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

[Pixel42]

Yes

Then why are you posting photographs of Chicago University as evidence against the statement that

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.

I still don't know whether that statement is true or not, to find out we need to see pictures of the location in Midway.

But nobody has claimed it was Midway that recorded 113 degree days.

It's true that the period given for the "slew of days" starts before the move from the University to Midway, so a black roof at Midway would not account for all of them.

 

[r-j]

Then why are you posting photographs of Chicago University

To illustrate how wrong these claims are. They are so wrong, it's almost impossible to correct them.

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).

At that time the official WB was at the University, but Midway also reported every single day. Neither station ever recorded 113 degrees. But that doesn't even matter, since the time period they claim saw 113 days, the records were from the University, which was used because it is not in the heart of the city. And there was no black rooftop giving insane readings.

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.

That is so wrong. Before O'Hare, the official NWS readings were from Midway, and they certainly were not on a black rooftop.

This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s.

Wrong. It can't be a common occurrence, since it didn't happen. The changes that is, of course there were station moves.

Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-from-berkeley/#sthash.vdvks41p.SPZqqaUg.dpuf

While that is correct in theory, if you adjust them the wrong way, you make it useless for climate research. Both BEST and the NCDC adjust the past, but they do it wrong.

That is the essential point.

 

[Pixel42]

To illustrate how wrong these claims are. They are so wrong, it's almost impossible to correct them.

A claim that the station currently associated with O'Hare was moved from a previous location where it was sited on a black roof can only be shown to be wrong by posting pictures of that previous location, not the one before that.

At that time the official WB was at the University, but Midway also reported every single day. Neither station ever recorded 113 degrees.

According to the raw or to the adjusted data?

BTW "the late 1930s and early 1940s" does overlap the move to Midway.

Before O'Hare, the official NWS readings were from Midway, and they certainly were not on a black rooftop.

You have yet to demonstrate that. I still haven't found any pictures of the location at Midway that show the roof.

 

[r-j]

So we see goal posts being moved, airports being moved, roofs and even the very essence of the debate being changed. Like the temperature record of the last hundred years, the arguments can be changed at will, always with one goal, to make sure the past wasn't as hot as the present. But along with that questionable goal, the claims also imply the ugly insinuation, that the Meteorology Department of Chicago University, the National Weather Service, including the Office of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, the Climatology Division, the Division of Station Facilities and Meteorological Observations, the Office of Meteorological Research, the Division of Synoptic Reports and Forecasts and of course the Division of Hydrologic Services are incompetent.

Before a couple of scientists make claims that insult a lot of people, before they and cast doubt and insinuate that even the Signal Corps Meteorological Work didn't know how to run a proper weather station, at their air base, they might want to contact somebody. Do some research. You know, before they do that.

They are claiming, that in 1942, or the 1930s, or whenever, that in essence, the US Army was running a weather station during WWII, at the most important airfield in the country, and they didn't know what they were doing. They might want to actually check things out first. You know, before they make a claim like that.

Before you even insinuate that there was some hot blacktop roof with terrible readings, before you declare that the US Weather Bureau, with a regional center, located in Chicago, was incompetent, you damn well better check your facts. Then run them by peer review. And then, before you publish such nonsense, you better check with a lawyer.

The people that you are insulting, some of them are still alive. But even if they were not, the National Weather Service doesn't take slander, lies and fraud lightly.

So keep attacking me for debunking this total fiction, this lie about Chicago and Midway and the University of Chicago. Please don't stop.

 

[DC]

So we see goal posts being moved, airports being moved, roofs and even the very essence of the debate being changed. Like the temperature record of the last hundred years, the arguments can be changed at will, always with one goal, to make sure the past wasn't as hot as the present. But along with that questionable goal, the claims also imply the ugly insinuation, that the Meteorology Department of Chicago University, the National Weather Service, including the Office of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, the Climatology Division, the Division of Station Facilities and Meteorological Observations, the Office of Meteorological Research, the Division of Synoptic Reports and Forecasts and of course the Division of Hydrologic Services are incompetent. Before a couple of scientists make claims that insult a lot of people, before they and cast doubt and insinuate that even the Signal Corps Meteorological Work didn't know how to run a proper weather station, at their air base, they might want to contact somebody. Do some research. You know, before they do that.

They are claiming, that in 1942, or the 1930s, or whenever, that in essence, the US Army was running a weather station during WWII, at the most important airfield in the country, and they didn't know what they were doing. They might want to actually check things out first. You know, before they make a claim like that.

Before you even insinuate that there was some hot blacktop roof with terrible readings, before you declare that the US Weather Bureau, with a regional center, located in Chicago, was incompetent, you damn well better check your facts. Then run them by peer review. And then, before you publish such nonsense, you better check with a lawyer.

The people that you are insulting, some of them are still alive. But even if they were not, the National Weather Service doesn't take slander, lies and fraud lightly.

So keep attacking me for debunking this total fiction, this lie about Chicago and Midway and the University of Chicago. Please don't stop.

Hilarious, yet you claim them to be frauds.....
LOL nice trolling.

 

[greybeard]

So we see goal posts being moved, airports being moved, roofs and even the very essence of the debate being changed. Like the temperature record of the last hundred years, the arguments can be changed at will, always with one goal, to make sure the past wasn't as hot as the present. But along with that questionable goal, the claims also imply the ugly insinuation, that the Meteorology Department of Chicago University, the National Weather Service, including the Office of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, the Climatology Division, the Division of Station Facilities and Meteorological Observations, the Office of Meteorological Research, the Division of Synoptic Reports and Forecasts and of course the Division of Hydrologic Services are incompetent.

Before a couple of scientists make claims that insult a lot of people, before they and cast doubt and insinuate that even the Signal Corps Meteorological Work didn't know how to run a proper weather station, at their air base, they might want to contact somebody. Do some research. You know, before they do that.

They are claiming, that in 1942, or the 1930s, or whenever, that in essence, the US Army was running a weather station during WWII, at the most important airfield in the country, and they didn't know what they were doing. They might want to actually check things out first. You know, before they make a claim like that.

Before you even insinuate that there was some hot blacktop roof with terrible readings, before you declare that the US Weather Bureau, with a regional center, located in Chicago, was incompetent, you damn well better check your facts. Then run them by peer review. And then, before you publish such nonsense, you better check with a lawyer.

The people that you are insulting, some of them are still alive. But even if they were not, the National Weather Service doesn't take slander, lies and fraud lightly.

So keep attacking me for debunking this total fiction, this lie about Chicago and Midway and the University of Chicago. Please don't stop.

Unbelievable. I had to read that three times because I just couldn't believe r-j had really said that.

R-j contact the scientists you have built a conspiracy around and tell us what they say. You can't plead ignorance any more.

 

[Pixel42]

I do quite like the latest piece of nonsense, though. The idea that recognising that some weather stations were sited in locations where they would consistently record temperatures slightly higher or lower than were typical for the area - and that this would need to be allowed for after they were moved if the total historical record was going to be used to determine whether there was an underlying temperature trend in that area - is somehow insulting the people who originally installed and ran the stations has given me the best laugh I've had today. And I've got a ten week old kitten.

 

[CapelDodger]

I do quite like the latest piece of nonsense, though. The idea that recognising that some weather stations were sited in locations where they would consistently record temperatures slightly higher or lower than were typical for the area - and that this would need to be allowed for after they were moved if the total historical record was going to be used to determine whether there was an underlying temperature trend in that area - is somehow insulting the people who originally installed and ran the stations has given me the best laugh I've had today.

Well it suggests that those people were unaware that the weather data they were gathering (for such it was, from their point of view) would some day be needed in the stude of climate change. If one believes that "climate is always changing" and people have always been concerned about it then this becomes negligence.

In reality, of course, climate change was a thing of ice ages, not the contemporary world.

Many people today have grown up with climate change as a public issue and perhaps assume it was ever thus. At my age I can assure them all that it wasn't.

Of course, getting consistent readings from a site for weather-forecasting purposes is important and I don't doubt that most were carefully installed. Apart from anything else a lot of them will have been installed by the US Air Force and Navy or meteorologists trained by them. The importance of weather-forecasting when fighting trans-oceanic wars, let alone the global face-off between West and East, hardly needs stating. (The Germans even had a weather-station on an island just off Novaya Zemlya in the early 40's.) It was still about weather, though.

And I've got a ten week old kitten.

They fatten up nicely around that age. So sweet. And juicy. With just the right amount of crunch.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now you are accusing the scientists of lying when they say it is a common occurrence.

I suspected that might be the explanation for the strange behaviour of the scientist and the statistician. Chicago O'Hare isn't special, it's just that there were no real examples of station moves so they lied about somewhere at random. It's the easy way out of the conundrum.

So this appears to be the story : scientists want to fake AGW but the existing data proves them wrong so they're fiddling with it and making up excuses for doing so - such as station moves, which have never really happened.

I'm glad I don't have to believe something like that. I don't think I'm up to it, frankly.

 

[SezMe]

Now try to be skeptical of all the other claims as well.

For example, do you believe that Midway is 2 miles from the lake? As was claimed above?

Why would anyone claim something like that? When with ease you can Google it?

What does posting false information gain you?

Note the lake, 8 miles away in the background.http://www.jethub.com/Private-Jet-C...r-Private-Jet-Travel-6-Chicago-Midway-Airport

It is not 8 miles away. Look at this:

The blue in the upper right is the lake. The purple marker is Midway. The scale is in the lower left. I was wrong by a factor of 2 - the lake is about 4 miles away. But you were wrong by the same factor. I can only echo you:

What does posting false information gain you?

 

[r-j]

It is not 8 miles away.

Of course it is. The closest road route is 9 miles, but as the crow flies it's just about 8 miles.

Google maps is your friend.

Making things up in the age of the internet doesn't work.

 

[macdoc]

It's just the conspiracy theorist's M.O., and I think this thread should be moved to the appropriate section

Not the climate change thread but this repeated conspiracy nonsense about a Chicago weather station. Tiresome - contributes nothing but noise.

 

[r-j]

Of course it is. The closest road route is 9 miles, but as the crow flies it's just about 8 miles.

The scientific thing to do is to open up Google and check the facts for yourself, if you don't believe the image is a true image, and the 9.1 mile figure generated by Google isn't correct. Or if you don't trust the source.

That's what I do. If you think Google maps/Earth is somehow wrong, use another program and check.

Google directions

Bing Maps


Checking the facts is how to debunk and counter falsehoods.


It's why I know that the Berkeley scientists are wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: Cite the your source showing the documented movement of the weather station

...snipped delusions about accessing the actual weather station records...

r-j: These are delusions since you have never been able to cite any source to actual records of the actual weather station. The unsupported assertions about the New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley article article continues

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 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!)

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.

There is History of the Chicago and Rockford weather observation sites that you have cited before which shows the "Official Climate Sites". This states the official weather station changed from University to Midway to O'Hare. It is quite idiotic to state that this was the same weather station since the page explicitly states that the University weather station

Maintained Supplemental Observations through March 31, 1962

and the Midway weather station was the official weather station until 1/17/1980 !

 

[r-j]

r-j: These are delusions since you have never been able to cite any source to actual records of the actual weather station.

This is classic woo woo reasoning. The person making a claim must support the claim, show evidence, this is common knowledge. Since it is self evident, from looking at the NWS official page, that there never were any readings of 113, from any Chicago weather station, much less "a slew of 113 readings", the Berkeley claim is obviously bogus. False.

Moving the goal posts, to a ridiculous level, and claiming there were "unofficial records", just means now you have to support that claim (which is hilarious, really it is). The number of claims just keeps increasing, as each little bit of the fake story becomes impossible to support.

The main one, is of course, that there was a rooftop station that had insane levels recorded, and that is the reasoning used to adjust NWS records, which means lowering the past temperatures.

Since that is the heart of the matter, the adjustments, trying to make it seem like Chicago is getting warmer, when it is not, the entire story rests on a claim they made. I already showed you it was not true.

Of course the real problem (for you), is you must answer a question.

What evidence will you consider "real", since all the real evidence so far is handwaved away, the goal posts moved, things made up.

What is going to settle the matter for you?

I could upload an actual image of the weather station from Midway, and you will then claim "How do we know that is a real picture?". So there is no end to the nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

What I wrote was " If they can't prove it, then they are indeed liars.", as well as calling them Yahoos. (which Yahoo.com probably wouldn't consider an insult of course)

What you wrote was a list of posts slandering the scientists, r-j, by accusing them of making things up:
* This is the problem when people make things up, and don't provide any evidence, like we see from Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde on realclimate
* Spouting nonsense about 113 degree readings is unscientific in the extreme. It is also insulting to all the people who worked to keep accurate records of temperatures and the past.
* Let me make this perfectly clear, these yahoos here are making a multitude of claims, with no evidence. False.
* It's part of what makes it seem so fraudulent

The Berkley scientists are not talking about the official weather station - they are talking about a specific weather station whose (not cited) records show that it was moved. This is why it is idiotic to quote official weather records from NWS Chicago without showing that the official weather station is the weather station that they are talking about. This ignorance is repeated:
* It seems the Berkley "scientists" didn't know that when a station "moves" in Chicago, it means the official readings are then used from the new station, not that they actually move the equipment
* Are you talking about the claim that the NWS was reporting 113 degree temps in Chicago? - it was not the NWS, it was a specific weather station.
* I used the official records from the NWS Chicago. Once again - wrong weather station!
* Since there is only one place to get the official data in question

This is either a lie (they did not delete the data) or fairly total ignorance because accounting for changes in stations by adjusting the data is standard practice:
* If the excuse is "they deleted the data", or they changed the readings, then where is this claim of a "slew" of 113 degree temperatures coming from?

The repeated lie (so far) about checking the records of the weather station in the article:
* I don't need you to check the records, I already did

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: Please cite your source for the weather station that you think is in the image

I had no idea. ...

Wow - r-j, you really wasted your time because you have not established a basic fact after about three weeks: What specific weather station the article was about !

I do not know what station you are looking at but Berkeley Earth has one historical station at the CHICAGO UNIVERSITY [#163610] January 1926 - October 1994 (819 active months) (41.7833 N, 87.6000 W, 181.10 elevation)
As you can see this weather station was not moved to the O'Hare airport ! The location is actually close to flat-topped, black roofs and there is a hint of structures on one. However the elevation looks close to ground level.

r-j (29 September 2014): Please cite your source for the weather station that you think is in the image that you attached.

 

[Reality Check]

Lets repeat the entire explanation.

Let us repeat you entire mistake, r-j: The article never uses thedata from the official weather station - they use the data that you still have not found. They use the data from a specific weather station that is obviously not the official weather station.

 

[Reality Check]

This is classic woo woo reasoning....

Wrong, r-j, classic woo reasoning is saying that you have seen the records of the weather station in the article and accusing the scientists of being wrong when you cannot produce the records of the weather station in the article !

Classic woo reasoning is quoting yourself repeating that ignorance about the records of the weather station when you have not even established which weather station it was!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The article never uses the data from the official weather station - they use the data that you still have not found. They use the data from a specific weather station that is obviously not the official weather station.

Citation please.