Updated mapping of the Idso's Temperature Record of the Week
David Ball
temperature records of the week. I've plotted them on a new map on top
of 30 second digital terrain height data. Have a look at:
http://www.mts.net/~shade3/ushcn1.gif
I purposely made it quite large as there are a lot of stations. Sorry
to those of you with small monitors. As I expected, there's little
difference between the new map and the old one. About half of the
stations are squeezed into the eastern 1/3 of the US. In addition,
over a third of the stations west of the Mississippi lie at elevations
above 1000 metres. There are a couple of stations in coastal areas,
but a decided lack of stations in the southwest.
Roger Coppock
Which means that the enitre southern portions of California and Florida
are skipped.
You could make Idso's bias even more clear by putting all the USHCN
station locations on the map, using dots of a different color. Then you
could show both what the "CEE-OH-TOO" pseudo-scientist has included
and excluded.
The station inventory file is here
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.inventory.Z
The primary station location can be found at this position
in the file:
46-51 6 NUMERIC LATITUDE (DEGREES/MINUTES)
46-48 3 S00-S90 Degrees, where "S" denotes sign:
S= " " indicates North;
S= "-" indicates South
50-51 2 00-59 Minutes
53-59 7 NUMERIC LONGITUDE (DEGREES/MINUTES)
53-56 4 S000-S180 Degrees, where "S" denotes sign:
S= " " indicates West;
S= "-" indicates East
58-59 2 00-59 Minutes
Eric Swanson
says...
Years ago, I looked at the data for one cooperative station.
The data went back as far as 1845, but quickly found that the early data was
too spotty to use. The serious recording of data didn't begin until the
1880's. Over the years, the actual site location changed several times as
different people collected the data. The differences in location might
be several miles, as well as possible elevation and land cover changes.
Do the Idso's use data corrected for all these changes?
I notice that there is a file of station history on the ushcn site. I wondered
if David Ball had had the chance to look at the histories of each site yet?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.history.Z
If David could post his list of stations, we could all have a look.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
wrote:
You mean like...
http://www.mts.net/~shade3/ushcn2.gif <grin>
David Ball
I've looked at some, Eric, but frankly the histories of some
of them are pretty convoluted. For example, Conway AR, the most recent
Co2science effort has had 15 different observers over time. The
station history lists their reporting period and where they moved in
relation to the previous observer and it might be instructive to look
at a few stations at random and plot out the locations of the various
observers relative to the town or local terrain, but to do it for all
1200+ stations would be a monumental task.
>
>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.history.Z
>
>If David could post his list of stations, we could all have a look.
Ask and ye shall receive. I passed this same information on to
Jim Acker yesterday morning....
Longitude Latitude Station State
-92.47 35.08 Conway AR
-87.58 32.70 Greensboro AL
-80.22 38.98 Buckhannon WV
-120.55 46.97 Ellensburg WA
-78.30 37.70 Bremo_Bluff VA
-112.32 38.95 Fillmore UT
-98.07 27.73 Alice TX
-84.38 35.00 Copperhill TN
-99.07 43.50 Academy SD
-77.27 39.80 Eisenhower PA
-121.28 44.07 Bend OR
-96.68 34.78 Ada OK
-82.97 40.82 Bucyrus OH
-73.80 42.75 Albany NY
-114.77 39.40 McGill NV
-106.58 36.92 Chama NM
-102.65 45.98 Hettinger ND
-81.87 36.17 Banner_Elk NC
