Split Thread Weather stations and their data (Split from GW Discussion III)

[Dan O.]

There never was, ever has been, in any way shape or form, been a reading from any Chicago weather station of 113, much less multiple ones. The data, which anyone can look at, clearly shows their claim is nonsense.

Let's be clear. What do you claim the highest (recorded) temperature reading for any Chicago weather station is (was)?

 

[Pixel42]

Let's be clear. What do you claim the highest (recorded) temperature reading for any Chicago weather station is (was)?

The first article r-j links to says the highest temperature ever recorded in Chicago was 109 on July 23rd 1934.

Its exact words are:

The hottest day on record in Chicago? Depends on who’s calculating, but by one account, it was July 23, 1934.

It was 109 degrees at the airport. There was no O’Hare back then.

The NWS (which seems to be the source of the 2nd article r-j links to) says the highest temperature officially recorded in Chicago was 105 on July 24th 1934.

I got the records from all four of the stations I listed above from the NOAA website for July 1934. Note that, as previously mentioned, all data records obtained from this site have "These data are quality controlled and may not be identical to the original observations" at the top.

The University of Chicago station gives 105 for July 24th 1934.

The Cicero station gives 109 on July 23rd 1934

The Midway station has data only for the 1st, 7th and 8th of July 1934, the rest of the record is blank.

The Weather Bureau has no data for July 1934 at all.

My guess is that it was the (roof based) Weather Bureau station whose raw data showed figures in excess of 113F, but as that data doesn't seem to be online it's impossible to know for sure.

ETA: looking at the history entries for the Weather Bureau it seems that the data is missing from about 1925 until about 1945, even though the equipment history indicates that daily temperature records were being taken throughout that period.

 

[greybeard]

Jaydeehess said:

Now since this is supposed to all boil down to climate change chicanery why even bother with Chicago?

To which r-j replied:

Actually it was brought up as "evidence" for why drastic changes had to be made to past temperature readings. I pointed out the example was false.

Regardless of the fact that you haven't backed up your allegation that they made false claims with any concrete evidence, I would like to know r-j when you changed from your clearly stated position that chicanery and fraud were involved.

At last, a reasonable person arrives.
I already clearly stated my position about this. The reaclclimate yahoos were brought up, to explain why the past must be made colder. I quite rightly pointed out it was complete fabrication of reality, it's insultoing to the NWS, and it shows why skepticism is the way to approach claims like that.

That they use this completely wrong, even fabricated idea, to adjust temperatures shows clearly how wrong those people are, and why changing past data (not the actual data, they can't touch that), and presenting it as the true climate story, is fraudulent in the extreme.

So when did you have this change of heart? The allegation of fraud against scientists is very serious so why didn't you tell us you had now changed your mind? Why haven't you apologised to those you had accused of fraud? Why was your clearly stated position that chicanery was involved but now it's a mystery?

What they claim is simply wrong. Why they did this is still a mystery.

 

[Pixel42]

What everyone else except you can understand is that we can eliminate certain stations because they were not physically moved

I don't think any equipment was physically moved. I think what the climatologists meant is that a station that used to be the official station, long before O'Hare became the official station, recorded temperatures of 113F in the 30s and 40s. When they say stations were often moved I don't think they meant to imply that actual equipment was always moved when that happened, though it might well have been in some instances.

 

[tsig]

The following post contains the original post about this, as well as an example of the made up claim about "adjusting" the temperatures.



See how easy it was?



False claim. No evidence will ever be supplied to support this.



Completely false, and no evidence will ever be supplied to support that claim.

If they're faking data to prove global warming why did they fake them colder?

 

[r-j]

If they're faking data to prove global warming why did they fake them colder?

Straw man. Where are you getting that from? The claims that the temperatures are "adjusted" by the NWS is false. And the adjustments being discussed are from the NCDC or the BEST group. And there is no doubt they change the past. Why would they make the past colder? Wouldn't that create the illusion of recent warming?

