More on the Beeville, TX weather station

More about Beeville

by Ecotretas

The Beeville story just keeps getting better.

In the comments section of yesterday’s WUWT post, I got a couple of ideas. First, there is a very interesting site where we can graph adjusted vs. non-adjusted temperatures of GHCN. The first graph above is the result for the Beeville station. A clear difference is visible between adjusted and non-adjusted temperatures, especially during the first half of the XX century. And looking at the blue line does give us an impression that Global Warming might not be happening in Beeville.

Being a skeptic, I searched for the raw data. The monthly data is available at the NOAA site. Got the data for Beeville and plotted the second graph above (click the graphs for better detail). Does anyone see any warming going on? Doing a linear trendline on the monthly data gives us “y = -0.0637x + 829.59”, which means that temperatures have gone down! And now, imagine which were the 20 hottest months at Beeville, for the last 113 years:

Month Temperature (x 10 ºF)
1951/8 888
2009/7 880
1998/7 879
1952/8 878
2009/8 877
1953/7 876
1902/8 875
1998/6 872
1897/7 871
1915/7 871
1980/7 871
1914/7 869
1915/8 869
1916/6 869
1938/7 869
1951/7 869
1958/8 869
1911/8 868
1954/8 867
1927/8 866

Might Julisa Castillo deserve a prize, after-all?


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Monthly data can also be plotted at the Appinsys climate grapher referenced in the post (as can individual month data or multi-month averages).
Here is the monthly data for Beeville:


that’s a few miles from us here in austin!

Peter Miller

Obvious question – just how many more Beevilles are there?
Can someone do a random audit of about 100 stations to try and get an idea of just how systematic this data manipulation has been?

Grant Hillemeyer

It looks like the temperatures were adjusted down 2 degrees for the first half of the century. Who makes that adjustment. Is there an explanation for it?


This clearly shows what the weather is ☺. But, seriously, what makes all the difference is, that if the Y axis is scaled in ONE by ONE degree, all warmings (and warmers too) disappear and become straight lines.


You’re doing it wrong, obviously. What you need to plot is “value added”, where the value added is the narrative of CAGW.


Its time to show young Peters project again;


The alarmist sites hail these adjustments as a good thing. An improvement. But as a data pro, I would say that if the adjustments are big enough to be the big story, then their methodology is what ought to be disclosed. It’s not good enough to call it an improvement, programmed by top experts. Precisely what improvement are we talking about? What was wrong with the original data? What was done to it? If for no other reason, what happens if we discover some new factor that ought to be added to the mix? Can’t do it if we don’t know what the mix is.

Mike McMillan

markinaustin says:June 9, 2010 at 10:55 am
that’s a few miles from us here in austin!

That’s Texas miles, of course, which are biggern’ regular miles.
This is just the regular fiddling with the data that Dr Hansen’s been doing with his GISS homogenization for years. GISS warming is bogus, and now they’ve migrated it into the USHCN data set. Doing all the statistical analyses in the world to tease trends out of the new and improved data won’t do a bit of good, because your only teasing out what the adjustment algorithms have programed into it.


Why the factor of ten? Is this a traditional data-handling method?


What is needed is for some auditor to run through the adjustment process, step after step, and try to replicate the results. I understand that these adjustment algorithms have been published, and also the computer code (in ancient Fortran). Replication should be possible.

Robert M

That fraudulent shill for big oil fourth grader cherry picked the station! There are TONS of stations out there that have not been corrupted yet!
But you can rest assured AGW supporters are on the job! And they will not rest, until all of the station data proves what is already known to be true. The science is settled, and soon the data will match. Sure the adjustments create warming where there does not appear to be any, and yes, adjusting older temps down seems weird, but it solves some pressing problems with our effort.
We used to have a terrible time with uneducated people calling to complain, saying things like, “Dude, it wasn’t that hot at my house yesterday! Watts up with that?”. Adjusting older temps down gives us the results we need to prove AGW exists without the sheeple complaining. No one (except for pesky fourth graders) notices when we adjust hundred year old data down to make the current period look warmer. The people who still complain about this don’t understand that in the past it was colder than it was, so the records have to be adjusted for that. Anyone who cannot accept such simple, irrefutable facts needs to be silent and let the experts handle it.


Does anybody know how many degrees of temperature are we, humans, able to discriminate? One degree?, Half a degree?, two degrees?

