Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Metman2012 wrote:

snip

No doubt there have been changes which may have been significant, but
then don't the climatologists make allowances for this. I know that even
such mundane things as SST measurement had to be adjusted by the method
and material of actually measuring the sea temp - the buckets used to get
the water had different characteristics and work was done to homogenize
the results.

Just my 2 pennyworth


As you imply, the sea surface temperature measurement can vary
significantly dependent on what method is used for the measurement.
Unfortunately, the method used is not usually recorded. For example, on
the Ocean Weather Ships (at least on the British ones) any one of the
following could be used:

- canvas bucket (usually used only in relatively benign weather)
- rubber bucket (usually used only when under way)
- thermistor loctated somewhere in the engine-room sea water
intake - direct measurement of the engine-room sea water intake
(turn on a tap and stick a thermometer into the water)

The first 2 methods sampled the water at, or very close to the surface. The
other 2 sampled the water a few metres below the surface. It was up to the
individual observer to decide which method was used at each observation. I
don't know if any comparative tests were ever made. I can't recall any
during my time on the Weather Ships.


So the years of research put into homogenizing the SST dataset was a waste of
time as vital information would be missing?

Will

I don't know how the homogenisation could be done if the method used for each
SST temperature measurement was not known.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org

On 8 Jul 2015 11:26:23 GMT
"Norman" wrote:

Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Metman2012 wrote:

snip

No doubt there have been changes which may have been
significant, but then don't the climatologists make allowances
for this. I know that even such mundane things as SST
measurement had to be adjusted by the method and material of
actually measuring the sea temp - the buckets used to get the
water had different characteristics and work was done to
homogenize the results.

Just my 2 pennyworth


As you imply, the sea surface temperature measurement can vary
significantly dependent on what method is used for the
measurement. Unfortunately, the method used is not usually
recorded. For example, on the Ocean Weather Ships (at least on
the British ones) any one of the following could be used:

- canvas bucket (usually used only in relatively benign
weather)
- rubber bucket (usually used only when under way)
- thermistor loctated somewhere in the engine-room sea
water intake - direct measurement of the engine-room sea
water intake (turn on a tap and stick a thermometer
into the water)

The first 2 methods sampled the water at, or very close to the
surface. The other 2 sampled the water a few metres below the
surface. It was up to the individual observer to decide which
method was used at each observation. I don't know if any
comparative tests were ever made. I can't recall any during my
time on the Weather Ships.


So the years of research put into homogenizing the SST dataset was
a waste of time as vital information would be missing?

Will

I don't know how the homogenisation could be done if the method used
for each SST temperature measurement was not known.


I'm trying to recall whether the method for each measurement was
recorded in the ships' log books. I'm failing miserably but then it was
nearly fifty years ago that I last saw one. If the data was in the
books, I don't know that it would have been included in the machinable
data.

I do recall that the use of engine-room intakes instead of buckets
tended to be -
(a) when the seas were too high or -
(b) when the observer couldn't be arsed to chuck a bucket over the side.

In case (a) any error would be small but (b) might occur in calm
conditions with a large temperature gradient near the surface.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

"Norman" wrote in message
...
Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Metman2012 wrote:

snip

No doubt there have been changes which may have been significant, but
then don't the climatologists make allowances for this. I know that
even
such mundane things as SST measurement had to be adjusted by the
method
and material of actually measuring the sea temp - the buckets used to
get
the water had different characteristics and work was done to
homogenize
the results.

Just my 2 pennyworth


As you imply, the sea surface temperature measurement can vary
significantly dependent on what method is used for the measurement.
Unfortunately, the method used is not usually recorded. For example,
on
the Ocean Weather Ships (at least on the British ones) any one of the
following could be used:

- canvas bucket (usually used only in relatively benign
weather)
- rubber bucket (usually used only when under way)
- thermistor loctated somewhere in the engine-room sea water
intake - direct measurement of the engine-room sea water
intake
(turn on a tap and stick a thermometer into the water)

The first 2 methods sampled the water at, or very close to the surface.
The
other 2 sampled the water a few metres below the surface. It was up to
the
individual observer to decide which method was used at each
observation. I
don't know if any comparative tests were ever made. I can't recall any
during my time on the Weather Ships.


