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

[Pixel42]

An excellent article by Zeke Hausfather on why and how adjustments to temperature records are made:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

 

[r-j]

Other notable PHA-detected adjustments are minimum (and more modest maximum) temperature shifts associated with a widespread move of stations from inner city rooftops to newly-constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants after 1940

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Oh dear.

This is why the Chicago example is so horribly wrong. In that case (and it may be an isolated case), the move from rooftop to University happened much earlier. And the move to Midway from the Uni site created the opposite effect from what he is describing. It caused the maximums to go way up, and the minimums to go way down. Adjusting Chicago based on that reasoning made the Chicago data useless for climate research.

 

[Dan O.]

r-j, what was the highest temperature readings from the rooftop WB station in the late 30s, early 40s? Where did you get this data?

 

[tsig]

r-j, what was the highest temperature readings from the rooftop WB station in the late 30s, early 40s? Where did you get this data?

I suspect a rectal inversion layer leading to high temps in Chicago.

 

[r-j]

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.

r-j, what was the highest temperature readings from the rooftop WB station in the late 30s, early 40s? Where did you get this data?

You make these claims but offer no facts to support them. Why should anyone believe you, just another anonymous internet poster?

 

[Dan O.]

Obviously r-j is refusing to participate to move this discussion forward. Until he accepts his error there will be nothing more to discuss on this topic with him.

 

[greybeard]

This is what passes for debate.

 

[Pixel42]

I've emailed [email protected] (contact address from here) asking if they can provide, or point me to, data which confirms or refutes the quote by the Berkeley climatologists.

 

[jaydeehess]

r-j, all I said was that I personally experienced a situation of weather data adjustment. Because of that I have less of a problem believing it would occur elsewhere and for different data. I really could not give a flying fire truck if you believe me or not.

As for looking for the physical records, all I could find in my perusal of this and the split from thread is that you looked online. If there's a post where you explain where you went , what's the post number, I'll read it. Did you contact the authors of the article who referred to the 113 degree days? If so would you post the inquiry here, or if you already did please indicate the post number or approx date of the post, thanks.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've emailed [email protected] (contact address from here) asking if they can provide, or point me to, data which confirms or refutes the quote by the Berkeley climatologists.

I look forward to the response.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Oh dear.

This is why the Chicago example is so horribly wrong. In that case (and it may be an isolated case), the move from rooftop to University happened much earlier. And the move to Midway from the Uni site created the opposite effect from what he is describing. It caused the maximums to go way up, and the minimums to go way down. Adjusting Chicago based on that reasoning made the Chicago data useless for climate research.

If you are correct what effect would that have on climate research? Its a much bigger world that Chicago. Was this also done for Milwaukee, for Minneapolis, for Winnipeg, for Singapore, Moscow, Brisbane, Tokyo etc., etc., etc.?

 

[jaydeehess]

An excellent article by Zeke Hausfather on why and how adjustments to temperature records are made:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

Seems reasonable to me, others may disagree.

 

[Pixel42]

I look forward to the response.

The customer support page says (my bold)

All online data are now free to access and download for all customers. In addition, customers can order a variety of items such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, and posters through the Online Store. The Online Store also provides service for our partner Data Centers—the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) and the the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)—and their products.

NOTE: Most offline services require an additional charge. Prepayment is required, and your customer service representative will inform you of the cost.

The data I probably need is the records of the Chicago Weather Bureau station in the 1930s and early 40s, which is missing from the online database. I might have to cough up some cash to get it.

 

[Dan O.]

My guess is that there is a rough transcription of that data but they don't want to publish it until it has been verified. The climate modeling can use the rough data because non-systematic transcription errors will average out over time. The 113° maximums would have stood out in the data validation because they exceed the official recorded temperature maximum for the region. It would be foolish for them to even mention this data point if it wasn't manually verified against the original record first.

 

[bit_pattern]

Somewhat off-topic but still related to the notion that meteorologists are somehow manipulating data - similar allegations from a blogger were published in the Murdoch-press in Australia recently, leading to a senior government advisor calling for the BoM to be investigated. This is the response from one researcher on the topic:

An independent inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology? Bring it on

I support his call for an open and public inquiry into the Bureau’s climate data and the techniques that the Bureau’s scientists have used to reduce the influence of changes in instrumentation, exposure, and weather station location on its climate records.

I support it because I don’t think the Bureau gets enough opportunities to demonstrate to the public its scientific integrity, hard work, and valuable results.

Free and open information

A public inquiry would provide the Bureau with the opportunity to point out that all of its archived climate data are accessible (for free!) by anyone in the world with an internet connection.

It would also allow the Bureau to demonstrate the scientific methods it uses to reduce the influence of problems that complicate the evaluation of historical climate data. All of the original data remain available to anyone who thinks they can do a better job (and some groups, such as Berkeley Earth, have done exactly this).

The attacks on the Bureau data appear to have been triggered by Australia’s record warmth in 2013. This record warm year doesn’t sit well with the meme of “global warming has stopped”. Despite the attacks, there is a mountain of evidence that the Bureau is completely correct in its assessment of 2013.

 

[tsig]

Somewhat off-topic but still related to the notion that meteorologists are somehow manipulating data - similar allegations from a blogger were published in the Murdoch-press in Australia recently, leading to a senior government advisor calling for the BoM to be investigated. This is the response from one researcher on the topic:

An independent inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology? Bring it on

Attacking the scientists is a classic attack the messenger ploy.

 

[CapelDodger]

Somewhat off-topic but still related to the notion that meteorologists are somehow manipulating data - similar allegations from a blogger were published in the Murdoch-press in Australia recently, leading to a senior government advisor calling for the BoM to be investigated. This is the response from one researcher on the topic:

An independent inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology? Bring it on

Bringing down the Temple of AGW one weather station at a time ...

 

[greybeard]

Bringing down the Temple of AGW one weather station at a time ...

Who would have thought that nonsense like this could gain any traction in this day and age? It's like going back to the time of witchcraft trials.

 

[r-j]

If you are correct what effect would that have on climate research?

There is no way to know that. And it would be hubris for me to speculate. There is little doubt that the claim is false, but I would venture in the minds of the global warmer, it won't change a thing. It simply will.not.matter. Not in any way at all.

Was this also done for Milwaukee, for Minneapolis, for Winnipeg, for Singapore, Moscow, Brisbane, Tokyo etc., etc., etc.?

Once again, there is no way of knowing that. I'm currently doing an analysis of several other large cities, that are obvious examples of BEST analysis problems.

Somewhat off-topic but still related to the notion that meteorologists are somehow manipulating data

There is no notion that the Meteorologists that gather the data are manipulating it. That is a complete misrepresentation. It's that currently some "experts" are attempting to change the past data, and present it as fact.

Not the same thing at all. Meteorologists are likely to be skeptical, because they actually know something about the weather. It seems climate experts often don't know much at all about how weather is recorded, or measured if you please.

 

[Reality Check]

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

That is quite reasonable, Arnold Martin. The instrumental temperature record basically starts in 1850, 164 years ago. Up until the 1970's temperatures were read from analogue thermometers (Six's thermometer) - since then there has been increasing automation. It makes sense to be consistent in how daily temperatures are calculated throughout those 164 years.
But we do not just rely on those records
* we have proxy data to back up the records and extend temperatures further back in time.
* we have those new-fangled things called satellites to confirm the current global warming .

ETA: A comment by the author of A Defense of the NCDC, and of Basic Civility

...and most of the stations were changed from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electric MMTS instruments in the last 80s and early 90s.

That change is another factor that has to be accounted for when weather station records are analyzed.