In my travels surveying weather stations around the United States, I met many dedicated observers like this one. It is sad indeed that their painstakingly recorded data by observers like this one gets adjusted by NCDC to give results that aren’t the same as what they observed. I have some comments, data, and photos about the station that follow, but let me say to Mr. Hendrickson first; thank you sincerely for your service and dedication.
NOAA honors New York farmer for 84 years of service as volunteer weather observer (press release)
When Richard G. Hendrickson (seen at right) logged his first weather observation for the U.S. Weather Bureau, the precursor to NOAA’s National Weather Service, Herbert Hoover occupied the White House. Since then the Bridgehampton, New York, farmer has filed twice daily reports, tallying more than 150,000 individual weather observations – playing a critical role in building our nation’s climate history.
As part of the National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program, Hendrickson collects data from the weather observing station on his farm and calls in his observations – temperature, precipitation, wind and any other significant weather factors – to the weather service.
On July 27, Hendrickson, age 101, will receive an award for his long standing service – 84 years – to the nation. Since Hendrickson is first in the history of the program to serve for more than eight decades, the new 80-year service award will be named in his honor.
“Volunteer observers are the bedrock of weather data collection,” said I. Ross Dickman, meteorologist-in-charge of the New York weather forecast office. “Richard has contributed thousands of weather measurements to build the climate record for Long Island, and after 84 years, holds the title of the nation’s longest-serving volunteer weather observer. With this award, we honor Richard for his selfless dedication to his community and the country.”
Hendrickson started volunteering as a weather observer when he was 18 years old. His lifelong commitment stems from personal interest in weather and a sense of patriotism. “I enjoy observing the weather, it’s what I do for my country,” he said.
Hendrickson’s enthusiasm for weather extends beyond collecting data. In 1996 he authored, Winds of the Fish’s Tail, which highlights his years of observing the weather on Long Island’s east end. Hendrickson also writes a column on weather that is published in two eastern Long Island newspapers.
The award presentation will take place before an open house at the weather forecast office in Upton, New York. Throughout the day; residents are invited to tour the forecast operations floor, meet meteorologists and learn how forecasters track storms and issue warnings. The open house is an opportunity for the public to learn how to become weather-ready, become a storm spotter and see a weather balloon launch.
AWARD PRESENTATION:
Sunday, July 27, 9:45 a.m. to 10 a.m. EDT
New York Weather Forecast Office
175 Brookhaven Avenue, Upton, NY 11973
NOTE: Media must register with Tim Morrin to attend the ceremony, 631-924-0227
The National Weather Service’s Cooperative Observer Program has given scientists and researchers continuous observational data since the program’s inception more than a century ago. Today, over 8,700 volunteer observers participate in the nationwide program to provide daily reports on temperature, precipitation, and other weather factors such as snow depth, river levels and soil temperature. Long and continuous weather records provide an accurate picture of a locale’s normal weather and give climatologists a basis for predicting future trends. These data are invaluable for scientists studying floods, droughts, and heat and cold waves.
The first extensive network of cooperative stations was set up in the 1890s as a result of a Congressional Act that established the U.S. Weather Bureau. Many historic figures maintained weather records, including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson maintained an almost unbroken record of weather observations between 1776 and 1816, and Washington took weather observations just a few days before he died.
![]()
The National Weather Service New York forecast office located in Upton, New York, is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for about 18.6 million people in southeast New York, northeast New Jersey and southern Connecticut. Visit us at weather.gov/nyc and join us on Facebook and Twitter. For more on how to become weather-ready, visit Weather-Ready Nation.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
==============================================================
First a look at the station itself from above. The coordinates are the ones given in NCDC’s HOMR metadata.
The Stevenson Screen (white box between the row of trees and the house) is about 25 feet from the asphalt driveway, would would make it a Class 4 station, unacceptably sited:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:
Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
That’s not the fault of the observer, Mr. Hendrickson is working with what he has. NOAA/NWS actually installed and placed the station, and is responsible for its maintenance. The station is also boxed in by vegetation on three sides, along with the house for the fourth side, making it warmer than it should be due to wind inhibition.
