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

[r-j]

Here is the BEST plot.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Local/TAVG/Figures/42.59N-87.27W-TAVG-Trend.pdf

And here is a close up of when we have good records from Chicago.

What is shown there is a fiction. It is completely wrong, it is false, it is the result of computers changing the actual data. And the changes make the past cooler, and the present warmer.

Anyone who studies the history of Chicago will know this with no doubt.

The irony is that they used Chicago as the example of why they had to do the changes.

Very very ironic.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Have you checked the data at all?

Yes I have.
Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde claim a slew of temps for Chicago over 113F.

The actual Daily temps never exceeded 105F ever.

That means the Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde dataset is higher in the past for Chicago than the raw data supports for that same time period.



ETA So if the raw data says it was cooler in the past than the dataset being used in the climate models. Then AGW is actually worse than everyone is saying. (if those limited data points have any effect at all on the models)

 

[Reality Check]

Yes I have.

Red Baron Farms: Can you state the identifier for the actual station that Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde cite as having "a slew of temps for Chicago over 113F"?
Hint - it is not the one where NWS Chicago gets the "actual Daily temps" .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms: Can you state the identifier for the actual station that Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde cite as having "a slew of temps for Chicago over 113F"?
Hint - it is not the one where NWS Chicago gets the "actual Daily temps" .

No. I am leaving it up to you to find ANY weather station in Chicago that has a "slew" of recorded temps over 113F. Provide a citation and the whole argument evaporates away. Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde are vindicated. Pages and pages of bitter arguments become mute.

But I would like to see the citation please.

 

[ideogram]

r-j's claim was already refuted. He never imagined scientists could keep two sets of data, both the raw data and the adjusted data. Here is an example:

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.

It is critical to note that there are two temperatures, raw, and adjusted, given for each period.

Every source r-j provided lists only one temperature reading for each data point. He was asked to show which sources list raw data and which list adjusted data. It should be clear that raw data cannot be compared with adjusted data. In r-j's original post he compares the 113 reading, which is a raw data point, with a list from CBS, which is clearly adjusted data. This is wrong.

r-j has not been able to answer this objection, so he ignores it. His original claim is false, because you cannot compare raw data with adjusted data.

 

[ideogram]

I'm going to say it again. To evaluate the claim, you must have access to the raw data, which cannot simply be found with a google search.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

r-j's claim was already refuted. He never imagined scientists could keep two sets of data, both the raw data and the adjusted data. Here is an example:



It is critical to note that there are two temperatures, raw, and adjusted, given for each period.

Every source r-j provided lists only one temperature reading for each data point. He was asked to show which sources list raw data and which list adjusted data. It should be clear that raw data cannot be compared with adjusted data. In r-j's original post he compares the 113 reading, which is a raw data point, with a list from CBS, which is clearly adjusted data. This is wrong.

r-j has not been able to answer this objection, so he ignores it. His original claim is false, because you cannot compare raw data with adjusted data.

But there is no weather station in Chicago with recorded temps of 113F. At least no one on this thread has ever produced one. I have asked.

 

[r-j]

Yes I have.
Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde claim a slew of temps for Chicago over 113F.

The actual Daily temps never exceeded 105F ever.

That means the Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde dataset is higher in the past for Chicago than the raw data supports for that same time period.

No, and there is a big mistake. There is no "Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde dataset", which seems obvious enough. They took data and "adjusted it", creating what they claim is the "real data", but it is only something they created, using computers to adjust the actual data.

There is no "second set of books", they created the second set of "temperatures", it only exist in their computer print outs. It isn't real.

He never imagined scientists could keep two sets of data, both the raw data and the adjusted data. Here is an example:

Nobody ever kept two sets of books, there is no secret or hidden historic record for all the Chicago weather stations.

But I would like to see the citation please.

You will never see one. It's a problem for people who make things up, they can't produce any evidence when asked.

Unlike the Zeke and Robert "data", all the Chicago records are real, they exist, and they were recorded and logged, according to scientific principles.

Until Zeke and Robert provide evidence, they are busted. And since they have no evidence, they are worse than busted. They will have to retract.

 

[ideogram]

It is critical that you understand what the terms "raw data" and "adjusted data" mean. r-j is doing everything he can to prevent you from understanding it.

"Raw data" is the actual number reported by the actual physical thermometer on the ground. If the thermometer itself is moved, for instance from sea level to a higher elevation, the actual numbers reported will change. But that should not change our official record of what was the high temperature that day. In order to compensate, the raw data must be adjusted, so that readings from the same thermometer can be compared, even after the thermometer is moved.

You must keep in mind that raw data and adjusted data cannot be compared. This is r-j's deception.

 

[Reality Check]

Here is the BEST plot.

These plots are addressing what point, r-j?
You have a plot of the average temperatures from the BEST analysis of the weather stations that they use. You have an close-up of part of that plot.
What is shown is standard climate science, i.e. the basics of GW.

The GW basic you are disputing is the simple fact that changes in weather stations change the temperatures that they record. So a weather station that used to be on a black roof top will record lower temperatures if it is moved to the middle of an airport (the Chicago example). Thus climate scientists have standard procedures to account for these changes rather than just discarding data every time that a station changes. What the BEST team have done is create a different and better procedure to do this basic climate science activity.

