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, what you are saying is they built an entire airport in under a year?
You must be, because what is being discussed is a record high temperature at a specific location. You say that record high is due to the asphalt but last year and the year before weren’t this hot, so that asphalt must be new…. right?
That IS what you are suggesting, isn’t it?
After all, no one would seriously try to argue against scientists if they can’t grasp the simple fact that something like asphalt has to ALWAYS affect the temperature or NEVER. It can’t pick and choose which years to make hotter than normal.
So, for the asphalt to have anything to do with this new record, the asphalt has to be new too. Otherwise, the temperature record at that site ALREADY incorporates the increased temperature caused by the asphalt, and this new record is caused by something else.
It’s simple common sense.
This also means that pointing at surrounding temperature readings is irrelevant because the asphalt at the airport may be increasing the absolute temperature recorded causing it to always be a few degrees warmer than surrounding locations. That has no bearing on whether this is a record high.
In fact the only information from the other stations that would have any real bearing in this case is whether or not they too recorded record highs. If they all recorded record highs, even if they are lower than the airports, they provide solid evidence that the temperature is indeed higher than ever before. If they all demonstrate average temperatures, then that would be evidence that the record is a localised phenomena as you are suggesting.
Too bad you didn’t tell us the information that would really help us to figure it out.
REPLY: Southwest built a whole new terminal nearby. The airport has been expanding, a lot. Timeline here: http://www.bwiairport.com/en/about-bwi/bwi-timeline
As the airport expands, so do the effects of asphalt, extra waste heat from jetfuel burned, etc. As you put it; “It’s simple common sense.” – A
With today’s siting issues at BWI, and 1930’s temperatures, Baltimore may have asphalted to 112.
Airport heat island effect together with station dropout favoring airport stations completely explains more than all of the observed warming of the last thirty years. Maybe the divergence problem of the siberian tree rings is not really a divergence. Maybe it’s just because yamal trees don’t grow at airports and city centers?
@ur momisugly Alexander K
I’ve seen the same thing.
I think to compare apples to apples, it has to be in a stevenson screen with the sun beating down on it. But, that’s OK, as long as that’s the standard and there are no siting issues, such as 190 deg-F asphault nearby.
As a pilot I want to know the temp over the ASPHALT as that is what will effect my lift. I do not care what the temp is over Podunk, Iowa. Weather stations at airports are for me, no one else. Using them for ANYTHING else is false/fraud and on purpose to mislead.
@ur momisugly Karmakaze
In addition to what -A said in his reply, your logic is faulty, too. Just because the pavement might have been there last year, doesn’t mean a new record would necessarily have to have been set last year.
But, if the siting issues had been identical when the previous record was set, the previous record might have been set higher, depending on other factors such as wind direction, cloud cover, sensor issues, etc.
@ur momisugly Karmakaze
Also, your logic would also imply that whenever a record low is set, it provides solid evidence that temperatures are not higher than they have ever been. A lot of record lows have been set in the past year.
But, you should also expect relatively high temperatures since we having been climbing out of the little ice age for a long time and we had an el nino, just ending.
A better representation of temperature trend recently mentioned in a comment would be to compare the recent el nino peak with the 1998 el nino peak. Clearly, temperatures are on a slight downward trend.
Mike McMillan says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:37 am
I measure 196 ft to the taxiway and 247 ft to the runway. The ILS transmitter is putting out maybe 20 watts max, so aside from the asphalt walkway and the jet exhaust, that’s CRN 2.
That toasty 192° tarmac sounds about right, as often as I’ve had to do the aircraft walkaround, but I wasn’t aware that we had to lighten our payloads because hot air had less lift than cold air. I always thought it had to do with hot air cutting back the available engine thrust.
Mike,
Remember back to your A&P school days: There’s less lift in warm air than in cold, by dint of the fact of air density.
THINK: A vacuum has no air at all, and affords no lift, whereas a really dense atmosphere would behave as would water: Maximum lift.
Take the analysis from one extreme to the other.
And that applies to engines as well: Thin air has less available oxygen, and thus the fuel burn produces less power for natural aspiration, and even jet engines.
Back in the day, the airlines would use water injection (in the jets) in order to gain total reaction mass to assist in takeoff on really warm days.
As an aside, it’s also the reason that vacuum cleaners and clothes dryers don’t work as well in really hot days: Less air density.