-89.98 34.30 Batesville MS
-108.05 44.38 Basin WY
-94.03 38.20 Appleton_City MO
-95.85 46.83 Detroit_Lakes MN
-67.83 46.20 Houlton ME
-75.68 38.22 Princess_Anne MD
-84.30 37.57 Berea_College KY
-99.77 37.20 Ashland KS
-85.72 40.10 Anderson IN
-90.73 41.23 Aledo IL
-92.78 41.07 Albia IA
-84.65 30.80 Bainbridge GA
-85.03 29.73 Apalachicola FL
-91.18 34.88 Brinkley AR
-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
-122.75 49.00 Blaine WA
-109.55 37.28 Bluff UT
-87.37 36.55 Clarksville TN
-98.43 45.45 Aberdeen SD
-71.28 45.08 First_Connecticut_Lake NH
-88.52 33.83 Aberdeen MS
-68.27 44.35 Acadia ME
-93.42 43.62 Albert_Lea MN
-123.88 46.15 Astoria OR
-82.62 38.45 Ashland KY
-84.13 31.53 Albany GA
-87.88 30.55 Fairhope AL
-82.67 34.53 Anderson SC
-77.63 39.93 Chambersburg PA
-112.28 42.17 Malad_City ID
-91.13 30.53 Baton_Rouge LA
-96.60 46.32 Wahpeton ND
-97.98 41.67 Albion NE
-88.62 46.05 Stambaugh MI
-102.12 38.05 Holly CO
-122.32 41.32 Mount_Shasta CA
-114.27 48.30 Kalispell MT
-73.22 43.95 Cornwall VT
-87.68 44.10 Manitowoc WI
-78.75 39.63 Cumberland MD
-92.67 30.20 Jennings LA
-77.98 39.40 Martinsburg WV
-111.72 47.22 Cascade MT
-84.62 38.65 Williamstown KY
-79.05 33.83 Conway SC
-101.63 40.52 Imperial NE
-94.17 36.10 Fayetteville AR
-89.53 44.12 Hancock WI
-98.40 46.15 Fullerton ND
-94.85 37.17 Columbus KS
-84.65 40.10 Greenville OH
-117.80 40.90 Winnemucca NV
-89.23 37.47 Anna IL
-99.87 43.92 Kennebec SD
-85.80 35.68 McMinnville TN
-80.42 37.18 Blacksburg VA
-95.03 40.73 Clarinda IA
-97.87 36.42 Enid OK
-76.12 43.12 Syracuse NY
-76.75 39.92 York_Pump_Station PA
-104.95 36.47 Cimarron NM
-85.92 39.20 Columbus IN
-98.18 31.05 Lampasas TX
-80.82 38.93 Glenville WV
-85.20 38.20 Shelbyville KY
-72.45 43.98 Chelsea VT
-91.88 39.97 Steffenville MO
-118.37 47.12 Ritzville WA
-91.55 29.82 Franklin LA
-122.30 40.50 Redding CA
-72.53 42.38 Amherst MA
-83.18 35.05 Highlands NC
-94.27 34.57 Mena AR
-86.85 39.63 Greencastle IN
-112.53 37.05 Kanab UT
-74.88 40.57 Flemington NJ
-81.32 33.37 Blackville SC
-104.48 42.75 Lusk WY
-89.53 34.38 University MS
-90.12 42.68 Darlington WI
-112.95 46.13 Anaconda MT
-75.48 43.80 Lowville NY
-82.62 41.27 Norwalk OH
-76.67 38.68 Owings MD
-103.15 36.45 Clayton NM
-97.58 40.17 Hebron NE
-90.38 32.90 Yazoo_City MS
-97.05 36.88 Newkirk OK
-117.18 46.77 Pullman WA
-93.87 39.20 Lexington MO
-77.53 35.22 Kinston NC
-76.53 42.92 Auburn NY
-109.47 41.53 Green_River WY
-81.92 40.78 Wooster OH
-122.07 45.12 Three_Lynx OR
-88.55 44.03 Oshkosh WI
-70.95 43.15 Durham NH
-98.70 35.52 Weatherford OK
-114.10 47.32 Saint_Ignatius MT
-80.18 35.37 Albemarle NC
-96.95 40.62 Crete NE
-79.40 39.40 Oakland MD
-91.72 32.10 Winnsboro LA
-77.72 42.57 Dansville NY
-85.60 42.28 Kalamazoo MI
-110.88 33.40 Miami AZ
-86.10 33.43 Talladega AL
-94.93 39.32 Leavenworth KS
-120.57 40.38 Susanville CA
-93.25 42.52 Iowa_Falls IA
-107.88 38.48 Montrose CO
-82.60 30.18 Lake_City FL
-94.17 43.77 Winnebago MN
-116.12 47.53 Kellogg ID
-75.58 38.83 Greenwood DE
-99.28 32.73 Albany TX
-75.08 40.83 Belvidere_Bridge NJ
-100.90 46.80 Mandan ND
-81.50 31.17 Brunswick GA
-96.32 44.02 Pipestone MN
-82.98 36.42 Rogersville TN
-114.52 42.73 Jerome ID
-96.83 37.82 El_Dorado KS
-76.92 41.25 Williamsport PA
-110.05 31.70 Tombstone AZ
-69.78 44.22 Gardiner ME
-79.38 36.58 Danville VA
-90.40 37.78 Farmington MO
-87.05 31.07 Brewton AL
-105.95 37.17 Manassa CO
-97.50 27.77 Corpus_Christi TX
-93.78 36.42 Eureka_Springs AR
-112.98 37.22 Zion UT
-89.02 39.83 Decatur IL
-109.53 31.35 Douglas AZ
-79.93 32.78 Charleston_City SC
-103.68 35.20 Tucumcari NM
Eric Swanson
>
> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> rcop...@adnc.com says...
