Now This Is Interesting: A Different, Larger Dataset at NCDC?
February 20, 2010Posted by on
Today, while going over the Temple, Tx station data one more time to find where the 2003 to 2008 data comes from, I stumbled across a document that is very interesting in what it has to say. Before I get indepth on what is in it lets do a quick review on NCDC’s two “main” datasets: USHCN and GHCN.
Now NCDC tells us there is about 1200 stations in the USHCN v2 dataset, they also have the GHCN dataset which is a worldwide dataset that back in the 50’s, 60′ and 70’s had a station high point of roughly 6,000 stations. Starting in the 80’s, with an acceleraton in the 90’s and all the way up to the mid 2000’s there has been a “dying of thermometers” from the GHCN dataset so that there is now only roughly 1500 stations reporting.
The USHCN dataset is compiled from CO-OP stations and National Weather Service first order stations. The GHCN dataset is comprised of stations that were brought together back in the early 90’s but then updated by stations reporting in over the World Meteological Organization’s (WMO), Global Telecommunications System (GTS). What is sent across the GTS is something called a CLIMAT report. These reports are supposed to go to the NCDC in Asheville, NC (Not because its a US Government agency, but because it was selected as one of three world wide repositories of world climate data centers see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wdc/index.php ).
Now we have been told that the drop out of these stations over the years was due to various reasons and some of those reasons are perfectly reasonable and logical. Examples of this is the drop in stations in Central Africa or in Iraq, both areas of political unrest through the 1980’s, 90’s and up till today. So it is logical and reasonable that loss of reporting stations from those areas, however that never explained the “loss” of all those stations in Canada or Russia. Canada is the biggest elephant in this particular room, since there is no logical reason to have a drop off from there. The Canadian Government maintains over 1400 stations but somehow only about 35 (34 of which are either in the southern part of the country or on a coastline) of those stations find their way into GHCN. Trying to say that Canada doesn’t have the knowledge or techinical ability to have what NCDC calls “live” reporting is an insult to not just the intelligence of the American Taxpayer, but a bigger insult to our neighbors to the north. I am sure that the Canadian government knows how to operate satellite communications systems and about this new fangled invention called the “Internet” and can find enough non idiots that can operate laptops to update the climate databases since AGW is such a threat.
Now what if I told you that there is a different dataset, one much bigger and newer (2003), one that is not updated by NCDC but by the US Air Force and then it’s given to the NCDC, but you the American Taxpayer have to pay for access to this dataset (Thats if you somehow stumble accross it since it is not well known like USHCN and GHCN) would you believe me? Well it’s true there is such a database and here it is:
National Climatic Data Center
DATA DOCUMENTATION FOR
DATA SET 9950 (DSI-9950)
January 6, 2003
1. Abstract: DATSAV2 is the official climatological database for surface observations. The database is composed of worldwide surface weather observations from about 10,000 currently active stations, collected and stored from sources such as the US Air Force’s Automated Weather Network (AWN) and the WMO’s Global Telecommunications System (GTS). Most collected observations are decoded at the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) formerly known as the Air Force Global Weather Central (AFGWC) at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, and then sent electronically to the USAF Combat Climatology Center (AFCCC), collocated with NCDC in the Federal Climate Complex in Asheville, NC. AFCCC builds the final database through decode, validation, and quality control software. All data are stored in a single ASCII format. The database is used in climatological applications by numerous DoD and civilian customers.
Read that bolded part again: DATSAV2 is the official climatological database for surface observations, not USHCN and not GHCN. Notice how many stations are currently active in this database? 10,000. There was never 10,000 stations ever in the GHCN database and it’s now down to 1500. No wonder NCDC isn’t that concerned about this and brushing it off, GHCN isn’t the official database and the real one has 10,000 active stations in it. Now the question is why isn’t this one as well known as GHCN and why does it cost the US Taxpayer money for something he already paid for through his taxes.
Now for those that ask obvious questions of “Is this an ongoing project?” and “What about coverage?” but don’t want to hit the link and read it for yourself, here you go:
3. Start Date: 19300101
4. Stop Date: Ongoing.
5. Coverage: Global coverage.
a. Southernmost Latitude: 90S
b. Northernmost Latitude: 90N
c. Westernmost Longitude: 180W
d. Easternmost Longitude: 180E
Now the question I have is why isn’t this “official” dataset well known like GHCN and why is it behind a paywall instead of being available like GHCN.