Mark Wagner

I still say this looks like a sign error in their code.
Instead of adjusting future years for UHI, they’ve got a minus in the year counter and it’s instead applying the cooling adjustment to prior years. And each year the focal point moves forward and the adjustment to year 1 gets even cooler. This would account for why adjustments to earlier years are constantly “changing.”
Run it out 100 years and year 1 would fall to below zero.
It’s a simple error to make, but difficult to catch without very exacting tests, and perhaps difficult to locate and correct. Once the program is “done” they just run it every month and never look at the data in this fashion to even be aware that there’s a problem.

Earle Williams

The factor of 10 allows them to store and process the temp as an integer. That in itself has some implications within the processing steps.

Anthony Scalzi

That’s a very handy tool for comparing unadjusted and adjusted records. Here’s Southern New England:
Groton, CT: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record, 0 adjustment at present.
Stamford, CT: adjustment adds .5 degree cooling
Storrs, CT: nearly 1 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
3 out of 8 stations in Connecticut had trends changed by adjustments.
Block Island, RI: over .5 degree downward adjustment at begginning of record
Providence, RI: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record.
Providence is also a HADCRU station.
2 out of 4 stations in Rhode Island had trends changed by adjustments.

Amherst, MA: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Framingham, MA: .5 degree downward adjustment at beggining of record
Lawrence, MA: .5 degree downward adjustment at begining of record and slight upward adjustment at present.
Bedford, MA: .2 degree downward adjustment at begining of record
Chestnut Hill, MA: 1 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Taunton, MA: 2 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Plymouth, MA: .5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
New Bedford, MA: a rare 1 degree upward adjustment at the beginning of record
8 out of 19 stations in Massachusetts had trends changed by adjustments.


When it comes to the timing of the adjustments, i.e. downwards until the 50s then upwards after, if you really wanted to help fit the temp data to changes in carbon emmissions, in particular those from fossil fuels (i.e. anthropogenic), that’s pretty much what you would have to do. If I look at graphs estimating carbon emissions, for example this one,
the carbon emissions really take off around the 50s, and the adjustments to the temperature records make the temp graph mirror the carbon graph in a way the unadjusted temps don’t. Would they be so crude and so obvious? As a subscriber to Occam’s razor and its corollary the KISS principle, I would have to say yes until it was demonstrated to be otherwise.

Anthony Scalzi

I’ve going through the New England stations using the tool from the post.
So far in southern New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts) 13 out of 31 stations have adjustments that change the trend.

Mike M

Well as purely anecdotal evidence i can tell you there is a BIG difference here where i am sitting when my AC is set to 78 compared to when it is set to 77.


Don’t forget we can not use the US an example because it only represents about 2% of the earth’s surface.
Guess we can’t use Beeville as example because it is significantly smaller than even 2% of Texas…

Alan S. Blue

Can we have the nearest available satellite cell’s data as well? (Not the hemispheric or global mean.)
This pattern of “adjusting the past” is recurrent. All three of microsite, UHI, and any true warming affect the ground station. The same is not true for a satellite based estimate of the same gridcell. Thus any time there’s a “known” effect, the adjustment appears to be made to the pre-satellite data to minimize any discrepancy during the overlap period.
The problem is: A microsite issue should cause a discrepancy. UHI for cities that are significantly smaller than a gridcell should also turn up as a discrepancy.
The adjustments seem designed to avoid that.

Steve Oregon

“Might Julisa Castillo deserve a prize, after-all?”
Or the beginning of a college fund started by WUWT contributors?
That might also attract more attention.

Rhoda R

Could someone explain to me how you can convert a ‘text’ file to a useable spreadsheet please? I’d like to play with some of these numbers also, but I get defeated trying to re-enter all the numbers. thanks.

Tim Clark

Jacob says: June 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm
What is needed is for some auditor to run through the adjustment process, step after step, and try to replicate the results. I understand that these adjustment algorithms have been published, and also the computer code (in ancient Fortran). Replication should be possible.

It’s been done, read all about it. This site is listed on the column to your immediate right.

stephen richards

Even if I wasn’t a screamingly cynical scientist I would still have to agree with you. It is too much of a coincidence that temps before 1950 were adjusted down after 1980.


