UPDATE: Another new record at BWI on July 7th:
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
522 PM EDT WED JUL 07 2010
...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT BALTIMORE MD...
A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 101 DEGREES WAS SET AT BALTIMORE MD TODAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 99 SET IN 1993.
A new record high temperature was set in Baltimore today…
RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC 0547 PM EDT TUE JUL 06 2010 ...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT BALTIMORE MD... A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 105 DEGREES WAS SET AT BALTIMORE MD TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 101 SET IN 1999.
The temperature is measured here at the BWI airport at this NOAA ASOS. It doesn’t look bad from this photo provided by NOAA. In fact with the exception of the building, it looks reasonably well sited. More photos here.
But when you look at this BWI ASOS station from the air, an entirely different picture emerges.
From Bing Maps, see interactive view here.
Here’s the East looking view:
Note how close the NOAA ASOS station is to the asphalt accessway, and how it is surrounded on 3 sides by runway and taxiways.
Here’s a ground level view showing the asphalt accessway:
But also notice the vent in the ILS instrumentation building. That’s an exhaust vent. When the wind blows from the NW, it will carry any waste heat from that vent (note it points downward) directly into the ASOS sensor array, as shown in this zoomed aerial view from Bing Maps below:
Interactive view of above here.
Note the direction of the wind when the ASOS recorded 105° F per this screen cap of the NWS hourly observations for BWI:
The ILS waste heat, combined with the asphalt proximity of the accessway, as well as the runway and taxiway on three sides contributed to the new high temperature record, in my opinion.
When you look at other stations high temps (which I plotted) in the area on the same day, the 105° F record high stands alone near Baltimore, though one other airport, Frederick, also with ASOS measured the same 105° F high. The Baltimore downtown Tmax (at the Museum/Science Center) was 103°F.
Source of observed high temps: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/observations.htm and http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lwx
From the website CCF, who also had an interest in the issue, it was reported that some other private stations nearby also didn’t hit 105.
Nearby Weatherbug stations, which are considered to be fairly accurate, were all lower:
- Columbia hit 102F at Clemens Crossing ES.
- Ellicott City hit 100F at Veterans ES.
- Owings Mills hit 100F at The Harbour School.
This suggests that BWI stands alone in the 105 temperature for this area.
Since the Frederick, MD Airport ASOS (nearly 40 miles away) also hit 105, let’s have a look at it:
Interactive view from Bing maps here. Note that this station while an older style AWOS instead of ASOS, also has it’s sensors sited near/over asphalt and near the waste heat of the ILS building and it’s electronics. Just like BWI. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.
And here’s the observations from Frederick:
While the winds at this time weren’t in the direction that would pull waste heat from the ILS building, I’ll point out that the KFDK AWOS sensors are sited directly over the asphalt, where the BWI ASOS has asphalt very close by. This is great for keeping weeds down and mowing, not so great for measuring temperature.
Washington National has similar siting over asphalt (or possibly dark crushed rock, but does not have an ILS electronics building nearby. It does have one feature though, the Potomac river is only 180 meters away.
Of course, the KDCA ASOS station isn’t far from a megaplex of tarmac, terminals, and aircraft.
If you wonder if tarmac/taxiway/runways are capable of generating a lot of heat, this story from Albany, NY yesterday, on the same day the new record high was set at BWI, might be of interest:
Oh, and by the way, Albany’s airport also had a new record that same day:
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ALBANY NY
958 PM EDT TUE JUL 6 2010
...RECORD HIGH MINIMUM TEMPERATURE TIED AT ALBANY NY...
THE LOW TEMPERATURE AT THE ALBANY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ONLY DROPPED
TO A LOW 76 DEGREES AT 509 AM JULY 6TH. THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD
HIGH MINIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 76 DEGREES SET BACK IN 1911.
It takes some time for all that tarmac heat to dissipate. You can bet they didn’t have tarmac there in 1911. The high temp also got pretty warm:
TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY
MAXIMUM 96 353 PM 97 1886 82 14 80
MINIMUM 76 509 AM 47 1961 59 17 51
Sources: http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=aly
While this certainly isn’t an exhaustive survey, it does illustrate that the two highest reading airport stations today at BWI and FDK have siting issues.The BWI ASOS went in in 1995 according to the NCDC MMS Metadatabase. It set a new record of 101 for this date 4 years later. We can be certain that in the years prior, the station was not sited just like you see it now. Airports are dynamic engines of change.
Also from the CCF website:
Records go back to 1880 for Baltimore, so this is an impressive feat, and it has been done before. A temperature of 105F has been hit four other times in the the area’s, and many long ago. So these numbers should quell the talk of Global Warming with this hot summer.
