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

[r-j]

You cannot take the actual readings. You have to do some average.

Well this speaks to one of the original points from the realclimate blog guest post by the Berkeley researchers.

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.fib4SiN8.dpuf

It's ironic because while they state they desire attention and feedback,

The current version of the daily dataset is an experimental product,
% and may be subject to substantial revision without notice. It has
% yet been described in the peer reviewed literature. We are releasing
% this dataset as is, in order to attract attention and get feedback
% from potential users of this dataset.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Gridded_Daily_README.txt

there is no contact information listed on the realclimate blog, the actual http://berkeleyearth.org/contact website.

Are daily extremes important for climate? Certainly seems so. If you see a long term change in values, and the instruments and location have not changed, you can make assumptions about climate change for that station.

Especially values like sunshine, precipitation and extreme highs and lows.

 

[DC]

Well this speaks to one of the original points from the realclimate blog guest post by the Berkeley researchers.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.fib4SiN8.dpuf

It's ironic because while they state they desire attention and feedback,
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Gridded_Daily_README.txt

there is no contact information listed on the realclimate blog, the actual http://berkeleyearth.org/contact website.

Are daily extremes important for climate? Certainly seems so. If you see a long term change in values, and the instruments and location have not changed, you can make assumptions about climate change for that station.

Especially values like sunshine, precipitation and extreme highs and lows.

For general email inquiries or feedback on our analysis and papers, please contact [email protected]. We are grateful for substantive feedback on our work.

Zeke Hausfather = [email protected] or [email protected]

 

[Reality Check]

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

Well it is quite simple for weather stations, Arnold Martin !
Older weather stations (the subject of this thread) contain things called thermometers (basically glass tubes full of mercury). A guy called James Six in 1782 invented Six's thermometer that records the minimum and maximum temperatures that it reads.

So what happened with the older (e.g. 1930's and 1940's) weather stations was that someone went to a weather station once a day, recorded the minimum and maximum temperatures and reset the thermometer. This is why when you see the daily temperatures record you see an average daily temperature.

This practice continues today but less frequently as weather stations are becoming automated.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Wrong, Arnold Martin: The scientific evidence from many sources is that the Earth has warmed in the past 100 years.
Your invalidly averaged, modern and thus irrelevant data has no impact on this. The fact is that weather station daily temperatures are the average between the maximum and minimum. No one will be idiotic enough to throw away about a century of data just because modern weather stations record more data !

 

[Reality Check]

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

A continued inability to understand basic science (or English!) is not good, Arnold Martin !
Daily = max + min/2
Weekly = sum of daily/7
Yearly = sum of daily/days in year.
This is not complicated !

 

[Reality Check]

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

Unfortunately this GISS link does not go to the 10-year old child level calculation of daily, weekly and yearly temperatures that Arnold Martin asked about, r-j.

 

[greybeard]

Sorry wrong thread.

 

[greybeard]

Sorry wrong thread.

 

[Reality Check]

Well this speaks to one of the original points from the realclimate blog guest post by the Berkeley researchers.

Yes, r-j, that is what they say:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.fib4SiN8.dpuf

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells.

This is basic science. Averages over years, months or even weeks hide extremes within days .

This is a reasonable statement for non-published work that they are releasing so that other climate scientists can have a look at it:

The current version of the daily dataset is an experimental product,
% and may be subject to substantial revision without notice. It has
% yet been described in the peer reviewed literature. We are releasing
% this dataset as is, in order to attract attention and get feedback
% from potential users of this dataset.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Gridded/Gridded_Daily_README.txt

This is basically an dataset form of a pre-print.

ETA: Are daily extremes important for climate? Not overall for anyone who knows what climate is (trends over decades - 30 years is the standard)
But if you are analyzing "heat waves and cold spells" then daily temperature data (not daily extremes) is important.

 

[jaydeehess]

.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
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.

Irrelevant, I related one example of adjusted weather data records. The fact that the station no longer exists is even less relevant given that you are discussing records from decades ago at a time when the station I was at was still in operation.

Secret records, oh that's rich. You aiming to have this thread moved to Conspiracy Theories?

I would lay money on the idea that some records just ain't available on the internet for conspiracy warriors to find. May require actually looking through microfiche or, horrors, actual paper records. That would be, of course, after you find out where they are. I haven't read back through the thread. I imagine you already politely asked the authors for elaboration on this point, right?

 

[r-j]

Irrelevant, I related one example of adjusted weather data records.

No, you related something with no evidence at all. And now assume it proved something. It doesn't work like that. Errors by somebody about ice and snow does not translate to "the NWS changes the records after the fact".

Secret records, oh that's rich. You aiming to have this thread moved to Conspiracy Theories??

Those still trying to defend the obvious nonsense from Berkeley are the ones making up nonsense about two sets of records, of secret records, of weather records only the Berkeley due can see. I debunked all of it.

