Comments on: More on NOAA’s FUBAR Honolulu “record highs” ASOS debacle, PLUS finding a long lost GISS station

By: Navy Bob

Navy Bob — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:47:38 +0000

Many commenters seem amazed that a government agency could be so negligent. But it’s probably because they don’t work for the government. Government agencies are fundamentally different from private businesses: they get their money before they do any work. Businesses have to do the work first and then get paid. Imagine yourself as a thermometer maintainer who works for NOAA. You’re happily surfing the web at your desk, and a colleague points out that GISS is listing a certain station as missing, although he thinks it’s still in operation. You have two choices: immediately get to work as Anthony did, track down the source of the discrepancy, report it to superiors, attend meetings with your agency and NASA, reconcile past records, travel to the site of the faulty (or non-recorded) station, verify its existence, possibly arrange to have it calibrated, repaired, or do it yourself, etc. Or you can just continue surfing the web. In either case, your paycheck (in these days of direct deposit) will automatically appear in your bank account every two weeks. Which do you think the average bureaucrat will choose? Government workers have two primary goals – one short term and one long term. The short term goal is to leave the office as soon as possible at the end of the day to avoid the afternoon rush hour. The long term goal is to stay alive long enough to retire. That’s it. Anything else is just unnecessary aggravation to be avoided as assiduously as possible.

By: Max

Max — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:50:40 +0000

Tim Clark (13:19:42) :
CO2 Levels are Highest in 2.1 Million Years

Wouldn’t that study be measuring CO2 in the ocean, rather than atmospheric CO2? Did they use the former as a proxy for the latter? If warmer temps cause outgassing of CO2, what relationship does that imply, other than higher CO2 does indeed “coincide” (correlate) with warmer periods?

I vaguely recall this paper being discussed earlier, either here or at Climate Audit.

By: Max

Max — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:34:52 +0000

Anthony– I hope you have a wife to make sure all this fulsome praise doesn’t go to your head. (Not that you don’t deserve it.)

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:59:23 +0000

AGW = Asphaltogenic Global Warming??

By: Greg R

Greg R — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:29:38 +0000

theduke (17:55:01) :

It’s a great site and it puts the drivel I read regularly in the Washington Post to shame.

You actually read the WaPo?

By: theduke

theduke — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:55:01 +0000

It’s silly to talk about rewarding Anthony’s expose with a Nobel Prize. What he’s given us here is good journalism through detailed detective work. The appropriate reward would be a Pulitizer Prize. The site in general should be considered for a Pulitizer if they give them for weblogs. It’s a great site and it puts the drivel I read regularly in the Washington Post to shame.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:23:15 +0000

Great job Anthony!

By: Jeff11

Jeff11 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:21:05 +0000

“REPLY: I don’t want any prizes. I just want the data to be right, no matter what it says. – Anthony”

Spoken like a true scientist!

By: Bill in Vigo

Bill in Vigo — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:56:00 +0000

Having served in the military on flight status for several years it always amazed me at the numbers of ground crew that would congregate to the rear of the aircraft during cold weather. By the same token during summer operations you would usually only have one or two ground crew any where near the rear of the aircraft. It is also amazing to me that there are many sites where the weather sensors are located near what they call the run-up area. While the wind conditions may not move the exhaust toward the sensor all the time we have radiant heat from the metal parts of the engine to contend with also. It only takes a small temperature increase to skew the record and an airport is a good place to get those small increases. Air operations demand for safety reasons the proximate location of the temp sensor near the runway. They must have very localized information for take off weights and power. This isn’t a good sight for establishing climate records because of the extremely localized effect of the aircraft exhaust on the temperature down the runway. That is the only area that they are interested in. The temperature down the runway. the ambient air temperature is one of the determining factors controlling lift which is critical at take off when the aircraft is at its greatest weight. IN my poor opinion NOAA and GISS made a grave mistake when they began using airports as a location to study climate temperature change.

Just my 2 cents,

Bill Derryberry

By: GlennB

GlennB — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:47:04 +0000

ralph ellis (06:32:10) :

>>>No, EGT is higher than 400 F, by about 500F for a
>>>rough number – 500C.