So I cannot be told that weather data isnt adjusted.

The claim is that temperature records are adjusted, or that there are two sets of books, or that there are secret records nobody but the Berkeley duo can see. Not that some bureaucrat didn't change snow to ice, or whatever, at a defunct weather station.

Let's be clear. What do you claim the highest (recorded) temperature reading for any Chicago weather station is (was)?

Trying to make it "a claim" stopped working a while ago. The Chicago weather records are not some mystery. I linked to the official all time high records several times, including the first post about this. Move on.

 

[r-j]

I asked about Arctic wx stations, you ignore it.

Wrong. I already posted multiple graphs of the arctic stations in a previous post. Of course it might have been moved out of sight, so you never saw it.

They are quite willing to move posts on this forum. Makes Swiss cheese out a discussion, but that seems to be the goal.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't think any equipment was physically moved.

The RealClimate article has the example of a weather station that looks as if it was physically moved: 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.

The O'Hare station has records back to 1873 which is strong evidence that it was moved there from another location. Of course r-j might claim that that the airport was constructed around an existing weather station .

We (except r-j ) know that the station from which the temperatures was reported was not normally physically moved - just that different stations at different times were selected to be the "official" station. This makes sense because the official station would be selected as the one that was representative of the region which requires a period of records at one location.
r-j's citation: History of the Chicago and Rockford weather observation sites shows that the University of Chicago (Rosenwald Hall) weather station was the official source from 1/01/1926 to 6/30/1942 and Midway from 7/01/1942 to 1/17/1980. O'Hare became the official weather station on 1/17/1980.
Thus any official records from the 1930's or 1940's are from Rosenwald Hall or Midway, not O'Hare.

 

[Reality Check]

The claims that the temperatures are "adjusted" by the NWS is false.

Straw man. Where are you getting that from, r-j?
The adjustments being discussed are from the NCDC or the BEST group or any competent climate scientist. And there is no doubt they do not change the past readings. They create new, adjusted data from the raw data.

As New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley the general movement of weather stations from city interiors to more rural (airports and wastewater plants) locations results in cooler temperatures being recorded. So they create adjusted data that reflects the movement of these weather stations. They adjust the data before the movement. This generally means that adjusted data is adjusted down and any warming trend is thus higher. That is how the real world works, r-j.
This is just one example of the changes that happen to weather stations which need accounting for when analyzing temperature trends.

This is climate scientists dealing with the real world rather the climate change deniers fantasy of a world where weather stations magically record the correct temperatures no matter what happens to them !

 

[Reality Check]

I linked to the official all time high records several times, including the first post about this.

Which is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, r-j, because you were the one that showed us that the official records are not from the RealClimate weather station!

This is also irrelevant to your actual claim:

Simply check the actual records, and you will find no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.

of having read the records for every station which lead to my questions:
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 early 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the RealClimate article. (etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!).

 

[Arnold Martin]

I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the "scientists" calculate temperatures

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

I would think that using a 24 hour temperature average would be more accurate

Here is a record of temperatures at one weather station in Winnipeg over 24 hours

The true average temperature for the 24 hour period comes out to -9.8333 degrees

Using the IPCC method produces a temperature of -10.5 degrees

A difference of 0.6667 degrees

Which one is correct ?

 

[Arnold Martin]

Here is one more example

True 24 hour average temp is -4.046*C

Using the IPCC hi-low average comes out to -5.500*C

A difference of 1.454* C
.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Claims are made that the planet has warmed by 0.8* C in the past 100 years

Apparently temps are based on "homogenized weather station records'' (their words , not mine)

In my 2 random examples above it shows a variation of 0.6667 degrees and 1.454* C by applying a different averaging technique as compared to the true average temperatures

I would have expected more precision seeing as temps have only increased 0.8* over 100 years

 

[Dan O.]

Why don't you ask the scientists that are making such reports? Don't they disclose exactly what sources they use for their data and the procedures used to analize that data?