I would lay money on the idea that some records just ain't available on the internet for conspiracy warriors to find.

That doesn't even mean anything. Are you claiming that the Chicago weather records are not available for some reason? A vague claim like that is meaningless.

What exactly is it you are willing to wager on?

 

[jaydeehess]

No, you related something with no evidence at all. And now assume it proved something. It doesn't work like that. Errors by somebody about ice and snow does not translate to "the NWS changes the records after the fact".

Well it proved to me personally that records are adjusted. No, I did not witness temperatures specifically being adjusted, so what? Data adjustment is data adjustment.
I related my experience as an anecdote from 30+ years ago. I hardly recall the names of the weather techs let alone know wgere they are to ask them if they recall this, not that you'd believe it if I managed to parade statements from the 3 or 4 weather techs involved.

Nor could I care less whether or not you do believe me. I know personally you are incorrect.

Those still trying to defend the obvious nonsense from Berkeley are the ones making up nonsense about two sets of records, of secret records, of weather records only the Berkeley due can see. I debunked all of it.

?? If I can properly decipher your grammar.......
You made suppositions and convinced yourself of how smart you are. That's about it.

That doesn't even mean anything. Are you claiming that the Chicago weather records are not available for some reason? A vague claim like that is meaningless.

I am saying there is a very good chance that some records are not available by internet search. From what I can discern that's all you have done. If it doesn't exist online then it isn't real, is that it?

How old are you? You do realize that records existed before the internet correct? Here's a bit of information you might be interested in; not everything is accessible via internet connectivity. Not every bitty bit of information gathered over decades and centuries has been uploaded for Google warriors to access. I would bet that there are bits of history, including the historical weather records, that exist only on paper. Not of particular interest or official status they reside in storage somewhere. A person interested in perusing them would have to look pretty hard, in the physical sense. Google-fu will be useless.

What would I be willing to bet? Its of intellectual curiosity only to me. So how about a dollar, hell make it an American dollar. Now all you need to do is find a third interested party to go and do an in depth physical search since you seem unwilling and/or unable to do it yourself..

Might try first asking the authors of the article where the data about those hot days came from. I suggest a typed and signed paper letter. Oh, and sociological advice, when you do that, make sure not to accuse them of lieing or dishonesty or producing nonsense. That is unless your purpose it to make sure they ignore you, then by all means, insult the hell out of them and that effect will be realized.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Well it is quite simple for weather stations, Arnold Martin !
Older weather stations (the subject of this thread) contain things called thermometers (basically glass tubes full of mercury). A guy called James Six in 1782 invented Six's thermometer that records the minimum and maximum temperatures that it reads.

So what happened with the older (e.g. 1930's and 1940's) weather stations was that someone went to a weather station once a day, recorded the minimum and maximum temperatures and reset the thermometer. This is why when you see the daily temperatures record you see an average daily temperature.

This practice continues today but less frequently as weather stations are becoming automated.

Thank you

I had presumed temperature recordings done 50 - 100 years ago would not be as precise , or gathered the same way as we do in modern day , yet we rely on those old methods to determine the 0.8* increase over 100 years

 

[Arnold Martin]

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

Thanks for the link , it is what I was wanting

From the article
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models.

(note: "analysis scheme" ... are their words not mine )

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

Actually my questions are in regard to actual weather stations , which I understood was the topic of this thread . Best wishes

.

 

[r-j]

Actually my questions are in regard to actual weather stations , which I understood was the topic of this thread .

Yeah, I was actually being humorous. Of course it's on topic. It's actually the topic. Since the discussion that caused the split was about the accuracy, the validity, and the methods used to change the data of the past, then present it as real data, understanding how data is gathered, stored, transmitted and eventually presented is a very good topic.

I apologize for the hard to recognize joke. I suck as a comedian.

 

[r-j]

Well it proved to me personally that records are adjusted. No, I did not witness temperatures specifically being adjusted, so what? Data adjustment is data adjustment.

You just summed up, and quite well, why I find so little reason to debate the matter. Much less provide the actual data on a platter for the Berkeley believers. After much effort, and when it is impossible to even imagine they could be right, the answer will change to "So what?"

It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

Nor could I care less whether or not you do believe me. I know personally you are incorrect.

And there is the second response. Evidence and facts are the last thing that will matter. You know that somebody (who was wrong) changed the weather reports, about ice or snow, obviously because of a previous error, so now you "know" that the temperature readings from Chicago must have been changed. I mean, isn't it obvious?

I am saying there is a very good chance that some records are not available by internet search. From what I can discern that's all you have done. If it doesn't exist online then it isn't real, is that it?

There is no doubt that a lot of data isn't online. The important parts are, which in this case would be the temperature readings from every Chicago weather station, as well as most of the rest of the state of Illinois. If you doubt this, just contact the NWS, they will be quite helpful.