Incorrect. Most jet engines have an EGT of about 900 oC (centigrade, not F) for take off – considerably hotter than you thought. That’s a lot of hot air, which is being produced by burning 80 kg of diesel per minute (just for a little 737 or A320).

Beats having a barbecue next to the met-station sensors. All that heat has to go somewhere.”

I agree. But jets are not always taking off, which is why I used a “rough number”, what may be closer to the average of all taxiing, landing and takeoffs in the area. And the jet in the video was not taking off, although I would not be surprised that it would have been reading EGT over 500C.

By: JoeS

JoeS — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:19:31 +0000

Stephen Skinner (09:24:09) :

Hi Joe
Yes, this is the temperature at the point of exit from the engine as measured by the sensor in the engine. To measure these temperatures externally to the engine you would have to be very close, although it is likely the sensor would be destroyed by the blast. The temperature dissipates quickly otherwise the YouTube of those people in St Maarten should show burning clothes at least.

Stephen,

There are temperature probes that can be mounted in the exhaust path of Jet Engines, without being destroyed.

Jet engines can range from 20,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust. They are moving lot of hot air.

The 737 at takeoff thrust still has an Exhaust Gas Velocity of 35 mph at 1900 ft from the aircraft tail. The exhaust gas temperatures will be 200 F at the tail, 150 F 80 ft from the tail, and 100F 255 ft from the tail. The exhaust gas wash area fills the area behind the aircraft to these distances.

If you still think jet engine exhaust gasses have no affect on the temperature record please post data to support your assertion.
Joe

By: ralph ellis

ralph ellis — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:32:10 +0000

>>>No, EGT is higher than 400 F, by about 500F for a
>>>rough number – 500C.

Beats having a barbecue next to the met-station sensors. All that heat has to go somewhere.

By: GlennB

GlennB — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:57:50 +0000

Stephen Skinner (17:04:57) :

GlennB (12:57:49) :
“No, EGT is higher than 400 F, by about 500F for a rough number – 500C. Of course this temperature will be dissipated in the air, but just claiming “quickly” doesn’t provide any weight to your argument. And the people in your video wouldn’t have to have burning clothes, just feel a degree or so warmer. And likely they felt a blast of very warm or hot air. Have you been around airports and jets??”

“Yes I have, and I have felt those blasts of warm air, but not 500C. I can cook pizza at 200C so there is a pretty rapid drop from 500 or whatever the temp is down to warm.”

Huh? Because you can cook pizza there is a drop in temperature? I don’t get it. Are you comparing an oven to a jet engine exhaust?

“Incidently the Google maps of NHL shows the jets taking off to the East and a ship just to the West indicating the wind is right down the runway. A wind from this direction would make it very difficult to influence this particular NHL weather station.”

Wind is not always right down the runway, nor the same speed or constant direction, and other factors are at play in the atmosphere that could have a significant influence, such as shear, wing vortices, obstructions, taxiing/taking off/landing aircraft. I just can’t take your word and anecdotal evidence that a temp sensor couldn’t be affected by all this hot air.