So the years of research put into homogenizing the SST dataset was a
waste of
time as vital information would be missing?


I don't know how the homogenisation could be done if the method used for
each
SST temperature measurement was not known.


That is my point. *If* they, (David Parker et al), have made assumptions
about how various ships made measurements over the years then the integrity
of the extremely important global homogenized SST dataset used to make
judgements on how temperature has changed over the decades may be in doubt.
This needs to be followed up as the implications could be massive.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On 08/07/2015 12:46, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Norman" wrote in message
...
Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Metman2012 wrote:

snip

No doubt there have been changes which may have been significant,
but
then don't the climatologists make allowances for this. I know
that even
such mundane things as SST measurement had to be adjusted by the
method
and material of actually measuring the sea temp - the buckets
used to get
the water had different characteristics and work was done to
homogenize
the results.

Just my 2 pennyworth


As you imply, the sea surface temperature measurement can vary
significantly dependent on what method is used for the measurement.
Unfortunately, the method used is not usually recorded. For
example, on
the Ocean Weather Ships (at least on the British ones) any one of the
following could be used:

- canvas bucket (usually used only in relatively benign
weather)
- rubber bucket (usually used only when under way)
- thermistor loctated somewhere in the engine-room sea water
intake - direct measurement of the engine-room sea water
intake
(turn on a tap and stick a thermometer into the water)

The first 2 methods sampled the water at, or very close to the
surface. The
other 2 sampled the water a few metres below the surface. It was up
to the
individual observer to decide which method was used at each
observation. I
don't know if any comparative tests were ever made. I can't recall any
during my time on the Weather Ships.


So the years of research put into homogenizing the SST dataset was a
waste of
time as vital information would be missing?


I don't know how the homogenisation could be done if the method used
for each
SST temperature measurement was not known.


That is my point. *If* they, (David Parker et al), have made assumptions
about how various ships made measurements over the years then the
integrity of the extremely important global homogenized SST dataset used
to make judgements on how temperature has changed over the decades may
be in doubt. This needs to be followed up as the implications could be
massive.

Will
It was implied to me that they did know how the measurements were taken
(or at least some of them), but this was in the 80s so I forget which
researcher told me. He overheard two of us being somewhat rude about the
data and corrected us (very gracefully) about what was done. I accept
that if the method wasn't recorded then that would cause problems for
homogenization. My colleague is now a chief in CFO/NMC or whatever it's
called now (.

Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Eskimo Will wrote:


"Norman" wrote in message
...
Metman2012 wrote:

snip

No doubt there have been changes which may have been significant, but
then don't the climatologists make allowances for this. I know that
even such mundane things as SST measurement had to be adjusted by the
method and material of actually measuring the sea temp - the
buckets used to get the water had different characteristics and
work was done to homogenize the results.

Just my 2 pennyworth


As you imply, the sea surface temperature measurement can vary
significantly dependent on what method is used for the measurement.
Unfortunately, the method used is not usually recorded. For example,
on the Ocean Weather Ships (at least on the British ones) any one of the
following could be used:

- canvas bucket (usually used only in relatively benign
weather) - rubber bucket (usually used only when under way)
- thermistor loctated somewhere in the engine-room sea water
intake - direct measurement of the engine-room sea water
intake (turn on a tap and stick a thermometer into the water)

The first 2 methods sampled the water at, or very close to the surface.
The other 2 sampled the water a few metres below the surface. It was up
to the individual observer to decide which method was used at each
observation. I don't know if any comparative tests were ever made. I
can't recall any during my time on the Weather Ships.


So the years of research put into homogenizing the SST dataset was a
waste of time as vital information would be missing?


