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

[r-j]

I put this to you in the past but I don't recall ever seeing a response

Put what? What does "this" mean in your comment?

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?

You keep calling "something" a CT, but the BoM, the CRU, GISS, the NCDC and BEST all state they adjust the historic records, so how can it be called a CT?

Plus, in your own words, an article that claims the BoM is not "fiddling" with the records, states that the BoM actually has changed the records, to "remove a warm bias", which is exactly what I asked you about. Does the data BoM presents as historic records show the actual records, or is it adjusted?

I don't think you see the problem with your claims.

 

[r-j]

all of which are answered in the link you obviously hadn't bothered to click on.

If, as you claim, there are answers there, please provide them. I read the post, it doesn't answer any of the questions.

They are specific and direct questions, and they were asked after that post. Yet you claim all the answers are in a previous post.

That is a completely false claim you are making.

 

[r-j]

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?

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

It is not actual data, it has been adjusted, GISS clearly says so. 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.

Are the two records, one from BoM, and another from GISS, the same thing?

And the there is the BEST version of the temperature.

 

[r-j]

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.

Fallacy, or actually several of them at once. You haven't shown that what you are claiming is true. And since it isn't true at all, it's really a bad fallacy to base the rest of your post on.

If you have not accepted it, can you articulate a reason why you don't?

Compound fallacy. You start out with something not in evidence, then build on it.

It does you no good to spiral further down the rabbit hole if you aren't going to settle this initial issue.

Ultimate fallacy. Please try again later.

 

[Reality Check]

You keep calling "something" a CT, but the BoM, the CRU, GISS, the NCDC and BEST all state they adjust the historic records, so how can it be called a CT?

The conspiracy theory part, r-j, is your continued accusation that the BoM, the CRU, GISS, the NCDC , BEST, etc. (we have not even mentioned HADCRUT yet!) only adjust the historical temperatures down thus giving increasing warming trends. The implication is that they do tis on purpose thus faking the data.

The fact is that we live in the real world where US stations have moved from warmer locations to cooler locations and so there is a need to adjust their historical temperatures down to account for the change in location.
The fact is that this has little effect on global temperatures.
A Defense of the NCDC, and of Basic Civility

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.
...
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]

Is this graph actual recorded data? Or an adjusted version?

If you are too ignorant to work this out, r-j then give us citations to the data rather than non-sourced images and we will tell you.

But the answers are probably (because you give no sources, r-j): You have a single weather station at Alice Springs Airport and are graphing
* the annual highest temperatures from it. This is raw data !
* the annual lowest temperatures from it. This is raw data !
* The GISS adjusted data from Alice Springs Airport. This is probably GISS adjusted data from station raw data !
* The BEST adjusted data from Alice Springs Airport. This is definitely BEST adjusted data from station raw data !
and of course you may have graphed:
* The BoM adjusted data from Alice Springs Airport. This is BoM adjusted data!


P.S. Any answer to this after over a month, 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!).
36 days and counting!

 

[r-j]

To repeat some essential facts here.

What I first postulated about this Chicago nonsense was that it is likely they were repeating something they heard. Clearly they did not actually research the records, or they wouldn't have ever claimed that there was "a slew of 113 days" recorded by the University NWS station downtown.

113 F is the raw data. The official records have the adjusted data.

Wrong, in every possible way. There are no 113 degree days recorded, at any Chicago station. Ever. The unofficial record is 109, in 1934 at Midway.

Midway is about 2 miles from the lake, which is over 30 miles wide at the same latitude (both estimates off MapQuest). That data suggests that ignoring lake effects would not be in the interest of good science.

Wrong, Midway is 8 miles farther away from the lake as the University station. It is common knowledge (if you study Chicago at all) that Midway is much warmer ofr highs, and much cooler for the lows, because it is not influenced much at all by the lake effect.

I was actually looking for photographs of the location at Midway air port, as I assumed that was where the station was moved from.

Yes, the official Chicago WB station was moved from Midway to O'Hare, but during the period the Berkeley due talks about, the official data came from the University site. Neither Midway or the Uni had a rooftop station, so they are completely wrong, no matter how you view it.

The downtown rooftop station continued reporting readings, but they never had anything close to 113 degrees there. Much less a "slew of days". There is no way to wiggle out of their error, which I think they know, at this point.

