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

[r-j]

You are asking to prove a negative. To prove something didn't happen. That is a logic fallacy.

I guess you missed where I said that, like a month ago.

Of course that is exactly what is going on here. It's priceless.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

IIRC There are professional climate scientists that post here sometimes. But either way, considering the record high for Chicago is substantially less than 113F, without a citation, it never happened. And r-j is not required to prove a negative. That is just a Russell's teapot.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

I am not blindly following r-j. Nor am I blindly following you. Nor am I blindly following Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde.

I am well aware that temps get adjusted. I am well aware why too. I am not aware of any temps in Chicago over 113F ever. Not adjusted nor raw either one. If you have a citation, please produce it.

 

[Reality Check]

You are asking to prove a negative.

I am not, Red Baron Farms.
That weather station existed (unless someone thinks that the climate scientists are lying abut that !) and still exists as the O'Hare airport weather station. That weather station has records. It is possible to look up the O'Hare airport weather station records which include the ones from before it was moved to O'Hare.

The issue remains after 3 weeks that r-j claimed that he had seen the records from every weather station including the O'Hare station, he has not produced any valid citation for the records.

I claim that Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde are climate scientists. Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde will have access to the records to the weather station and so probably know what they are talking about. I suspect that they are in a database that is not publicly accessible. I know that the Chicago weather station is a trivial example of a commonly known aspect of climate science.

 

[Pixel42]

IIRC There are professional climate scientists that post here sometimes. But either way, considering the record high for Chicago is substantially less than 113F, without a citation, it never happened

The record high for Chicago is less than 113F because the weather station that recorded values that high as raw data in the 1930s has had those values adjusted downwards to remove the error introduced by it being on a black roof. That is what the BEST scientists are explaining in their article.

 

[Reality Check]

If you have a citation, please produce it.

One more time, Red Baron Farms: I do not claim anything about the temperatures in Chicago so I do not have to provide a citation for anything.
It is r-j's claim.
So do not "blindly follow r-j" - ask him for the citations to backup his claim.

P.S. The Chicago station is not the only example of temperatures being adjusted to account to station changes in this thread. r-j made a comment about a WELLINGTON, NZ station and I explained that this looked like the Thorndon (sea level) station that was moved to Kelburn (125m)

 

[ideogram]

The only way two climate scientists can get away with such a basic error is if every other climate scientist is either incompetent or lying.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The record high for Chicago is less than 113F because the weather station that recorded values that high as raw data in the 1930s has had those values adjusted downwards to remove the error introduced by it being on a black roof. That is what the BEST scientists are explaining in their article.

So it should be easy to produce the raw data supporting that claim. All I asked for is a citation showing the recorded temps before adjustments were actually over 113F at any weather station, official or not, in Chicago. I wouldn't ask if it was a trivial adjustment.

 

[Reality Check]

So it should be easy to produce the raw data supporting that claim.

Which as we have been pointing out, r-j has not done, Red Baron Farms.
However I suspect that it is not a trivial matter for people who do not have access to the database(s) containing the data. I see that the Berkeley Earth do not have raw daily data in their database. From the article

You can find the homogenized gridded 1-degree latitude by 1-degree longitude daily temperature data here in NetCDF format (though note that a single daily series like TMin is ~4.2 GB). We will be releasing an individual homogenized station series in the near future.

The weather station that we are talking about just has monthly averages as far as I can see:
Berkeley ID#: 173130 Primary Name: CHICAGO/O'HARE, ILLINOIS
Note that these records go back to 1873 but O'Hare opened in the 1940s. This is a station that was moved to O'Hare from somewhere else. Sound familiar .

 

[Pixel42]

So it should be easy to produce the raw data supporting that claim. All I asked for is a citation showing the recorded temps before adjustments were actually over 113F at any weather station, official or not, in Chicago. I wouldn't ask if it was a trivial adjustment.

BEST have posted both raw and adjusted data for Chicago, but only the monthly averages. I've already given the link. That's as close as you're going to get without emailing them and asking for the specific raw daily records they are referring to.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

BEST have posted both raw and adjusted data for Chicago, but only the monthly averages. I've already given the link. That's as close as you're going to get without emailing them and asking for the specific raw daily records they are referring to.

I can wait. There is no rush. It isn't even a big deal to me at all. If r-j is wrong, AGW is what the climate scientists have been saying. If r-j is right, then AGW is even worse than what the climate scientists have been saying. Either way, I am preparing for the worst and developing my way of growing crops to withstand climate extremes and help with CO2 sequestration. I would like a citation though, when available. So I know how urgent it is.

 

[Reality Check]

I can wait. There is no rush. It isn't even a big deal to me at all.

This is not a big deal to anyone, Red Baron Farms.
r-j has been going on about this weather station as if using it as an example in a blog post somehow affects the basis of GW. If he is wrong then the BEST team have been adjusting the temperatures of this one station correctly. If he is right then the BEST team have been adjusting the temperatures of this one station incorrectly. But the point still remains that he has never produced any evidence that he is right. Which is a big deal in a skeptics forum!

 

[r-j]

The record high for Chicago is less than 113F because the weather station that recorded values that high as raw data in the 1930s has had those values adjusted downwards to remove the error introduced by it being on a black roof.

Complete nonsense. And of course there will never be any evidence for that, because it's a fabrication.

BEST have posted both raw and adjusted data for Chicago, but only the monthly averages. I've already given the link. That's as close as you're going to get without emailing them and asking for the specific raw daily records they are referring to.

No, you posted a link to the BEST data, which is, according to them, the monthly anomalies pulled from somewhere. They list a bunch of sources, but don't actually say where there anomaly list is from.