>>>David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
>>>> I went back 3 full years and pulled off all of the Idso's
>>>> temperature records of the week. I've plotted them on a new map on top
>>>> of 30 second digital terrain height data. Have a look at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mts.net/~shade3/ushcn1.gif
>>>>
>>>> I purposely made it quite large as there are a lot of stations. Sorry
>>>> to those of you with small monitors. As I expected, there's little
>>>> difference between the new map and the old one. About half of the
>>>> stations are squeezed into the eastern 1/3 of the US. In addition,
>>>> over a third of the stations west of the Mississippi lie at elevations
>>>> above 1000 metres. There are a couple of stations in coastal areas,
>>>> but a decided lack of stations in the southwest.
>>>
>>>Which means that the enitre southern portions of California and Florida
>>>are skipped.
>>>
>>>You could make Idso's bias even more clear by putting all the USHCN
>>>station locations on the map, using dots of a different color. Then you
>>>could show both what the "CEE-OH-TOO" pseudo-scientist has included
>>>and excluded.
>>>
>>>The station inventory file is here
>>>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.inventory.Z
>>>
>>
>>Years ago, I looked at the data for one cooperative station.
>>
>>The data went back as far as 1845, but quickly found that the early data was
>>too spotty to use. The serious recording of data didn't begin until the
>>1880's. Over the years, the actual site location changed several times as
>>different people collected the data. The differences in location might
>>be several miles, as well as possible elevation and land cover changes.
>>Do the Idso's use data corrected for all these changes?
>>
>>I notice that there is a file of station history on the ushcn site. I wondered
>>if David Ball had had the chance to look at the histories of each site yet?
>
> I've looked at some, Eric, but frankly the histories of some
>of them are pretty convoluted. For example, Conway AR, the most recent
>Co2science effort has had 15 different observers over time. The
>station history lists their reporting period and where they moved in
>relation to the previous observer and it might be instructive to look
>at a few stations at random and plot out the locations of the various
>observers relative to the town or local terrain, but to do it for all
>1200+ stations would be a monumental task.
I was thinking looking only of the stations the Idso's used.
I agree with your comment about the large number of observers per staion.
I think that each observer represents a different physical location, thus
the need for corrections just for the move. There are other effects,
such as different instruments over time and changes in time of day of
observation, which was originally up to the individual, I think.
Some of the stations have been moved from residential areas
to local water plants or airports.
>>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.history.Z
>>
>>If David could post his list of stations, we could all have a look.
>
> Ask and ye shall receive. I passed this same information on to
>Jim Acker yesterday morning....
Thanks. Here are some comments that come to mind......
>Longitude Latitude Station State
>-84.38 35.00 Copperhill TN
Copperhill Tn is a unique site. It's the location of a large copper mine
and smelter, which produced large amounts of SO2 gas, which killed all the
vegitation for a considerable distance in all directions. The devastation may
be seen from low rez satellite photographs. The land looks like a desert,
where the Idso's would feel right at home. I happened to look at some land
for sale near by and trekked up a ridge overlooking the mine site. The mine
is now closed down and the trees are slowly beginning to move back in.