What is even more interesting though is what happened to the data in 2012, according to this plot from NASA GISS of the station, there was quite a spike.
Yet amazingly, even though Mr. Hendrickson has been dutifully reporting the daily data, and it is up to date, as seen in his May report below…
…NASA GISS run by Gavin Schmidt, can’t seem to find the time to get their data set current for Bridgehampton, as seen here, only going to 2012. You’d think Gavin could tear himself away from Twitter long enough to at least get the data updated, especially since this man is so dedicated to the task.
More on all this in a later post.
UPDATE: 7/24/14 9AM I sent a Tweet yesterday to Gavin asking why Bridgehamptoon has not been updated at GISS since 2012, and as far as I know there has been no response.
Nick Stokes in comments thought that the lack of GISS updating was a GHCN problem, not a GISS problem.
I also asked the BEST team (who also use GHCN) and Zeke Hausfather responded almost immediately:
Looks up to date to me, as a file was just compiled this morning and is available up on the FTP site: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ . I believe they have a system that automatically compiles it daily.
Here is a chart of station observations in GHCN by month from today’s file. There are 2297 stations reporting so far for June 2014 (none for July, obviously, since its not over yet). If you check GHCN-daily instead of GHCN-monthly, you will find much more data from last month.
My thanks to Zeke for that.
Also of interest are these notes in the status file for GHCN:
GHCNM, V3, status file (users can use this file to determine overall current status, including information related to previous changes and errata). ******************************************************************************** 07/14/2014 On or around 06/06/2014, there was an ingest problem with the “C” source data, (unpublished MCDW), and this caused a signficant reduction of data from that source. However, much of the data were still available through an alternate source (UK Met Office, “K” source flag). The ingest problem was resolved on 07/10/2014, and the expected frequency of “C” source data was restored. ******************************************************************************** 10/17/2013 Government operations have been restored, and regular monitoring of GHCN-Monthly will now resume. During the shutdown of government operations, some ingest of recent international data were not received. These data should be restored with the next processing cycle (e.g. 10/18/2013). ******************************************************************************** 10/01/2013 During the shutdown of government operations, GHCN-Monthly will continue to update automatically, but will not be monitored by the GHCN-Monthly team. We will also be unable to answer questions submitted to NCDC.GHCNM@noaa.gov until after government operations resume. ********************************************************************************
GHCN even continued to update during the “government shutdown” last year, and there is no note indicating late data for all of 2013.
So much for the Nick Stokes theory as to why GISS has not updated Bridgehampton. Now it’s back to Gavin and GISS.
I’m time limited for the next two days, so my promised update won’t happen until this weekend. Tony Heller has done some work in the meantime worth looking at here: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/more-from-bridgehampton-ny/
The graph of adjustments show Bridgehampton’s data has been dramatically cooled in the past by as much as 1.5°F:
I have not double checked the graph above, but the spike at Bridgehampton in 2012 seems spurious, as I originally noted.
More on all this Saturday or Sunday when time permits.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.





Avery Harden says:
July 23, 2014 at 10:53 pm
And yet according to the story he filed twice daily reports.
Nick,
I retract all that I wrote above. You are correct.
But RE the station location history, the measurement of the location moved. Do you know if the actual location moved 160 m? That is not stated. I hope you don’t think that the MMTS is the yellow spot in the areal photo at the top of the post. In the tilled field.
Nick,
From the areal photo, its hard to see how a move of 160 m could stay on his property, with out regard to asphalt. So where is the MMTS located now, relative to the old Stephenson Screen? Is it to be seen on google earth. The more I look, the less that I believe you.
Can we ask the gentleman? There is a difference between field work and desk work.
Nick,
You said “…on 17 July 1985, the station moved 0.1 miles N. ”
Do you have any factual evidence of your statement?
Looking at the photo at the top of the post, the indicated station relocation is impossible. The new station location is two neighbors parcels to the north.
Do you know anything, or are you guessing from a desk?
jim says: July 24, 2014 at 12:00 am
“You said “…on 17 July 1985, the station moved 0.1 miles N. ”
Do you have any factual evidence of your statement?”
