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

[Reality Check]

The thing you are missing is when they "move" the official station, they do not move the physical instruments.
...deleted irrelevant stuff about the not RealClimate weather stations yet again ...

Wrong, r-j. I have not missed this. I have been emphasizing this to you for the last few days and making it explicit today.
When they move a station, they actually move a station!
When they select a station to be the official station they do not move a station!

What you are missing a answers to questions and the fact that you are obsessing about stations that are not the RealClimate station !

Your inability to answer
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 RealClimate article. Etc.
after 3 weeks shows that your claim to have checked the actual weather stations records is a lie.

But it is an understandable lie because it is based on a lot of ignorance:
* you still do not know which station is referred to .
* that selecting an official weather station is not the same as moving it.
* the Rosenwald Hall station was not moved to Midway.
* the Midway station was not moved to O'Hare.
* the O'Hare station was selected as the official station in 1980 - it was not moved there as an official station in the early 1940s .!

ETA: In case you have forgotten about what the article actually says (the key is that the station was moved from one site to another!)
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. 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. Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

There is no mention of the station being the official weather station before the move.
There is no mention of the station being the official weather station after the move.
Thus it is idiotic to go on about the official weather station especially when the official records show that the applicable stations were not moved as you have stated above!

 

[a_unique_person]

Keep in mind that r-j's goal is to confuse. One of his favorite tactics is to fight endlessly over trivial details while ignoring (obfuscating) what is really important.

The location of one weather station says nothing about the fact of AGW.

Data is not information,
information is not knowledge.

We have many recordings of tempearature from over the globe, much of it patchy and containing errors. The idea is to get that global picture, and it's pretty consistent. You can pull out half of the temperature stations used in BEST if you want, the result will still be the same.

 

[Pixel42]

There is no mention of the station being the official weather station before the move.
There is no mention of the station being the official weather station after the move.

You are, of course, quite correct. I too have been making unwarranted assumptions.

 

[greybeard]

This latest round of just making things up, it's very special.



Because I have studied the weather history of Chicago, unlike the realclimate guest blog Berkeley experts, I know exactly which weather station reported 113, and which one reported 117, and I know they were not in Chicago, much less at some mysterious "rooftop station nearer to the city", something the experts either made up, or more likely repeated, after somebody told them.

Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by human error.

We are beginning to see the first backpeddling take place. Lets remind ourselves where this all started. R-j was pushed to show evidence for claims like this

It's probably a lot worse than just that. But the main thing to remember is that if any data/research/climate goes against drastic warming, all due to humans, it must be bunk. If it show drastic human caused warming, then it shouldn't be looked at skeptically.



Actually there is, but you won't know this from the alarmist press. The constant message is drastic warming (dangerous warming), even when the observed warming is actually cooling.

Then there is the skeptical look at the data itself. Any records that show no warming, or even worse, cooling, are "adjusted" to be in line with the story that it's all warming, all the time. It's why so many people are skeptical. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.


That's why that claim is so funny. They claim CO2 forcing is causing the current warming, when there isn't any warming. When the alarmist realizes this is so, the goalposts get moved, and then it's "the oceans are where the warming is happening now", but there is no forcing that would explain warming deep oceans, with no warming for land, surface, troposphere or sea surface temperatures.

That isn't even possible for a model to explain, much less did any model predict that sort of "warming", which to the observer is cooling of land and ocean temperatures, while the deep ocean warms.

Of course this can be happening, and it can be explained (currently wind is the assumed factor), but no model predicted this.

It's why the alarmist is constantly moving the goalposts, coming up with new hypothesis, new explanations, or even still insisting that despite all the instruments, all the data, that the atmosphere and SSTs and surface temps are still rapidly warming, even when no data supports this.

There are a multitude of serious problems with the warming narrative, but the alarmist has an answer for them all. Even if they have to make things up.

The best he could do to back up the claim that the data was being improperly adjusted to show cooling where there was none was a blog article on realclimate. He now claims that what he thinks is wrong is best explained by human error. After all the false claims and innuendo "it's now most likely an error". What do you do if you think there is an error on a blog. Do you contact the author and ask for an explanation? Or do you go into an internet forum and build a conspiracy around the "error"? I think we all know what any decent person would have done.

 

[Reality Check]

so then why did you run away from my posts that showed you wrong ?
you never admited your errors. will you do that now?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10065538#post10065538

I did not notice r-j's assertion about WELLINTON NZ back on 11th June 2014. This happens to be my home town .

This sounds like the "skeptics" lie about the temperature record that was published back in 2009: NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist. ON major thing that they did was to ignore the movement of a weather station ("WELLINGTON NZ"?)

Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. It’s pretty basic meteorology that temperatures fall as you move above sea level, so the two stations are not directly comparable. Treadgold affects not to know this… But there’s no need to throw out all the old data, you can apply a correction.
...
Enter the Wellington airport series. Like Thorndon, the station is very near sea level, and warmer at all times than Kelburn although the “ups and downs” of the record are the same. It’s a relatively easy matter to work out the difference: 0.79ºC. So if you lower both the airport and Thorndon series by that amount, you get:

So r-j seems wrong about whatever weather station he thinks is WELLINGTON NZ - if this is the airport station then temperatures were adjusted downward!
Of course the WELLINGTON NZ station could be the Kelburn one which is by the Met office and whose temperatures were not adjusted.

 

[r-j]

Citation please.

I knew it would be a long wait. As in, forever.

It is not 8 miles away.

I responded with two different links to map programs that sow clearly the distance. Yet not a word from anyone about this factual matter, much less acknowledging the obvious error.

What I don't understand is where your passion for the issue comes from? You have apparently seen it too .... or you wouldn't have posted what you did.

Are you talking about the way the heartland is being treated? The bad soil management issue?

Yet you appear to be obfuscating from time to time. Where does that come from?

Obfuscating? Are you serious? About what? Give me an example.

As for the satellite lower troposphere data, it does indeed match the actual surface station records, and show cooling for the CONUS, especially in the boreal cold season.

Note that nobody responded to that either.

... 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 ...

It's very very funny when somebody is trying, so very hard, to place the burden of proof on the skeptic, rather than the claimant. If somebody makes a claim, and the data, easily accessible data, shows they are wrong, then the skeptic isn't the one under the gun. It's the claimants. They of course never provided any evidence at all to support their claim, which is obviously a false claim. But instead of realizing this simple fact, the true believer wants the skeptics to actually prove a negative.

Then attach the official records of the actual weather station in the RealClimate to a post,

You see? Not only do the Berkely experts never name the station, but the believers want somebody to "attach the official records of the actual weather station", which is just too funny to describe.

It's like somebody claimed there were UFOs over New York City, they even landed in Central Park. When a skeptic notes there is no evidence of this happening, the believers insist the skeptic has to "attach 24 hour video of the Park for the day in question", because that is the only way they will accept it wasn't true.

It's so woo woo, it boggles the mind. Except in the above example, the claimant didn't actually say which park it was, so you have to attach 24 hours of video for every park in New York City, because if not the skeptics are liars.

And you must believe the UFOs actually landed.

Priceless.

 

[Reality Check]

It's very very funny when somebody is trying, so very hard, to place the burden of proof on the skeptic....

It is not so funny when a so-called skeptic makes a claim and still cannot back it up with any evidence after 3 weeks, r-j. Or cannot understand that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim .
I do not have to try at all - it is your claim and your burden of proof.

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

But the questions are based on my assumption that you have the ability to actually find out which weather station the RealClimate article was talking about. That assumption is wrong because none of the weather stations you have mentioned are that moved weather station. They are the official weather stations, i.e. different long standing stations selected at various times to be the one used to report weather (rather than analyze weather).
He (r-j) has been going in on about the official temperatures being the temperatures recorded by the actual weather station in the RealClimate article.
r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall and Greenwood Ave stations were not moved to O'Hare

 

[Reality Check]

Not only do the Berkely experts never name the station, ....

Oh dear, you do realize how bad this statement makes your assertion, r-j ?
Yes, the Berkeley experts did not name the station, so how did you know 3 weeks ago which station they were referring to when you stated that you had read the records and they were wrong?
That "read the records" claim lead to my question about the source of the data you stated that you read:
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]

You can answer with a citation to the 1930's and early 1940s data for that specific weather station or a citation to the 1930's and early 1940s data for every Chicago weather station (which is closer to your clam). You can even attach the records to a post. FYI your claim was:

Simply check the actual records, and you will find no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.

So simply tell us where the records that you checked are that showed no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.

ETA: This would be quite easy for a climate scientist to check out. They have access to the weather station databases. So it would be a look up of the O'Hare station to get the first record which would record where the station came from and then look up that station.

 

[r-j]

And yes, the AGW/soil carbon link. That's what we were discussing.

Good point, and I agree, but in a different way. There should be a topic just for soil management, with no global warming nonsense even allowed in it. This jamming a hundred different things into just one topic is the ultimate cause of just how useless it seems. Climate change is such a huge subject, a hundred topics might not be enough.

It doesn't even matter that you are right, and several people are so stubborn as to never ever admit you were right.

Well, it does in the larger picture, since it illustrates the stubborn mindset one runs up against when you actually try to DO anything about the issues. People are the problem, so understanding people, and how they resist with great effort any change, it is a critical matter, if you want to change the world. If an intelligent person won't bend on an obvious issue, one where the facts are evident and obvious to all, they certainly will not change their life to save the planet.