It is very likely that things were hotter back in the days of the mining
operation, just because of the loss of trees. Who knows?
>-77.27 39.80 Eisenhower PA
Although the Lat/Lon doesn't match up, it looks like this is now located
at the Gettysburg National Park (a bucolic location if ever there was one),
after a move from town.
>-121.28 44.07 Bend OR
Moved from a newspaper office (rooftop maybe) to individual person back
to government site (?).
>-81.87 36.17 Banner_Elk NC
Another mountain town. A major ski resort area today. Lots of potential
for elevation change and mountain-valley effect.
>-84.65 30.80 Bainbridge GA
Lots of station moves, each covering a considerable distance.
Big change to paper mill(?) almost 10 min north in 1977
>-85.03 29.73 Apalachicola FL
Big move to an airport in 1975.
>-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
This one doesn't appear in the USHCN history list!
I recall this as being on the Tennessee-Tombigbee canal project,
which is a recent construction. It's thus suspect, as it is
now near a large body of water....
>-87.37 36.55 Clarksville TN
Moved to sewage plant in 1967.
>-123.88 46.15 Astoria OR
Astoria OR is a coastal station. What's happened to the
sea surface temperatures over time?
>-84.13 31.53 Albany GA
Big move in 1963.
>-91.13 30.53 Baton_Rouge LA
Location change to US Weather Bureau office in 1945.
Looks like location change in 1973 and another to airport in 1978.
>-122.32 41.32 Mount_Shasta CA
Moved from railroad office to weather bureau in 1942
change in loction in 1976 (?) and WS office closed 1986(?)
>-80.42 37.18 Blacksburg VA
Located in a mountain town, with several moves over a total
of 10 minutes southwards. Probable elevation change.
>-76.12 43.12 Syracuse NY
Big location change in 1949, new airport?
Other more recent moves at airport.
>-72.53 42.38 Amherst MA
Moved from agricultural experiment station to town in 1967.
>-83.18 35.05 Highlands NC
Small town in mountain valley. Moved out of town in 1979.
>-89.53 34.38 University MS
May be Oxford University. Switch to USDA sedimentation lab in 1960?
>-112.95 46.13 Anaconda MT
Mountain site of very large copper mine. Mine closed and site moved in 1982(?).
>-117.18 46.77 Pullman WA
Washington State College thru 1953, then moved to US Soil Conservation
Service/Ag Research site
>-88.55 44.03 Oshkosh WI
Moved from observtory to waste water plant in 1981.
Elevation change? Water nearby?
>-94.93 39.32 Leavenworth KS
The site I looked at. Started as US Army Fort, 1830-1911, then US
Penitentiary, 1911-1946, several individuals, then water plant 1981-86,
then more individuals...
------------------------------
As I noted, if the Idso's used raw data without corrections, then they
likely are looking at things like station changes, not real trends.
David Ball
<alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't understand why you are all so up tight about Idsos pages. It is well
>known that the US contiguous states have not shown the same warming as the
>rest of the world. Selecting sites from the US which have not shown warming
>is fairly easy. The answer is to post records from Hawaii, and/or Alaska or
>even, may I be so bold as to suggest, Canada! (but not Greenland :-(
>
>Cheers, Alastair.
>
Let's say, for example, you run a bakery and you make an
assortment baked goods every day. The public gets wind of how good
your bakery is and they start flocking to your store to purchase your
wares. In the meantime, you have a competitor who isn't interested in
competing with you by making his own goods as well as he can. Instead,
he attacks you, telling your customers that you are using inferior
ingredients, some of them poisonous. What would you do?
I can't speak for anyone else but me, but if someone proves
that I'm wrong, so be it. If, however, they lie to the public by
telling them that what I do for a living is not only wrong, but
flagrantly wrong, I take exception to it.
