Gary Boden sends word today of finding the weather station at the Colmbia, SC Weather Bureau Office, as shown below:

Note the Stevenson Screen on the roof. This is where daily high and low temperatures were measured. It seems that this was a fairly common practice back then. Here’s the USWB office in Lander, WY in 1906:

I’ve covered other rooftop stations in the USWB COOP network, notably the Sacramento, Eureka, and Baltimore stations. There’s also an oddball rooftop station in Oakland at the Museum. the Baltimore office rooftop location was so bad that the NWS eventually closed it because it was setting new and erroneous weather records. It is not hard to see why:
Baltimore USHCN station circa 1990’s photo courtesy NOAA, click for more images
NOAA even wrote a training manual on siting issues, using this station’s high temperature anomaly as en example of what to avoid



Reference: NOAA Professional Competency Unit 6 (PCU6) manual (PDF)
The photo from Columbia made me curious about how the temperature might be affected by the rooftop location,so I checked the un-homogenized station temperature plot from GISS to see if anything stood out.
The jump downward between 1956 to 1957 seems to me to be like a “step change” upon simple visual inspection.It may or may not be related to a station move or equipment change.
Unfortunately, NCDC’s MMS metadatabase is down today with a “server” error, as often happens on weekends so I can’t look at their records right now to determine if the station was moved about that time.
But the Columbia NWS office has a writeup of the station history:
The presence of a full-time weather observation site in Columbia began on June 5, 1887 when the Army Signal Corps established a third order station in Columbia in the Old Agricultural Hall near the northwest corner of Gervais and Main Streets. Weather observations remained the responsibility of the Army Signal Corps until October 1, 1891 when the U.S. Weather Bureau assumed the station responsibility.
The first of several moves occurred on June 8, 1895 when the office moved to the Federal Building at the southwest corner of Laurel and Main Streets. The office remained at this location until February 15, 1901.
On February 15, 1901 the office once again was relocated, this time to City Hall at the northwest corner of Gervais and Main Streets. The station was also upgraded from a third order station to a first order station.
On October 1, 1903 the Weather Office relocated once again, this time to the Loan and Exchange Bank Building on the southeast corner of Main and Washington Streets.
March 1, 1905 once again found the Weather Office in a new location, this time in the Weather Bureau Building at the southeast corner of Laurel and Assembly Streets. For over 30 years the Weather Office called this location home.
On March 11, 1934 airline personnel began taking observations at Owens Field Airport, 4 miles southeast of downtown.
By June 3, 1935 the office had once again been relocated. This time the office had been moved to the Sylvan Building on the northeast corner of Main and Hampton Streets.
At Owens Field, Weather Bureau airway observers took over weather observation responsibilities.
The move to the Sylvan Building was short, on August 26, 1936 the Weather Office once again had a new home, this time in the U.S. Courthouse at the southeast corner of Laurel and Assembly Streets. The Weather Office remained at this location through June 1, 1954.
Airline operations were increasing in the Columbia area, especially at Owens Field and Weather Bureau observers assumed greater responsibilities at that location.
On February 14, 1947 the Weather Office moved again, this time from Owens Field to the new Columbia Airport. The move was to an old Army prefab building which was located about one mile east of the present location on the left side of the service road near the intersection with the main airport road. It was just across the street from the lake.
On January 20, 1967 we moved to the present Weather Service Building located east of the main terminal. When the building was dedicated, Karl Johannessen (sp?), Director of NWS Eastern Region, said the COlumbia National Weather Service had been in that “temporary” building for 20 years.
While the office hasn’t moved since 1967, there have been significant changes in the office. One of the most visible changes has been the change in the agency’s name … from the Weather Bureau to the National Weather Service.
As a part of the reorganization of the National Weather Service, more and more of the manual work has been computerized, including routine weather observations. The Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) was commissioned on December 1, 1995.
Also as a part of the reorganization, the Columbia an Augusta Georgia offices were consolidated on October 1, 1995. Routine weather observations in the Augusta area are provided by ASOS units at both Bush Field and Daniel Field.
I find it curious that the NWS writeup never mentions anything about the rooftop location.They also seem to mix the two station histories (COOP and airport) which as I understand it, are separate stations.
Here is the current USHCN station at the University of South Carolina:

Looks better than a rooftop. More photos here.