Here are the four other dates:
- June 29th, 1934
- August 6th 1918
- August 7th 1918
- August 20th 1983
Another mark hit many times in Baltimore was 104F on these days:
- July 3, 1898
- July 16 1988
- August 4th, 1930
- July 6th: 101F in 1999* BROKEN TODAY with 105F
- July 7th: 99F in 1993
- July 8th: 100F in 1993
- July 9th: 103F in 1936
- July 10th: 107F in 1936 * Hottest of all time for Baltimore
The question is, are airport stations like this at BWI climate-worthy? I sincerely doubt it.
I’d like to share a story that I’m proud of. At ICCC4 in Chicago this past May, I gave my presentation on what I’ve learned from the surfacestations.org project and what is about to be published. One member of the audience came up to chat afterwards. I was surprised to see Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut, and the only geologist to walk on the moon. He said:
Anthony, I want you to know that you are spot on about these airport stations. I’ve seen them read up to 10 degrees warmer than the surroundings. But that’s what they are supposed to read. Pilots need to know the runway conditions, and these stations measure that. Their primary mission is aviation, not climate.
A proud moment for me, having a man who was a hero of mine, whom I watched on Live Lunar TV in high school, giving praise, but also stating the base truth of the matter. Climate monitoring is not part of the mission plan for airports, but they get co-opted for the task.
For example, BWI also has problems with snow records, which I’ve covered before:
BWI snow record rescinded: Another reason why airports aren’t the best place to measure climate data
Here’s some related reading about Baltimore’s other high reading climate (USHCN) station (now closed):
Full story here:
How not to measure temperature, part 48. NOAA cites errors with Baltimore’s Rooftop USHCN Station
Another mark hit many times in Baltimore was 104F on these days:
- July 3, 1898
- July 16 1988
- August 4th, 1930
- July 6th: 101F in 1999* BROKEN TODAY with 105F
- July 7th: 99F in 1993
- July 8th: 100F in 1993
- July 9th: 103F in 1936
- July 10th: 107F in 1936 * Hottest of all time for Baltimore
So it was 105 degrees at the airport out by the tarmac?
My guess is they hope the public doesn’t know what UHI is.
Thanks to the obscenity known as Washington, D.C. ( a/k/a the “District of Confusion” and “Cancer On The Potomac” ), I have observed the explosion of development and the destruction of some of the nation’s most beautiful agricultural land. From my vantage point in Baltimore, the growth of the federal government over the last eighty years caused massive immigration to the region and is directly responsible for the horrific degradation of the Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding environment.
There is little doubt in my mind that the region’s population growth and transformation has greatly affected temperatures. There is good reason that current temperatures are not comparable to the historic record.
In my father’s child
I have mentioned this before: here is a coastal city and matching airport south of Baltimore in the state of North Carolina.
The city is on the North Carolina/Virgina border and near the ocean. Take a look at the city vs the airport! Norfolk City and Norfolk International Airport
Here are more North Carolina cities and the ref=”http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/amoraw200908.png”> Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
North to south thru the middle of the state
North – Raleigh NC
Large city in the middle of NC – Fayetteville NC
South – Lumberton NC
Coastal Cities:
North – Elisabeth City
South – Wilmington NC
Rural
North – Louisburg
North – Louisburg
South – Southport
Amazing how the temperatures follow the Atlantic ocean oscillation as long as the weather station is not sitting at an airport isn’t it?
savethesharks. The weather stations at airports are there to support aviation only and are properly sited for their intended purpose. Knowing the air density, i.e. temp/humidity, is crucial if ones plane is loaded near the edge of the envelope because the density of the air affects the amount of lift and thrust that can be produced. The malfeasance/incompetence comes from incorporating airport station data into the climate record. The challenge in temperature recording is having calibrated instruments properly sited while being accessible/convenient over the long haul for the humans or electronics that record the data throughout the day. Airport stations are convenient, but the data is not suitable for analyzing subtle trends in climate.
cheers,
Tim
Over the past several years, BWI underwent a very large expansion; adding a new terminal for Southwest airlines.
BWI was very rarely the hotspot in our area, (central Maryland). Usually a degree or 2 less than surrounding stations. (Including Frederick BTW). This is the first real summer we’ve had since the expansion, and suddenly BWI is running hotter than the surrounding stations. Even the Baltimore Sun newspaper blogged that they were lower in downtown Baltimore last June 24. I’ve been observing here for about 35 years. I had 95, 99, and 101 on 3 different thermometers yesterday; 20 miles from BWI.