Let’s see:
Take away the adjustments and the warming goes away. Take away the UHI effect and the warming goes away. Factor in the loss of reporting stations and the warming goes away.
So far, I’ve accounted for 300% of the warming. Are we sure we’re not in a cooling trend right now?
But seriously folks, don’t forget it’s the AGW proponents who must to show the warming is occurring, it’s the AGW proponents who must to show the warming unprecedented and it’s the AGW proponents who must to show the warming is not natural. So far, when the evidence is viewed in detail, the hypothesis looks to be all hat and no cattle.

Bill Yarber

Interesting that none of the years in the 30’s, which were warmer than the 90’s in the NH are in the tow twenty warmest years at Beeville. Not sure what, if any, significance this has. But it sure is obvious, as wee have seen from Hansen and GISS before when the 1997 US temperature trend is compared with the 2007 trend. The period from 1880 to 1950 is adjusted down just as this was, but Hansen made sure the later years were adjusted up. Why is this fraud still working for NASA?


It would be interesting to start correlating all of the temperature adjustments that are being unearthed. This might allow us to see if the adjustments are being made based on the “need to do it” for a given location, or if a few fixed sets of adjustments are being used accross the board.


At Beeville 5 NE an adjustment for change of observation time needs to be applied for the period 1955-1964 since the observation time was changed from 5 or 6 PM to 8 AM in 1964. The period 1955-64 needs to be adjusted lower by perhaps 1.5 deg C to be properly compared with the post 1964 period. So at least some of the adjustment you see in the graph appears justified. Prior to 1955 the observation time was not noted until 1953 when it was given as 8 AM. The time series prior to 1953 was adjusted in such a way (red line) to imply the observation time was 5 or 6 PM, as it was from 1955-64. A check of the Texas Climatological Data publication for May 1949 indicates an obs time of 7 PM. Maybe someone at the Texas AgriLife Res Station ( has a record of observation times prior to 1955. Without reliable knowledge of observation times prior to 1955, it is difficult to judge whether the adjustments are justified.
Using one of NCDC’s metadata sources I was able to come up with this timeline of important events at Beeville 5 NE since station establishment back in 1895:
Aug 1895 – Station begins.
Jun 1897 – Thermometer in shelter at regulation height
May 1914 – Shelter over sod, 30 ft from one-story building,
door opens to south, height 3 ft from ground
Feb 1918 – Shelter over garden soil and some grass, faces north,
bottom 4.5 ft above ground
May 1921 – Shelter over grass covered ground, faces north,
bottom 4 ft above ground
May 1949 – CD shows obs time of 7 PM for both temperature and precip
Aug 1953 – Time of Obs 8 AM, CRS with Max/Min Thermometers
Mar 1955 – Time of Obs 5 PM, station moved to better site
and reconditioned
May 1955 – station 450 ft NE of Experiment Farm office
Evaporation observation taken at 8 AM
Aug 1962 – Obs times changed: Temperature time of obs 6 PM, precip 7 AM
Apr 1964 – Obs times changed: 8 AM for both precip and temperature
Mar 1965 – New fence 30′ x 30′ installed by USWB; CRS, SRG, and
RRG relocated
Jan 1968 – Station relocated, moved 480 ft NW,
obs time still 8 AM
Mar 1972 – Cleaned CRS. Replaced min thermometer.
Jan 1978 – Palmer dial soil thermometer placed at 4 inch depth
Mar 1985 – MMTS installed
May 1993 – Equipment moved 900 ft SE

Anthony Scalzi

Northern New England:
Cavendish, VT: .5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Cornwall, VT: net .4 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Chelsea, VT: somewhere between .5 and 1 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Northfield, VT: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
4 out of 8 stations in Vermont had trends changed by adjustments.

First Connecticut Lake(New Hampshire): .8 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record and .2 upward adjustment at present
Keene, NH: cooling adjustments
2 out of 6 stations in New Hampshire had trends changed by adjustments.

Portland, ME: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Lewiston, ME: .5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record
Gardiner, ME: .2 degree upward adjustment at end of record
Farmington, ME: 1.5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record. Changes a cooling trend to a warming trend as dramatically as Beeville.
Orono, ME: .5 degree downward adjustment to the middle of the record
Eastport, ME: .4 degree downward adjustment at end of record. Another rare station where warming is reduced by adjustments.
Millinocket, ME: .7 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record and .2 degree upward adjustment at end of record.
Ripogenus Dam, ME: .5 degree downward adjustment at beginning of record and .5 degree upward adjustment at end of record.
8 out of 19 stations in Maine had trends changed by adjustments.