I don't know how the homogenisation could be done if the method used for
each SST temperature measurement was not known.


That is my point. If they, (David Parker et al), have made assumptions about
how various ships made measurements over the years then the integrity of the
extremely important global homogenized SST dataset used to make judgements on
how temperature has changed over the decades may be in doubt. This needs to
be followed up as the implications could be massive.

Will

I can only speak for the methods used on one Weather Ship over a 4-year period
in the 1960s. It was 'recommended' that, whenever possible, the canvas bucket
method was used at the main synoptic hours (00/06/12/18z) but other than that
it was pretty much at the whim of the individual observer. In practice, the
canvas bucket was sometimes used in benign weather in daylight. It was seldom
used in heavy weather and probably almost never during the hours of darkness.
It was probably used more often at 12z than at any other hour. Some observers
used the canvas bucket much more often than others.

Measuring the sea water intake temperature directly with a thermometer was
probably an accurate measurement but it wasn't the sea surface temperature. It
was the temperature from a few metres below the surface. It was a method that
was used only occasionally as it meant climbing down two flights of ladders
into the bowels of the engine room. The most frequently used method was the
so-called 'thermistor'. The sensor was somewhere in the engine room sea water
intake with the read-out in the Met Office. Rumour had it that its accuracy was
rather less than desirable but I don't know if that was true. The fact is that
it was the most user-friendly method of getting the sea temperature on a filthy
wet and stormy night.

When the ship was under way the canvas bucket wasn't used. The alternative (if
either of the seawater intake methgods weren't used) was to use a slim rubber
bucket designed to be used over the stern of a moving vessel. Even while on
station the ship was often under way to get back onto or upwind of the nominal
position.

Unless my memory fails me, the Meteorological Logbook had no provision for
indicating the method that was used.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org

I use the method of swimming off the Battery Rocks , Penzance with a piece of string, a thermometer and a weight. I then measure the temperature around 2 ft down, and try to read the temperature without drowning.

The SST at Sevenstones shows a marked tidal and diurnal range. The wind direction and swell size clearly are important as well.

Graham
Penzance

On 08/07/2015 08:54, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 07/07/2015 15:01, Scott W wrote:

Puts to bed my criticisms from last week

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/07...ng-a-heatwave/


I wonder whereabouts on the airport the weather station is actually located?
Yes, I could check Google Maps, but the area is so large, it'd be a
needle-in-a-haystck search.


The meteorological instrument enclosure is on the north side of the airport.
It's about 130 metres north of the edge of the northern runway and about 20
metres south of the northern perimeter road. It is about 180 metres ESE of the
northern entrance to the tunnel at the south end of the M4 spur. Co-ordinates
are 51°28'45"N 0°27'2"W.

Thanks - I think I've got it now.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Vidcapper wrote:

On 08/07/2015 08:54, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 07/07/2015 15:01, Scott W wrote:

Puts to bed my criticisms from last week


http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/07...ng-a-heatwave/


I wonder whereabouts on the airport the weather station is actually
located? Yes, I could check Google Maps, but the area is so large, it'd
be a needle-in-a-haystck search.


The meteorological instrument enclosure is on the north side of the airport.
It's about 130 metres north of the edge of the northern runway and about 20
metres south of the northern perimeter road. It is about 180 metres ESE of
the northern entrance to the tunnel at the south end of the M4 spur.
Co-ordinates are 51°28'45"N 0°27'2"W.

Thanks - I think I've got it now.


On Google Earth it's fascinating to see how Heathrow has developed over the
years. There's imagery for various years back to 1999 and, somewhat
surprisingly, pretty good imagery for 1st Jan 1945. The 1945 imagery covers
some quite large parts of the country. Getting a bit off-topic now but the
expanse of Croydon Airport stands out on the 1945 imagery though it was clearly
no longer operational. Comparison of the 1945 imagery with present day imagery
shows that the extreme SE end of the runway at Croydon still exists. It has a
very distinct white circle on it today. Looking on Google Streetview it can be
seen from the A23. Nice to see that a bit of history has survived.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org

On 08/07/2015 15:37, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 08/07/2015 08:54, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 07/07/2015 15:01, Scott W wrote:

Puts to bed my criticisms from last week


http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/07...ng-a-heatwave/


I wonder whereabouts on the airport the weather station is actually
located? Yes, I could check Google Maps, but the area is so large, it'd
be a needle-in-a-haystck search.