Because a couple, even a slew, of daily temps does not a climate make, nor is it going to put that carbon back into the soil.

The Chicago example is just that, an example of how possible deception and error have become mainstream science, in regards to issues that should be scientific, not political. When the actual temperature records, hard facts and hard won scientific data, become something that can be changed at will, when the actual scientific data is no longer used, but computer generated versions based on assumptions are what one finds, you literally can't use the data to conduct research.

That is a serious serious issue, one that cascades in effect, as bad science is built on bad science, so that we reach a place where a computer generated result, based on data that is computer generated, from computer generated data, that doesn't match the actual conditions, is used to claim that things will change, in ways that are impossible.

It's why the realclimate example is so perfect. It shows how out of touch from reality the entire global warming climate research world has become. That no expert, no authority on the real data, the real history of Chicago records even knows how wrong these two are, that is startling.

If you heard someone claim that in the thirties farmers regularly has crop yields 10 times higher than at present, but this was due to bad reporting of crop yields, so they are adjusting the records of how much wheat was produced, raising current figures to make the record look more like reality, while lowering past reports, you would strenuously object.

Not just to the adjusting, but to the report itself. Where is the evidence that anyone reported yields 10 times higher than present? That isn't even possible. After you note that the records don't show that at all, you now are faced with people claiming you are a liar. If the emotional and illogical rhetoric is oozing and spewing forth over the physical distance of an airport to a lake, you can be sure the rest of it isn't fact based either.

It isn't going to put ice back on the ice sheets. It doesn't change AGW. It is obfuscating to bicker over it.

I think you are using the wrong word. Showing facts and basing an argument on logic, reason and scientific evidence is the opposite of obfuscating. It's why discussing the theory is so important, and why those who claim there is no theory are an actual enemy of science.

In the real world, if you continue on but based on bad information, you are just getting farther from the truth. There is no moving on if you can't get the basics correct.

Which brings us back to an important post that was mostly overlooked.

 

[ideogram]

when the actual scientific data is no longer used

This is false.

Here is the actual scientific data:

Here's the data for Chicago from the BEST site:

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/173130-TAVG-Data.txt

Both raw and adjusted figures are given.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Of course the real issue is that this leads to the horrible realization that not only were adjustments made, that cooled the past, and warmed the present, it also means I provided evidence that anyone can follow, to support exactly what I said is happening.

No

This is what confuses me and why I think you are possibly obfuscating. Yes, any skeptic can see that the figures are adjusted and the article on RealClimate has a mistake. You have been right all along there.

But the mistake is in warming the past, not cooling it. The incorrect figures used are HIGHER that what were actually measured. That means if the real figures were used, if any difference at all, the difference would show AGW is even worse than they claim.

 

[r-j]

Yes, any skeptic can see that the figures are adjusted and the article on RealClimate has a mistake. You have been right all along there.

Thank you, that's the first time anyone has said that.

But the mistake is in warming the past, not cooling it.

You lost me there. What evidence for that claim do you have? Nothing shows that, not one bit of evidence anywhere.

The incorrect figures used are HIGHER that what were actually measured.

Dead wrongI think. But it's impossible to know what you even mean now. What does "incorrect figures " mean? Where are they from? Where are these incorrect figures? Who is providing them?

That means if the real figures were used, if any difference at all, the difference would show AGW is even worse than they claim.

I have shown you the actual real recorded figures.

They do not show any warming, much less drastic warming for Chicago,or NE Illinois.

The BEST "data" does show drastic warming, and it is wrong. The NCDC data shows some warming, and it is also wrong. Because they both adjusted the data, rather than using a scientific method to extract the real climate data.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Come on r-j. Get real. The realclimate article claims.....

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) - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.i4lOzfrM.dpuf

You have argued now for pages and pages that is incorrect, I agree. Those numbers have been adjusted higher than the actual data supports. In fact 113 F is higher than the record high ever for Chicago. So the past was adjusted warmer, not cooler.

Since the past was adjusted warmer, that means if the real cooler figures had been used, when compared to present temps, it would show AGW is actually greater than they claim.(if it showed any significant difference at all from so few data points)

 

[r-j]

You have argued now for pages and pages that is incorrect, I agree. Those numbers have been adjusted higher than the actual data supports.

No, and there is the basic problem. There is no data anywhere that ever says Chicago ever had, much less recorded those kinds of high readings. The Berkeley duo made that up. It isn't real.

In fact 113 F is higher than the record high ever for Chicago. So the past was adjusted warmer, not cooler.)

No, there are no adjustments ever made by the NWS, and there is no data that supports their claim. None. Zero. They are either delusional or perpetuating a deception, none of what they claim ever happened. You have to grasp their story is complete nonsense.

