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

[r-j]

You make these claims but offer no facts to support them.

You are confused. The claim is that there is some sort of adjustment made, which is ridiculous. However, if anyone has any evidence to support their claim, and can show that the WB, the NWS, or anyone else recording the temperature at a weather station, is somehow adjusting the hourly data, then present it.

I'm sure the NWS and the FAA would be quite interested to know that their employees are changing what the instruments show. Even more so if there are two sets of records. Shucks, I would most interested to know this.

Please, present some evidence for this.

 

[r-j]

I doubt the raw, uncorrected data are easily accessible.

It's not easy, but the actual recorded data from the US weather service is available, in many forms. There is only actual data, no corrections are made by the weather services. That would be beyond insane if anyone started changing what is recorded each day, each hour, and with the ASOS each second.

If r-j is really interested in this, I suggest he contact weather historian Christopher Burt at wunderground. Burt specializes in digging into original, historical, raw weather station data to verify temperature records and such.

Thanks for the suggestion, I certainly will.

 

[Dan O.]

You are confused. The claim is that there is some sort of adjustment made, which is ridiculous. However, if anyone has any evidence to support their claim, and can show that the WB, the NWS, or anyone else recording the temperature at a weather station, is somehow adjusting the hourly data, then present it.

I'm sure the NWS and the FAA would be quite interested to know that their employees are changing what the instruments show. Even more so if there are two sets of records. Shucks, I would most interested to know this.

Please, present some evidence for this.

The claim that there was some adjustment diid not originate here. It is your claim that is on the table. It is your responsibility to support it. If you want the authors of the report to support their claim you will have to take that request to them, they are not here.

 

[r-j]

113 F is the raw data. The official records have the adjusted data.

The claim that there was some adjustment diid not originate here. It is your claim that is on the table.

Like I said, you are confused. The claims that there is some set of adjusted temperature records, started here. It's complete nonsense, which is why I suggest anyone making such a claim provide some evidence.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are confused. The claim is that there is some sort of adjustment made, which is ridiculous. However, if anyone has any evidence to support their claim, and can show that the WB, the NWS, or anyone else recording the temperature at a weather station, is somehow adjusting the hourly data, then present it.

I'm sure the NWS and the FAA would be quite interested to know that their employees are changing what the instruments show. Even more so if there are two sets of records. Shucks, I would most interested to know this.

Please, present some evidence for this.

They would be. All recording instruments in a quality managed environment are regularly checked for accuracy and maintained. If this was not done, I would be amazed. After checking and fixing a faulty instrument, I would be very surprised if the current temperature it was measuring did not change.

 

[Dan O.]

Like I said, you are confused. The claims that there is some set of adjusted temperature records, started here. It's complete nonsense, which is why I suggest anyone making such a claim provide some evidence.

So what is your claim? we can roll back to the article that you posted and see that it said:

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.

It appears that you are claiming that the 113 F readings are bogus. That author apparently has access to the original data that they are referencing which you don't have. We have tried to help you out and have uncovered that the official station for Chicago has moved several times. We have found documents that show the actual locations of the previous sites including the photograph of the historical WB site which was a rooftop in the city center. I linked to a source for monthly reports from that station but there is a big gap in the records available online compared to the time frame that the station was recording data. Specifically most of the time frame for the '30s and '40s is not available from the link I provided.

How are you intending to prove that the 113 F reading is bogus without that specific data? Furthermore, it is only my guess that the WB station is the one the authors are referring to. It meets all of the specifications but we have not ruled out all other possibilities. The only way for you to be sure is to go straight to the reports author and request clarification.

But then, what are you going to prove? The point that they are trying to make is that you cannot directly use the raw data from a station that has moved around or where local conditions have changed when measuring long term trends. That point remains valid regardless of the facts of this particular station.

 

[r-j]

It appears that you are claiming that the 113 F readings are bogus.

No, I clearly said their claim is bogus. There never was, ever has been, in any way shape or form, been a reading from any Chicago weather station of 113, much less multiple ones. The data, which anyone can look at, clearly shows their claim is nonsense.