The Chicago example remains a good example until you backup your claim that it is not with the actual data from the station:
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!).

 

[ideogram]

Both the raw data and the adjusted data are clearly available at the link already given:

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.

If you don't like the adjustments that were made, the raw data is right there for you to do your own adjustments. Many scientists do this all the time.

 

[r-j]

Almost everything he claims is false. Actually all of it is.

It is critical that you understand what the terms "raw data" and "adjusted data" mean. r-j is doing everything he can to prevent you from understanding it.

"Raw data" is the actual number reported by the actual physical thermometer on the ground. If the thermometer itself is moved, for instance from sea level to a higher elevation, the actual numbers reported will change. But that should not change our official record of what was the high temperature that day. In order to compensate, the raw data must be adjusted, so that readings from the same thermometer can be compared, even after the thermometer is moved.

You must keep in mind that raw data and adjusted data cannot be compared. This is r-j's deception.

The weather service and the FAA don't care about climate. Not one bit. They do not adjust anything, aside from removing blatant errors, but even those are not always corrected.

It doesn't matter to them. The FAA runs the airport stations, and they only want to know what matters to the pilots and air traffic control. When the Chicago station was moved four times, nobody ever corrected anything, much less kept two sets of books.

It wasn't climate data they were interested in.

Also, moving a station four times makes it pretty much useless for climate data.

That BEST would even think of using O'Hare data (the official station) for climate shows how completely and with out any doubt that they never really studied Chicago weather history.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

There is no "second set of books", they created the second set of "temperatures", it only exist in their computer print outs. It isn't real.

Exactly, and their computer created temperatures are higher than the real temperatures for the past. So any climate models using created data by Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde, would show less warming than is actually happening.

That means if you, by the remotest possible chance, actually did stumble upon a conspiracy, the conspiracy is to hide how bad AGW really is. (I don't think it is a conspiracy at all, just a mistake, a bug, or a computer glitch)

 

[Reality Check]

But there is no weather station in Chicago with recorded temps of 113F.

No, Red Baron Farms, you have the burden of proof the wrong way around.
It is r-j's claim that there is no weather station in Chicago with recorded temps of 113F. He has even claimed that he has read the records for every weather station in Chicago:

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.

It is up to r-j to produce the evidence to back up the claim, e.g. a citation to the actual data for that weather station.
Now if r-j could acknowledge that his "from any weather station of any kind" was wrong (the NWS Chicago temperatures come from one station at any time) then all we have left is his failure to understand the need to account for changes in weather stations when analyzing data trends. And his still unsupported, vague assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is critical that you understand what the terms "raw data" and "adjusted data" mean. r-j is doing everything he can to prevent you from understanding it.

"Raw data" is the actual number reported by the actual physical thermometer on the ground. If the thermometer itself is moved, for instance from sea level to a higher elevation, the actual numbers reported will change. But that should not change our official record of what was the high temperature that day. In order to compensate, the raw data must be adjusted, so that readings from the same thermometer can be compared, even after the thermometer is moved.

You must keep in mind that raw data and adjusted data cannot be compared. This is r-j's deception.

I am not confused at all. I made a simple request. Produce a "slew" of recorded temps for Chicago over 113F from ANY weather station in Chicago for that time. No citation? It didn't happen.

 

[ideogram]

I am not confused at all. I made a simple request. Produce a "slew" of recorded temps for Chicago over 113F from ANY weather station in Chicago for that time. No citation? It didn't happen.

I explained that information is not available with a simple google search. But it is information any professional climate scientist would know.

Too bad no one here is a professional climate scientist.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, Red Baron Farms, you have the burden of proof the wrong way around.
It is r-j's claim that there is no weather station in Chicago with recorded temps of 113F. He has even claimed that he has read the records for every weather station in Chicago:

It is up to r-j to produce the evidence to back up the claim, e.g. a citation to the actual data for that weather station.
Now if r-j could acknowledge that his "from any weather station of any kind" was wrong (the NWS Chicago temperatures come from one station at any time) then all we have left is his failure to understand the need to account for changes in weather stations when analyzing data trends. And his still unsupported, vague assertion that some data was adjusted "the wrong way".

You are asking to prove a negative. To prove something didn't happen. That is a logic fallacy. You claim the Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde's statement is correct? Citation please.

 

[ideogram]

Keep in mind that this is still a trivial argument, which does not say anything about the fact of AGW. Another attempt to distract.

 

[r-j]

Exactly, and their computer created temperatures are higher than the real temperatures for the past.

No, they are not. That is the problem.

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly, and their computer created temperatures are higher than the real temperatures for the past.

You should not blindly follow r-j's lead Red Baron Farms.
This is basic climate science followed by every climate scientist in the world (and not only the BEST team, two members of which are Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde). Weather stations change. They have a choice - throw away old data when the stations change or adjust the old data to account for the change. They do the valid and sensible act of adjusting the data.

It is r-j's close to a conspiracy theory that these adjustments of temperatures is somehow biased (faked?) to make temperatures warmer or colder. This is false. The temperatures are adjusted to make the temperatures measured in a region by different weather stations consistent. Some are adjusted up. Some are adjusted down.