By: Joe Black

Joe Black — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:32:02 +0000

HONOLULU WB AIRPORT 703, HAWAII
Monthly Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit)
(511919)
File last updated on Jun 11, 2009
*** Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200902
a = 1 day missing, b = 2 days missing, c = 3 days, ..etc..,
z = 26 or more days missing, A = Accumulations present
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average) to the long-term annual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing.
YEAR(S) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
1949 —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z 77.34 74.07 73.63 75.01
1950 72.29 74.27 73.66 73.82 75.97 77.13 77.95 78.97 78.68 78.47 75.38 72.00 75.72
1951 73.00 72.07 72.61 74.42 76.50 77.73 79.58 79.65 79.70 78.55 76.82 74.13 76.23
1952 72.63 a 72.95 a 72.85 73.34 a 73.71 76.50 78.02 79.06 78.43 77.03 76.09 a 73.63 a 75.35
1953 72.45 73.29 73.66 74.75 76.77 77.68 78.32 79.32 a 78.77 77.60 75.24 a 72.77 75.89
1954 71.82 72.96 71.52 74.58 74.94 78.28 a 78.22 a 79.42 a 79.24 a 78.08 76.88 72.95 75.74
1955 72.52 70.50 70.52 74.03 a 74.94 75.84 a 76.85 a 76.82 77.00 75.94 74.75 73.47 74.43
1956 73.31 72.34 a 73.82 73.85 75.79 76.69 a 78.39 79.26 79.43 77.87 75.38 74.23 75.86
1957 72.69 70.54 a 71.60 a 73.02 75.62 a 78.42 79.48 79.56 79.77 79.13 77.36 a 74.00 75.93
1958 71.55 72.45 71.00 73.80 75.05 77.70 78.08 79.35 79.63 77.39 74.67 71.95 75.22
1959 72.44 71.84 75.13 74.42 76.69 79.02 79.74 80.05 80.88 78.84 76.92 74.29 76.69
1960 72.81 72.41 73.68 74.87 77.05 79.10 79.81 80.44 79.77 79.24 76.83 74.42 76.70
1961 73.58 74.55 75.68 75.90 77.96 c 78.33 79.10 80.34 79.83 79.13 76.32 74.97 77.14
1962 74.61 72.29 73.13 76.42 77.19 78.62 79.15 80.00 79.08 77.21 77.42 72.69 76.48
1963 71.05 72.16 72.31 75.25 76.44 79.15 80.65 81.42 80.98 79.68 77.05 73.94 76.67
1964 75.03 74.62 74.63 75.65 76.32 77.90 79.31 80.37 80.22 78.27 76.37 74.87 76.96
1965 71.92 69.80 72.11 74.95 77.02 79.10 79.82 79.71 79.95 78.24 77.02 73.29 76.08
1966 72.58 71.93 75.18 75.12 77.08 80.47 80.81 82.00 82.43 80.87 77.20 74.61 77.52
1967 72.45 73.89 73.74 74.68 78.16 79.68 81.45 82.02 82.33 80.60 77.62 74.00 77.55
1968 73.00 73.31 —– z 76.72 78.40 80.40 81.45 82.85 81.93 80.60 78.73 72.73 78.19
1969 69.03 73.82 73.55 74.67 76.69 79.03 80.84 83.23 81.95 80.48 78.73 76.47 77.37
1970 74.19 73.23 76.90 78.33 80.40 81.10 82.16 83.76 79.03 78.42 75.80 74.65 78.17
1971 71.66 74.36 73.89 75.55 76.23 77.27 78.82 79.50 79.10 77.95 75.68 73.29 76.11
1972 70.39 70.60 72.77 74.95 77.21 78.92 80.39 81.10 80.50 79.27 76.65 71.55 76.19
1973 72.89 72.57 76.08 75.48 77.06 79.20 80.42 81.18 80.92 79.40 77.00 73.74 77.16
1974 74.52 74.39 73.98 77.37 78.15 79.23 79.85 81.16 79.93 79.50 75.65 75.74 77.46
1975 72.35 72.79 72.94 74.50 75.65 78.07 78.94 80.06 79.35 79.08 77.12 73.02 76.15
1976 73.63 71.98 73.58 75.10 77.45 78.15 79.76 80.81 80.68 79.10 75.23 75.23 76.72
1977 73.71 75.55 76.19 76.30 77.55 79.42 80.82 82.16 81.58 81.03 78.60 75.10 78.17
1978 74.15 73.21 75.63 76.77 78.16 78.70 78.95 80.48 80.45 77.73 74.65 72.40 76.77
1979 69.87 72.12 72.79 74.75 78.00 79.98 80.94 80.40 81.02 81.00 77.35 75.26 76.96