That author apparently has access to the original data that they are referencing which you don't have.

Now see, you just made that up. You don't actually have a shred of evidence to support what you just claimed.

Of course you will be happy to prove what you claimed is true, and will provide evidence.

Right?

 

[r-j]

Everything you wrote was wrong, except for the following.

The point that they are trying to make is that you cannot directly use the raw data from a station that has moved around or where local conditions have changed when measuring long term trends.

Yes, that is exactly right. And Chicago is pretty much the worst place to try and use the official Chicago record for climate. In fact, it almost useless. Anyone who actually studies the area knows this. It's no secret.

That point remains valid regardless of the facts of this particular station.

Of course, which is why using Chicago as an example was such a truly horrible mistake. The Berkeley BEST "data" for Chicago and surrounding areas is absolute crap, it's worse than useless, it's so wrong.

And that is very easy to prove.

 

[Reality Check]

You are confused. The claim is that there is some sort of adjustment made, which is ridiculous.

Wrong r-j.
The fact is that when weather stations are changed and this changes the temperatures that they record, then there are adjustments made. This is standard climate science probably done better by the BEST project.

The example is a station in Chicago that was moved to O'Hare airport in the 1940's.

New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells. To date, only raw quality controlled (but not homogenized) daily temperature data has been available through GHCN-Daily and similar sources. Using this data is problematic when looking at long-term trends, as localized biases like station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes can introduce significant biases.

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.

 

[Dan O.]

No, I clearly said their claim is bogus. There never was, ever has been, in any way shape or form, been a reading from any Chicago weather station of 113, much less multiple ones. The data, which anyone can look at, clearly shows their claim is nonsense.

And you know this how?

 

[r-j]

And you know this how?

Because I bothered to go and find out.

I also supplied sources to show anyone interested in the subject why it was a bogus claim. Of course those posts weren't moved to this thread, but it's easy enough to find them.

 

[r-j]

The following post contains the original post about this, as well as an example of the made up claim about "adjusting" the temperatures.

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.

In fact, days over 100 are rare. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/21/the-hottest-day-ever-in-chicago/

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/27/hottest-days-ever-in-chicago-2/

The official records for O Hare (and Midway) don't even have the 30s or 40s listed, because there was no record from a station that did not exist. The cobbled together records show 109 as the hottest day, but the official record was 105. But Midway records start in 1948, which is obvious when you look at them.

Claiming that was because nobody knew how to set up a thermometer correctly is absurd. There are a dozen different records for the area, and they all show the same heat wave in 1934. What none of them show is any temperature over 110 ever. Much less 113.

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.

It's why one should be skeptical.

The official NWS show no days over 105 from O'hare, and only two from Midway, neither from before 1948 of course.

113 F is the raw data. The official records have the adjusted data. That is the point of the post:

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

Obvious.

See how easy it was?

113 F is the raw data.

False claim. No evidence will ever be supplied to support this.

The official records have the adjusted data.

Completely false, and no evidence will ever be supplied to support that claim.

 

[Reality Check]

The claims that there is some set of adjusted temperature records, started here.

You are the one confused, r-j - there are actual adjusted temperature records that have been cited here - that is not a claim, that is a fact. Your confusion is that you think people mean that the raw data is adjusted and overwritten. This is not the case. As far as I can see everyone here can read the data and see that there are two columns - raw and adjusted - and thus no one has made that claim that the adjusted data has replace d the raw data.
The example you gave is the monthly average data for O'Hare airport dating from 1873 sitting on the BEST site..

 

[jaydeehess]

The false claim is about the official station, now at O'Hare. During the time period they claim there was a slew of 113 degree days, the official station was at the University. No flat black roofs. (the station was on the ground)

The next move, to Midway, also no black roof, the station was on the ground. They probably are confused, thinking the downtown station was being used during the heat waves. Except it was also still taking observations then, no 113 degree readings from the rooftop station.