There is never an excuse for members of the scientific
community to lie to the public. Ever. For anyone claiming to have the
interests of the public at heart to knowingly issue falsehoods is
unacceptable, especially when 2 seconds worth of thought shows the
lies for what they are. The best way to condone a lie, Alastair, is to
know that it is a lie and say nothing. The best way to deal with a lie
is to bring it out in the open and show it for what it is. I've said
for a long time that what the Idso's are doing is flat-out wrong. It's
time to prove it.
charliew2
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:17:04 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
> <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't understand why you are all so up tight about Idsos pages. It
>> is well known that the US contiguous states have not shown the same
>> warming as the rest of the world. Selecting sites from the US which
>> have not shown warming is fairly easy. The answer is to post
>> records from Hawaii, and/or Alaska or even, may I be so bold as to
>> suggest, Canada! (but not Greenland
>>
>> Cheers, Alastair.
>>
> Let's say, for example, you run a bakery and you make an
> assortment baked goods every day. The public gets wind of how good
> your bakery is and they start flocking to your store to purchase your
> wares. In the meantime, you have a competitor who isn't interested in
> competing with you by making his own goods as well as he can. Instead,
> he attacks you, telling your customers that you are using inferior
> ingredients, some of them poisonous. What would you do?
> I can't speak for anyone else but me, but if someone proves
> that I'm wrong, so be it. If, however, they lie to the public by
> telling them that what I do for a living is not only wrong, but
> flagrantly wrong, I take exception to it.
> There is never an excuse for members of the scientific
> community to lie to the public. Ever.
What happens when the arguments have a statistical component to them?
You're painting this picture as "black and white", with no room for
differing professional opinions. Real science, especially among a group of
people who have equivalent training and experience in an area that is still
actively being researched, doesn't boil down to everyone recognizing the
right answer with some in the group deliberately misleading the public.
Your statement is naive.
> For anyone claiming to have the
> interests of the public at heart to knowingly issue falsehoods is
> unacceptable, especially when 2 seconds worth of thought shows the
> lies for what they are. The best way to condone a lie, Alastair, is to
> know that it is a lie and say nothing. The best way to deal with a lie
> is to bring it out in the open and show it for what it is. I've said
> for a long time that what the Idso's are doing is flat-out wrong. It's
> time to prove it.
So ... go to it.
David Ball
wrote:
Science is rarely black and white, but what the Idso's are
doing is. Black that is. It's like saying 2+2=4 and having them come
along and say, "No. It's really 5." I agree wholeheartedly that the
Idso's have the training. It's their use of it that turns my stomach.
Imagine making a statement: here's this one single station somewhere,
most likely in the eastern US. We're going to take the raw
temperatures from that one station, cut a third of the data out, not
acknowledge the periodic nature of the data and slap a straight line
through it, then announce to the world: To bolster our claim that
"There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years," each week we
highlight the temperature record of one of the 1221 U.S. Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) stations from 1930-2000.
Look at the data they have from Conway, AR.
http://www.mts.net/~shade3/conwayar.jpg
Now compare it to the image from the USHCN database for that same
station.
http://www.co2science.com/ushcn/ar/ar.htm
Notice any differences?
One is left with two possible ways of viewing their pages:
1. They either haven't got a clue how to do basic analysis,
which is pretty hard to believe given that their are PhD's involved or
2. They are purposely doing what they are doing.
I view it as the latter.
>
>> For anyone claiming to have the
>> interests of the public at heart to knowingly issue falsehoods is
>> unacceptable, especially when 2 seconds worth of thought shows the
>> lies for what they are. The best way to condone a lie, Alastair, is to
>> know that it is a lie and say nothing. The best way to deal with a lie
>> is to bring it out in the open and show it for what it is. I've said
>> for a long time that what the Idso's are doing is flat-out wrong. It's
>> time to prove it.
>
>So ... go to it.
>
I am.
Roger Coppock
With nice red Cherries, that were picked. Only one on the entire
West coast. The bias is obvious, isn't it.
With all of the fossil fuel industry PR budgets going to the
American election now, I'll bet the Idso's are having a lean
year. With Al Gore out of the picture, and Ralph Nader
never having made the picture, "CEE-OH-TOO" pseudo
science isn't high on anyone's list now. If it wasn't for the
up coming release of that H-wood disaster movie, there
would be nothing for the Idsos to do. I wonder if the Idsos
will need to branch out into other issues, and become a
full survice lier for hire like Heartland, just to stay in business.