AS posted previously (awaiting moderation) in relation to http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf asking for Leif’s comments, and as an Editor of a few scientific journals, I constantly have to change abstract conclusions from “is” and “shows” to “might” or “could” or “may” or “suggests that” which in my mind give the work more credibility. This is one such paper.
I wonder what sort of results we would get, AGW wise, if it were possible to identify stations that were correctly sited originally, have always been correctly sited in the same location and are still complying with all the standards. I doubt that there is such a weather station. Does anybody know of one?
Sorry to be OT but I was very impressed by the paper by S. Duhau and C. de Jager “The Solar Dynamo and Its Phase Transitions during the Last Millennium” and they now have anew paper out entitled “Forecasting the parameters of sunspot cycle 24 and beyond” which may be of interest to folks. You cna see it here:
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf
Their prediction is that we could see a low cycle 24 (sunspot numbers 68 + or – 17) to be follwoed by a period of low oscillations which could even be similar to a Dalton type minimum.
PaulHClark (01:45:56) :
Please note the pages seem to be juggled in the link to the Duhau de Jager paper as posted i.e. the pages flow 241, 243,242, 244 – so you’ll need to jump around the pdf a bit.
OT but worth seeing “Pure rubbish: Christopher Booker prize”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/04/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-prize
Nominations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/georgemonbiot/competition/2009/feb/04/climatechange
EricH (01:26:20) :
I wonder what sort of results we would get, AGW wise, if it were possible to identify stations that were correctly sited originally, have always been correctly sited in the same location and are still complying with all the standards. I doubt that there is such a weather station. Does anybody know of one?
Try Orland, CA
Orland, well sited though it may be, required the past temps to be adjusted downward to meet GISS specifications.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=50890
Mike McMillian,
re your comment on the Australian fires, and wild fires in general.
I worked for a Co. that built an insert for a Antonov An 124 transport aircraft, the insert would take 110 tons of water and could discharge at predetermined rates, this would have made it the worlds biggest firefighter, it is a perfect aircraft for this type of opperation, the owner of the Company offered the equipment and a contract lease on a An 124 to the Australian Government, the response was ” this large aircraft is not acceptable in Australian airspace as it an atmospheric pollutant” If anybody is interested the equipment is still complete (15 tons with ground based equipment) and other than tests (4) never used, as the boss decided that it was better to let the idiots burn.
Alan Chappell (04:15:06) :
We had those big Volga-Dnepr freighters coming into Houston for a while, even saw the six-engine version once. Six man cockpit crew – 2 pilots, 2 flight engineers, 1 navigator, and 1 political officer. If it can scoop lake water on the run, that would save a lot of lives and property.
But the Greens Party has to weigh that against the pollution, which is doubtless more than the “natural” pollution caused by burning trees, brush, houses, 65 people, and uncounted numbers of poisonous critters lurking in the grass.
Who’d have thought CO2 could cause a fire rather than put it out, especially at trace levels? Counterintuitive, but it’s the politicians’ job to sort these things out for us.
It’s a tough call.
DR (14:54:45)
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/vic/vic-observations-map.shtml
How many more of these will it take to demonstrate that the whole NOAA system is faulty and always been?
Melanie Phillips has an article about the “settled science of AGW,” complete with comments at:
That famous consensus
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml.
————————————————————-A related article may be partially read at:
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html.
————————————————————-
Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
June 26, 2006
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf
————————————————————-
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
—————————————–
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick, http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf
————————————————————-
Going cold on Antarctic warming, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360
————————————————————-
Dirty Harry 4: When Harry Met Gill, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
————————————————————-
Tabloid fossil-fuel shill, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
—————————————————
Mann’s conclusions not to be believed, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/07/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx
————————————————-
