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

[Reality Check]

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.

Hi Arnold Martin: The GISS article is not quite on topic for this thread which is about the actual weather station records, rather then their analysis by climate scientists. I do not think any one could disagree with basic science, e.g.
* there has to be some way to extend the temperatures measured by a single weather station at a point to cover a region to make theses local records cover the globe.
* changes in weather stations need to be accounted for.

 

[Reality Check]

...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?

Well that is easy to answer - imagine that you listed or cited the records that you read when you made your original baseless assertion, r-j !
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!).

Or imagine that you could understand that the NWS Chicago records are not from the weather station in the Real Climate article until 1/17/1980 !
* 29th September 2014: r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall and Greenwood Ave stations were not moved to O'Hare
* 29th September 2014 r-j: It is wrong think that the official Midway station was moved to be the official O'Hare station in the 1930s and early 1940s when Midway was the official station from 1942 to 1980.

We can see that the O'Hare station was actually moved there because it had records before the airport existed:
2 October 2014: The BEST database says the O'Hare airport weather station monthly average data extends back to 1873 !
3 October 2014 r-j: The O'Hare weather station became the official station on 1/17/1980, not in the 1940s.

 

[Reality Check]

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

A good article by Zeke. A Defense of the NCDC, and of Basic Civility
It starts with pointing out Anthony Watts displaying his ignorance about climate science (to be charitable since Watts basically accuses climate scientists of faking data). That is the incivility part.
Then he goes through why weather station data is adjusted.

Now that that is off my chest, lets look at the evidence surrounding NCDC’s approach to homogenizing temperature data. Temperature data in the United States is imperfect. It is measured at weather stations that were not intended to create long-term climate records, and over the past century these stations have moved (e.g. from building rooftops to airports and wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s), the instruments have changed (e.g. from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electronic sensors in the 1980s), the time of day at which the temperatures were measured has changed (from evening pre-1970 to morning), and the environment around sensors has changed as cities have grown and more land has been developed.

With an interesting bit:

The net result of these adjustments, at least for the United States, is a significant increase in century-scale temperature trends. Notably, the same adjustments don’t have a particularly large effect world-wide, suggesting that some of the cooling biases corrected are specific to the U.S. (or, conversely, that parts rest of the world has too little station coverage to adequately detect breakpoints).

 

[Reality Check]

All changes come from Berkeley, they are the ones who changed the past.

Wrong, r-j
Nothing was changed about the actual scientific data from Chicago. Every team of climate scientists that uses weather station data to get global temperature trends are the ones who changed the past.

No, the past was not adjusted, except by every team of climate scientists that uses weather station data to get global temperature trends.
Implying fraud about why climate scientists adjust weather station records is just wrong, r-j. Maybe you should get together with Anthony Watts and learn some basic civility
A Defense of the NCDC, and of Basic Civility
This article has some really good graphs about how the USA adjustments lead to early temperatures being cooler and thus a bigger warming tend. Of course if they (rather stupidly) had adjusted modern data instead then that would be up and the trend will still be warmer.

Every team of climate scientists that uses weather station data to get global temperature trends know that weather stations change (apparently you still do not, r-j ) and they generally adjust the actual real past temperatures down, not up, for example because the old records were generally from warmer locations (e.g. rooftops in urban locations) before the move to cooler locations (airports and wastewater plants in rural locations).
This makes sense to anyone who can think logically - Why should they have to adjust all current and future data forever when they can basically adjust old data once! It is the old data that is more inaccurate juts because of the technology used to measure it.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh dear.

Oh dear - way to totally ignore climate science , r-j !
Understanding adjustments to temperature data is why the Chicago example is so totally right. You have a station that was on a black rooftop and often recorded temperatures of 113F. It was moved to O'Hare airport and these excessive temperatures were no longer recorded.

