Today, NOAA is celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the 134° reading at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, including speakers, guests, and media coverage expected to begin at 11AM PDT, right about now. I find this fanfare odd, particularly in light of how understated the observer was when Mr. O.A. Denton recorded the temperature on the original paper B91 form, a photocopy of which you can see below:
The image above was released this morning on the NPS Death Valley Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/DeathValleyNP
Oddly, it is an entirely different B91 form that NOAA/NWS placed on their “celebration page” under the “about the record” tab here: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/deathvalley/
Why would there be two different paper records for the same month, one with remarks filled in and the other not? There are other clear differences also. One wonders why two paper records would be needed. Perhaps one was created for “official presentation”. Both forms appear to have identical layouts, but are filled out differently.
[added: Some commenters suggested a “carbon copy”. However, there are significant differences between the two, one is not a carbon of the other. For example “mean maximun” temperature is 116 on one form and 116.4 on another. The mean of max/min is 98.4 on one and 98.6 on another, with what looks like the .4 over written by the .6 And, as Mosher points out, the two forms have different handwriting. ]
Stranger though, that while they have time for this fanfare, neither the NOAA/NWS nor the NPS representatives have time to answers these questions about the record, which I posed to them last week in this email below.
Mr. Berc has since responded, but said he’d only answer my questions if I was present at the event, and when I replied that I would not be present, has offered no answers. Ms. Chipman has not replied.
===============================================================
From: Anthony Watts
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:10 AM
To: daniel.berc@noaa.gov
Cc: cheryl_chipman@nps.gov
Subject: Death Valley 134 Celebration
Good morning,
I’ll be covering this event. I have some important questions that I’d like to ask.
1. Do you have press passes available?
2. Why did NOAA decommission the MMTS electronic sensor near the front of the Visitor Center last year and go back to using the mercury thermometer in the Stevenson Screen? What was the impetus? Am I correct in noting that the MMTS thermometer was in use for over a decade prior to last year?
3. When was the last time the Stevenson Screen received maintenance for paint? When I was last there, the screen looked quite chipped/peeling and had some darkened wood from aging. Is it painted with latex paint or the traditional lime based whitewash paint which was the standard in 1913 for all USWB Stevenson Screens?
4. Why does the NPS maintain the electronic sign that shows erroneous readings, such as what was highlighted in an LA Times story during the recent temperature spike?
There are actually 3 temperatures, if you included the bogus 132F from the sign.
It appears the reading comes from the non-official weather station mounted at just above roof level near the front wall of the visitor center. Is that the source?
5. Who is responsible for the weather station at Badwater basin near the turn-off/parking area and where is the data from it collected? Is the data available? In your press release you indicate that the 1913 Greenland Ranch reading is “…the highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth. “. If Badwater basin station were to exceed the 1913 reading, would it be considered reliably recorded? It seems to be near state of the art equipment.
6. How often is the mercury thermometer in the Stevenson Screen at NPS Visitor Center checked for calibration? From the photo recently posted by NPS showing the 128F reading, it appears to be well aged. What is the age of that thermometer? Has it ever been tested by NIST or similar entity?
7. Is there any sort of backup or reference thermometer in place inside the Stevenson Screen?
8. Do you have a location (lat/lon) for the 1913 location of the station in Greenland Ranch? What date was the Greenland Ranch station decommissioned, and were there other intermediate locations before the station resided behind the NPS visitor center?
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to the event.
Anthony Watts
WUWT
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Check the ink …
The black and white records seems to be created over time, a line added every day. The color one seems to be a manual copy of the black and white one, created probably within a single day.
Just my guess though.
looks likevdifferent handwriting
I’m guessing the “In Triplicate” on the bottom gives us a hint about what happened. Looks like the black/white version of the record is an old fashioned “carbon paper copy”. I suspect the original has remarks on it, because the carbons were sent elsewhere, while the original was updated. Just a guess though.
REPLY: No that can’t be it. There are significant differences between the two, one is not a carbon of the other. For example “mean maximun” temperature is 116 on one form and 116.4 on another.
The mean of max/min is 98.4 on one and 98.6 on another, with what looks like the .4 overwritten by the .6 And, as Mosh points out, the two forms have different handwriting. – Anthony
There should be a third one as it says at the bottom in triplicate.
REPLY: yes but the two forms are not written by the same handwriting and have some numerical and remarks differences. – Anthony
I agree about the different handwriting (look at the 4’s) but the signature is the same name.
The phrase “in triplicate’ (lower left corner) may explain some of this.
Also why would the same person use fractional (i.e. 4/10) for rain on one form and decimal (i.e. 0.4) on another?
When Mosher starts noticing differences in handwriting we need to verify what Dr. Gleick has been up to.
Don’t expect to much from NPS. They had the nerve to house the Liberty Bell in a prefab rest stop-style pavilion for years. Mounting a temperature station on top of a roof or block wall is small compared to that organizational numbness.
were blue ballpoints in use in 1913?
Maybe the original log book in which it was written, was starting to become in such a poor state that they thought it would be wise to copy it into a new book. So as to save the data.
I’ve posted the following 3 times on their Faceache page and it gets deleted within seconds, so there is somebody home. PMSL:
“Hey, you guys must be so glad that you’ve not been affected by global warming for 100 years. Let’s hope that continues and you can celebrate again in 100 years.
To keep the old record you might want to consider cleaning or white washing the Stevenson screen otherwise you might artificially raise the temperature and blow the record.”