ETA: as for your examples, are these typical for any given day and all weather stations or did you cherry pick the data? What results do you get for the long term warming trend if you apply the two different techniques to the same station data over a 100 year period?

 

[r-j]

I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the "scientists" calculate temperatures

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

That would be how a Meteorologist calculates the daily average temperature. How that gets turned into a global average is for another topic.

 

[greybeard]

Why don't you ask the scientists that are making such reports? Don't they disclose exactly what sources they use for their data and the procedures used to analize that data?

ETA: as for your examples, are these typical for any given day and all weather stations or did you cherry pick the data? What results do you get for the long term warming trend if you apply the two different techniques to the same station data over a 100 year period?

I suspect that is unlikely to happen. Did you see our torturous discussion with the other one who thought that scientists, or "scientists" as Arnold would have it, are up to no good? Even when we spoon fed him the details he didn't bother.

It's not my call but I really think this thread should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

 

[Arnold Martin]

I suspect that is unlikely to happen. Did you see our torturous discussion with the other one who thought that scientists, or "scientists" as Arnold would have it, are up to no good? Even when we spoon fed him the details he didn't bother.

It's not my call but I really think this thread should be moved to the conspiracy forum.

I have never implied that scientists were up to no good

I think you should be moved to the conspiracy forum , it is on your mind constantly , never on mine

My question was , and always has been .... how are the daily , weekly , yearly temperatures compiled ?

Obviously they are recorded at weather stations or airports across the country , often hour by hour , so how do they determine the "average" for the day .... by my examples above I can come up with two completely different "daily averages"

This is not a complicated question , and with the extensive volumes of information on global warming I would expect somebody would know.

Just like the "computer generated climate models" have failed to be accurate I feel it is warranted to dig deeper into how daily temps are calculated in the first place

 

[greybeard]

I have never implied that scientists were up to no good

I think you should be moved to the conspiracy forum , it is on your mind constantly , never on mine

My question was , and always has been .... how are the daily , weekly , yearly temperatures compiled ?

Obviously they are recorded at weather stations or airports across the country , often hour by hour , so how do they determine the "average" for the day .... by my examples above I can come up with two completely different "daily averages"

This is not a complicated question , and with the extensive volumes of information on global warming I would expect somebody would know.

Just like the "computer generated climate models" have failed to be accurate I feel it is warranted to dig deeper into how daily temps are calculated in the first place

Conspiracy theories are only on my mind when I am in discussion with people who believe scientists all over the world are making stuff up. You did say you were suspicious. What is more to the point though is that people don't normally put the word scientists in scare quotes in a science forum and it does make it look as if you already made up your mind they are up to no good. It's more what you see in a ct forum. Anyway sorry if I upset you Arnold, it was not my intention.

 

[r-j]

My question was , and always has been .... how are the daily , weekly , yearly temperatures compiled ?

GISS explains some of it here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Discussion of how global mean is derived is off topic, start a new thread to discuss it.

 

[elgarak]

I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the "scientists" calculate temperatures

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

I would think that using a 24 hour temperature average would be more accurate

Here is a record of temperatures at one weather station in Winnipeg over 24 hours

The true average temperature for the 24 hour period comes out to -9.8333 degrees

Using the IPCC method produces a temperature of -10.5 degrees

A difference of 0.6667 degrees

Which one is correct ?

You cannot take the actual readings. You have to do some average. (The former is weather, the latter is climate).

The question is, how do you do the average? If the data sets are wildly different? Say, you have one set of data (may be old data, or a different station) that only measures twice a day (old data records taken with a min/max thermometer read once daily and recorded manually do not have more data than this!), and another set taken by modern computerized equipment that measures every hour.... half hour.... ten minutes etc.

See the problem?

Taking the min/max and average them is easy and works with all kinds of data sets, taken since recordings started.

It's still possible that these are not always correct, say, when an anomaly occurred. But usually, these anomalies happen rarely and only at certain localities, so they do not influence the average much.