I’ve mentioned problems with airports as climate stations in the past, mostly that they are pockets of UHI that have grown with the 20th century aviation boom. A good example is Chicago O’Hare airport. I’ll bet that many of you don’t know that the ICAO ID for O’Hare, is KORD, and FAA uses ORD which is what you see on airline luggage destination tags. “ORD” has nothing to do with the name O’Hare, which came after the airport was established. It has everything to do with the name “Orchard Field” which is what the airport started out as, which at the time was far more rural than it was now. You can read about its early history here.
Here’s that same view today from Google Earth:
Look at O’Hare today, a sprawling megaplex of concrete and terminals surrounded by urbanization:
The weather station location above is designated by the orange pushpin. Here’s a closeup view:
Note that there’s two electronics equipment buildings nearby with industrial sized a/c exhaust vents. While not USHCN, NCDC metadata lists O’Hare as a Class “A” station, which means it does in fact record climate. Data from O’Hare can be used to adjust other stations with missing nearby data.
The point I’m making with all the photos is that airports are far from static, especially since airline deregulation in the 1980’s. The are just as dynamic as the cities they serve. We measure climate at a great many airports worldwide. E.M. Smith reports that the majority of the GHCN record is from airports.
Even NOAA meteorologists admit that airports aren’t necessarily the best place to measure climate. In a series of stories I did…
How not to measure temperature, part 88 – Honolulu’s Official Temperature ±2
..about the failure of the aviation weather station at Honolulu causing unparalleled record highs, the NOAA Meteorologist there had this to say:
“ASOS…placed for aviation purposes…not necessarily for climate purposes.”
The key issue here is “aviation purpose, not climate purposes”. The primary mission is to serve the airport. Climate is a secondary or even tertiary consideration. And that’s exactly what happened in the story from the Baltimore Sun below. The observer used FAA guidelines rather than NOAA guidelines to measure snow for the climate record. NOAA doesn’t like the record because he didn’t follow their procedures, so they toss it out.
However, when a new high temp record is set in Honolulu due to faulty equipment, NOAA thinks THAT’s alright to keep in the records:
NOAA: FUBAR high temp/climate records from faulty sensor to remain in place at Honolulu
A nearby station shows the error:
This is your Honolulu Temperature. This is your Honolulu Temperature on ASOS. Any questions?
Sat 20 Feb 2010
…
A contractor working for the Federal Aviation Administration at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, paid to measure the snow for the aviation industry’s needs, did not follow a separate protocol required by the National Weather Service and the National Climatic Data Center for valid climate data.
So while the contractor measured 28.8 inches of snow during that storm, the National Weather Service has thrown out the reading. Instead, climatologists will rank the storm as “only” 24.8 inches – a number that almost surely understates the “true” total.
Worse, for climatologists, it now appears the weather service’s rules for snow data had been ignored for years at BWI, throwing a cloud over the validity of snow totals as far back as 1998, when the FAA took the job over from the weather service.
Only BWI’s data are known to be affected, but the problem could be more widespread. That possibility has caught the attention of top officials at the FAA.
“We plan to meet with the National Weather Service next week to begin a discussion on making sure that we’re all on the same page in terms of measuring snow accumulations at our airports,” FAA spokesman Jim Peters said. “There will be a national discussion.”
In the meantime, the weather service’s Baltimore- Washington Forecast Office in Sterling, Va., is preparing to convene a committee of climatologists and other experts to review Baltimore’s snowfall records from the 2010 and 2003 storms, and perhaps back to 1998.
“I feel very strongly about historical records and getting the climate data correct,” said James E. Lee, the meteorologist-in-charge at Sterling. “Obviously, with the increased media attention and political attention to climate, it is really up to NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which the National Weather Service is an agency] to make sure … the climate record is a genuine one, and consistent to the best of our ability.”
The problem at BWI came to light Feb. 6, as snow accumulations reported at the airport passed 26 inches. They seemed poised to break the record set in February 2003 – the storm listed on Sterling’s Web site as Baltimore’s biggest.
But when reporters called asking about a new record, Lee said that because of measurement errors by an FAA contractor at BWI, the two-day storm total would be pegged at “only” 24.8 inches. He had discarded a 28.8-inch measurement from BWI because it was the sum of hourly measurements throughout the storm – a method invalid for climatological data.
