Global warming discussion III

[Reality Check]

Chicago claims are a perfect example.

Wrong, r-j: Your claim about the Chicago claims are a perfect example of an unsupported assertion.

Now your rational ordinary person would know not rely on any CBS report - they would read the data mentioned (but not cited ) in the RealClimate article:
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city.

This is also an unsupported assertion but from the credible source of actual climate scientists (not a random guy on the Internet!).

Your rational ordinary person would have cited the actual records of the actual weather station that they found to debunk the New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley claim.

Now to expand on that, we know that
* the O'Hare is now the official WB station.
* historical records are not actually kept in the physical weather station .
* the official record includes the old University records, as well as some of the Midway air park records, as the "official" readings were moved around.
* you still have not cited the actual official records of that weather station.
* you are still stating without any cited facts that the "Berkeley pair are completely wrong"

And a new fantasy pops up: The "Berkeley pair" never made any adjustments to the Chicago data.

The denial of the real world is continuing, r-j - when a weather station is changed so that it will measure hotter or cooler temperatures than before, it is very right to adjust its temperatures to account for the change. Move a weather station from a hot black rooftop to a cooler airport in 1942 and the records from the hot rooftop before 1942 will probably be adjusted downward.
Given your little obsession on winter and cooling, you should agree with adjusting the pre-O'Hare data to be cooler !

 

[ideogram]

r-j, the only thing you know how to do is google, isn't that true? It took you so long to answer because you can't just google it. You have to actually take a college class.

You are swimming in data but you lack basic concepts. What makes you think you are on the same playing field as the experts? You are not even playing the same game.

 

[r-j]

Like I always say, anybody can just make things up. If you are an expert, you don't even need to show any evidence.

In the real world, people sort of like to know if something is true or not.

Like in Chicago.

Preparing for Permanent Climate Change, Chicago Invests in Warm-Weather-Ready Infrastructure

Based on current trends, the city is taking extraordinary measures to prepare itself for the warming future that climate change predicts. That includes new kinds of concrete, different species of trees, and a new emphasis on drainage. Why? To quote the Times, things are heating up in Chicago, albeit slowly:

If world carbon emissions continued apace, the scientists said, Chicago would have summers like the Deep South, with as many as 72 days over 90 degrees before the end of the century. For most of the 20th century, the city averaged fewer than 15.

It's hard to believe Chicago is warming in a dangerous way.

source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/

 

[ideogram]

If the experts wanted to lie to you they wouldn't have to be so obvious as to fudge data. You don't know how to tell what is true and what is nonsense. So you believe what you want to.

 

[Reality Check]

It's hard to believe Chicago is warming in a dangerous way.

If you read what you cited then it is very easy to believe that Chicago is warming in a dangerous way, r-j
Preparing for Permanent Climate Change, Chicago Invests in Warm-Weather-Ready Infrastructure

You seem to think that Chicago only exists June to August !

Berkeley Earth for Chicago shows the accelerating rate of change of Chicago warming from 0.43 ± 0.24 °C / Century since 1760 to 4.09 ± 00.46 °C / Century since 1990.

 

[r-j]

when a weather station is changed so that it will measure hotter or cooler temperatures than before, it is very right to adjust its temperatures to account for the change.

Nobody is arguing against that. It's that they adjusted the data the wrong way, that's why they are so very very wrong.

And that claim of "a slew of 113 days" from the University station, that is complete horse poop. Midway was, and is, much hotter than the University area, but it's also cooler at night. Their adjustments are completely out of touch with reality.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to think that Chicago only exists June to August !

Besides, why is one city so important ? This thread is about global warming, not Chicago warming.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j's unsupported assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way"

Nobody is arguing against that. It's that they adjusted the data the wrong way, that's why they are so very very wrong.

Well that unsupported and vague assertion demands more questions, r-j :
r-j (25 September 2014): What is the data that was adjusted (citations to the raw and adjusted data)?
r-j (25 September 2014) Who adjusted the data?
r-j (25 September 2014) Exactly how was the data adjusted?
r-j (25 September 2014) Exactly how was this adjustment wrong?
And an extra bonus question :
r-j (25 September 2014) Since you accept that an adjustment was needed, what is the correct adjustment?

This is about records before there was any weather station at Midway or O'Hare. You cannot compare temperature records when one set of records did not exist !
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city. This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s. Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

It is possible that the current Midway and O'Hare weather stations have warmer temperatures than the current University weather station. But the old University weather station was moved from the top of the black roofed building to O'Hare (probably via Midway). Who knows where the current University records are taken from?

ETA: I have a suspicion though - Google Maps shows the location of Temperature Monitoring Station: CHICAGO UNIVERSITY in what looks like a courtyard between buildings.

ETA: Temperature Monitoring Station: CHICAGO UNIVERSITY shows an interesting feature of that station - around 1973 there was an "empirical break" and station bias went up afterwards.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: List the maximum temperatures for the month of July, 1934 at that station

Two people make a huge claim, about a specific thing, ...snipped fantasy about debunking a claim....

You have done no such thing, r-j, otherwise you would be able to answer basic questions about the data mentioned in the New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley article:

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.

And now have expanded your assertions about to [B]r-j[/B] (25 September 2014) new unsupported, vague assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way" .

I will make this even simpler for you, r-j. You have read the data for the weather station, so you easily list the maximum temperatures for the month of July, 1934 as recorded at that specific weather station.
Make sure you include enough information that anyone in he world can go to the same source and check your list. That includes the ID of the weather station (not the NWS Chicago anonymous list of temperatures!)