1980 71.89 72.34 75.00 76.07 78.24 79.48 80.89 81.00 81.60 80.13 77.97 74.32 77.41
1981 73.19 73.61 74.71 75.92 77.24 80.57 79.69 80.10 80.72 78.29 76.72 73.95 77.06
1982 73.16 71.71 73.98 75.35 78.26 79.55 80.61 81.40 81.37 79.34 75.65 72.02 76.87
1983 71.90 71.27 73.40 74.62 75.63 78.85 79.65 82.32 82.27 81.11 80.12 75.06 77.18
1984 74.56 74.60 75.73 77.00 78.68 79.33 80.97 81.68 81.27 80.16 78.95 74.11 78.09
1985 71.34 73.88 74.47 74.53 76.48 79.22 81.55 81.90 81.07 79.76 75.07 73.23 76.87
1986 72.79 72.52 76.50 77.50 78.26 80.02 81.52 82.87 82.10 80.53 79.18 75.03 78.23
1987 73.35 71.12 73.97 75.92 75.63 80.33 82.06 82.69 82.90 81.39 78.73 75.74 77.82
1988 73.06 74.74 75.97 77.25 78.90 80.78 81.74 82.10 82.07 80.08 79.87 75.55 78.51
1989 74.48 73.54 75.23 74.47 78.37 80.85 81.58 81.40 81.85 78.58 76.70 72.90 77.50
1990 74.65 71.48 73.06 76.55 78.05 79.95 80.73 82.34 82.25 80.90 77.28 74.11 77.61
1991 72.35 73.39 72.90 75.85 77.79 79.35 81.13 82.42 81.47 80.02 79.53 76.15 77.70
1992 72.84 73.17 74.90 75.62 77.77 81.27 81.47 82.21 81.30 79.37 77.00 76.66 77.80
1993 70.94 71.09 74.02 77.40 77.21 80.18 80.58 81.26 81.10 79.73 76.27 74.95 77.06
1994 72.00 73.57 73.15 75.95 79.27 80.90 82.92 84.34 83.93 82.42 80.82 76.55 78.82
1995 74.19 73.39 75.56 76.38 78.53 81.32 83.23 83.34 83.18 82.65 80.17 79.08 79.25
1996 76.13 74.02 74.29 79.88 78.98 81.22 82.11 82.81 81.40 81.71 76.93 73.08 78.55
1997 72.27 74.68 75.29 76.32 76.19 81.08 81.53 82.55 82.65 80.60 76.40 74.00 77.80
1998 72.44 72.77 75.13 75.12 76.58 78.28 79.66 81.08 81.03 79.71 77.73 74.74 77.02
1999 73.34 73.70 74.60 75.38 77.10 78.72 79.27 80.81 80.15 78.34 76.83 74.08 76.86
2000 72.55 73.60 75.39 75.32 78.24 80.42 81.03 81.37 80.53 80.39 77.52 74.69 77.59
2001 75.44 74.09 74.98 76.60 78.16 79.68 81.47 82.19 82.12 79.85 77.33 76.37 78.19
2002 74.15 73.07 74.06 76.65 78.11 80.78 80.97 82.15 81.20 80.16 77.48 75.42 77.85
2003 72.50 73.73 75.68 77.28 78.97 80.45 82.34 83.19 82.03 81.03 78.77 75.65 78.47
2004 73.60 75.93 74.97 77.10 79.40 81.32 82.68 82.73 82.77 81.39 77.50 75.23 78.72
2005 72.69 73.84 73.77 78.70 81.31 82.67 83.13 83.63 81.10 78.55 77.12 73.45 78.33
2006 74.24 72.07 73.56 74.78 75.27 80.05 80.69 81.15 80.18 79.11 78.12 76.06 77.11
2007 74.82 73.43 74.23 76.65 78.34 80.68 81.58 82.03 81.55 80.16 76.62 75.53 77.97
2008 73.55 74.76 77.29 77.23 79.24 80.45 82.16 81.60 80.45 79.68 77.23 75.19 78.24
2009 72.53 73.36 73.71 74.67 78.11 83.11 u —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z —– z 74.48

Period of Record Statistics
MEAN 72.92 73.02 74.15 75.69 77.37 79.40 80.46 81.27 80.85 79.47 77.10 74.37 77.17
S.D. 1.32 1.28 1.42 1.34 1.41 1.38 1.43 1.45 1.34 1.38 1.46 1.39 1.00
SKEW -0.28 -0.27 -0.18 0.72 0.07 -0.30 -0.29 -0.54 -0.43 -0.10 0.29 0.38 0.13
MAX 76.13 75.93 77.29 79.88 81.31 82.67 83.23 84.34 83.93 82.65 80.82 79.08 79.25
MIN 69.03 69.80 70.52 73.02 73.71 75.84 76.85 76.82 77.00 75.94 74.07 71.55 74.43
NO YRS 60 60 59 60 60 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 58

By: Joe Black

Joe Black — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:31:09 +0000

Plenty of monthly data available here:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmhi.html

example:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmhi.html