How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
—————————————————-
As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies and global warming science. – Melanie Phillips
There is an advantage to putting the Stevenson screen on the roof.
Farther away from the barbeque.
Totally OT here, but Anthony, might I suggest a piece on the Stratospheric Warming Event that occured in January? D’Aleo mentions it here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Super_Strong_Stratospheric_Mid.pdf I think a more indepth explaination of why/how this happens and the effects would be quite interesting.
Orland, well sited though it may be, required the past temps to be adjusted downward to meet GISS specifications.
Yes, to make up for the time before they built that cute little cement path out to it . . .
As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies
Liars, damnliars, and outliers.
WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!
FROM RIA Novosti
http://de.rian.ru/science/20090130/119895504.html
Translated from the German:
Expert says climate conclusions simply cannot be drawn based on weather fluctuations.
Moscow, 30 January (RIA Novosti). The Director of the Russian Hydrometeorological Center, Roman Wilfand, states that the recent changes in weather cannot be used to draw conclusions on global warming. He has reminded Moscovites not to draw any longterm extrapolations from the weather fluctuations in the Russian capital.
“Climate and weather are two very different things which are measured using two very different timescales. These two concepts simply cannot be connected“, said Wilfand Friday at a roundtable conference in response to questions on climate warming posed by the Moscow Technical Baumann-University.
The weather expert did admit that global warming is a real “undisputed fact”.
The Director of the Weather Service Centre cited the international UN expert panel for climate research (IPCC), who claims the temperature over the last 50 years has risen at a rate 0.13 degrees C per decade. This does not imply any linear trend with regards to temperature increase, said Wilfand. For example 2008 has been the coldest year since the start of the 21st century.
Also, temperatures in various regions around the world have gone up at different rates, said the expert. As temperatures in Eastern Siberia and in the Far East have risen at a rate of 0.5 to 0.6 C per decade, it has only been 0.4 C in Western Siberia, said Wilfand.
The greatest temperature increase of 2 to 3°C was registered in the region of the Karasee this decade.
evanjones (09:16:41) :
As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies
Liars, damnliars, and outliers.
What is the necessity of averaging local, regional, national and international global temperatures? Isn’t it now possible to read, by satellite, the emission spectrum the Earth and determine the average temperature? Probably not. I suspect that different regions of the Earth’s surface emit radiation centered at different frequencies. Does averaging the temperatures at the poles, the equator and all in between yield any useful information?
I have space on my house roof for a Stevenson’s Screen, between the air conditioner and the wood-stove chimney. There is adequate capacity in each of two computers capable of the running the GISS temperature adjustment algorerhythm necessary to meet the stringent temperature standards of astronomer Hansen.
Would averaging the temperature in the North Valley and the temperature in Death Valley provide a useful temperature?
Temperatures are local, not global. Climates are regional, not global.
“Climate and weather are two very different things which are measured using two very different timescales. These two concepts simply cannot be connected“, said Wilfand Friday at a roundtable conference in response to questions on climate warming posed by the Moscow Technical Baumann-University.
The weather expert did admit that global warming is a real “undisputed fact”.
There is a crucial difference between global warming and AGW.
Global warming is acknowledged to exist. On the other hand, AGW is unproven. It is only found in the fevered imaginations of computer modelers.
But Smokey, if there are areas on the planet that did not experience global warming, how can you say global warming exists? If there are areas of the Arctic sea ice that have not experienced anomaly change, how can it be said that the Arctic is melting? Global averages are like coming up with the global average for a kid’s personality in order to predict future personalities. Can’t be done. No two kids are alike.
Smokey (10:58:32) :
There is a crucial difference between global warming and AGW.
Global warming is acknowledged to exist. On the other hand, AGW is unproven. It is only found in the fevered imaginations of computer modelers.
Er, no, it’s in the minds of those with a basic understanding of the physics, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, for example. An understanding of the physics has nothing to do with modeling.
Pamela Gray,
Global warming as a cause of this is what I was referring to. Sorry I didn’t make myself more clear.