 

[Reality Check]

Two people make a huge claim, about a specific thing, ....

And wrong again in the same sentence, r-j: Two climate scientists make a trivial claim about a specific weather station as an example of a general thing that everyone with a basic knowledge of climate science knows is correct.
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells. To date, only raw quality controlled (but not homogenized) daily temperature data has been available through GHCN-Daily and similar sources. Using this data is problematic when looking at long-term trends, as localized biases like station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes can introduce significant biases.

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city. This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s. Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

Even you acknowledged that changes in weather stations need to be accounted for ! The general movement from urban "city cores" to more rural airports will obviously lower temperatures. The urban heat island effect has been known about for centuries (the term was coined in the 1810s)!

 

[Mikemcc]

[quote name="Reality Check" post=10240667]Wrong, <b>r-j</b>: Your claim about the Chicago claims are a perfect example of an unsupported assertion.

Too funny. Two people make a huge claim, about a specific thing, and I debunk their nonsense, using sources that contain actual real data, the official data, and you consider it "an unsupported assertion".<br />
<br />
That priceless.<br />
<br />
It's why I say facts are the last thing that will matter to you.<br/> [/quote] Actually r-j your quoted sources don't support your claims or the reported claims. You are deliberately vague about your 'sources'. NWS doesn't maintain daily records, NCDC do. The NWS refers people towards NCDC.

 

[macdoc]

A science oriented mindset admits of being wrong and moves on in the face of correction.

A troll clings to the error in the face of correction.

Which are you R-J??

Evidence indicates the latter.....prove me wrong.

 

[greybeard]

R-j if you have indeed debunked "huge claims" made by climatologists then you will be able to answer Reality Check's simple questions.
Please deal with this before posting anything else.
Please do it in a scholarly way without insulting other forum users or telling us how scientific you are. You don't need to build yourself up, the content of your posts can do that for you if you don't post nonsense.
Please tell us what reply you got from the two scientists involved, you know the ones you call yahoos (presumably this is some scientific term I am not familiar with?). Any person with a shred of decency would have contacted the authors before accusing them of falsifying the data. That is a very serious claim to make against a prominent scientist. In fact I think the term you used was fraudulent.
Please deal with these serious issues before you post anything else.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

I am not a climate scientist but I have followed all the news releases for the past 30 years or so , as best I can

I started out having great concern if our planet should overheat

I find I have great joy when science shows the planet may indeed not be overheating

I am curious why some folks are furious when the planet does not appear to be overheating

I would like to know why that makes some folks furious

thank you

 

[Pixel42]

I for one would be delighted if it was shown that the planet is not overheating.

What makes me angry is when people deliberately spread misinformation in order to make it appear that the planet is not overheating when in fact it is, as that makes it more likely that nothing will be done in time to avoid major disruption and loss of life.

I hope that helps.

 

[SezMe]

I find I have great joy when science shows the planet may indeed not be overheating

"Overheating" is not a term used in the climate debate. Do you mean "warming"? If not, could you assert your claim in a more precise manner.

Now to the point: What is your source for the claim that the planet "may indeed not be overheating"?

 

[greybeard]

.

I am not a climate scientist but I have followed all the news releases for the past 30 years or so , as best I can

I started out having great concern if our planet should overheat

I find I have great joy when science shows the planet may indeed not be overheating

I am curious why some folks are furious when the planet does not appear to be overheating

I would like to know why that makes some folks furious

thank you

Arnold the example I am going to give is not an exact fit but it will suffice.

Imagine you and many other people had an electronics device in their houses that the vast majority of experts in the field said was a fire risk. Would you remove that device or leave it there because one or two experts said no the device is fine? What if you found that some of those saying it was safe were connected to the firm making the device? What if they were also connected to organisations that had previously lobbied on behalf of other products we now know to be unsafe?

What is the proper thing for you as an individual to do? To find dodgy sources that say don't worry those experts in the majority are alarmists or to try and alert people to the danger? We can see an example on this very page of somebody besmirching climatologists with nothing to back it up. What is the right thing to do Arnold?

 

[Belz...]

R-J, I ask again. This is not a loaded question:

You say that the conclusion is obvious. However the climate scientists of the world disagree with you. You say they are wrong.

Given these premises, what do you think this means about these scientists ? Are they just stupid, or flat out wrong, or corrupt ? How can they be all wrong and you be so right ?

Do you not agree that it's much more likely that you are wrong about this ?

 

[greybeard]

R-J, I ask again. This is not a loaded question:

You say that the conclusion is obvious. However the climate scientists of the world disagree with you. You say they are wrong.

Given these premises, what do you think this means about these scientists ? Are they just stupid, or flat out wrong, or corrupt ? How can they be all wrong and you be so right ?

Do you not agree that it's much more likely that you are wrong about this ?

On past form you have no chance of getting a straight answer Belz
but he has made it clear that he believes data is being manipulated to show warming where there is none. That would be corruption. He really needs to provide proof of that allegation before we move on. Also he must have put that allegation to those involved, so what was their answer.

 

[DC]

.

I am not a climate scientist but I have followed all the news releases for the past 30 years or so , as best I can

I started out having great concern if our planet should overheat

I find I have great joy when science shows the planet may indeed not be overheating

I am curious why some folks are furious when the planet does not appear to be overheating

I would like to know why that makes some folks furious

thank you

it would be great news if it turned out that our worries were wrong. but the evidence clearly shows that the planet is warming, that we are the main cause and that it will cause huge problems we will have alot of problems dealing with.