@ur momisugly 899
AKA “Density Altitude”
I remember seeing some funny posters on density altitude when my dad would take me to the flight line when I was a kid back in the late sixties. Usually, they involved a cracked up airplane telling the confused pilot that he’d forgotten about “density altitude”.
Jason says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm
As a Baltimoron, I can tell you that the record for July 6 is actually 107 in 1936. I don’t know where they got the 1999 stat from…
Jason,
What exactly is a Baltimoron? Is it someone born in Baltimore? Or, is the term restricted to just those haven’t chosen to leave?
Mike G says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:33 pm
@ur momisugly 899
AKA “Density Altitude”
I remember seeing some funny posters on density altitude when my dad would take me to the flight line when I was a kid back in the late sixties. Usually, they involved a cracked up airplane telling the confused pilot that he’d forgotten about “density altitude”.
Good man!
And for those who wonder, here’s this, about 3/4 the way down the page:
http://www.paragonair.com/public/docs/AdvCircs/AC00-06A_AvWx/AC00-6A_ch03.html
I’m curious. Both sets of pictures show the ASOS calculated with the ILS glideslope transmitter. Granted this is a low power transmiter, but the nearby radars both ATC and on the aircraft are not. I’m wondering if the ASOS has been tested for accuracy in this kind of hostile electromagnetic environment.
*******
Karmakaze says:
July 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm
So, what you are saying is they built an entire airport in under a year?
You must be, because what is being discussed is a record high temperature at a specific location. You say that record high is due to the asphalt but last year and the year before weren’t this hot, so that asphalt must be new…. right?
That IS what you are suggesting, isn’t it?
After all, no one would seriously try to argue against scientists if they can’t grasp the simple fact that something like asphalt has to ALWAYS affect the temperature or NEVER. It can’t pick and choose which years to make hotter than normal.
So, for the asphalt to have anything to do with this new record, the asphalt has to be new too. Otherwise, the temperature record at that site ALREADY incorporates the increased temperature caused by the asphalt, and this new record is caused by something else.
It’s simple common sense.
This also means that pointing at surrounding temperature readings is irrelevant because the asphalt at the airport may be increasing the absolute temperature recorded causing it to always be a few degrees warmer than surrounding locations. That has no bearing on whether this is a record high.
In fact the only information from the other stations that would have any real bearing in this case is whether or not they too recorded record highs. If they all recorded record highs, even if they are lower than the airports, they provide solid evidence that the temperature is indeed higher than ever before. If they all demonstrate average temperatures, then that would be evidence that the record is a localised phenomena as you are suggesting.
Too bad you didn’t tell us the information that would really help us to figure it out.
*******
Here’s some common sense. Air moves, especially during the day when high temps occur. If you have more and more asphalt (and urbanization in general) upwind and near enough to a site, over time temps will increase from UHI, even if that site doesn’t change. Whether immediate local changes occur or not, new high-temp records will occur more frequently.
Ref – solrey says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:50 am
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! Sooooooooooo True!
_____________________
You’ll know that the AGW Mob is serious when they start taking jackhammers to airport runways and interstates and blowing up whole city blocks of concrete, glass, and steel skyscrapers. If any CO2 is ‘at fault’, it’s the CO2 that is produced producing, installing, and employing asphalt, steel, and concrete that raises the atmospheric level of that dasterdly gas AND causing the UHI to go through the blogosphere.
Doesn’t NOAA assign something like a armchair handicap correction factor to each of their “official” locations to account for the unique physical and regularly recurring transient effects (jet engine backblast, etc.) at each site? Seems like JFK, LAX, BWI, DFW, ATL, and a few hundred other locations around the country ought to have their own individual fudge factor. Tell me they do… please?
We need to bring back the buffalo and live in teepees.
WOW!
Asphalt @ur momisugly 192deg – almost hot enough to fry eggs!
Anthony, you are to be thanked endlessly!, for your many excellent efforts.
Now if we can some how get the words of our friendly astronaut out to let sheeple of the world know – the entire hypothesis is based upon fraud (and amazing stupidity?)-
Not to mention tyrannical control over all people.
On 22 June 2010, at an elevation of 6767′, 10 miles SE of Santa Fe, NM airport, my exposed data logger USB temperature sensor (15″ above dirt surface) reached 140F while another sensor, shaded to the north and 8 feet above the surface read 86F. Micro climates and exposure issues do make a difference. Having a homogeneous climate record is near impossible. Certainly, data reveals non-stationarity at best.