Even at 24.8 inches, Lee said, the storm total beat the previous two-day record of 24.4 inches, set at BWI during two days of the four-day 2003 event. “I’m convinced that was the most amount of snow Baltimore has seen [from a two-day storm] in recorded history.”
But Lee had to use the most conservative reading from the airport – a “snow depth” measurement of the total on the ground when the storm ended, after hours of compaction.
The FAA requires its observers to take hourly snow measurements and wipe the boards clean after each hour, adding the totals as they go. That provides pilots with better real-time information about changing conditions. But it virtually eliminates compaction and so inflates accumulation. Climatologists require measurements every six hours, striking a balance between the hourly and snow depth readings. Some airports maintain separate snow boards for the different protocols. But not BWI.
Richard Carlson, vice president of Pacific Weather Inc., said his company has experienced weather observers at 20 U.S. airports, including eight at BWI. Pacific has held the contract there since 2008.
“We follow the FAA manual … and that is the guide book on how these meteorological observations are to be taken,” Carlson said. “We had heard about the six-hour measuring thing, but … if you have high winds at all, this really is not going to work.”
…
Read the full article at the Baltimore Sun
Read Frank Roylance’s blog on MarylandWeather.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Every time I reade one of these stories, I’m reminded of the DEW line worker who recorded weather for the station reports during the ’60s, and readily admits that on nasty weather days (or for other reasons), would simply write in what seemed reasonable based on what it felt like, and what it was like the last time he took an actual reading…
REPLY: You can read that story right here on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/fabricating-temperatures-on-the-dew-line/
Make mine a lager 😉
Anthony, some little typo’s:
Both typo’s in the second line under the airport photo’s:
The pint I’m making = The point I’m making
The are just as dynamic = They are just as dynamic
Ohare has only been the “official” recording station for Chicago for about 30 years. Beofre that it was at Midway airport which is completely surrounded by industrial and residential. Pilots call it the Bullseye because of how tight the takeoffs and landings are.
Midway was only the “official” station from the 1950’s to mid 70’s. Before that ( 1880’s to 1950’s ) it moved around quite a bit but it was almost always within a half mile of Lake Michigan which obviously tempers the summer heat.
As any Chicagoan knows from the weather forecasters here, “it will be cooler by the lake” is a common phrase.
Also, where the weather station is at OHare is not only close to those buildings but only a couple hundred feet from the end of that runway where landing planes are coming right over the top of it. But I’m sure there is no effect whatsoever.
Nit picking time
“The pint I’m making with all the photos is that airports are far from static”
“point”
All though I could go for a pint.
Serious question.
Have there been any studies done in documenting the difference in temps with and without air conditioning units that close t the equipment?
There are a couple of weather stations on Mars with the same problems.
This is another incredible story how NOAA is bending it’s own rules at the cost of reliability of data sets.
Is this happening on purpose or is it due to incredible incompetence.
Whatever the reason, these problems must be addressed.
This is a job for the responsible Inspector General or else a Public Inquiry.
We are fed up with being screwed with our own tax money!
[snip]
I work across the street from BWI, and was at my office during the entire storm. Our various measurements were very close to 30 inches, this was from the center of a grassy area in front of our building. Obviously totals vary, but 24 less then 1/2 mile away is likely too low based on my first hand observations and measurements.
Anthony: a few typos:
The pint I’m making with all the photos
The primary mission is to server the airport.
So it is with some disgust that I provide this excerpts
Sorry – found a few more typos: (hope you don’t mind me pointing them out)
The key issue here is “avaiation purpose
NOAA doesn’t like the record becuase
where they setup a snow measuring board — should be set up (two words)
As a local observing this winter’s record snowfall, I was astounded by the wide variations of recorded amounts. During the storm of 5-6 February, Elkridge, Maryland, a location roughly three ( 3 ) miles distant from BWI reported snowfall of 38.3″. It is difficult to reconcile that amount with the now “official” snowfall of 24.8′ at BWI.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/events/?event=20100206
http://apps.baltimorecity.gov/transportation/snowgallery/showAlbum.aspx?id=4
There’s snow in Baltimore for you!
A classic double standard. If the data supports AGW keep it. If it doesn’t then don’t use it.
By the way, in the video they said the airport thermometer’s accuracy was only 2 degrees, so when it says 90, it could be 88 or it could be 92. But the claimed temperature rise for the 20th century is only .7C or about 1.25F. How do you measure 1.25 degrees with a thermometer that is only accurate to +/-2 degrees? They should stop using that data for climate determinations.
