PUBLICATIONS - Water temperature records - thermographs
September 23, 1959
QUALITY OF WATER BRANCH MEMORANDUM NO. 60.13
To: District Engineer, SW, Portland, Oregon
(Through Chief, Surface Water Branch)
From: Chief, Quality of Water Branch
Subject: PUBLICATIONS - Water temperature records -
thermographs
Thank you for your interest and the comments on the
subject records noted in your memorandum of September 3,
1959. The discrepancies which you pointed out have again
alerted us to the need for careful review of our data before
publication, and the probable need for repeatedly cautioning
the field offices on the necessity for adequate checking. So
far as we know, of the items you mentioned in Water Supply
Paper 1400 only the minimum for May 9, page 458 was a
typographical error. The remaining data were completed the
same as submitted to us for publication. We do not
know why records have been transmitted that are manifestly
inadequately checked, but suspect the very simplicity of the
tabulations and the relatively small number of thermographs
in most individual districts is a reason for casual treatment
in many cases.
The items you note are almost all based on the fact that
on a thermograph record the maximum temperature on a given
day cannot be correctly reported as lower than the minimum
temperature on an adjoining day. For the record of the
Schuykill River at Passayunk Ave., Philadelphia, p. 74, WSP
1400, this occurrence does not necessarily mean an error,
because the record is neither a thermograph nor a.m. and p.m.
readings as you assumed; the record was obtained from the
Atlantic Refining Company who has an observer reading a
thermometer, presumably every few hours. Our manuscript
heading was imperfect in omitting the temperature RECORDS
AVAILABLE as well as not describing how the record was
obtained; certainly values on November 22 and May 25 also
should have been revised.
You did not mention our general memorandum of
instructions, subject: TEMPERATURE - Surface Waters, to: All
District Chiefs and Staff Officials for the Quality of Water
and Surface Water Branches dated October 1, 1956, in which we
call attention specifically to maximum and minimum values
from thermograph records. We hoped that those instructions
would result in satisfactory data for publication. Time and
personnel have not been available in this office for detailed
checking of each table and those which were thought to be
straightforward and complete have usually been only scanned
and spot checked in review.
In spite of the volume of thermograph records (about 155
scheduled for 1957) we do not believe the accuracy of these
tables would necessarily be improved at the present time by
putting on tape or using automatic processing. The handling
and manipulations involved in punching tape and using machine
checks would undoubtedly cost more than simple thorough
checking of tables prepared by normal methods, and still not
completely eliminate errors. However, we are currently
developing a coded punch tape system for processing water
quality and temperature data, but this will not entirely
eliminate the need for personal checking of data.
We want to present accurate meaningful data in our
annual reports and will require more strict adherence to the
instructions on future tabulations.
(signed)
S. K. Love
WRD Distribution: A, B, S4, FO-L4, S2, FO-L2
WRD Distribution: A, B, S4, FO-L4, S2, FO-L2
September 3, 1959
To: Chief, Surface Water Branch, Washington, D.C.
From: District Engineer, SW, Portland, Oregon
Subject: Water temperature records -- Obvious errors in
WSP 1400
We are going to go back on our word (see last paragraph
of our memo of August 13, 1956, copy enclosed) and make one
more complaint about the type of errors involving a maximum
daily temperature that is lower than the minimum of an
adjoining day.
Yesterday we received WSP 1400 and decided to check for
the max-min error to see if records had improved any. We
checked 12 daily tables from 11 different States and found
that type of error in 7 of the records involving 6 States.
We checked one record each for Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois,
Michigan, and Maryland and found no errors although on page
458 it seems obvious that minimum on May 9 should be 68o not
58o (probably a
type.).
The errors in the 7 records mentioned above occur as
follows:
Page State No. of errors Days involved
39 N.Y. 5 Oct. 6-7, 16-17, Nov. 21-
11, 22-23. Dec. 12-13
41 N.Y. 1 Sept. 21-22
74 Pa. 88 errors out of 247 days, as many as 18
days in one month are involved and
3 errors are 6o or 7o. Possibly
the headings for these columns
should be a.m. or p.m. rather than
max. & min. but nothing to so
indicate. For that matter the
description on page 72 does not
even refer to water temperatures
under Records available.
142 Va. 3 Dec. 28-29, Jan. 16-17,
Aug. 7-8.
351 Ohio 2 Jan. 7-8, Apr. 22-23.
442 Ind. 3 Dec. 16-17, Mar. 30-31,
Apr. 1-2.
469 N.C. 1 June 7-8, a 3o error, but
perhaps this is a type. and max.
for Jan. 8 (Note:writer probably
means June 8), should be 68o.
Possibly water temperature data could be put on tape to
let the datatron pick out the errors. At any rate a serious
effort should be made to avoid publishing figures that make
us look ridiculous in the eyes of any critical user.
/s/ Kenneth N. Phillips
District Engineer