperature recorded each hour and the average surface skin temperature recorded each hour was never greater than 0.7oC. Which I consider to be unquestionable evidence to validate the accuracy of both measuring instruments when the temperatures were near 0.0oC.
For two reasons I need to review these averaged values. The first of which is that I do not accept an averaged value to be an actual value. So a question might be: Why am I being inconsistent? Both instruments respond to any change in the actual value within a second. Two, the maximum and minimum values observed the previous hour are also recorded and the range (the difference) of these values are of the order of degrees and not of tenths of a degree.
So, a given actual measurement can never really be considered a practical measurement representative of any time period longer that a few seconds. And because in the morning and the later afternoon when the temperatures are often rapidly changing from the beginning of the previous hour and the end of the previous hour can still not be better conveyed by any other method than average, maximum, and minimum values. We should never forget we are studying a dynamic system.
And in my previous article I see I missed the opportunity to simply refer to some evidence at the more climatic averaged temperatures of a day only one or two days before this extreme weather event. For during the 24hr period of 10/26/2013 the average air temperature oscillated from 4.0oC to -4.5oC to 16.1oC to 1.2oC while the average surface skin temperature oscillated from -0.7oC to 19.5oC to 1.2oC.
At 3pm the average air temperature was 16.0 oC and the average surface skin temperature was 16.0 oC. At 2pm the surface skin temperature was 4oC greater than that of the air temperature and at 4pm the surface skin temperature was 2.4oC lower than the air temperature. Hence, I must conclude that the measurements of the instrument measuring the surface skin temperature remain valid up to nearly 20oC.
Finally I close with the note that there are other USCRN, SCAN, and a SURFRAD that might be near enough to this storm system to furnish observations which could contribute to a detailed understanding of this specific system. Especially if it tracked eastward as the Blizzard of April 2018 clearly did? I am interested in having discussions with anyone interested in better understanding such storm systems as these two. For a fact is we have only had the instrumentation to actually study them in such detail for less than two decades. And it seems a fact that this data has not been ‘fully utilized’ (an understatement) during this time.
* Diamond, H. J., T. R. Karl, M. A. Palecki, C. B. Baker, J. E. Bell, R. D. Leeper, D. R. Easterling, J. H. Lawrimore, T. P. Meyers, M. R. Helfert, G. Goodge, and P. W. Thorne, : U.S. Climate Reference Network after one decade of operations: status and assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 489-498.
doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00170.1
Trackback from your site.
Carl
| #
As per our previous discussions, the instrument used in the USCRN project to measure the ground’s “skin” temperature is only accurate when the emissivity of the surface being measured is 1.0. The instrument manual itself contains a mathematical correction that needs to be applied to the raw data taken by the instrument when the emissivity of the surface being measured is <1.0.
Also, as per our previous discussions, the project manager of the USCRN project stated that they don’t apply those mathematical corrections to the data that you see posted on their web site—it is raw, uncorrected data as though the emissivity of the ground is 1.0 at every site in the country.
A paper written by Mashahiro Hori, et al entitled “In-situ measured spectral directional emissivity of snow and ice in the 8–14 μm atmospheric window” states that the emissivity of snow can be nearly 1.0 at 0.997, which would make the USCRN readings taken during a snow storm quite accurate.
So yes, when the emissivity of the surface of the ground is near 1.0 the temperature readings being taken by the Apogee Infrared Thermometer used by the USCRN project to measure the ground’s “skin” temperature will be quite accurate.
The problem with your article is that it is an example of “the exception proves the rule” logical fallacy. You first point out that the ground’s “skin” temperature one particular day that was taken during a snow storm in Buffalo SD in 2013 correlates with the air temperature taken during the same time. You then assert that this data “validates the measurements of the surface skin (radiative) temperature” throughout the entire USCRN system regardless of the variations in surface emissivity that are present at each individual site.
In these scientific discussion this is usually referred to as “cherry picking.” You hold in your mind a certain belief and look for data that validates that belief while simultaneously ignoring the data that is out of sync with your belief. We see a prime example of “cherry picking” on full display in the IPCC’s various Assessment Reports. To write these reports they scour the scientific literature for those papers and that data that supports their hypothesis that rising carbon dioxide levels are causing catastrophic global warming, while simultaneously ignoring all of the papers and all of the data that is out of sync with their predetermined conclusion.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Thank you for your comments. You just ‘cherry picked’. You referred to observations during the actual blizzard but you did not refer to the data of 10/26/2013 to which I also drew to your and other reader’s attention. How many examples (how much evidence) do you need to throw away your belief? If you study the USCRN data of more than decades, as I have, you would not claim I am cherry picking. I wait for anyone to cherry pick a USCRN surface skin (radiative) temperature that isn’t consistent with the air temperature and the soil temperatures at depths during the 24hr temperature oscillations. Yes, there are hours when the skin temperature can be 10 or more degrees greater than these other temperatures during the daytime and a fewer degrees lower than these temperatures during the nighttime. Hence, there must times during the day when the skin temperature becomes greater or lesser than the other temperature. Yes, there can be days when these diurnal temperature oscillations do not occur. Like during a blizzard or other unique weather event.
But thank you for your comments because it is by discussions like this that scientific problems (disagreements) have be resolved. Until you have evidence that the measured skin temperatures reported are wrong, telling me what others have said carries no weight with me.
I respect you because you noticed that solar radiation incident upon a pane of glass warmed its surface while the wall behind the glass remained cool. Hence, the glass pane had to have filtered out a good portion of the IR which is a slightly major portion of the solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. Which simple observation forces the conclusion that a good absorber is a good reflector.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Relative to the probable importance of your observation, think sea surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply