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

[Dan O.]

It is theoretically possible to deduce from that chart the location of the station and from that lookup the official temperature for the day,

 

[Pixel42]

What temperature? Maximum? Minimum? Average? If average, you need to define exactly how you want that average calculated.

If you're going to use the answer to calculate trends it doesn't matter much what measure you use, as long as you use it consistently. For example if your data is limited to a max and min measurement for part of your data set it doesn't matter if you have the more detailed information given in your graph for other parts; you need to use a measure that can be calculated for all of it if you want to use all of it in your trend calculations.

 

[ehcks]

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

As Pixel42 asks, what "daily temperature?"

Low 4, high 15, mean 9, median 9. Those are four important temperatures for that day. Which one do you want?

Ah, jeez, what was I thinking. None of that matters anyway. It is irrelevant which data point is used, as long as it's consistent. The mean is most likely used, but since the mean and median are the same for that day, even that doesn't matter.

If they used the high temperature, the eventual yearly change graph would be exactly the same shape, but a few points higher. If they used the low temperature, the yearly change graph would be exactly the same shape, but a few points lower. That's unimportant, because we know what today's temperatures are and that a consistent upward trend is harmful.

 

[Arnold Martin]

What temperature? Maximum? Minimum? Average? If average, you need to define exactly how you want that average calculated.

If you're going to use the answer to calculate trends it doesn't matter much what measure you use, as long as you use it consistently. For example if your data is limited to a max and min measurement for part of your data set it doesn't matter if you have the more detailed information given in your graph for other parts; you need to use a measure that can be calculated for all of it if you want to use all of it in your trend calculations.

I understand that , Pixel42 , thanks

My question is what would YOU say the temp was that day , be as accurate as you wish , your answer has nothing to do with anybody else's methods , pretend you are the sharpest pencil in the world trying to nail down the most accurate calculation of the true temp that day

I will also add that you are not being set up , it is not a trick question , I am not going to fault you or anybody no matter how we all reply

 

[Arnold Martin]

It is theoretically possible to deduce from that chart the location of the station and from that lookup the official temperature for the day,

,

Yes of course Dan .... but I am not looking for theory , or "official" methods

I want to know what YOU think the true temp was for that day ... be as accurate as you wish , it is not a trick question. thanks

 

[bit_pattern]

,

Yes of course Dan .... but I am not looking for theory , or "official" methods

I want to know what YOU think the true temp was for that day ... be as accurate as you wish , it is not a trick question. thanks

You're the one making an argument - why don't YOU tell US what you think the answer is and why you think it is relevant to the discussion.

 

[uke2se]

I understand that , Pixel42 , thanks

My question is what would YOU say the temp was that day , be as accurate as you wish , your answer has nothing to do with anybody else's methods , pretend you are the sharpest pencil in the world trying to nail down the most accurate calculation of the true temp that day

I will also add that you are not being set up , it is not a trick question , I am not going to fault you or anybody no matter how we all reply

This has nothing to do with climate change.

 

[Mikemcc]

I understand that , Pixel42 , thanks

My question is what would YOU say the temp was that day , be as accurate as you wish , your answer has nothing to do with anybody else's methods , pretend you are the sharpest pencil in the world trying to nail down the most accurate calculation of the true temp that day

I will also add that you are not being set up , it is not a trick question , I am not going to fault you or anybody no matter how we all reply

That's like saying which shade of red is really the real 'red'. It doesn't matter which method is used provided it is used consistently for all of the readings. Climate measurements are concerned with trends, so it requires a consistent approach. Abrupt changes are one of the things monitored for in the homogenisation process, station moves, device changes, TOBs changes, shelter changes, urbanisation, etc

 

[Reality Check]

.

Here is a test we can all participate in,

No, Arnold Martin, that is a waste of everyone's time because in the real world daily temperatures of weather stations are calculated as the average of the analogue maximum and minimum temperatures, not any hourly temperatures on a random graph.

 

[Reality Check]

Arnold Martin: Daily temperature = (Maximum tempterure - minimum temperature) /2

.....

Daily temperature = (Maximum tempterure - minimum temperature) /2
Let us hope that you can do that simple math, Arnold Martin !

 

[Pixel42]

I have received another email from the NCDC meteorologist about the missing information for the Chicago Weather Bureau station on the court house:

We have determined that the Weather Bureau Office moved from the court house to a building on the university campus for the 1926-1942 period and that is the only data in existence. We found metadata indicating the University was the official records station beginning Jan 1926 until the airport became such in Jul 1942. Sounds like your best option is the use the university data for this period in USW00014892.

This seems to rule out the court house being the location of the rooftop station referred to by the Berkeley climatologists.

