A couple of days ago, I located the “long lost” Honolulu Observatory GISS weather station on the Island of Oahu with just a couple of hours of digging. That one apparently got “lost” because the station name changed, and the inter-agency communications seemed to be the cause, and nobody at GISS bothered to look to see if there was still current data coming from the station.
Today I found one in under 5 minutes. I wasn’t even planning on looking for one, it happened by accident. I was watching the Discovery Channel TV show this afternoon “Deadliest Catch” where crab fishermen brave the worst imaginable weather to keep crab shacks running nationwide. They are based out of Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
While watching a scene where they were coming into the docks, I saw an ever so brief flash of what looked like a Stevenson Screen off in the distance near the docks. I hadn’t expected to see one and I wasn’t 100% sure, but I thought I’d check NCDC’s metadatabase (MMS) for Dutch Harbor, AK. Sure enough, they have a COOP station there with a Stevenson Screen there that is “current”.
When NCDC says “MAX-MIN THERMOMETERS”. that means mercury thermometers in a Stevenson Screen.
The MMS Location description tab had this:
Topographic Details: TOPO- STN NEAR WATERFRONT, ACROSS HARBOR FROM DUTCH HARBOR ARPT IN VILLAGE OF UNALASKA. MNTOUS ISLAND. STN EXPOSED TO STRONG TURBULENT WINDS AND TEMPS INFLUENCED BY SURROUNDING WAT
I assume the last word was to be “WATER” and they ran out of characters in the database field. The MMS database also mentions it to be located at REEVES TERMINAL, which I assume is the ship terminal/dock.
Here is where the lat/lon given by NCDC places it, I seem to recall my brief glimpse was closer to the docks visible near the top of the image, but the lat/lon given by NCDC is not always accurate:
So I was curious to see what the temperature record looked like in this very remote part of Alaska. I figured if it was an active weather station, GISS would have a plot of it. They did indeed but it was not what I expected to find:
Here is the link to the GISTEMP graph above.
Huh. Big data hole. But NCDC said it is current? WUWT?
So I decided to look at the COOP section of NCDC, and sure enough it WAS current to April 2009. I found the most current B91 form and downloaded it.
Here’s the PDF of the form: Dutch_Harbor_April2009
Seeing the big hole in the GISS data, I decided to look for the data forms backwards, and sure enough, it is current all the way back to 1985 where it picks up in January and appears to have every month through April 2009.
So why does GISS not have this data? Remembering the name change which happened in Oahu, names again come to mind. I can’t be sure, but it might have something to do with the station name spelling.
- I spell the station name this way: Dutch Harbor
- NCDC MMS spells it this way: Dutch Harbor
- NCDC B91 selector spells it this way: Dutch Harbor
- The station COOP observer spells it on the B91: Dutch Harbor
NASA GISS spells it on the graph header and web page station selector:
Harbour? WUWT? It’s an American port!
I checked this guide for differences in British, Canadian, and American spelling, and sure enough:
Note to Gavin: change the spelling in the GISTEMP database and the station data might automatically kick in on the next data pass.
Glad to help! Got any more lost stations and station data you need found? We’ll look for the last 20+ years of Dutch Harbor data to show up in GISTEMP real soon.
UPDATE:
In comments “timetochooseagain” writes-
I’m reminded of this from John Christy:
“the use of a few popular stations for which the data are easy to find, leads to too much warming when the averages are constructed. I have published research for North Alabama, Central California and in a few months East Africa, in which I went back to the original sources of data to augment the number of stations by roughly a factor of ten – indeed, ten times more stations. This effort requires significant time in searching for and manually digitizing the records for scientific purposes. In each case, I’ve found that the data sets based on a few popular stations overstate the warming by up to a factor of three.”
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_WM_Written_090225.pdf
Update2: I’ve removed a sentence related to Gavin Schmidt and British spelling of the station name, since he’s not at fault, GHCN managed by NCDC is the source of error -Anthony
Philip Johns, have you even read what has been written about others on RC? I wouldn’t say this is even coming close. The fact that the basis for all of his assumptions may be so tainted is a wake up call to those who ardently adhere to the belief of runaway warming. A little constructive criticism is warranted as well as a little payback for disparaging comments made by Gavin and his minions. How can you defend the actions of someone who is playing a childish game on our dime? And by the way, condescending means “to talk down to”. Please stop that. It is not necessary or welcome.
Philip Johns (03:48:27) :
“…investigating issues in National Weather Service climate stations is not in Gavin’s job description…”
In other words, it’s not in Schmidt’s job description to check the accuracy of the data with which he’s doing ‘peer-reviewed’ research, even though problems with the data are constantly being pointed out by Anthony and others. Nobody should get a pass on this- not NCDC, GHCN, or GISS- providers or end users.
Given the massive number of screwups involved in the temperature records (and climate science “studies”), no rational, moral scientist would rely upon it to advocate massive changes to the world economy.
The first step in any analysis has to be to insure the quality of the information. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out. The scientists in charge of maintaining the database have failed.
Just out of interest, Stan, do you include Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, custodians of the UAH temperature series, in your generalisation of climate scientists who have ‘failed’?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.2
Look for yourself where Seth Borenstein calls him out on this thread at RC.
LOL! He wrote ‘long interview’ in a blog post when he meant ‘longer’ Now corrected.
Steve McIntyre – would you agree that the main focus should now be to idnetify and fix the root cause of the problem – and that this is likely to be the way the station named is spelt by GHCN? And therefore that is is GHCN who should investigate and fix the error? And therefore attempts to personalise the issue against a NASA employee are something of a diversion?
I agree that Gavin took a personal interest in the BAMS / Harry data but that appears to have been a one-off, if it means he gets branded as ‘inconsistent’ if he does not subsequently chase up each and every data problem that emerges, well I guess he can live with that ….
REPLY: “Since this thread is apparently now more about attempts to personalise the issue, and ‘jibes’ than serious debate, I am signing off.”
And yet, here you are. – Anthony
Philip Johns, contrary to his present protestations, Gavin has in the past acted as NASA spokesman on GISTEMP e.g. Hansen’s Y2K problem.
He also spends time trolling the blogs for signs of trouble with the GISS record. For example, when they goofed last year by using September data in October in Siberia, yielding record “heat” waves, – something identified almost simultaneously at CA and WUWT – Gavin notified GISTEMP.
Last February, as mentioned above, I noticed a problem in one of the stations relied upon in Steig et al. Gavin notified the British Antarctic Survey of this error without crediting Climate Audit. When the issue was raised at realclimate, he said that someone had identified this problem “independently” of Climate Audit. Later the Mystery Man was outed as Gavin Schmidt himself, who admitted that he had learned of the problem from Climate Audit. For some reason, you do not seem to have any problems with Schmidt;s conduct (which was also sharply criticized by Pielke Jr).
In the case at hand, there are precedents for Gavin trolling WUWT and CA and running back to headquarters with his scouting reports, and so it is entirely reasonable for us to leave messages for Gavin when a similar problem was encountered with Dutch Harbor.
Again, Gavin was hellbent for leather to get Harry fixed and now he’s uninterested in Dutch Harbor. Explain that to me.
You’ll have
Philip Johns,
my post above crossed in the mail.
As noted above, the Harry incident was not entirely a one-off. Gavin got involved in the Siberian October mix-up which was also about station data and was the NASA spokesman on the Y2K problem. He’s used realclimate to enhance the public image of NASA GISS and to act as a NASA GISS spokesman, while at the same time pretending that it is a personal hobby. So it is entirely reasonable to view him as the public face of the GISTEMP program. IF Gavin doesn’t want to be criticized for GISTEMP defects, then it’s open to him to let the responsible people speak for themselves. However, he’s been the public face for the past number of years.
I agree that the error originates with GHCN but mutual fingerpointing between federal agencies is of zero interest to me. GISS uses the GHCN data and its their name on the data index. Therefore they are accountable for all the components. Ford or Toyota don;t get to blame their equipment suppliers for a product failure. Neither should GISS.
Just out of interest, Stan, do you include Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, custodians of the UAH temperature series, in your generalisation of climate scientists who have ‘failed’?
First, GISS runs warmer, especially recently. (You also have to consider that lower troposphere trends are 1.2 to 1.4 times greater that surface data, depending on latitude.)