Alexander K says:
July 7, 2010 at 2:14 am:
I am driven to wonder, from my own observations, how many Warmists actually observe and record temp readings for themselves in a similar manner to my own very amateur efforts.
Unsurprisingly, “tenet-based” Climate Science does seem to be much more “Armchair” rooted than real Science – maybe also because you can’t get too far away from the Warming Models without some rather unpleasant withdrawal effects?
What’s funny is you can look at the 24 hour summary and see how the temp jumps after early morning, when the asphaltic effect happens because of the sun.
Then watch is ramp down again late at night after the asphalt has released it’s heat.
Growing up, we lived on a country asphalt road. We would go out on a cold night and lay on the road to keep warm so we could watch the stars. Around midnight the asphalt would no longer be hot enough to keep us warm.
When asphalt is initially installed it is very dark black. But in time it becomes a much lighter gray color. I’m guessing that the dark black is a much better solar collector than the light gray. So temperatures could also be affected by resurfacing of the asphalt.
John, loved your comment. Irony riding the tails of truth is such a bright light! If AGW theories are heading towards heat storage in oceans, all monitors should immediately be placed at the furthest coastal projection into the ocean wherever marine on-shore breeze is the norm, so we can monitor all that CO2 heat coming our way to fry our brains. What you say? Such strategically placed CO2-AGW sensors would be overwhelmed by the local natural effects of marine breeze? Then what, pray tell, are we all knicker-twisted-panties-in-a-bunch up over?
Leonard Weinstein is correct but it is also correct that if the temperature was not increasing the number of record highs and record lows would be about the same, and indeed in the 1950s that was the case. However in the last decade (2000-2009) the ratio of highs to lows had increased to ~2. One can also see the cooling in the 1960s from this figure.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg
Also, Beng, this heat wave seems to be pretty much pushed up against the coast and 100 mi makes a difference, esp to the west.
It will be interesting to see what happens at BWI today. It started out higher (91 at 8:54AM vs 88 yesterday), but it is not warming up quite as fast. Breeze out of the NE. http://www.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KBWI.html
Yes, and all those “siting problems” were there 20 years ago as well. Unless they were introduced in the last few days, it is illogical to claim that they “caused” the record. Learn basic logic.
Pamela Gray writes,
“Gneiss, IMO you have reported on a ‘dress for weather’ descriptor and weather pattern variations, not climate”
Dress for weather? Weather-pattern variations? No, I reported the positive trends of four temperature series, giving no indication of their means. Which in the Maryland cases would only help one dress if you planned that by decades, wore the same outfit all year, and chose your outfit in response to fractional degrees. In the global cases the means would not even help that much. But do you know why?
Nor did I comment on weather-pattern variations around those trends. Although averages, trends and variation prove widely useful in climatology, business, farming and much else.
“with some of your ‘climate’ data obtained from AGW graphs down right bereft in terms of information.”
You’re imagining that part. I gave no data, only slopes, and none of the slopes were “obtained from AGW graphs.” Were they “bereft in terms of information”? Slopes are simple but often informative, which is why ordinary least squares is one of the very few statistical techniques built into most spreadsheets.
“There is no such thing as a single statistic for global temperature. It is the most misleading of all AGW statistics and should be shunned by meat and potatoes scientists.”
But GISTEMP, RSS and the others don’t claim to provide “a single statistic for global temperature,” do they? I’ve never seen this “most misleading of all AGW statistics.” What the global indexes do provide has not been shunned by scientists, however. Instead, it has proven widely useful and consistent with observations across many different fields.
“Let’s not be data rich and information poor.”
I wrote a short blog post, not a research article, and that contained no data. It did contribute a few pieces of information not found elsewhere in this thread.
When I read highest temperature in the record, I asked myself how long is the record. And in this situation, how long is the record of hourly temperature record. I wonder if they have the record of the hottest hour of the day for the 40s.
I guess that it is unimportant that NOAA works with temperature anomalies to correct for differences in positioning and environments of its weather stations. It’s amazing to me that these scientists at NOAA are not even aware of what is so patently obvious to the average person.
“”Owen says:
July 7, 2010 at 9:08 am
I guess that it is unimportant that NOAA works with temperature anomalies to correct for differences in positioning and environments of its weather stations. It’s amazing to me that these scientists at NOAA are not even aware of what is so patently obvious to the average person.””
Owen, what’s amazing to me is those “scientists” can tell within a 1/100th to 1/10th of a degree exactly how much UHI is affecting their thermometers….
….and they know exactly how much to adjust, change, fudge, their temperatures to account for that
Careful Anthony, Zeke will replicate these temperatures at Lucia’s and disprove all skeptical claims concerning surface stations.