BTW2 How accurate is a typical weather station thermometer?
They need to re-evaluate all temp station placements ( the sooner the better) it seems all the info compiled from these stations is a waste of time and obtaining an accurate conclusion still awaits to be found.
I live within 8 miles of BWI and I took a tape measure out to the back yard several times during the storm. I recall measuring 25 and 26″ when I was doing my checks toward the end of the storm. However, another location near BWI in Elkridge, MD (~4 mi west) recorded 35″ of snow. I do recall the snow totals acculating that day and I remember hearing 24″ of snow recorded in late morning when is did not stop snowing heavily until late in the afternoon. This article explains what probably happend. The real oddity for me is that the storm that followed about 4 days later only left ~8-10 of snow where we live but there were 19″ recorded at the airport. I guess we were just on the other side of the rain-snow line.
I’ve lived in this area for 30 years and I’ve seen the snow record go from the mid fifties to the low sixtie for snow totals just in the last decade and now its running at just ofer 80″ and still counting. The thought has occured to me that given the high variability of snow totals in this area (due to the rain-snow line often running along I-95) are we just looking at a noisy signal? It would also be quite interesting to look at the liquid precipitations totals over the years to see if that is increasing or its it just a bit colder and are we piling on more of the light fluffy stuff.
The pint I’m making with all the photos is that airports…
think this is a typo. Should be “point”
Have you ever felt a jet blast when one takes off? I was cleaned off my bike when a kid near Heathrow near London, so powerful and hot, it must fan out across the ground and heat up the whole area, there were no jets in 1940.
You know, if they have THIS much trouble measuring something as straightforward as snowfall–up to four INCHES of divergence between reported and declared–why should I believe they can measure the ambient temperature of Siberia a thousand years ago to a tenth of a degree with fossilized trees????
I’m sorry but I can’t bring myself to even contemplate AGW as a serious science.
It will be interesting to see when ‘robust’ is first used regarding these measurements or the information extracted from the data.
Here in inland area of Northeast Ohio we have another
problem establishing “records” for snowfall and snow cover.
The Hiram, Ohio station, one of two used to establish the
“climate” measurements for Portage County, Ohio, has
some fearsome figures for the Number of Consecutive
Days with Daily Snow Cover >= 1.0″:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController?action=snowcover_consec&state=33&station=HIRAM&coopid=333780
I seriously doubt we had 440 consecutive days of snow
cover in any January, 760 days in any
February, or 870 days in any March no matter
what century you check in the past 1,000 years.
The same applies to the spurious numbers NOAA has posted
for the November and December continuous snow coverage
numbers.
Obviously our little spate of continuous snow cover
running from January 29, 2010, through February 28,
2010, won’t be a statistical “record”.
These weird numbers make it easy to prove
statistically that the annual number
of days of continuous snow coverage has been going
down since the 1960s.
You can add sloppy data entry to the station site
and measurement procedural problems the NCDC/NOAA
has with their (our) data bases.
The weather is not climate.
So weather stations for weather measurements, and climate stations for climate monitoring? Keep them separated?
Excellent. Thanks greatly to Anthony & the volunteers “transparency” is finding it’s way at least into weather station observations. Maybe the station evaluations will go national (dare say international?) and more reliable data can be collected? Only if the scrutiny continues for sure!
The angle of repose of snow will vary due to moisture, temperature, and crystal shape (all inter-related). The snow board appears to be about 24 inches wide, is it wide enough to measure a 28 inch snow fall of extremely dry powdery snow in the presence of even a slight breeze? The question here is: Is the equipment up to the task, period?
I can see the heat from the rooftop further changing the characteristics of the snow. Higher wind exposure on a rooftop doesn’t help.
What the message here seems to be that it’s a bad idea to take weather info from airports for the purpose of climate, as the weather info at airports concerns aviation.
So, when NOAA shuts down nearby sensors and relies on the airport, it’s game over for accuracy.
I can see the future, and it looks something like this:
Baltimore June 28, 2011: High 84-93, which breaks last years record High 85-94.
Sorry to be pedantic, but bad grammar spoils the reading and dilutes the message.
1940s and and 1980s should not have an apostrophe before the s.
Other than that – I enjoy every word I read on WUST!
REPLY: WUWT