Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

January 1886...Just Another Great month From a Great Decade

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#51
wx_statman

Posted 30 August 2016 - 10:05 AM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

I got a reply back from the WRCC, regarding the missing daily records at different stations:

 

Hello, 

I would normally explain that this is due to the major update that NCEI is in the process of completing.
NCEI has, and is, updating the database to account for missing data, incorrect data and data that was never included because the forms were sent in late.
 
We do need to update our tables as the General Climate Summaries Table, it hasn’t been updated since 2012.
I am investigating this as NCEI has the records available but ACIS, the new database does not.
 
I will let you know - 


#52
wx_statman

Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:37 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

So I've been thinking about all the records that have recently gone missing from the WRCC. It seems as though the NCDC has quality controlled some of the more extreme records and flagged those that failed at least one of the QC tests. A good case study is Coquille, Oregon. This station set two remarkable records during the last decade - a 97 degree reading on 10/26/2003 (which was actually assigned to 10/27/2003 due to the 24 hour lag in reporting at COOP's) and 104 degrees on 9/21/2009 (assigned to 9/22/2009). 
 
The 10/26/2003 reading represents the highest temperature ever observed in Oregon for so late in the season. Its corroborated by a 95 degree reading at Powers Ranger Station RAWS the same day (the Powers COOP was not reporting that month). It could be seen as a daily record high for Coquille on 10/27 for over a decade until being removed sometime within the past year or so. Not only that, it has also been removed from the monthly data @ the Utah Climate Center. 
 
Looking at the NCDC data, the 97 degree reading still appears but has been flagged with an "s" which according to the legend below means that "This data value failed one of NCDC's quality control tests."

 

 

 photo Coquille Oct 27 2003 NCDC_zpssbobhbqw.jpg

 

I'm guessing that due to the quality control flag, the reading has been removed from the NCEI/ACIS database(s). As such it no longer appears on neither the Utah Climate Center monthly summary for October 2003 nor the WRCC daily summary data:

 

 photo Coquille Oct 27 2003 UTAH_zpssvy8pph5.jpg  photo Coquille Oct 27 2003 WRCC_zpsrcfgfeoq.jpg

 

Here is the corroborating 95 degree reading at Powers Ranger Station RAWS that same day, 10/26/2003:

 

 photo Powers Oct 26th_zpscv8rzvcd.jpg

 

The same fate has befallen Coquille's all time record high of 104 from September 2009. This reading still shows up in the General Climate Summary - Temperature table @ WRCC (which haven't been updated since 2012):

 

 photo Coquille 104 Table_zpsojvfe39b.jpg

 

However, its been flagged with an "s" in the NCDC data table and now no longer appears at neither the Utah Climate Center nor the WRCC daily summary data. 

 

 photo Coquille 104 NCDC_zpsauxbscjo.jpg

 photo Coquille 104 UTAH_zpsy6nfcgni.jpg

 photo Coquille 104 WRCC_zpsssl9txhn.jpg

 

As was the case with the 97 degree reading in October 2003, the 104 degree reading in September 2009 can also be corroborated. It also seems to be a legitimate reading that should not have been removed. It was 93 degrees that day in North Bend, which is extremely difficult to accomplish at that location and obviously reflects significant downslope heating. It was 100 at Agness RAWS that day, and 103 the following day:

 

 photo Agness_zpsgkzl2yv6.jpg

 

 

 

Even older, established records have been affected as demonstrated by the removal of long-standing all-time record highs at both Aberdeen, WA and Astoria Airport. A check of the WRCC daily summary data reveals that neither 105 degree reading on Aberdeen's' books - 7/23/1891 and 8/10/1981 - appears in the daily records anymore. Likewise, a number of other 100 degree readings have been removed from that station's records. Checking the data for August 1981, and sure enough the triple digit readings at Aberdeen have been flagged as suspicious:

 

 photo Aberdeen NCDC_zpswddbedls.jpg

 photo Aberdeen WRCC_zpscdap2az8.jpg

 

Likewise, the long-standing all-time record high of 100 degrees @ AST from July 11, 1961 has been flagged and removed. This reading was even mentioned by the NWS last month when AST hit 98 degrees. As some here may remember, the Portland NWS office sent out a tweet saying that the 98 degrees represented the highest reading @ AST since 100 degrees on July 11, 1961. Here's the July 1961 data form for AST as it appears @ the NCDC (with the "s" flag for the 100 degree maximum), and the WRCC daily summary data as it appears today @ the WRCC:

 

 photo Astoria NCDC_zpslwrw56lt.jpg

 photo Astoria WRCC_zpsmy8eq2b1.jpg

 

Both the July 1961 and August 1981 heat waves were major regional events that set numerous other impressive records, especially in the case of August 1981. Personally, I have no reason to doubt either of those readings @ Aberdeen and Astoria. Its unfortunate that the NCDC feels like they're not worthy of inclusion into the record books. Then again, maybe this is temporary? Maybe there's some sort of QC process underway right now, and the readings that are determined to be valid will be reinstated? I wish I knew the answers to those questions. Either way, all of this is very frustrating for a weather geek like me!