I guess I am kinda dumb because I do not understand the very foundation of celebrating the 100th anniversary of the warmest temperature ever recorded, and the warmists are the ones, apparently, most enthusiastic about it. Come on, let us look at the irony – it was hotter 100 years ago than it is today, and the AGWers get excited about this?
I wouldn’t be too concerned about the differences, Anthony. After all, there was no strong motivation back then to alter weather data like there is today…
REPLY: I didn’t suggest there was. But it is an oddity that has no current explanation. With one of the speakers there today responsible for knocking out the 136F El Azizia record in Libya, you’d think he’d be interested. Maybe we’ll find out. I’m simply asking the question about why there are two different paper records. – Anthony
Regardless, one thing is clear, if we just had experienced a hundred years of runaway warming, as the hockey stick indicates, that 1913 record would have almost certainly have been broken time and time again.
But the 1913 record stands, and that makes we question the warmist data. And I look at the urban heat effect, the wholesale retirement of rural temperature stations, and a host of “adjustments” and data manipulations that always benefit the warmists, and I think, despite the fact that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age, there’s really not been much warming at all.
There is a difference in the monthly record top one mean is 98.4 the second one is corrected(?) to 98.6. Also, it looks like were more than 10 degrees below the record even after 100yrs of warming, we may have to wait until 2113. This should tell the logical ones amongst us that a new record here is neither here nor there in terms of AGW. Can you imagine the doomsday headlines if it had got to 135? Maybe this will lay the search for a new world record to rest as an indicator of anything. I’m a little suspicious of the 134F in light of the minimum temperature on the July 10th, 1913 being an unremarkable 85. Maybe it turned windy?
The Black and White copy and the Color copy are two different temperature records, for statistical purposes. The 5th and 6th are clear on the B&W version and cloudy on the Color version. The 18th through the 23rd and the 26th are cloudy on the B&W version and clear on the Color version. The difference between “clear” and “cloudy” are two materially different observations that are not reconcilable.
If this were any other type of scientific data, it would be appropriate to discard both as it is impossible to tell which is the correct one. The climate science approach to data handling would be to average the two and then claim a precision of 0.002°C per datum.
/sarc
There should be a third one around somewhere.
taxed says:
July 10, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Maybe the original log book in which it was written, was starting to become in such a poor state that they thought it would be wise to copy it into a new book. So as to save the data.
The key might be the initials on the sheet written in blue ink,
The initials do not match the observer name. So this looks like a “copy” made at a later time, written in a different hand. The initials would indicate who actually created this form.
This second version may actually have two sources. I would guess that there is a third document.
Or put it this way> If I were given these texts and asked to reconstruct a history I would suggest looking for a third document. That third document ( maybe the B91 from a site nearby) could be the source of the differences between the original and the one in ink.
ah I see rattus came to the same conclusion.
you see guys an english major is a worthwhile major
Anthony says: “I find this fanfare odd, particularly in light of how . . . ”
I would add – – –
tours of the White House were canceled for lack of funds;
. . .
air traffic was slowed for lack of funds;
. . .
. . .
I don’t recall a similar celebration for the coldest temp.;
I’ve heard parts of the USA were hot in August of 1787. How can one be sure of celebrating the correct hottest day when it could have been 135 °F on August 10th of that year. In other respects 1787 is much more important than this temperature “record.”
The “carbon pollution” from this celebration with speakers, guests, and media must be quite large [disclaimer: I have no idea what carbon pollution is but my President thinks it’s a big deal.]
Nearly posted an article on this a couple of times but what is the point?
Open Goggle Earth. Go the the north south road by the station exactly due east of the Stevenson screen, into Street view and look due west. You will see the canopy over the parking lot or what it is today.
Now use the normal aerial view checking the dated images.
What is the black canopy? (visitor place is white roof, makes no sense) The edge of the canopy is visible to the screen.
The white thing near the enclosure seems to have tarmac to it’s north.
Vegetation is too close as well. (Streetview gives a clue)
Lots of details need checking. As far as a site worthy of world record, no.
I’m surprised at the lack of photographs, ought to be many over the years.
Looks like you have a Brogdale problem as we have in the UK, junk site, reports it was not good, junk screen, quick replace the equipment. (I now have some wonderful photographs from then but I cannot get permission to publish)
I would like to suggest something… that the “color” copy with the blue “ink” may actually be a carbon copy with blue carbon. This is based on the blurriness of the blue writing when compared to the black writing in the Remarks section. That black writing is remarkably clear when compared to both the blue writing and the printed text on the document. To me the black writing almost looks like it was superimposed over the image…
Another oddity is the “blue ballpoint” on the “nice document”. While the ballpoint was invented in 1888, they were terrible until László Bíró imroved it to the basic ballpoint that we have today. First British patent for this improved ballpoint was 1938.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballpoint_pen
If blue ballpoints were available, why was the “REMARKS” filled out with a fountain pen?
I think Steve M’s post at 12:36 has the right of it. The color/blue one is a copy of the black and white. To my eyes I don’t see a difference in that points to a third as original source. Rather I suspect that if they needed 3 copies and these were kept in books, that there was a first copy book (source) and 2 more were drawn from that.
I know some have said that in one the whole month is clear and in the other there are cloudy days, but I see a match of the word cloud on both. >shrugg< A puzzel perhaps, but nothing nefarious going on here.