That doesn't answer my question about why you posted pics of the Univ. However if it did have a rooftop wx post and it was on the tower, your photos suggest that did have a black roof.

Actually it was brought up as "evidence" for why drastic changes had to be made to past temperature readings. I pointed out the example was false.



The NWS does not adjust anything. The "raw data" is a made up term. There is only the data, as recorded by the WB, the NWS or the army air corp.

This idea that anyone besides Berkeley or the NCDC adjusts the daily temperature data is made up.

So adjusting temps in ONE city is supposed to prove something?

I asked about Arctic wx stations, you ignore it. However observations do get adjusted. For instance while I was at Mould Bay the wx techs often reported snow and ice crystals. These reports would be rejected by AES Downsview. Scientific belief was that both conditions could not occur at the same time. Still while I was stationed there a couple Phd meteorologists came in and while they were there this phenomena occurted. Soon afterwards it was allowed to report it w/o changes being made. Raw data, the recorded observations of several High Arctic Weather Stations was retroactively adjusted back from previous adjustments.

 

[jaydeehess]

Btw, I was the electronic tech. One might wonder why I was so aware of the weather reporting.
Mould Bay was staffed with eight people including me, most of the time I was there. No such thing as satellite tv. No phone to the outside world just HAM radio. It was a remote station, no community near by , the closest community would be several hundred miles away. When its 24 hour darkness you do not isolate yourself from the only personal contact possible.

 

[Reality Check]

And that is very easy to prove.

Then why have you not very easily proved this, r-j, by citing or (even listing!) the records of the article's weather station during the late 1930'as and early 1940's?
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!).

The obvious and rational answer is that the article does not state which specific station they are using as an example. Thus you, me and the other posters here do not know which weather station is the example. What everyone else except you can understand is that we can eliminate certain stations because they were not physically moved:
* 29th September 2014: r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall and Greenwood Ave stations were not moved to O'Hare
* 29th September 2014 r-j: It is wrong think that the official Midway station was moved to be the official O'Hare station in the 1930s and early 1940s when Midway was the official station from 1942 to 1980.
P.S. Just in case you get confused, r-j: Midway airport is not O'Hare airport !
Thus the University and Midway stations are red herrings.

We can see that the O'Hare station was actually moved there because it had records before the airport existed:
2 October 2014: The BEST database says the O'Hare airport weather station monthly average data extends back to 1873 !

But the NWS Chicago only use O'Hare from 1/17/1980: 3 October 2014 r-j: The O'Hare weather station became the official station on 1/17/1980, not in the 1940s.
Thus it is ridiculous to quote NWS Chicago temperatures from the 1930's as if they were from O'Hare.

 

[jaydeehess]

Further to wx at YMD:
The summer I was there the entire 30 km long saltwater bay was ice free , a rare historical condition. IIRC it did it again the next year. A sign of a warming Arctic.

 

[Reality Check]

...Raw data, the recorded observations of several High Arctic Weather Stations was retroactively adjusted back from previous adjustments.

Whoops, jaydeehess - what is the bet that r-j will go on about the raw data not being adjusted (as in changed and replaced) rather than understanding that you mean adjusted data was made out of the raw data !

 

[jaydeehess]

RC, I see the issue with rj's claim clearly.

Can't very well say its wrong if you cannot show what was wrong.

 

[jaydeehess]

Whoops, jaydeehess - what is the bet that r-j will go on about the raw data not being adjusted (as in changed and replaced) rather than understanding that you mean adjusted data was made out of the raw data !

Point is that it was originally adjusted away from observation report. The wx tech actually would have to resubmit his report and choose either snow OR ice crystals. Both reports were afaik stored at hdqtrs but the adjusted one was official...... until later adjusted back to the original report which then became official.

So I cannot be told that weather data isnt adjusted.

OTOH a VFR pilot who feels that the ceiling is sufficient to take off even though the official observation states its below limits, would be well advised not to demand the report be changed. In Canada at least, thats a crime.