But it won't matter. Not.one.little.bit.

 

[Reality Check]

To repeat some essential facts here.

Repeating ignorance is essential facts that everyone reading the thread already knows, 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.

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.

You are lying about "There are no 113 degree days recorded, at any Chicago station.", r-j, because you have not looked at all of the Chicago weather station records.

You can read Wikipedia but foolishly think that it cannot be wrong !
Climate of Chicago

The highest temperature ever recorded in Chicago is an unofficial 109 °F (43 °C) on July 24, 1934, at Midway Airport. The official reading of 105 °F (41 °C) for that day was taken at the University of Chicago campus near the waterfront, and is the highest official temperature ever recorded in the city

But what actual climate scientists say is: 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.

All you are doing is confirming that the records for that weather station are not readily available to the public such as the editor of the Wikipedia article.
We already know this from everyone's failure to find any public records for a weather station that was moved to O'Hare airport, other than the monthly records above which show that a weather station was moved to O'Hare:

Then there are a couple of delusions
* that you magically know that what the above weather station is.
(the UoC Rosenwald Hall station was never moved to O'Hare!)
* that the authors of the article are reading this thread or worried about the ignorance that a random Internet poster is writing.

 

[r-j]

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

Another blatant lie, par for your course. It's why you don't simply quote where I said anything like that.

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.

I asked specific questions about what you mean by that claim, and your avoidance is obvious. Once more, are you claiming the information observed, recorded, or electronically transmitted from the ASOS instruments, is being changed? I'm not talking about corrections for instrument failure, but adjustments like I showed using the NCDC graphics.

Is that what you are claiming is happening? That somebody, or some computer, adjusts the temperature data every day? (or every minute for the ASOS stations) Is that what you are trying to say is happening?

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.

No, it is not. Why would anyone even claim that? It doesn't match GISS, it doesn't match the NCDC climate adjustments, and it certainly is wrong in regards to the Chicago area.

Of course the excuse will be something like "Oh it doesn't matter if it's wrong in some places, the larger picture is the same". Except that isn't true either.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course the excuse will be something like....

No, r-j, the excuse will be your blatant ignorance about the BEST project !
Berkeley Earth

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were made available to the public in October 2011, and their results have been published as peer-reviewed scientific papers beginning in December 2012.[8][9][10] The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[11][12][13][14]

(my emphasis added)

That is idiotic to think that that the BEST results should exactly match the GISS, NOAA and CRU results is obvious - they use a different dataset and analyze the dataset differently.

 

[Reality Check]

2 October 2014: The BEST database says the O'Hare airport weather station monthly average data extends back to 1873 !

Whoops - the link to the post explaining the simple fact that the O'Hare weather station was moved to the airport from somewhere else because it has data back to 1873 is wrong.
2 October 2014: The BEST database says the O'Hare airport weather station monthly average data extends back to 1873 . Thus it was moved there!

 

[r-j]

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:

It's ironic that you avoid answering specific and clear questions about your position, and instead speak of conspiracies and claim I am ranting, which is obviously your rhetorical position, not grounded in any facts.

Several times recently people have asked, somewhat mockingly of course, why nobody else has noticed what I find obvious and easy to understand. I think it's because I simply look at what is there, not what I want to be there, or expect to see. For example.

The adjusted data actually show a COOLER early 20th century Australia than the adjusted data show.

I see that as an obvious error. Certainly you didn't mean it, it's obvious on the face of it. It's a mistake, but you didn't notice it, nor has anyone else.

The problem is, it's impossible to know which way you made the mistake. What was it you actually meant to say?

Is it "The unadjusted data actually show a COOLER early 20th century Australia than the adjusted data show."

Or should it be "The adjusted data actually show a COOLER early 20th century Australia than the unadjusted data show."

Or is it "The unadjusted data actually show a WARMER early 20th century Australia than the adjusted data show."

As well as just what is meant by adjusted and unadjusted in this context?

It's not at all clear what you are trying to argue.

 

[r-j]

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

I am familiar with the BoM site, as well as what the page says.

Additionally, the Bureau maintains multiple temperature data sets – analysed in different ways – to provide a consistency check on the accuracy of temperature observations

In fact I posted a link to a specific station, on the BoM site, and asked specific questions about the data displayed.

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.