I said “According to the location history, on 17 July 1985, the station moved 0.1 miles N.”. There is a link there. That is what it says.
I didn’t personally implement this move. I’m simply pointing to what is recorded. I personally think the 0.1 miles might be an approximation.
Nick Stokes says:
July 24, 2014 at 12:11 am
Perhaps they got an improved GPS?
Nick,
“But as I said, you could try to find some of this out yourself.”
Ok.
“‘According to another note I saw, the CRS system was kept as a backup.”
Where is that note?
@ur momisugly NIck Stokes
I am not being snarky-
‘The first GPS satellite was launched in 1978 and the first products for civilian consumers appeared in the mid 1980’s. It was in 1984 that President Reagan announced that a portion of the capabilities of GPS would be made availabe to the civil community.’
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mreece/gps/history.html
Changing times.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=10500064&tab=MSHR
I see two station ‘moves’ that appear to be nothing more than a change in the precision of the way the lon / lat data is logged.
Was the 59ft to 60ft ( above sea level ) change a physical move or not? It seems to coincide with some administrative changes at the same time.
It will be interesting to see why the “corrected” data ends up with significant breaks when the original data was perfectly continuous.
I look forward to the future article we are promised on this one.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USC00300889/detail
Links on that page don’t seem to work. Does it require Java or something ridiculous to deliver a text file? WTF?
Nick,
You are excusing or explaining the appropriateness of the changing of the recorded data.
I’m asking why the quantitative changes are appropriate.
You’re saying to me “Find out for your self.”
You provide links.
The links don’t support what you contend.
I ask for specific quanta.
You say “Find out for your self”
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Having worked at a major data analytics company, apart from Mr Hendrickson’s original data collection, the onward handling processes and QA look very amateurish at best, would never pass any sort of audit, and would not attract commercial customers – to unreliable, and I would echo the comment that Gavin Schmidt would never get a job in the real economy based on this (non) performance.
By eye it looks like the 1979-1981 ‘correction’ was about 0.35 deg C. If it was an equipment change is should happen from one day to the next , not spread over 2 years.
I thought MMTS correction was 0.1 not 0.35 ??
There was also a similar ‘correction’ from 1944-1946, what was that about?
You can see the raw and adjusted data at the GHCN ftp site (link in next comment).
The raw data shows a warming of about 0.5C, and the adjusted data turn this into warming of about 1.6C.
The adjusters at GHCN have also decided to throw away chunks of Mr Hendrickson’s data, around the years 1940, 1950 and 2000, leading to the gaps in the GISS graph shown in Anthony’s post.
What do they do about screen maintenance?
1. Over the years, the screen becomes weathered, and as it does so, it absorbs more heat. So how often are screens painted, and what adjustment is made over the period between painting to take out the gradually articifical warming trend caused by screen degradation?
2. When repainted, does the new paint have the same absorption and reflective qualities as the old. Change in pigments could alter the heat patterns.
3. How often are the screened cleaned? There will be gradual build up of dirt which also will impact upon the screen’s absorption and reflective qualities, very probably leading to a warming bias beween cleans.
4. Rainfall will also impact upon the absorption and reflective characteristics of the screen since water has its own absorption/reflective characteristics. So how does this pan out when there are changes in monthly patterns of rainfall from year to year?
5. Where I am, rainfall is often far from cleansing. I presently reside in a dry area, and rain often contains considerable quantities of brown/red sand. Normally, one has to clean the car and outside furniture after it rains (some months are worse than other, althoughh I think there has only been 2 or 3 days of rainfall this year so not a monthlu occurence). this impacts upon albedo.
6. What adjustmenst are made when the screen is covered by snow?
No doubt the surface station project goes into this in more detail, but the role the screen plays is oftne frequently over looked, and nearly all ‘issues’ lead to a slight warming bias such that some cooling ‘adjustment’ needs to be made to reflect issues with the screen
Nick,
“I didn’t personally implement this move. I’m simply pointing to what is recorded. I personally think the 0.1 miles might be an approximation.”
So if the station location is a quanta with an unknown error range, maybe the corrections for the station temperature observations are quanta with unknown values. The unknown error of location is comparable to unknown error of temperature measurement, since the systematic error of temperature measurement is ’caused’ by the the systematic change of station location.