#53
James Jones

Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:52 PM

James Jones

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

So I've been thinking about all the records that have recently gone missing from the WRCC. It seems as though the NCDC has quality controlled some of the more extreme records and flagged those that failed at least one of the QC tests. 

 

Both the July 1961 and August 1981 heat waves were major regional events that set numerous other impressive records, especially in the case of August 1981. Personally, I have no reason to doubt either of those readings @ Aberdeen and Astoria. Its unfortunate that the NCDC feels like they're not worthy of inclusion into the record books. Then again, maybe this is temporary? Maybe there's some sort of QC process underway right now, and the readings that are determined to be valid will be reinstated? I wish I knew the answers to those questions. Either way, all of this is very frustrating for a weather geek like me!

It would be nice if they at least let you know which quality control test these readings failed. In these cases it seems like they've arbitrarily decided that the readings must be suspicious simply because they stand out so much compared to other records at the same time of year.



#54
wx_statman

Posted 11 September 2016 - 05:59 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

It would be nice if they at least let you know which quality control test these readings failed. In these cases it seems like they've arbitrarily decided that the readings must be suspicious simply because they stand out so much compared to other records at the same time of year.

 

That's almost what it seems like. But yeah I'd love to know more details. 



#55
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:21 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10451 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0


Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#56
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:22 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10451 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0


Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#57
James Jones

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:26 PM

James Jones

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0

Eugene's records too.

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0



#58
Front Ranger

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:38 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10628 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

The "missing" data seems unrelated to the temps, though. At least for that month.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#59
wx_statman

Posted 12 September 2016 - 04:35 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

Its a sad sight right now. So many records missing, both hot and cold. 

 

It seems totally random too. Other records that "stand out" at various stations haven't been removed. 



#60
wx_statman

Posted 12 September 2016 - 04:45 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

 

I got a reply back from the WRCC, regarding the missing daily records at different stations:

 

Hello, 

I would normally explain that this is due to the major update that NCEI is in the process of completing.
NCEI has, and is, updating the database to account for missing data, incorrect data and data that was never included because the forms were sent in late.
 
We do need to update our tables as the General Climate Summaries Table, it hasn’t been updated since 2012.
I am investigating this as NCEI has the records available but ACIS, the new database does not.
 
I will let you know - 

 

 

An update -

 

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

 

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.

THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West.  Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject.  I am still working on it.   You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..


#61
BLI snowman

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:14 PM

BLI snowman

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5525 posts
  • LocationRidgefield, WA


An update -

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.
THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West. Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject. I am still working on it. You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..


Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

#62
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:21 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10451 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

 

Yeah, it is insane they are flagging December 8, 1972. It is the all-time record low for multiple stations up and down the I-5 corridor. 


Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#63
BLI snowman

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:50 PM

BLI snowman

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5525 posts
  • LocationRidgefield, WA

Yeah, it is insane they are flagging December 8, 1972. It is the all-time record low for multiple stations up and down the I-5 corridor.

Moronic. And that one is recent enough to have plenty of evidence to support it. Hell, the observers from then are probably still alive. I can understand why the 19th century stuff may be more difficult to process.

Is this related to the NCDC changing to NCEI recently? Some shake-up involved with quality control now?

#64
wx_statman

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:52 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

 

Its mindboggling.



#65
snow_wizard

Posted 12 September 2016 - 09:51 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11057 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usur...:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

 

Shows they don't understand the fine points of the climate in certain places.  There are reasons the Willamette Valley is capable of extraordinarily low readings when there is heavy snow cover and seepage from the Columbia Gorge.


Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.0

Coldest Low = 32

Lows 32 or below = 1

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs Below 40 = 0

 

 


#66
Jesse

Posted 13 September 2016 - 10:50 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17413 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Its mindboggling.


I just caught up on reading this thread and it really is. Makes you question global data sets just a bit when even our national stuff is so mishandled.

#67
wx_statman

Posted 13 September 2016 - 11:07 AM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

I just caught up on reading this thread and it really is. Makes you question global data sets just a bit when even our national stuff is so mishandled.

 

From what I understand its worse in a lot of other countries, especially if you're talking about the third world. Most countries don't have what can be considered a reliable, long term record of weather observations. 



#68
Jesse

Posted 13 September 2016 - 11:17 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17413 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

From what I understand its worse in a lot of other countries, especially if you're talking about the third world. Most countries don't have what can be considered a reliable, long term record of weather observations.


That makes sense.

With that in mind, I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how they've tracked global temps since 1880 with any degree of accuracy.

Not trying to start a global warming conspiracy theory debate. I do believe we have been warming. But that is something I have always wondered about. I know they have certain algorithms, etc, but seeing the level of data mishandling even here does have me feeling just a bit skeptical about the validity of global long term data.