Just as they don't explain the adjustments they made.

 

[r-j]

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

Even worse, they claim it was from the station that is now at O'Hare, and they said it happened in the 30s and early 40s.

The data they say is the recorded temperatures, is here.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/173130-TAVG-Data.txt

Sources: US First Order Summary of the Day
% US Cooperative Summary of the Day
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Daily
% Global Summary of the Day
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Monthly v2
% Hadley Centre Data Release
% US Cooperative Summary of the Month
% World Monthly Surface Station Climatology
% Monthly Climatic Data of the World
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Monthly v3
% Multi-network Metadata System
% World Weather Records
% World Meteorological Organization Metadata

That should clear things up.

 

[Reality Check]

Even worse, they claim it was from the station that is now at O'Hare, and they said it happened in the 30s and early 40s.

And even worse you seem to think that the O'Hare airport existed in 1873 !

The BEST database says the O'Hare airport weather station monthly average data is
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/173130-TAVG-Data.txt

...
% Raw Data QC Continuity Adjusted Data Regional Expectation
% Year, Month, Temperature, Anomaly, Failed, Breaks, Temperature, Anomaly, Temperature, Anomaly
..
1873 1 -5.800 -4.250 0 0 -6.991 -5.440 -4.850 -3.414

So the BEST raw data contains a monthly average of -5.800 for January 1873.
Perhaps you would like to explain how a weather station at O'Hare airport recorded temperatures in 1873, r-j ?

This is obviously a record of a weather station that started recording in 1873 and was eventually moved to O'Hare airport.
However someone could make up a fairy story of people with a crystal ball putting a weather station out in the country side in anticipation of an airport being built there.

ETA: The source of the data is explained in the file, r-j. For example:

% For each temperature time series, we have also included an "anomaly"
% time series that removes both the seasonality and the long-term mean.
% These anomalies may provide an easier way of seeing changes through
% time.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Even worse, they claim it was from the station that is now at O'Hare, and they said it happened in the 30s and early 40s.

The data they say is the recorded temperatures, is here.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/173130-TAVG-Data.txt

Sources: US First Order Summary of the Day
% US Cooperative Summary of the Day
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Daily
% Global Summary of the Day
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Monthly v2
% Hadley Centre Data Release
% US Cooperative Summary of the Month
% World Monthly Surface Station Climatology
% Monthly Climatic Data of the World
% Global Historical Climatology Network - Monthly v3
% Multi-network Metadata System
% World Weather Records
% World Meteorological Organization Metadata

That should clear things up.

Well that's monthly averages, not daily. But the point remains, the adjusted data for that time is adjusted upwards not down. Meaning Chicago was cooler than they claim. Meaning AGW is worse than they claim if the same error is systemic on all their data. If it isn't systemic, then it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

But the point remains, the adjusted data for that time is adjusted upwards not down. Meaning Chicago was cooler than they claim. Meaning AGW is worse than they claim if the same error is systemic on all their data. If it isn't systemic, then it is completely irrelevant.

Red Baron Farms:
* The adjusted data for that time (as in the file) is adjusted both up and down. Look at 2012 which looks adjusted lower in winter, higher in summer.

* There is no systematic adjustment of data upwards. The adjustment of data for each weather station is to make it consistent through its changes with surrounding weather stations. The adjustment can be up or down.
NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist. has an example of temperatures being adjusted downwards (but maybe only as an example) for early records for a moved station. That does result in a larger warming trend but from data that is more correct than previously.

* The adjustment is extremely relevant. Without it old data cannot be used.
For example: NOAA Weather Stations

The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

So should all NOAA records earlier than that "last several decades" be thrown away, Red Baron Farms?

As already mentioned there are other changes that affect readings and need to be adjusted for
* changes in station location.
* changes in station construction.
* changes in the station environment.
* changes in instrumentation.

 

[r-j]

How did things get to this point?

But the point remains, the adjusted data for that time is adjusted upwards not down.

What does that even mean? It sounds like you are saying they made the very warm thirties (warmest time in the US records) even warmer. Which is nonsense. The NCDC adjustments, which are very much like the BEST changes, illustrates the reason it's nonsense. They show an adjusted graph, with the past cooled, and the present warmed.

At least the NCDC shows what changes they made.

The claims about bad readings in the past are often easily debunked. Because they are completely false. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/

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.

That alone is enough for a skeptic to insist the claimants prove every last thing they say.

If he is right then the past was cooler and it never did reach 113F in Chicago, raw or adjusted.

That is so so far away from reality, but hey, it's global warming. Anything goes.

As for changes to the presented temperature data, it's no secret, they even have an app to show the before and after changes, which almost always make the recent data warmer, and old data colder. In the total, it's all warmer. Changes to the actual records make it seem like there has been far more warming than any actual record shows.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/divisional-comparison/

Don't take my word for it, you can check for yourself.

 

[r-j]

The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

What does that even mean? They make it sound like somebody only recorded temperatures once a day, rather than every hour, or from a Thermo-Hygrograph, or since 1991 when the ASOS started, every minute.

Why does this "cool bias" suddenly appear, only after it is realized the evidence show decades of cooling? And how in the hell does an ASOS station have a bias of any kind?

Priceless.

Of course there is no evidence to support the claims, or the adjustments.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That is so so far away from reality, but hey, it's global warming. Anything goes.

Of course it is far from reality. But your claim is that temperatures in excess of 113F never happened. Your alternate claim is that adjustments made for temps back then were to lower them.

If 113F and higher temps never happened, and adjustments to the data actually were made by lowering temps, then where did the 113F come from?

You are arguing against yourself r-j. It's just obfuscation.