REPLY: What is really needed is a field study, placing thermometers in concentric rings around the perimeter to ascertain the effects. Already we have some hint of that with the weatherbug stations – Anthony
Owen writes,
“I guess that it is unimportant that NOAA works with temperature anomalies to correct for differences in positioning and environments of its weather stations. It’s amazing to me that these scientists at NOAA are not even aware of what is so patently obvious to the average person.”
What makes you think that NOAA scientists are unaware of siting issues?
from JT says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:38 am
http://web.live.weatherbug.com/Broadcaster/2/Home.aspx?no_cookie_zip=21212&no_cookie_stat=WMARB&no_cookie_world_stat=&zcode=z4241&list=1&lid=BSL
100.4 °F Frederick Municipal Airport : Frederick, MD
93.2 °F Montgomery County Airpark : Gaithersburg, MD
98.1 °F Baltimore-Washington International Airport : Harmans, MD
93.9 °F Washington County Rgnl Arpt : Maugansville, MD
I have a couple poorly placed remote outdoor min/max thermometers. One is 4 inches underneath the roof of a covered deck that is open on 3 sides. The top of the roof is standard white roofing shingles. The deck is cement. There are no heat sources or trees near it. It reads 7 degrees (F) high when the sun is blazing in the summer. Another is on the underside of a step in an open outdoor stairway about 6 feet off the ground. Cement underneath and on two sides. It is located about 10 feet from the exhaust of a small window air conditioner. It reads 5 degrees high in the summer sun. Finally I have one other that is located under the eave of a small shed. There are no heat sources within 100 feet and the shed is completely shaded by a forest canopy with natural ground cover. It gives me the correct temperature in agreement with what I see on local weather reports.
Location matters a lot. It isn’t enough to put something inside a white box with ventilation slats. It needs to be in the natural environment for the area. Not near cement, asphault, mowed lawns, and unnatural things like that. Given a great many locations, probably a majority, are in locations with considerable land use changes they’re not valid indicators of CO2 driven temperature anomalies. I know for a fact that it’s a lot cooler at the surface underneath a forest canopy than it is in a grassy field in full sun. The transpiration of the trees combined with the shade and moister ground beneath keeps it a lot cooler below the canopy. The difference seems to be a good 5 to 10 degrees F. One lonely dry white box doesn’t duplicate the natural cooling effect of a forest canopy. They’d need to add a swamp cooler of some sort.
Gneiss, I grew up on a farm and manage the family ranch holdings. I use knowledge about local weather pattern variation data and information (including what the oceans are doing and why our topography affects weather fronts) to plan ahead regarding water use, grazing rotations, and allowed units per acre. The climate zone I am in is pretty set in this interglacial period. Every farmer and rancher I know follows this same line of reasoning. We ignore completely all reported global data (and outside the county weather predictions for our area). Our climate zone designation (and the reasons for it) are semi-permanent and as long as we stay within that climate range we do all right. But knowledge of local weather pattern variations and oscillations do change what we do from day to day, month to month, and year to year. The problem arises when less skeptical farmers try to plant things not meant for our climate zone range and then end up losing the crop. If the crop is one that takes years to establish and the farmer is betting on one thing without considering where we are at in terms of a weather pattern oscillation, the farm will soon be owned by someone else. This happens when a farmer has become convinced that we will just be getting warmer and warmer (aka the positive trend lines you reported).
Regarding being data rich and information poor: The fact that students, on average at a particular school, score below the national average is data rich and information poor. Weather trends (both the data and the statistics derived from the data) are data rich and information poor. Calling a temperature hot has more information in it than the temperature reading or trend alone does. Having an explanation for why the temperature is hot, how to prepare for it, and when it might go away is being data AND information rich.
However, on a blog meant to encourage debate, simply listing data as if data has information in it without further work will certainly encourage debate. If all we needed was data, we would have very short journal articles.
It would be interesting if someone would do a study comparing soil temperatures under asphalt or concrete runways to temps at various distances from same. My impression from my research into ground source heat pumps was that soil temps at a depth of ten feet or so were a great approximation of average air temps at the surface.
In my wonderful state of CT, record high temperatures are always broken at Bradley Airport(our main airport). A suspicious site I think that should be investigated.
Gneiss
Oh they’re aware of the UHI and land use effects. They’re also aware that there are no adjustments to the raw data made for such effects. The problem is that people like Anthony Watts and his growing audience are aware of the siting issues and lack of compensation for them too.
information on ground temperatures:
http://www.geo4va.vt.edu/A1/A1.htm