The ignoring the real world where there was no movement of a University weather station to Midway is just ludicrous:
* 29th September 2014: r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall (there until 1998) and Greenwood Ave (there until 1994) stations were not moved to O'Hare or O'Hare or anywhere else.
* 29th September 2014 r-j: It is wrong think that the official Midway station was moved to be the official O'Hare station in the 1930s and early 1940s when Midway was the official station from 1942 to 1980.

 

[Reality Check]

It's that currently some "experts" are attempting to change the past data, and present it as fact.

Still wrong, r-j: Every expert was and still is actually creating adjusted data from the past raw data to account for station changes as any reasonable person would think that they should do. They present that as facts because that is facts!

What paranoiac and ignorant climate change deniers then do is ignore the real world where weather stations change and imply that this adjustment of raw data is an attempt to fake the data into a bigger warming trend.

Thus the ignorant attacks by the Australian newspaper mentioned in An independent inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology? Bring it on

FYI, r-j: Australia happens to be a continent !
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does climate science research, just like the USA NDCC does.
Improving Australia's climate record Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature

I suspect that scientists in a small country like New Zealand working for the Meteorology Service do climate research. However the major site of climate research seems to be at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

 

[bit_pattern]

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.

Ah, the old "meteorologists good" "climate scientists bad" canard.

I put this to you in the past but I don't recall ever seeing a response - the BoM, far from manipulating the past to support the notion that it is warmer now, have actually removed a systematic warming bias in the temperature record:

Trends in the frequency of hot days over Australia – unadjusted data using all temperature stations that have at least 40 years of record available for Australia from the GHCN-Daily data set.

Trends in the frequency of hot days over Australia – adjusted ACORN-SAT data. The period of trend covers 1951-2010 when both datasets have overlapping data. All data used in figures are available from www.climdex.org

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

How do you square these facts with your conspiracy theory?

 

[bit_pattern]

FYI, r-j: Australia happens to be a continent !
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does climate science research, just like the USA NDCC does.
Improving Australia's climate record Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature

Haha. Yup. The meteorologist are the ones doing the adjusting that r-j ascribes to a shadowy cabal of "experts" - this conspiracy fails on so many levels

 

[r-j]

- the BoM, far from manipulating the past to support the notion that it is warmer now, have actually removed a systematic warming bias in the temperature record:

What exactly are you claiming? That the data BOM shows on it's web site is adjusted data? Are you claiming they change the temperature records that they show the world? Or is it something else?

For example, when you look at the records, like this example, are you saying they changed those numbers? That those figures are not what was recorded? Or what?

It's an important point. Are you claiming that a graph of temperature data from the BOM is adjusted data? Not actual records?

For example, is this graph actual recorded data? Or an adjusted version?

What about this one?

Does that show the readings that were taken by observers (or more recently by the ASOS system) or is it an adjusted graph?

You said

- the BoM ... have actually removed a systematic warming bias in the temperature record:

Does that mean you are claiming the records on the BOM site are not the actual records, but the adjusted temperatures? Or what? What does it mean to say they "have actually removed"?

Are you claiming the actual official records have been changed? That what we see on the BOM site is not the same as what the airport sent to them?

For a comparison, here is the current GISS version of Alice Springs.

It is not actual data, it has been adjusted. But was it created from actual data from the BOM, or the adjusted data from the BOM? Do you know?

What does the actual temperature record for Alice Springs airport look like? What does the adjusted one look like? This is the actual meat of the matter.

What is actually happening with the BOM?


byw I love that it is called the BOM

 

[r-j]

The meteorologist are the ones doing the adjusting

Once again, so you can't miss it.

What are you claiming? That everyday the BOM changes the temperature data before it is published? Do they alter the ASOS readings before the pilots receive it? How are these adjustments being done?

Is it somebodies job to alter the readings every day? Do they use computers? How, physically, are the temperatures changed?

I mean, you are claiming the BOM employees are altering data. Recent data. How does that work?

 

[r-j]

The claim that there was some adjustment diid not originate here.

Uh, yes it did. It has appeared once more. See above.

Since you first made that error, several people have again claimed that "somebody" is "somehow" altering weather records. Records in this case being "what the instruments measure", as in "the recorded data shown by weather instruments".

