天气块报
屏幕、定制区块链网络、定制软件、定制电路、霓虹灯、电脑、树莓派微型单板电脑、钢架
2022/2025
《天气块报》以一座形如天线塔的装置呈现，由三组计算设备构成的区块链系统、屏幕与霓虹灯组成。作品在每个整点从三个不同的数据源抓取同一城市的气象信息并加以播报——三份结果往往并不一致。装置内部运行一套采用权益证明（PoS）的区块链机制：每到整点，系统依据 PoS 的随机抽取逻辑在三个节点中选出当轮写入者；被选中的节点所抓取的那一份气象信息将被写入链上。竖形荧幕更新当小时的链上记录，塔顶相应的天气符号霓虹灯随之点亮。作品并不试图判断哪个版本“更准”，而是让一个结构性的事实变得可见：当多版本并存时，被写入并可被持续追溯的那一个，更容易在后续被引用、被采信，从而在制度与记忆中获得更长久的权力。
气象数据正好能把这个问题推到前台：它是一种不可复验的时间性数据，事后难以“回到当时”重新核验，因此当多版本并存时，关键往往不在于“真伪”，而在于哪个版本会被记录下来、被反复引用，并成为行动与责任的依据。与此同时，气象读数并非单一事实，而是由数据获取路径与建模方法共同塑形。不同平台可能依赖不同的地面观测网络、遥感卫星与共享数据库，并在数据同化、地形修正、云层补偿等环节采用不同的处理策略与数值预报模型（如美国的 GFS、欧洲的 ECMWF），从而使同一时间、同一地点的气象读数出现明显差异。
近年来，围绕气象数据的争议在不同制度与媒介语境中反复出现：2008年，美国驻京大使馆发布的自测空气质量数据因与官方数据相悖，引发了关于监测权与数据解释权的长期讨论；2019年，美国“记号笔门”（Sharpiegate）事件中，官方飓风预测图被黑色记号笔手工篡改，试图以行政意志修正科学预测；2022年夏天，中国多地遭遇极端高温，手机 App 显示的数值与官方通报之间的落差，使气象数据在社交媒体传播与官方辟谣之间反复拉扯。这些争议揭示了气象数据在自然指标之外的社会属性：它会直接触发一系列面向现实的阈值判断：风险预警是否启动、公共措施是否生效、责任与补偿如何被认定。这些冲突的核心在于：当同一时间、同一地点存在多个版本的数据时，谁有权决定哪个版本进入记录？而进入记录、被采信的那一个，往往就成了制度与记忆里的事实。
区块链的“不可篡改”常被理解为一种可靠的记录方式。但在现实中，数据获取的可及性、建模能力与传播机制本身并不对等。作品由此追问：当这种不对等被写入链上并长期留存时，“可信记录”会不会反而助长数字集权——把偏差固化为长期有效的“事实”，并进一步为数据强权提供新的正当性？
《天气块报》作品首版由毕昕于北京现代汽车文化中心展览《飞出个未来：区块链中的时间多重性》（2022）委任创作
软件开发： 陈立立
特别致谢： 毕昕， 姚翔， 原语里弄
The Weather Consensus
Screens, Custom blockchain network, Custom software, Custom circuits, Neon lights, Computers, Raspberry Pi, Steel frames
2022/2025
The Weather Consensus takes the form of an antenna-like tower composed of a blockchain system built from three sets of computing devices, together with a screen and neon lights. At the top of every hour, the work pulls weather information for the same city from three different data sources—and the three results often do not match. The system runs an internal blockchain mechanism based on Proof of Stake (PoS): on each hour, a “writer” is selected among the three nodes through PoS random selection, and the weather data captured by the selected node is written onto the chain. The vertical screen updates the on-chain record for that hour, while the corresponding weather-symbol neon at the top of the tower lights up. The work does not attempt to decide which version is “more accurate.” Instead, it makes visible a structural fact: when multiple versions coexist, the one that is written and remains traceable is more likely to be cited and accepted later, thereby gaining a longer-lasting force within institutions and collective memory.
Weather data brings this problem to the foreground precisely because it is time-based and non-repeatable: after the fact, one cannot “return” to the same moment to verify it again. When multiple versions coexist, the key often shifts away from “truth versus falsity” toward which version is recorded, repeatedly cited, and ultimately used as a basis for action and accountability. At the same time, a weather reading is not a singular fact; it is shaped by pathways of data access and by modelling practices. Different platforms may rely on different ground-observation networks, remote-sensing satellites, and shared databases, and they may adopt different processing strategies and numerical forecast models in steps such as data assimilation, terrain correction, and cloud compensation (for example, the U.S. GFS and Europe’s ECMWF). As a result, weather readings for the same place at the same time can diverge substantially.
In recent years, controversies around weather-related data have repeatedly surfaced across different institutional and media contexts: in 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing published its own air-quality measurements that conflicted with official figures, prompting long-running debates over the right to monitor and the right to interpret data; in 2019, during “Sharpiegate” in the United States, an official hurricane forecast map was manually altered with a black marker in an attempt to revise a scientific prediction through administrative will; in the summer of 2022, many regions in China experienced extreme heat, and discrepancies between figures shown on mobile apps and official announcements produced recurring tensions between social-media circulation and official “debunking.” These disputes reveal the social nature of meteorological data beyond its role as a natural indicator: it can directly trigger real-world threshold decisions—whether risk warnings are activated, whether public measures take effect, and how responsibility and compensation are determined. The core conflict is this: when multiple versions of data exist for the same time and place, who has the power to decide which version enters the record? And the version that is recorded and taken up often becomes the “fact” within institutions and collective memory.
Blockchain’s “immutability” is often understood as a reliable mode of record-keeping. Yet in practice, access to data, modelling capacity, and mechanisms of dissemination are not equal. The work therefore asks: when such asymmetries are written onto the chain and preserved over time, might “trusted records” instead intensify digital centralization—solidifying bias into long-lasting “facts,” and providing new legitimacy for data power?
The first version of The Weather Consensus was commissioned for BI Xin’s exhibition Time After Time: The Polychronicity in Blockchain(2022) at Hyundai Motorstudio Beijing.
Software development: CHEN Lili
Special Thanks to BI Xin, YAO Xiang, and Primitives Lane.
--
Initial version of the work from 2022.