Since the past was adjusted warmer,

No, stop right there. Nobody adjusted the weather records. Ever. And no weather record ever recorded 113 (not even close) for Chicago. Not at the Uni station, not at Midway, not at O'hare. Not the downtown station. Nowhere is there any temperature reading from Chicago like they claimed.

That is the bottom line.

 

[r-j]

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) - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.i4lOzfrM.dpuf

Here's the reality of it.

If you study the history of extreme heat in Chicago you will find no readings of 113 degrees. You will find no rooftop station at the weather stations at the previous three locations before O'Hare.

What they said is completely false.

And anyone, I mean anyone who cares can discover this in 5 minutes of research online. Less if you already know about the area.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, and there is the basic problem. There is no data anywhere that ever says Chicago ever had, much less recorded those kinds of high readings. The Berkeley duo made that up. It isn't real.

No, there are no adjustments ever made by the NWS, and there is no data that supports their claim. None. Zero. They are either delusional or perpetuating a deception, none of what they claim ever happened. You have to grasp their story is complete nonsense.


No, stop right there. Nobody adjusted the weather records. Ever. And no weather record ever recorded 113 (not even close) for Chicago. Not at the Uni station, not at Midway, not at O'hare. Not the downtown station. Nowhere is there any temperature reading from Chicago like they claimed.

That is the bottom line.

r-j,
Obfuscate much? The realclimate article is about the new daily temperature dataset from Berkeley. The raw data from Chicago is COOLER than the adjusted data from Berkeley on Chicago reported by Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde.

That means that Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde adjusted the raw data HIGHER in the past than the raw data supports. That means anyone using the dataset from Berkeley in a climate model would tend to show AGW lower than the actual average warming from then till now in their models. (if it showed any difference at all from so few data points)

 

[Reality Check]

You have argued now for pages and pages that is incorrect, I agree....

Red Baron Farms, you seem to have made the same mistake that r-j made (and is still making!).
The official temperature records for Chicago do not go up to 113 F because they are not the temperature records for the specific weather station mentioned in the article. From 1/01/1926 to 6/30/1942 ("late 1930s and early 1940s" in the article) reported temperatures were taken from the University of Chicago (Rosenwald Hall) station. That station was used for supplementary readings until 1962. It remained at Rosenwald Hall until 1998. So it could not have been moved to O'Hare airport in the 1940's!

This in the reply to your "Citation please" question (read the next post for r-j's take on this).

 

[r-j]

The raw data from Chicago is COOLER than the adjusted data from Berkeley on Chicago reported by Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde.

No, and I can't understand why you think that. Do you have evidence to support that in any way?

That means that Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde adjusted the raw data HIGHER in the past than the raw data supports.

Completely false.

That means anyone using the dataset from Berkeley in a climate model would tend to show AGW lower than the actual average warming from then till now in their models. (if it showed any difference at all from so few data points)

Wrong. That is nonsense.

Have you checked the data at all?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms, you seem to have made the same mistake that r-j made (and is still making!).
The official temperature records for Chicago do not go up to 113 F because they are not the temperature records for the specific weather station mentioned in the article. From 1/01/1926 to 6/30/1942 ("late 1930s and early 1940s" in the article) reported temperatures were taken from the University of Chicago (Rosenwald Hall) station. That station was used for supplementary readings until 1962. It remained at Rosenwald Hall until 1998. So it could not have been moved to O'Hare airport in the 1940's!

This in the reply to your "Citation please" question (read the next post for r-j's take on this).

I asked politely for a citation once already. You never provided any evidence that any weather station, official or not, had ever recorded 113 F in Chicago during that time period. Much less a "slew"

So unless you can find a citation, please don't bother me with unsubstantiated claims that some imaginary weather station somewhere in Chicago must have recorded 113F highs a slew of times. The all time record high for Chicago doesn't even come close to 113F.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's the reality of it.

If you study the history of extreme heat in Chicago you will find no readings of 113 degrees. You will find no rooftop station at the weather stations at the previous three locations before O'Hare.

There, I think, is your fundamental problem. You think there's only ever been one weather station in Chicago. This is not, in fact, the case.

What they said is completely false.

Why would they write something completely false? Especially if

... anyone, I mean anyone who cares can discover this in 5 minutes of research online.

I'm sure you're not the first person to look into this and yet you seem alone in reaching this conclusion. As we know, BEST is subject to forensic analysis with extreme prejudice by people who feel betrayed by it and yet I've not seen anyone else go on about this. Does that not give you pause?

The " station now associated with the airport" was once at a different location, which Hausfather and/or Rohde believe was on a black roof. They didn't dream that up any more than they dreamed up the high readings.