Yes, people are actually claiming that "somebody" changes what is recorded, so that we don't actually see a record of what happened, but an altered version of the temperature.

 

[Dan O.]

r-j, is anybody actually reading your posts anymore?

You started this split with a specific question about the 113° F readings from a rooftop observatory in Chicago. Have you accepted that there is a period in the late 20s through the early 40s where the rooftop station at the Weather Bureau was recording temperatures but that data is not available online. If you have not accepted it, can you articulate a reason why you don't? It does you no good to spiral further down the rabbit hole if you aren't going to settle this initial issue.

 

[Pixel42]

Once again, so you can't miss it.

What are you claiming? That everyday the BOM changes the temperature data before it is published? Do they alter the ASOS readings before the pilots receive it? How are these adjustments being done?

Is it somebodies job to alter the readings every day? Do they use computers? How, physically, are the temperatures changed?

I mean, you are claiming the BOM employees are altering data. Recent data. How does that work?

These questions are all answered in the link given in post #246.

Edited to add specific link:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Methods

 

[Pixel42]

Just to make it even clearer, this is the first statement on the customer support page from which I requested the Chicago data:

NCDC provides customers with both production climate information and raw data from the NCDC archive.

The raw data (lest we forget, a term r-j accused the Berkeley scientists of making up) is still available and can be supplied if required, but I'm sure most of their customers will want the data after it has been adjusted as necessary by the quality control processes.

Here for the third time is the statement that is at the top of every response to requests for data from the NCDC archive:

These data are quality controlled and may not be identical to the original observations

To continue to deny that adjustments are routinely made to the raw data by those who actually collect and publish it is bizarre, to put it mildly.

ETA: Another reminder: the whole point of the Berkeley BEST project was to go back to the raw data, analyse it afresh, make the adjustments that seemed reasonable (without reference to those made by those who had gone before), and see if the global temperature rise that then emerged was as those previous teams had measured it. Which it was.

 

[Pixel42]

We have information for the US and Australia but not my own country, so I had a look on the site of the UK's Met Office. Rather marvellously they give anyone full access to the raw data coming from their weather stations via something called DataPoint:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/datapoint/product/uk-hourly-site-specific-observations

However:

Observations are subject to final quality control by the Met Office after publication by DataPoint. The QC process can take up to six months to be completed and therefore any changes made will not be retrospectively applied to this dataset.

Another bunch of meteorologists who admit to maintaining two sets of data, one raw and one adjusted. Will the horror never end.

 

[bit_pattern]

What exactly are you claiming? That the data BOM shows on it's web site is adjusted data? Are you claiming they change the temperature records that they show the world? Or is it something else?

Wow. Just wow.

BoM has both raw and homogenised data are available on its website. And, when you look at ALL of the data, and don't just focus on a handful of cherry-picked sites, it is quite clear that the homogenised data has removed an artificial warming bias from the raw data. The adjusted data actually show a COOLER early 20th century Australia than the adjusted data show.

Instead of ranting about conspiracies and self-selecting sites that confirm your biases why don't you try, like you know, reading the links that were provided to you:

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Our data on extreme temperature trends show that the warming trend across the whole of Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do. For example, the adjusted data set (the lower image below) shows a cooling trend over parts of northwest Australia, which isn’t seen in the raw data.

High-quality data

Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. Cherrypicking weather stations where data have been corrected in a warming direction doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.

Data homogenisation is not aimed at producing a predetermined outcome, but rather is an essential process in improving weather data by spotting where temperature records need to be corrected, in either direction. If the Bureau didn’t do it, then we and our fellow climatologists wouldn’t use its data because it would be misleading. What we need are data from which spurious warming or cooling trends have been removed, so that we can see the actual trends.

 

[tsig]

r-j, is anybody actually reading your posts anymore?