Well, thanks for the prompt response Steve, even if you didn’t actually answer all my questions. [That’s fine, you don’t have to.]. I am pleased that you agree with me that the root cause of the problem is likely with GHCN, rather than NASA, but am less pleased with but mutual fingerpointing between federal agencies is of zero interest to me. when apparently personalising the issue, making ‘jibes’ at Gavin’s expense is of interest, even when it is a completely different agency that is at fault. You’ll excuse me if I find this slightly desparate point-scoring a little juvenile, and certainly not helpful in either fixing the problem or advancing the debate. Dr Schmidt is completely at liberty to pick and choose which issues he takes a personal interest in, in this regard he is certainly not accountable to you or anyone else. But I think maybe we have exhausted these thoughts.
Therefore they are accountable for all the components. Ford or Toyota don’t get to blame their equipment suppliers for a product failure. Neither should GISS.
Oh really? Ford Motor Company is considering asking Firestone to recall more tyres after the car maker said it found safety problems with other tyres installed on its vehicles, reports say… Nashville, Tennessee-based Firestone says its “making it right” advertisement stresses the tyre manufacturer’s goal of increased quality control and hopes to rebuild consumer confidence, following the Explorer debacle.
Philip Johns (02:23:44)
“Was I producing peer reviewed articles for climate science at the time?”
Yes. But, since those writings are classified, you can’t read them.
Ha, kinda like Phil Jone’s CRU data.
You should know that the propagation of thermal signatures in the atmosphere was of great interest to those of us who worked in the
“stealth” field. Next.
Now you see how silly your prattling is. I say something that is true, and your retort is to wonder if I was producing peer reviewed articles. Can you say non sequitur?
First, GISS runs warmer, especially recently.
Actually, over the lifetime of the satellite data, it is UAH that is out of step with the other three major indices.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/trend/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/offset:0.085/plot/rss/trend/offset:0.23
In about the last decade, it is true that UAH and GISS have diverged, and this may be something to do with a strange annual cycle emerging in the UAH data since around 2003, discussed at these places
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/21/interannual-divergence-in-satellite-temperature-records/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/annual-cycle-in-uah-tlt/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/03/05/seasonal-divergence-in-tropospheric-temperature-trends/
Interesting stuff…
REPLY: OK, suspiciously a little too quick on the draw there chum, and too much like previous comments made here under a similar name.
That made me suspicious. Now I get it, you are the same troll known as John Phillips @ur momisugly set….. that was hounding us last year. You just changed your network setup and did a slight name switcheroo. John Phillips > Philip Johns Neither of which appear to be your real name in your email address.
The comment origination IP addresses then and now plot out to the same location in the UK. The same DSLAM host was used in both cases as it serves both IP address sets.
So, with deception, now your comments have sub zero value here. Bugger off. – Anthony
Anthony, I recall two weather stations in Wallowa. One is at a ranger station at the edge of town, and the other is at a private residential site. The one at the ranger station I remember having quite a long (more than a century) record with no moves. The other one in town has moved at least once? Does my memory serve me?
Uh, Philip, changing the subject is not how you win an argument.
Back to taxes, fees, costs . . .
Many things the US Gov produces cost at an individual level. Example 1: USGS topographic quad maps. I’ve not found them to be free for the asking. Why? It costs money to print, handle, and mail them (or to visit an office and deal in person). I’ve never met anyone that objected to this. Example 2: National Forest Recreation Pass — You have paid via taxes for the FS to build access roads, boat ramps, potties, and such things as are needed at particular sites. If you want to park and spend the day and use the facilities you are requested to pay. With general taxes we do not get to direct them in specific ways. With fees we do. A non-hiker in NYC having paid taxes has also helped with the provision but will never need to pay the fee. Such a person may pay to visit a National site that I will never visit. The size of the fee, in whatever case, may be objectionable but the concept does not seem to be generally regarded as such.
That’s physical work.
This is a matter of online data. They don’t have to hire a screever to engrave the dang stuff.
And the climate clown of the week award goes to…..
steven mosher (21:39:09) :
And the climate clown of the week award goes to…..
Uh, what’s his name?!