The meteorological instrument enclosure is on the north side of the airport.
It's about 130 metres north of the edge of the northern runway and about 20
metres south of the northern perimeter road. It is about 180 metres ESE of
the northern entrance to the tunnel at the south end of the M4 spur.
Co-ordinates are 51°28'45"N 0°27'2"W.

Thanks - I think I've got it now.


On Google Earth it's fascinating to see how Heathrow has developed over the
years. There's imagery for various years back to 1999 and, somewhat
surprisingly, pretty good imagery for 1st Jan 1945. The 1945 imagery covers
some quite large parts of the country. Getting a bit off-topic now but the
expanse of Croydon Airport stands out on the 1945 imagery though it was clearly
no longer operational. Comparison of the 1945 imagery with present day imagery
shows that the extreme SE end of the runway at Croydon still exists. It has a
very distinct white circle on it today. Looking on Google Streetview it can be
seen from the A23. Nice to see that a bit of history has survived.

My family moved to near Croydon Airport not long before it closed. It
was a playground for us kids and I first drove on one of its peri
tracks. However, as far as I'm aware, it only had grass runways, the
cost of converting them on a very restricted site being one reason it
was closed. I think what you're talking about is actually a taxiway
rather than the end of a runway, but I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong!

Unfortunately, my book on the history of the airport only goes to 1928!

Metman2012 wrote:

On 08/07/2015 15:37, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 08/07/2015 08:54, Norman wrote:
Vidcapper wrote:

On 07/07/2015 15:01, Scott W wrote:

Puts to bed my criticisms from last week


http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/07...ng-a-heatwave/


I wonder whereabouts on the airport the weather station is actually
located? Yes, I could check Google Maps, but the area is so large,
it'd be a needle-in-a-haystck search.


The meteorological instrument enclosure is on the north side of the
airport. It's about 130 metres north of the edge of the northern
runway and about 20 metres south of the northern perimeter road. It is
about 180 metres ESE of the northern entrance to the tunnel at the
south end of the M4 spur. Co-ordinates are 51°28'45"N 0°27'2"W.

Thanks - I think I've got it now.


On Google Earth it's fascinating to see how Heathrow has developed over the
years. There's imagery for various years back to 1999 and, somewhat
surprisingly, pretty good imagery for 1st Jan 1945. The 1945 imagery covers
some quite large parts of the country. Getting a bit off-topic now but the
expanse of Croydon Airport stands out on the 1945 imagery though it was
clearly no longer operational. Comparison of the 1945 imagery with present
day imagery shows that the extreme SE end of the runway at Croydon still
exists. It has a very distinct white circle on it today. Looking on Google
Streetview it can be seen from the A23. Nice to see that a bit of history
has survived.

My family moved to near Croydon Airport not long before it closed. It was a
playground for us kids and I first drove on one of its peri tracks. However,
as far as I'm aware, it only had grass runways, the cost of converting them
on a very restricted site being one reason it was closed. I think what you're
talking about is actually a taxiway rather than the end of a runway, but I'm
happy to be shown I'm wrong!

Unfortunately, my book on the history of the airport only goes to 1928!

The Google Earth imagery for 1945 shows what appears to be a runway orientated
approx 292 deg/112 deg. The NW and SE ends of the runway, which appear to be
extensions beyond the perimeter road, look like tarmac as they have dashed
white centrelines. The main part of the runway might be grass. It's the extreme
SE end of the tarmac bit that can still be seen today.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org