You started this split with a specific question about the 113° F readings from a rooftop observatory in Chicago. Have you accepted that there is a period in the late 20s through the early 40s where the rooftop station at the Weather Bureau was recording temperatures but that data is not available online. If you have not accepted it, can you articulate a reason why you don't? It does you no good to spiral further down the rabbit hole if you aren't going to settle this initial issue.

He seems to be arguing that there were real readings of 113⁰ taken somewhere in Chicago that were then recorded lower in order to prove warming later.

or something.

 

[tsig]

Just to make it even clearer, this is the first statement on the customer support page from which I requested the Chicago data:


The raw data (lest we forget, a term r-j accused the Berkeley scientists of making up) is still available and can be supplied if required, but I'm sure most of their customers will want the data after it has been adjusted as necessary by the quality control processes.

Here for the third time is the statement that is at the top of every response to requests for data from the NCDC archive:



To continue to deny that adjustments are routinely made to the raw data by those who actually collect and publish it is bizarre, to put it mildly.

ETA: Another reminder: the whole point of the Berkeley BEST project was to go back to the raw data, analyse it afresh, make the adjustments that seemed reasonable (without reference to those made by those who had gone before), and see if the global temperature rise that then emerged was as those previous teams had measured it. Which it was.

In the world of woo if you do not recheck your data that is an admission of guilt and if you do recheck that's a sure sign you are covering something up.

 

[r-j]

You started this split with a specific question about the 113° F readings from a rooftop observatory in Chicago.

Nonsense. First, I didn't split the thread, some Mod did, and left out most of the posts about it, including the first ones, and the extensive ones with evidence and reasoning. The claims were based on a fiction, but that wasn't all of it by any means.

The meteorologist are the ones doing the adjusting

I was clear about my questions to you, concerning your claim. You didn't answer a single one of them. Are you claiming they change the temperature records that they show the world? Or is it something else?

For example, when you look at the records, like this example, are you saying they changed those numbers? That those figures are not what was recorded? Or what?

It's an important point. Are you claiming that a graph of temperature data from the BOM is adjusted data? Not actual records?

For example, is this graph actual recorded data? Or an adjusted version?

What about this one?

Does that show the readings that were taken by observers (or more recently by the ASOS system) or is it an adjusted graph?

You said Does that mean you are claiming the records on the BOM site are not the actual records, but the adjusted temperatures? Or what? What does it mean to say they "have actually removed"?

Are you claiming the actual official records have been changed? That what we see on the BOM site is not the same as what the airport sent to them?

For a comparison, here is the current GISS version of Alice Springs.

It is not actual data, it has been adjusted. But was it created from actual data from the BOM, or the adjusted data from the BOM? Do you know?

What does the actual temperature record for Alice Springs airport look like? What does the adjusted one look like? This is the actual meat of the matter.

What is actually happening with the BOM?

Once again, so you can't miss it.

What are you claiming? That everyday the BOM changes the temperature data before it is published? Do they alter the ASOS readings before the pilots receive it? How are these adjustments being done?

Is it somebodies job to alter the readings every day? Do they use computers? How, physically, are the temperatures changed?

I mean, you are claiming the BOM employees are altering data. Recent data. How does that work?

These questions are all answered in the link given in post #246.

I asked the person making a claim specific questions. Rather than answer them, you claim they are all answered somewhere else. Why avoid answering?

BoM has both raw and homogenised data are available on its website.

That is obvious, but the questions were not about that. They were specific, with examples. You avoided answering.

If you don't know the answers, you can just say so.

 

[Pixel42]

I asked the person making a claim specific questions. Rather than answer them, you claim they are all answered somewhere else.

Not "somewhere else" but in the link the posters were discussing.

Reality Check gave it:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does climate science research, just like the USA NDCC does.

Improving Australia's climate record Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature

bit_pattern quoted the link and had obviously read it because he commented:

Haha. Yup. The meteorologist are the ones doing the adjusting that r-j ascribes to a shadowy cabal of "experts" - this conspiracy fails on so many levels

and you then asked bit_pattern a bunch of questions, all of which are answered in the link you obviously hadn't bothered to click on.