donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Back on December 22, the Park's sensor reported minimum readings that were uniformly 2° below the hourly figures for the 6-hour timeframe in question. I reported the issue to the NWS. The NWS confirms that there was a sensor issue. The sensor issue has been found to go back to early November. The data will be analyzed and corrections made. Because all the hourly data is being reviewed, the corrections process could take a few months. I'll post a further update when I receive new information on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Back on December 22, the Park's sensor reported minimum readings that were uniformly 2° below the hourly figures for the 6-hour timeframe in question. I reported the issue to the NWS. The NWS confirms that there was a sensor issue. The sensor issue has been found to go back to early November. The data will be analyzed and corrections made. Because all the hourly data is being reviewed, the corrections process could take a few months. I'll post a further update when I receive new information on this issue. it's hard to imagine it being warmer than it was the last two months...I never liked using electronic sensors without a mercury back up for accuracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Back on December 22, the Park's sensor reported minimum readings that were uniformly 2° below the hourly figures for the 6-hour timeframe in question. I reported the issue to the NWS. The NWS confirms that there was a sensor issue. The sensor issue has been found to go back to early November. The data will be analyzed and corrections made. Because all the hourly data is being reviewed, the corrections process could take a few months. I'll post a further update when I receive new information on this issue. Thanks for following up with them. I'll take credit for spotting the issue. So November still has a small chance of falling off the warmest November on record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 Thanks for following up with them. I'll take credit for spotting the issue. So November still has a small chance of falling off the warmest November on record? I reported it based on your comment as the numbers appeared suspect. I posted the update here, because I couldn't find the initial discussion. NWS didn't indicate whether the adjustments will increase or decrease monthly anomalies. The review is ongoing, so I don't think NWS is able to do so right now. I'll keep everyone posted when I learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooralph Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Nice work, Don! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I reported it based on your comment as the numbers appeared suspect. I posted the update here, because I couldn't find the initial discussion. NWS didn't indicate whether the adjustments will increase or decrease monthly anomalies. The review is ongoing, so I don't think NWS is able to do so right now. I'll keep everyone posted when I learn more. Great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Nice work, Don! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 Nice work, Don! Thanks Hooralph. Morris deserves a lot of the credit. He commented about a 6-hour minimum temperature's being suspect in one of the threads. During the following two 6-hour intervals, the minimum reported temperature was again 2° below any of the hourly figures. The odds of that happening in three consecutive 6-hour periods are extremely low, so I reported the matter. The image I attached to my email to highlight the issue is below: Finally, the NWS deserves a lot of credit as well. We're really very fortunate that the NWS is so responsive and willing to look into such issues. It is a truly outstanding group (not just Upton, but nationwide). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I agree they're very responsive in this case but from what I remember, Uncle emailed them about a mistake and they never answered. I'm definitely not bashing them as I'm sure they are very busy and I appreciate all the hard work they do on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 I agree they're very responsive in this case but from what I remember, Uncle emailed them about a mistake and they never answered. I'm definitely not bashing them as I'm sure they are very busy and I appreciate all the hard work they do on a daily basis. I'm surprised to hear this. Uncle W is extremely meticulous with his data. Perhaps it fell through the cracks. He should try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm surprised to hear this. Uncle W is extremely meticulous with his data. Perhaps it fell through the cracks. He should try again. I e mailed them again tonight...their 6" snowfall table is missing December 23rd-24th, 1961's 6.2" snowfall...also I think the January 31st to February 1st, 1878 storm was over 6"...there was 8.1" for the season and only two days had measurable snow...6.1" for January and 2.0" for February...I think the first storm was less than an inch before it changed to rain and the second one was over 7" with some sleet mixed in... small article in the Brooklyn Eagle about 1878's snow to rain storm... http://fultonhistory...cale - 0019.pdf from the NY Tribune... http://chroniclingam...-05/ed-1/seq-5/ 2/1/1878 http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1878-02-01/ed-1/seq-1/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 I e mailed them again tonight...their 6" snowfall table is missing December 23rd-24th, 1961's 6.2" snowfall...also I think the January 31st to February 1st, 1878 storm was over 6"...there was 8.1" for the season and only two days had measurable snow...6.1" for January and 2.0" for February...I think the first storm was less than an inch before it changed to rain and the second one was over 7" with some sleet mixed in... small article in the Brooklyn Eagle about 1878's snow to rain storm... http://fultonhistory...cale - 0019.pdf from the NY Tribune... http://chroniclingam...-05/ed-1/seq-5/ 2/1/1878 http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1878-02-01/ed-1/seq-1/ Good luck. Hopefully, you will hear back in a few days. The 6.2” figure is reported in the records (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-4575F017-B024-4A00-A005-FA6718E2725F.pdf), so the addition shouldn’t be controversial. The second storm during winter 1877-78 was clearly the much bigger snowstorm for the City. The February 2, 1878 issue the Boston Daily Globe reported “more than eight inches” fell in New York City. From the February 3, 1878 issue of The New York Times: The sleighing avenues were alive… Jerome Avenue was almost impassable; St. Nicholas Avenue was so full of horses and sleighs that it was impossible to turn around, between Eighth Avenue and the Bridge, without almost the certainty of a collision. Given these reports, it wouldn't surprise me if the first storm brought 0.1" snow, the second brought 6.0" (1/31) and 2.0" (2/1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmagan Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 NCDC does perform quality control on data such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I e mailed them again tonight...their 6" snowfall table is missing December 23rd-24th, 1961's 6.2" snowfall...also I think the January 31st to February 1st, 1878 storm was over 6"...there was 8.1" for the season and only two days had measurable snow...6.1" for January and 2.0" for February...I think the first storm was less than an inch before it changed to rain and the second one was over 7" with some sleet mixed in... small article in the Brooklyn Eagle about 1878's snow to rain storm... http://fultonhistory...cale - 0019.pdf from the NY Tribune... http://chroniclingam...-05/ed-1/seq-5/ 2/1/1878 http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1878-02-01/ed-1/seq-1/ The amount and the resolution of the data you have is unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 NCDC does perform quality control on data such as this. It does. However, the NWS explicitly stated in its reply concerning the matter that without its having been alerted to the issue, the erroneous data in this case would have remained part of the NYC climate record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wthrmn654 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm curious, the national weather service weather instruments, who manufacturers them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm curious, the national weather service weather instruments, who manufacturers them? Here's a link that may provide the kind of information you're looking for: http://www.allweatherinc.com/programs/faa-asos/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wthrmn654 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Awesome thanks! I was in contact with the Nws about getting a coop station, they were very interested in my location based on looking at maps etc. But due to funding cuts over years,unable to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 it's hard to imagine it being warmer than it was the last two months...I never liked using electronic sensors without a mercury back up for accuracy... Ideally there should be both, to be a check against each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wthrmn654 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 MADIS doesn't look into the data as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.