I would bet that there are bits of history, including the historical weather records, that exist only on paper. Not of particular interest or official status they reside in storage somewhere. A person interested in perusing them would have to look pretty hard, in the physical sense. Google-fu will be useless.

Yes, but none of those records will show any readings of 113 for Chicago.

What would I be willing to bet? Its of intellectual curiosity only to me. So how about a dollar, hell make it an American dollar. Now all you need to do is find a third interested party to go and do an in depth physical search since you seem unwilling and/or unable to do it yourself.

Once again, you are making assumptions, then proceeding as this makes your statements true. It doesn't work like that. And of course, as we already have witnessed, it's almost impossible to convince somebody of anything, if they have already made up their mind in advance. Imagine I already searched through all the old files not scanned, and there are no records of anything close to 113 from any Chicago station (which is of course, the truth). What could possibly convince you?

To your final point, it's quite well made.

That is unless your purpose it to make sure they ignore you, then by all means, insult the hell out of them and that effect will be realized.

Oh yes, as some people posting in this topic may have figured out by now. Be insulting and condescending, guess what will happen.

 

[r-j]

Of all things, while looking into these matters, I found all kinds of discussion about related things (nothing about Chicago however), including one of the authors of the realclimate guest post.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/a-defense-of-the-ncdc-and-of-basic-civility/

Yes, of all the horrors, this matter is all over blogs, everywhere. For years it seems. But nothing helpful in regards to the Chicago issue. It seems none of the climate bloggers are from Illinois.

 

[tsig]

You just summed up, and quite well, why I find so little reason to debate the matter. Much less provide the actual data on a platter for the Berkeley believers. After much effort, and when it is impossible to even imagine they could be right, the answer will change to "So what?"

It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

And there is the second response. Evidence and facts are the last thing that will matter. You know that somebody (who was wrong) changed the weather reports, about ice or snow, obviously because of a previous error, so now you "know" that the temperature readings from Chicago must have been changed. I mean, isn't it obvious?

There is no doubt that a lot of data isn't online. The important parts are, which in this case would be the temperature readings from every Chicago weather station, as well as most of the rest of the state of Illinois. If you doubt this, just contact the NWS, they will be quite helpful.

Yes, but none of those records will show any readings of 113 for Chicago.

Once again, you are making assumptions, then proceeding as this makes your statements true. It doesn't work like that. And of course, as we already have witnessed, it's almost impossible to convince somebody of anything, if they have already made up their mind in advance. Imagine I already searched through all the old files not scanned, and there are no records of anything close to 113 from any Chicago station (which is of course, the truth). What could possibly convince you?

To your final point, it's quite well made.

Oh yes, as some people posting in this topic may have figured out by now. Be insulting and condescending, guess what will happen.

I'll become a climate change denier?

 

[r-j]

Returning to some overlooked points.

We have many recordings of tempearature from over the globe, much of it patchy and containing errors.

But not the Chicago area, it is actually one of the best areas when it comes to accurate and abundant weather readings.

The idea is to get that global picture, and it's pretty consistent.

You don't know that, and the obvious and huge errors about Chicago might just be an example of the larger problem with the BEST analysis. Certainly the realclimate blog post isn't peer reviewed science in any way. That it is so completely wrong, in so many ways, and that it was used as a counter to my point about adjustments to the past temperature readings, it's just a little too ironic.

You can pull out half of the temperature stations used in BEST if you want, the result will still be the same.

Once again, you don't know that. It's not even possible to know that. Your claim is both impossible to prove, and it's obviously something you just made up out of nothing.

 

[r-j]

I'm not sure if this was ever realized, but it is an example of how confusing things get, when somebody just makes up something, that is not even close to true.

You have argued now for pages and pages that is incorrect, I agree. Those numbers have been adjusted higher than the actual data supports.

No, no numbers were adjusted. Nothing was changed about the actual scientific data from Chicago. All changes come from Berkeley, they are the ones who changed the past.

In fact 113 F is higher than the record high ever for Chicago. So the past was adjusted warmer, not cooler.

No, the past was not adjusted, except by Berkeley. They assumed the weather stations then were no good, and they adjusted the actual real past temperatures down, not up. It helps to realize there never was any 113 degree days in Chicago. That only exists in their minds, or in computer programs. It is not real.

Since the past was adjusted warmer, that means if the real cooler figures had been used,

The 30s and 40s and 50s were not adjusted warmer. The NCDC adjustments are an example of how the past was cooled. (the BEST project doesn't show exactly what they did, but it's somewhat the same)

You can't make something up, like "the past was adjusted warmer", and then go on with that argument. Everything after the first mistake is just wrong.

Since the past was adjusted warmer, that means if the real cooler figures had been used, when compared to present temps, it would show AGW is actually greater than they claim.

But that isn't anything close to what actually happened.

There is the problem.

And of course that adjustments to Chicago data need to be made, it's that they made them badly, based on bad reasoning and a lack of actual research.