14 out of 33 stations had adjustments that affected trends in northern New England. For all of New England, 27 out of 64 stations had trend affecting adjustments. Keep in mind that most of the stations that are unaffected by adjustments are too short to get a trend from anyway.

Mark Wagner

to convert text to excel:
file/open – change file type to “text”
next, you’ll have to know if the data are separated by something: comma, tab, etc or if it’s just plain old text with just spaces.
delimited data are pretty straightforward. flat text files will require you to place the separator between data. this can be tricky if there are no visual clues.
Hope that helps.

James Sexton

Rhoda R says:
June 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Could someone explain to me how you can convert a ‘text’ file to a useable spreadsheet please? I’d like to play with some of these numbers also, but I get defeated trying to re-enter all the numbers. thanks.”
What spreadsheet program are you using and how is the txt file delimited and what OS are you using?
On a typical windows pc, just use the open with(rt. click) and tell windows what spreadsheet program(I use excel) you want it to open the txt file with. Then tell the spreadsheet prog. how the file is delimited(comma, space, ect.) If you have more questions, or more details, I’d be happy to help.

Steven mosher

markA says:
MarkA does a fine job of explaining why stations get adjusted. It is a well known fact that changing the Time of Observation (TOB) will change the min/max recorded. We covered this issue at ClimateAudit in some detail back in 2007, so people should realize that this ground is well traveled. You can see the effect of changing TOB for yourself, by downloading hourly data from any ASOS. On the ClimateAudit TOBS thread I provide a link to a large sample ( 190 stations or so) of data where you can see how changing the TOB from any hour of the day to any other hour of the day has a small but PREDICTABLE impact. The seminal work here is Karls 1986 paper which has recently been updated ( err cant recall that one off the top of my head, but we discussed it over at Lucia’s )
Let me sum up in a General way what the situation is.
1. There is a known effect from changing the TOB
2. Historically those changes tend to require an adjustment that “cools” the past
3. The model for TOBS adjustment is an empirical model that has been tested in a double blind like fashion. That is, building a model while hold a sub sample out. then testing the accuracy of the model. The model considers a variety of factors such as lat/lon of the station, season, ect. The model works. Although I’d like to see the code.
The issue with TOBS as some of us have pointed out for the past two years is NOT the direction of the adjustment. That is well established. The issue is the failure to account for the standard error of prediction in the final calculations of uncertainty.
In short, when you adjust a record with a model ( see Wm Briggs ) you must carry forward the error of prediction. So, when one adjusts a monthly temp from 1C to
.8C, there is an error of prediction associated with this adjustment. That error of prediction is greater than the underlying measurement uncertainty.
Simply, adjustments are required. So merely pointing out that adjustments are made is not a very strong point. This issue is the math underlying the adjustements and the un accounted for uncertainties. The more people focus on the real issue the better.

Ian George

I have seen this raw v adjusted data for many sites on GISS and Australia’s BOM where adjusted data have been ‘dumbed down’ prior to the 50’s and maintained after that to show an exaggerated warming trend.
I ran 50 long-term w/s around Australia and compared the raw data in 1914 yearly av maximum temps with 2008 and found that 1914 was a degree warmer. Yet the official graph shows 2008 warmer than 1914. Go figure.
I have also noticed that just recently, GISS have taken down their adjusted data and reverted back to the raw data for some sites. Does anyone know why?

Mike G

kwik says:
June 9, 2010 at 11:53 am
Its time to show young Peters project again;
I wonder if young Peter’s dad repeated their project now if the rural temperature trend slope would still be zero. Or, have the inconvenient data they found for the rural sites on the GISS site since been updated to remove and inconvenient truths from the data?