The pdf file of weather station extremes which he sent me earlier lists over 30 stations in and around Chicago which have records in the quality controlled dataset of temperatures in excess of the 105F which is the official record for Chicago. 9 recorded 110F or higher, 2 113F or higher. All were recorded in the 1930s. The claim that a station on a black roof near the centre of Chicago recorded multiple raw data readings in the 1930s in excess of 113F therefore seems plausible to me, but as the raw data is not online and we still don't know the location of the station there is no way to confirm it. In the circumstances I see no reason to waste any more of the helpful meteorologist's time pursuing this further.

I'm sure if r-j was still able to post he would still be insisting that something nefarious was going on, but I'm equally sure that no amount of evidence would ever convince him otherwise.

 

[greybeard]

I have received another email from the NCDC meteorologist about the missing information for the Chicago Weather Bureau station on the court house:



This seems to rule out the court house being the location of the rooftop station referred to by the Berkeley climatologists.

The pdf file of weather station extremes which he sent me earlier lists over 30 stations in and around Chicago which have records in the quality controlled dataset of temperatures in excess of the 105F which is the official record for Chicago. 9 recorded 110F or higher, 2 113F or higher. All were recorded in the 1930s. The claim that a station on a black roof near the centre of Chicago recorded multiple raw data readings in the 1930s in excess of 113F therefore seems plausible to me, but as the raw data is not online and we still don't know the location of the station there is no way to confirm it. In the circumstances I see no reason to waste any more of the helpful meteorologist's time pursuing this further.
I'm sure if r-j was still able to post he would still be insisting that something nefarious was going on, but I'm equally sure that no amount of evidence would ever convince him otherwise.

Good work Pixel42. It would have been interesting to see what he said in reply. I don't think he really believed in this conspiracy either. He might have done at the beginning but his later posts suggested to me that he knew he had nothing to back up his argument so he just waffled.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Australian Parliament is exposing how "climate scientists" have used "Homogenization" in order to hide previous periods of high temperatures

That is the only way they could make 2013 look like the "hottest on record"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-weather-bureau-inquiry-20141029-11dx63.html

 

[greybeard]

.

Australian Parliament is exposing how "climate scientists" have used "Homogenization" in order to hide previous periods of high temperatures

That is the only way they could make 2013 look like the "hottest on record"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-weather-bureau-inquiry-20141029-11dx63.html

Exaggerating much Arnold? One MP, not parliament made the claim. He is well known as a climate science denier and has spoken at and attended Heartland Institute meetings.
The usual suspects seem to be stepping up their claims that the climate record is being fiddled recently. Presumably because 2014 could well be the warmest since records began.

 

[Pixel42]

Isn't that the same nonsense that's been debunked umpteen times already? I mean, I knew there would be some nonsense spouted when a new global record high finally put paid to the "no warming for X years" myth, but I at least expected it to be new nonsense. Is this really the best the deniers can do?

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped ignorance and paranoia...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...r-weather-bureau-inquiry-20141029-11dx63.html

Wow, Arnold Martin, you really are determined to regurgitate the ignorance and paranoia of climate science deniers.
They are so idiotic that they think that nothing ever happens to a weather station and so the raw data should be used .
They are so paranoiac that they think the scientists fake the data to get the results that they want .
Citing this article is especially bad because it is an ignorant, paranoiac politician making these claims, not a climate scientist. If George Christensen was capable of reading then he would have read No, the Bureau of Meteorology is not fiddling its weather data (1 September 2014) which explained why data homogenisation techniques are needed 2 months ago !

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.

ETA: George Christensen is lying.
What the Bureau of Meteorology actually said about 2013 in its Annual climate statement 2013 was

2013 was Australia’s warmest year since records began in 1910. Mean temperatures across Australia have generally been well above average since September 2012. Long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than days.

This is annual temperatures across Australia, not the daily temperatures at specific weather stations.
This is based on a dataset starting in 1910 and so does not include the temperatures in 1896!
A non-paranoiac person would have asked the BOM a simple question - why does the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network - Surface Air Temperature Dataset start in 1910?
An intelligent person could have just Googled that question and found Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset (PDF)

However, few consistent standards for instruments or observations existed before the late 19th century, making 19th-century data very difficult to compare with more modern records.
The creation of the Bureau of Meteorology in January 1908 brought all meteorological observations under federal control. This resulted, within a short time, in the implementation of common standards for observations and instrumentation, discussed in more detail below.

Thus the reason is simply that standards before 1908 varied too much to allow the records to be included in the dataset. Creation of the BOM established the standards needed for the collection of a dataset. An example given is that the use of a Stevenson screen (the UK standard from about 1864) in weather stations was progressively introduced from the 1880's but that it was not until 1910 that almost all weather stations used the screen.

I suspect that Australian climate scientists are looking at (or have looked at!) these pre-1910 records and adjusting the data to account for those differing standards of observations and instrumentation in order to extend the dataset.