No, none of the questions are answered on that page.

Iv'e asked the BoM the same questions, and await a reply. If they actually do have multiple temperature data sets, like for the station I used as an example, they do not display them on the site. Nor allow comparisons using them.

If you know where those multiple sets of analysed data are, please let us know. It would be most on topic.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: BoM adjusted temperatures to cool trends in NW Austrailia

It's ironic that you avoid answering specific and clear questions about your position...

Speaking of irony, r-j:

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 early 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.
4. r-j (25 September 2014) new unsupported, vague assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way"
5. r-j (25 September 2014): How about a simple list with source of the temperatures of that specific weather station from the period in question, e.g. July 1934?
   Not the NWS Chicago anonymous list of temperatures!)
6. r-j (29 September 2014): Cite the your source showing the documented movement of the weather station from the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city to the O'Hare airport.
7. r-j (29 September 2014): Please cite your source for the weather station that you think is in the image that you attached

You cannot even understand the plain English and graphs in bit_pattern's Ah, the old "meteorologists good" "climate scientists bad" canard.
The graphs are clear - parts of northwest Australia have a warming trend for the raw data and a cooling trend after the adjustment !

 

[Pixel42]

Another blatant lie, par for your course. It's why you don't simply quote where I said anything like that.

How about right here:

The NWS does not adjust anything. The "raw data" is a made up term. There is only the data, as recorded by the WB, the NWS or the army air corp.

'Raw data' is actually a term that's in common use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_data

I asked specific questions about what you mean by that claim, and your avoidance is obvious. Once more, are you claiming the information observed, recorded, or electronically transmitted from the ASOS instruments, is being changed?

The information obtained by the instruments is recorded, those records are then subjected to a whole raft of quality control checks, corrections are applied as appropriate, and a corrected data set is maintained in addition to the raw data set. This has been blindingly obvious to everyone except you all along, it has been confirmed by links to statements made by the meteorologists responsible for 3 such datasets, whilst you continue to ask silly questions like "Do they alter the ASOS readings before the pilots receive it?" and "Is it somebodies job to alter the readings every day?"

I'm not talking about corrections for instrument failure, but adjustments like I showed using the NCDC graphics.

This appears to be an admission that adjustments are made to the raw data in certain circumstances, something you have been flatly denying for weeks.

Is that what you are claiming is happening? That somebody, or some computer, adjusts the temperature data every day? (or every minute for the ASOS stations) Is that what you are trying to say is happening?

I'm saying that the instrument records are subjected to a whole raft of quality control checks, corrections are applied as required, and the corrected dataset is the one that is then used for any further processing such as that done by climatologists. The UK Met Office link said the quality control processing can take up to six months.

No, it is not. Why would anyone even claim that? It doesn't match GISS, it doesn't match the NCDC climate adjustments, and it certainly is wrong in regards to the Chicago area.

The graph of the rise in global surface temperature that was the end product of the BEST project does match that produced by the three other teams who had independently produced one.

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings



Why would you claim otherwise?

This whole thread boils down to this claim, just repeated:

The downtown rooftop station continued reporting readings, but they never had anything close to 113 degrees there. Much less a "slew of days".

The NCDC database doesn't even contain the quality controlled data for this station for the period in question, yet you claim to have seen the raw data and to have personally checked every day's reading for a period of over 10 years to confirm that there are no readings of 113F or greater. The time has come for you to prove this assertion.

Please link to, or post an image of, the raw data record for this station for July 24th 1934, the day the official record of 105F was set, so we can see for ourselves that the temperature on that roof did not reach 113F on that day. If you do not do this in your very next post we can all conclude that you are unable to support your outrageous slander of two Berkeley climatologists and stop wasting any more time on this thread.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not at all clear what you are trying to argue.

Actually, it's quite clear and explained in detail in the link provided. But, of course, you're not interested in reality, you just want to create semantic confusion to make yourself feel like your winning. The point still could not be any clearer:

1. Data is routinely homogenised.

2. Deniers often seize on cherry-picked station data that show temperatures being adjusted upwards, which seems to me to be the whole point of this thread.

3. In reality when you look at all stations across the continent the reverse is actually true. Homogenised data corrects a warming bias that is otherwise present in the raw data.

You can tangle yourself up in semantics all you want but that line of reasoning is as clear as it is ever going to be.