Roger Coppock
With nice red Cherries, that were picked. Only one on the entire
Roger Coppock
With nice red Cherries, that were picked. Only one on the entire
SwimJim
Thanks for doing that, David.
The station history information is quite interesting. I noted earlier that
Bremo Bluff, Virginia had a really unusual temperature drop in the 1985-1996
time frame. I wonder if something happened then with the station that
explained the drop. I'd rather not download that file; anyone else want
to look?
Jim Acker
------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
james...@eudoramail.com
The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------
SwimJim
Thanks for doing that, David.
Eric Swanson
>
>David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ipqea0hkdajqmqrad...@4ax.com>...
>> (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>
[cut]
I went to the Idso's web site and noticed that they claim to be using the RAW
USHCN data. So, no corrections at all. Thus, we find:
-78.30 37.70 Bremo_Bluff VA
The station was originally called NE COLUMBIA.
Looks like the station was moved about 1.9 miles south in 1983 and then
in 1986, it was moved about 10 miles WSW to a VEPCO, BREMO POWER STATION .
>-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
I finally found this one, which is also interesting.
The station was originally located near CLANTON, AL, 86.63W, 32.85N, but in 1987,
it was relocated to the new Greenville Dam. The move was half-way across the state.
David Ball
That doesn't say much for the integrity of the data if that is
happening a lot, Eric. It might be worth looking at each individual
station and determining a radius of influence for each. If I get some
time, I'll take a crack at it.
SwimJim
I should have said "1985-1986"; 1985-1996 was a typo.
The power plant location is certainly in accord with the lat/lon
location. And apparently the move affected the temperature
measurements at the station. (And the Idsos are displaying the RAW
uncorrected data, so the apparent effect is rather obvious!) What'd
be great would be to compare the USHCN corrected data for Bremo Bluff
to the RAW data.
Oh man. Is this turning into a great argument for data integrity or
what?
(It's also turning into a nice demonstration of how hard it is to
collect, validate, and analyze good climate data!)
> >>-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
> >
> >I finally found this one, which is also interesting.
> >The station was originally located near CLANTON, AL, 86.63W, 32.85N, but in 1987,
> >it was relocated to the new Greenville Dam. The move was half-way across the state.
>
> That doesn't say much for the integrity of the data if that is
> happening a lot, Eric. It might be worth looking at each individual
> station and determining a radius of influence for each. If I get some
> time, I'll take a crack at it.
Currently the location for Gainesville Lock appears to be right next
to a linear canal. Didn't you/Eric say that this was on the Tenn/Tom
project? (I'll look after I post this.)
Eric Swanson
>
>David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
Yeah, and I'm afraid that it will always be possible to make a case that the
surface data has problems.
>> >>-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
>> >
>> >I finally found this one, which is also interesting.
>> >The station was originally located near CLANTON, AL, 86.63W, 32.85N, but in 1987,
>> >it was relocated to the new Greenville Dam. The move was half-way across the state.
>>
>> That doesn't say much for the integrity of the data if that is
>> happening a lot, Eric. It might be worth looking at each individual
>> station and determining a radius of influence for each. If I get some
>> time, I'll take a crack at it.
>
>Currently the location for Gainesville Lock appears to be right next
>to a linear canal. Didn't you/Eric say that this was on the Tenn/Tom
>project? (I'll look after I post this.)
That was my guess. Hey, the two sites have the same latitude, right?
What do you think, was this one of Ronnie RayGun's cost saving moves?
As I recall, there were those in Congress that wanted to do away with the Weather
Service, since they thought that there were private companies that could provide
the same information. Funny thing, the private companies were actually using
data from the Weather Service......
David Ball
Swanson) wrote:
>>> >I went to the Idso's web site and noticed that they claim to be using the RAW
>>> >USHCN data. So, no corrections at all. Thus, we find:
>>> >
>>> >-78.30 37.70 Bremo_Bluff VA
>>> >
>>> >The station was originally called NE COLUMBIA.
>>> >Looks like the station was moved about 1.9 miles south in 1983 and then
>>> >in 1986, it was moved about 10 miles WSW to a VEPCO, BREMO POWER STATION .