#69
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 13 September 2016 - 12:18 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10451 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

I don't trust a lot of older extreme readings. I do not think a lot of times the sensors were always properly placed. 


Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#70
wx_statman

Posted 13 September 2016 - 02:25 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

That makes sense.

With that in mind, I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how they've tracked global temps since 1880 with any degree of accuracy.

Not trying to start a global warming conspiracy theory debate. I do believe we have been warming. But that is something I have always wondered about. I know they have certain algorithms, etc, but seeing the level of data mishandling even here does have me feeling just a bit skeptical about the validity of global long term data.

 

Its a problem here in the US too. Look at climate division #9 here in Oregon, which is essentially Malheur County. Its a mess. There isn't a sample of reliable, long term stations with reasonably complete observation histories to draw from. And yet NCDC/NOAA still puts out numbers for that climate zone. I did some research on this issue a few years ago and actually made a post about it (yeah, I took the time to dig it up):

 

And the sad thing is, there doesn't appear to be a single good station to use in the High Desert region of southeastern Oregon. Almost all of those stations have garbage recording histories, so you can't really use them for long term climo purposes. Its weird. Every seemingly reputable station - that's located in an actual town - that I looked at in that region has that problem. And I'm not going to trust data from ranch stations with names like "P Ranch Refuge" or "OO Ranch," so I didn't even bother looking at their periods of record. Maybe they are more complete, but I'm not going to trust them. So for the purposes of this little study, I'll have to ignore ALL of southeastern Oregon. And this begs the question - what exactly is NOAA using to compute their numbers for southeastern OR? The myriad of crappy stations that can't seem to string together more than three decades of consistent observations? How reliable are those NOAA regional numbers then? How many other regions across the country have the same problem, where the averages are pulled from stations that don't have sufficient data to establish long term normals, and should not be used for such purposes? This stuff can make your head spin!

 

Here's the NOAA climate division map for reference:

 

https://www.ncdc.noa...e-divisions.php



#71
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 13 September 2016 - 02:47 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10451 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

Its a problem here in the US too. Look at climate division #9 here in Oregon, which is essentially Malheur County. Its a mess. There isn't a sample of reliable, long term stations with reasonably complete observation histories to draw from. And yet NCDC/NOAA still puts out numbers for that climate zone. I did some research on this issue a few years ago and actually made a post about it (yeah, I took the time to dig it up):

 

And the sad thing is, there doesn't appear to be a single good station to use in the High Desert region of southeastern Oregon. Almost all of those stations have garbage recording histories, so you can't really use them for long term climo purposes. Its weird. Every seemingly reputable station - that's located in an actual town - that I looked at in that region has that problem. And I'm not going to trust data from ranch stations with names like "P Ranch Refuge" or "OO Ranch," so I didn't even bother looking at their periods of record. Maybe they are more complete, but I'm not going to trust them. So for the purposes of this little study, I'll have to ignore ALL of southeastern Oregon. And this begs the question - what exactly is NOAA using to compute their numbers for southeastern OR? The myriad of crappy stations that can't seem to string together more than three decades of consistent observations? How reliable are those NOAA regional numbers then? How many other regions across the country have the same problem, where the averages are pulled from stations that don't have sufficient data to establish long term normals, and should not be used for such purposes? This stuff can make your head spin!

 

Here's the NOAA climate division map for reference:

 

https://www.ncdc.noa...e-divisions.php

 

I know BNO only goes back to what 1980 or so?


Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#72
wx_statman

Posted 13 September 2016 - 02:53 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

I know BNO only goes back to what 1980 or so?

 

It used to be 1980, but I see they've uploaded data back to 1973. Looks to be part of the trend of the WRCC back-filling older data that wasn't digitized initially. 

 

But yeah, that's not a long term dataset either way.



#73
wx_statman

Posted 28 September 2016 - 03:33 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

 

An update -

 

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

 

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.

THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West.  Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject.  I am still working on it.   You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..

 

 

Some good news regarding this issue, from the WRCC:

 

After some deliberation and research, the high temps are going back into the database!

SUCCESS!  
 
Might not show up for a while but I got word that the values will be added back in soon.
Nice work!

  • Front Ranger likes this

#74
BLI snowman

Posted 04 November 2016 - 03:29 PM

BLI snowman

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5525 posts
  • LocationRidgefield, WA

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow



#75
wx_statman

Posted 04 November 2016 - 03:33 PM

wx_statman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3493 posts
  • LocationPortland, OR

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

 

Great find!

 

60.1" in January 1890 is pretty unreal.



#76
snow_wizard

Posted 04 November 2016 - 05:28 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11057 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

 

If there was only one thank goodness it wasn't 1888-89!

 

1889-90 had to be one of the most well rounded winters on record for cold snaps throughout the winter.


Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.0

Coldest Low = 32

Lows 32 or below = 1

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs Below 40 = 0