Again, if you have further confusion about what I have written I would refer you to my source

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

 

[Pixel42]

r-j has been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned member:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284225

If I get a reply to my email requesting the Chicago data I'll post it, otherwise I think this thread is done.

 

[Pixel42]

I've had the following reply to my email:

Hello:

Interesting forum thread... although I couldn't get past page 2

I checked with the extremes for Chicago Area and it looks like July of 1934 and 1936 was the heat waves you are referring to.

Station Data from Midway (missing) and University of Chicago (96)

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/cdo/412056.pdf

I am attaching a PDF of extreme temps recorded in the Chicago Area and following up with the daily observation for stations that were open during that time.

Station Metadata: ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr)

Chicago WB (for some reason, there are no obs from 1925-1948. I am waiting on a reply from a colleague.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20005926&tab=MSHR

Looks like the address is/was 180 West Washington Chicago

University of Chicago

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20005915&tab=LOCATIONS

You could try the ILL State Climatologist:

http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/

Good luck with your forum.

Please contact me if you require additional information.

​Regards,

It looks like he can't access the Chicago Weather Bureau data either!

The attached pdf file is titled "Maximum 1-Day Mean Max Temperature for Romeoville/Chicago, IL NWS CWA". I've cut&pasted the first few rows. I'm afraid the formatting hasn't copied over so I've bolded the temperature field.

State Name Station Type Value Ending Date Valid Date Range
IN RENSSELAER COOP 116.0 1936-07-14 1900-05-03 to 2014-10-14
IL PERU COOP 113.0 1936-07-14 1901-04-03 to 2014-09-30
IL OTTAWA COOP 112.0 1936-07-14+ 1890-03-02 to 2014-10-14
IL ROCKFORD COOP 112.0 1936-07-14 1893-01-01 to 1957-06-30
IN WHEATFIELD COOP 112.0 1936-07-14+ 1916-09-01 to 2004-12-15
IL AURORA COOP 111.0 1936-07-14 1887-09-01 to 2014-10-13
IN FOWLER COOP 111.0 1936-07-14 1930-11-01 to 1971-11-30
IL DIXON 1 NW COOP 110.0 1936-07-14 1893-01-01 to 2014-10-13
IL WINNEBAGO COOP 110.0 1901-07-21 1893-01-01 to 1914-03-31
IL SYCAMORE COOP 109.0 1936-07-14 1896-06-01 to 1965-09-29
IL MARENGO COOP 109.0 1936-07-14 1893-01-01 to 2014-10-14
IL KANKAKEE 3 SW COOP 109.0 1936-07-14 1917-01-01 to 1973-03-15
IL MORRIS COOP 109.0 1936-07-14 1912-02-01 to 2014-10-10
IL JOLIET WBAN 109.0 1936-07-14 1893-11-01 to 1974-11-30
IN HOBART 2 WNW COOP 109.0 1934-07-24 1919-07-01 to 2000-02-29
IL CHICAGO MIDWAY AP WBAN 109.0 1934-07-23 1928-02-29 to 2014-10-13
IL PONTIAC COOP 108.0 1936-07-14 1903-01-01 to 2014-10-13
IL STREATOR COOP 108.0 1913-07-30 1893-04-01 to 2014-10-13
IL KISHWAUKEE COOP 108.0 1901-07-21+ 1896-02-23 to 1914-03-31
IL ASHTON COOP 108.0 1901-07-21 1898-11-01 to 1909-12-31
IL PIPER CITY COOP 108.0 1988-08-17+ 1968-12-01 to 2012-12-31

I'm not sure if I'll be hearing from him again if he gets a response from his colleague about the Weather Bureau data, if I do I'll post that too.

I realise I could post anything here and claim it's a reply, so I'm happy to forward the email to anyone who'd like to see it. Just PM me with the email address you'd like me to use and I'll forward it complete with attachment.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Here is a test we can all participate in

Look at the 24 hour temperature record below and calculate the temperature that day

I expect a variety of answers from all the participants on this thread

,

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

I am doing a quick scientific experiment and would appreciate input from everybody , thanks

Below is a 24 hour record of Winnipeg Airport temperatures

Please calculate what you think the daily temperature was for that day

I expect a variety of answers from a variety of posters .

Thanks

.