[snip remove your accusation of “making stuff up” and the comment will be allowed ~mod]
@ur momisugly Pascvaks says:
July 8, 2010 at 5:55 am
…Doesn’t NOAA assign something like a armchair handicap correction factor to each of their “official” locations to account for the unique physical and regularly recurring transient effects (jet engine backblast, etc.) at each site? Seems like JFK, LAX, BWI, DFW, ATL, and a few hundred other locations around the country ought to have their own individual fudge factor. Tell me they do… please?
—————–
If they did decide that a fudge factor was needed to counter the ocasional jet blast, etc., they would probably decide it needed to bias the temperature further upwards.
Anthony I pretty much agree with most of what you have to say and I have learned some interesting info from you and now you can learn something from me. I disagree with your opinion on the accuracy of the WeatherBug stations. These are rooftop stations and one of the worst places for a temperature sensor is on a roof. I can forward articles to you from competent people who have written articles on rooftop stations. Take a look at how ridiculously high the temps were on the rooftop at the Custom House in Baltimore when they were recording temps there. TV Meteorologist Bob Ryan when he read these rooftop articles would then say when he would show the WeatherBug temps, ” Keep in mind that these are rooftop temps”. Not to worry because WeatherBug has found the perfect solution to this problem by tweaking ( lowering ) the temps by 2-3 degrees which they can do for any WeatherBug station from their Headquarters in Germantown, Md. It is pathetic to see TV Meteorologists? show data from the airports where NOBODY lives especially given the poor siting conditions at airports such as BWI, Reagan National, Frederick Airport, as well as Leesburg Airport. I have given my website to Fox Channel 5 to use my accurate weather data and they have never used it. They would prefer to use the very flawed data from the above mentioned airports. There are more people living here in Clarksburg, Md than there are at any airport. The airport data should only be used for aviation purposes and NOT for climate purposes. Anybody out there who would like to start a company similar to WeatherBug please contact me at rbholden@earthlink.net.
REPLY: Point taken, I haven’t looked into these stations. If they are on rooftops though and read cooler than BWI, then the BWI record is even more skewed. -A
A few things I didn’t see mentioned.. I grew up in Baltimore and I remember a lot of ASPHALT STREETS !! I would bet that the Temperatures in parts of DOWNTOWN Baltimore were even HOTTER!! And as for National Arpt. in DC the Official temperatures have been measured there, near the Runway Complex, since 1942….
They have always been paved so at least the Records for the past 68 years have been recorded in the same basic location. I would think that is true at BWI (Friendship) too.
Bottom line is there is NO PERFECT LOCATION and furthermore the Equipment itself normally has a plus or minus 1 to 2 degrees level of accurracy. Lord knows how accurrate the Records of the 1800’s are!!! Here’s what we KNOW!! It was VERY HOT this week and it SNOWED a lot this past Winter.. Live with it and move on!!
Amazing
I responded to several people with a long post and apparently you disliked one sentence so you censored the whole message?
But wait… you included the sentence in question in your “explanation” so the one sentence that got my long post censored is the ONLY sentence that actually got posted!
Then in that explanation you said if that one sentence (the only one I wrote that you actually posted) was removed, you would post the rest of my message that apparently you had no problem with.
Funny that.
REPLY: Yes it is amazing that you denigrate me with claims like “making things up” and then whine about it when I call you on it. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for anonymous trolls that call my character into question from behind the comfort of anonymity. Feel free to repost your other comments, it’s not my fault you chose to do it that way, but unless you make the change I suggested related to me, I’ll not accept it. -A
I also find it amazing that a person who makes it their obsession to call accomplished scientists frauds and liars would be so upset by me saying he is making stuff up.
Seems you can dish it but can’t take it!
Talk about a coward. Why am I not surprised, though?
REPLY: Sir/madam, show me where I personally have made the claims you say against scientists, using those words, in any story I’ve posted at WUWT. Yes the words appear from time to time in context or in comments, but show me where I’ve personally named a scientist a “fraud or a liar”.
“Seems you can dish it but can’t take it!” Huh, you don’t read/remember much do you? Even when goaded by people that have no scruples such as seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/oz-report-footy-at-least-has-rules/ I don’t stoop to that level. With anonymous cowards (I’ll use that word since you first invoked it) like yourself, it sure is easy to hurl insults though, isn’t it? I notice it is easy for you here:
You also seem to have no tolerance for delay.
As you’ve proven yourself time and again to be rude and disruptive, the decision stands, read the blog policy page, be as upset about it as you wish. – A