>>
>>I should have said "1985-1986"; 1985-1996 was a typo.
>>
>>The power plant location is certainly in accord with the lat/lon
>>location. And apparently the move affected the temperature
>>measurements at the station. (And the Idsos are displaying the RAW
>>uncorrected data, so the apparent effect is rather obvious!) What'd
>>be great would be to compare the USHCN corrected data for Bremo Bluff
>>to the RAW data.
>>
>>Oh man. Is this turning into a great argument for data integrity or what?
>>(It's also turning into a nice demonstration of how hard it is to
>>collect, validate, and analyze good climate data!)
>
>Yeah, and I'm afraid that it will always be possible to make a case that the
>surface data has problems.
Unfortunately, you can do the same thing with just about every
kind of data. The real problem occurs when some want to focus on the
problematic nature of a particular kind of data while pretending that
others are problem-free.
>
>>> >>-88.13 32.83 Gainesville_Lock AL
>>> >
>>> >I finally found this one, which is also interesting.
>>> >The station was originally located near CLANTON, AL, 86.63W, 32.85N, but in 1987,
>>> >it was relocated to the new Greenville Dam. The move was half-way across the state.
>>>
>>> That doesn't say much for the integrity of the data if that is
>>> happening a lot, Eric. It might be worth looking at each individual
>>> station and determining a radius of influence for each. If I get some
>>> time, I'll take a crack at it.
>>
>>Currently the location for Gainesville Lock appears to be right next
>>to a linear canal. Didn't you/Eric say that this was on the Tenn/Tom
>>project? (I'll look after I post this.)
>
>That was my guess. Hey, the two sites have the same latitude, right?
>What do you think, was this one of Ronnie RayGun's cost saving moves?
>As I recall, there were those in Congress that wanted to do away with the Weather
>Service, since they thought that there were private companies that could provide
>the same information. Funny thing, the private companies were actually using
>data from the Weather Service......
There's always a bureaucrat somewhere who mindlessly wants to
turn everything over to the private sector. The fact is, the private
sector is purely about making money. They don't invest in things like
observing networks, data archives, science, ...
SwimJim
> >analysis of the locations chosen by the Idsos. Some nice surprises,
> >tending to support my non-rigorous hypothesis.
>
> I hope you are including some of my comments.
>
> I went back and looked again at Highlands, NC.
> My parents had a summer home there for about 30 years, so I'm somewhat
> familiar with the town. It's a small mountain town, with the highest elevation
> east of the Mississippi, as I recall, around 4000 ft. I suspect that the early
> history of the town was that of farming and logging. The USHCN data gives the
> measurement site at 3850 ft. elevation before 1922, dropping to 3300 from 1922
> thru 1978, then back up to 3760 for 1978-79, and 3840 since. As I recall, the
> last station is a bit out of town and has many large trees, so much so
> that sunlight hardly ever reaches the ground in summer.
>
> Copperhill, TN is another mountain site, with the previously mentioned major
> changes in vegitation. The town is situated along a river at the GA/TN border
> and the river is at the bottom of a valley that was the area impacted by SO2
> emissions from the copper smelting operation. There is likely to be a stromg
> mountain-valley impact, with colder air sinking to the lowest elevations on
> calm nights. The sites listed do not show much elevation change since 1930,
> only a drop from 1624 ft. to 1537, then to 1535 from 1991 to the latest.
> As with the other mountain stations, short distances can have large impacts
> on elevation and thus temperatures, so these elevations may not be correct.
Well, my analysis is non-rigorous. A rigorous analysis would take
every station that the Idsos have posted, compare the raw data to the
corrected data, examine the reasons for the corrections (station
moves, measurement protocol changes, etc.) and show the cause(s) of
the differing trends.
I am examining the "basic" locations of each site to see if there is
an apparent locational bias toward sites that might be influenced by
being near a significant body of water. I'm sure that there are many
other influences on the station data, and the station history is
probably more important that what I'm doing. But it's still yielding
some unexpected info.
As for Highlands, I've been there at least twice. My parents live not
far south of there in SC (though that will be changing soon). It was
a summer resort town of note during the 19th century for wealthier
people trying to escape from the heat of the Piedmont.