from: Michael Hammer, June 27th, 2009
“It is obvious that the only adjustment which reduces the reported warming is UHI which is a linear correction of 0.1F or about 0.06C per century, Figure 2. Note also that the latest indications are that even this minimal UHI adjustment has now been removed in the latest round of revisions to the historical record. To put this in perspective, in my previous article on this site I presented bureau of meteorology data which shows that the UHI impact for Melbourne Australia was 1.5C over the last 40 years equivalent to 3.75C per century and highly non linear.
Compare the treatment of UHI with the adjustments made for measuring stations that have moved out of the city centre, typically to the airport. These show lower temperatures at their new location and the later readings have been adjusted upwards so as to match the earlier readings. The airport readings are lower because the station has moved away from the city UHI. Raising the airport readings, while not adding downwards compensation for UHI, results in an overstatement of the amount of warming. This would seem to be clear evidence of bias. It would be more accurate to lower the earlier city readings to match the airport readings rather than vice versa.
Note also the similarity between the shape of the time of observation adjustment and the claimed global warming record over the 20th century especially the steep rise since 1970. This is even more pronounced if one looks at the total adjustment shown in Figure 3 (again from the same site as Figure 1). As a comparison, a recent version of the claimed 20th century global temperature record downloaded from is shown in Figure 4. “

Mike G

Why would it matter what time of the day you read a max/min thermometer?

Ian, provide an example. I’ll take a look

I’m sending the little girl $100 to help her with the trip she reportedly wants to take to Huntsville. What do you guys think? Are you in too?
Wisdom from Beeville

Mike G

@Ken Coffman
Linked to your post and enjoyed it. Then I found your post “Undeniable Proof Al Gore is a Moron” and LMAO. You’r engineer did make an Al Gore caliber mistake when he said maybe the surface of the sun was that temperature, though.

Ian George

One example – raw data shows 1915 at 27.4C at Lismore (Centre St) – now closed.
Trend data shows 1915 at 26.7C.
Many more examples at BOM and GISS.
Off-line now for 2 days. If you need more, let me know.

James Sexton

Mike G says:
June 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“Why would it matter what time of the day you read a max/min thermometer?”
Just guessing, but you may not have reached the max temp or min temp if you are careless about what time of day the thermometer is read. I would have thought the standard would be midnight every 24 hrs., but I’m weird that way.

Mike G says:
Start here:
The issue has been discussed to death, both there and at other places.


Sadly it seems we need a whistleblower to release a few Harry read me files and inconvenient emails from within this web of intrigue. There must be a lot of honest and dedicated people that work within those organisations who were naive enough to believe the absolute need and urgency of the media grabbing scientists, to alert the world to possible evil consequences, gain extra taxpayer funding in a competitive environment, that now, also realise that all the adjustments did was skew climate science in the wrong direction. It is inevitable that errors will be exposed and in the process become grist for the mill of the MSM to tarnish the reputation not just of the media hound scientists promoting the scares, but also. the day to day reputations of those that either chose not to speak out, or were too frightened to do so.
Better to now do the right thing and step forward and expose what you know, than be dragged down with those that are desperately defending the indefensible.
Lets do the “cap and trade” of honesty in science, before it is too late.
Just my two cents!!


James Sexton and Mike G:-
But if you had left the Min/Max for 24 hours it would have experienced the min and max during that time. It would make a difference to the day that it was recorded against, but it will have experienced the extremes of the past 24 hours.

Mike G

Who knows what those dummies back in the day would have done. Me, if the boss told me to read it at 0800, I’d put the min in today’s spot on the form for min and I’d put the max in yesterday’s spot on the form for max. It might not be correct for every situation. But, would it really matter in the long run?

Ray Boorman

I agree with those who say TOBS does NOT matter. If you use a max/min thermometer, you will always record the lowest & highest temp each 24hrs. Can anyone prove that changing TOBS using max/min thermometers from morning to night or night to morning makes the slightest difference. Naturally, if all you are recording is the current temp once a day, than the records produced are USELESS for determining averages anyway, no matter what time you take them.

Mark C

I just read the recommended thread at Climate Audit and finally had the clue light come on regarding the time-of-observation bias. In simple terms, if the min or max for the day tends to occur near the observation time, that leads to a bias. For example, if the obs time is 7am and the low for the day tends to be around that time, an extreme low temp at 7am may count as the min for two days instead of one, pulling the average down.
But do read that thread to get a fuller understanding of the TOB issue.

Mike G

I Read your link. Looks like you have to assume the data taker never establishes any sort of routine for TOB to matter. I rather suspect most people do establish some kind of routine, which might get perturbed from time to time, which might introduce some small bias. Looks to me like maybe it has been convienient to assume old timers were constantly having their routine perturbed in just the optimum pattern to introduce maximum bias. That way we can convieniently subtract large amounts of perceived bias from the old records.

Rhoda R

Mark Wagner, James Sexton — thanks to both of you.