So if the location change of the station is actually found to be small, the changes to the temperature data record should be also small too. No? Or the GHCN temperature data corrections might be an approximation of 0.1 miles?
Nick,
You are the one defending the alteration of the data, for the GHCN record. The burden of proof lies on the people who want to change the measured observations, for historical records.
It seems to me that the relocation does not involve any change in the ‘correction’ data, so there may not be too much value in making a meal out of it.
The main change in diff is centred on 1980 but affects one year either side.
If that is supposed to be an equipment change there’s a problem. If there was not equipment change there’s a problem.
Nick says: “According to another note I saw, the CRS system was kept as a backup.”
That would be a valuable cross-check if it can be accessed.
Since the MMTS change is documented as 1985, why the +0.35 ‘correction’ from 1979-1981 and not the expected MMTS adjustment in 1985 ??
u.k.(us) says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Hot Whopper
BTW, I should add thanks to Mr. Hendrickson for his outstanding dedication to the task. One of the things that is lacking in most available weather records when trying to use them for climate, is continuity. That makes his work especially valuable.
Heartfelt thanks. May he have the good health and energy to maintain his records for many years to come 😉
Sorry, I see Nick and Jim have already given the link to the GHCN ftp page for Bridgehampton.
Another thing is that the adjusted data as presented now (July 2014) is significantly different from the adjusted data presented last month (June 2014) when I last downloaded the data. For example, in June, there was no gap in the data around 2002. But now, almost 2 years of data around 2002-3 have been deleted in the adjusted data and hence in the GISS graph.
I will post some numbers later.
This ‘feature’ is not unusual, it’s quite common in the adjustment process and has been noted at Paul Homewood’s blog.
Here is the GHCN/NOAA/NCDC adjusted data for Bridgehampton in 1931, as downloaded a month ago, file ghcnm.tavg.v3.2.2.20140622.qca.dat
425003008891931TAVG -115 U -114 U 241 U 717 U 1193 U 1767 U 2132 U 2121 U 1878 U 1307 U 819 U 303 U
and here it is downloaded today, file ghcnm.tavg.v3.2.2.20140722.qca.dat
425003008891931TAVG -81 U -80 U 276 U 751 U 1227 U 1801 U 2167 U 2155 U 1912 U 1341 U 854 U 337 U
So since June, they have changed their minds about what the temperature was in 1931 by 0.34C.
For comparison, here is the unadjusted data:
425003008891931TAVG 1 U 18 U 351 U 839 U 1317 U 1872 U 2239 U 2234 U 1988 U 1428 U 946 U 412 U
So in June 2014 they cooled 1931 by about 1.1C, and in July 2014 they cooled it by about 0.8C.
Here’s the adjusted data for 2002 and 2003, as downloaded in June:
425003008892002TAVG 212 U 208b U 463 U 995a U 1275b U 1854 U 2303 U 2330 U 1919b U 1207b U 682b U 99 U
425003008892003TAVG -342 U -259 U 300a U 704 U 1218a U 1813 U 2227 U 2324 U 1870 U 1121b U 801 U 209 U
and here it is downloaded today:
425003008892002TAVG 213 U-9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999
425003008892003TAVG-9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 802 U 210 U
So last month the adjustment algorithm thought that the 2002 data was OK after adjustment, but today it thinks almost all the 2002-3 data should be discarded.
“So in June 2014 they cooled 1931 by about 1.1C, and in July 2014 they cooled it by about 0.8C.”
Must be the first time they’ve warmed the past instead of cooling it !
Perhaps, despite saying that everything was “working as designed” they have been reviewing the adjustment algo and making some changes. If they haven’t and the algo can produce results that bounce around like that “it’s worse than we thought”.
Could you check what I assume were supposed to be URLs for the two files. “here is…” gives nothing.
Steve Goddard has found an apparent undocumented adjustment in NCDC data between the monthly average of Daily values and Monthly values as reported.
see
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/something-seriously-wrong-at-ushcn/
Although he hasn’t posted any more information on this problem.