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

Reality Check said:
Wrong, r-j, classic woo reasoning is saying that you have seen the records of the weather station in the article and
Click to expand...
No, I not only have seen them, I have copies of them.

As a US citizen, I simply requested them. Any US citizen can do this.

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).
Click to expand...
False.

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.
Click to expand...
False. The official station was at Midway, and of course there was never any hot rooftop weather station.

Plus, the official station was at the University until 1942,

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.TdTmQh1n.dpuf

While that is partly true, many station moves happened, what they are saying is it was common that the moves caused the readings to be colder at the airfields, because the city stations were terrible at recording the real temperatures.

Which in the case of Chicago, is just so wrong. As for other stations, that can of course also be researched.

But Chicago, it is so well documented, and the stations never stopped recording, so it's easy to show their claim about Chicago is total BS.
 
Last edited:
How does this manipulated surface temp data conspiracy fit with the fact that we also have satellites measuring temperature from above that show the exact same trend?
 
r-j said:
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).
Click to expand...
Oh the hilarity is everyone else's in this thread because every one else probably knows that there is more than 1 weather station in Chicago, r-j :jaw-dropp.

There is one official weather station in Chicago from which the official temperature is reported.
Reality Check said:
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 [Rosenwald Hall] weather station [was active until 1962] and the Midway weather station was the official weather station until 1/17/1980 :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...
So it is quite idiotic to think that the official Midway station was moved to be the official O'Hare station in the 1930s and early 1940s when it was the official station from 1942 to 1980.

There are many other weather stations, e.g. 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 :eek:!

Thus r-j (29 September 2014): Please cite your source for the weather station that you think is in the image that you attached
 
bit_pattern said:
How does this manipulated surface temp data conspiracy
Click to expand...
You will have to ask the conspiracy people. I have never, of course, accused anyone of conspiracy, much less believe the adjustments are a result of conspiracy theory.

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. But, the cooling is not uniform, nor does it mean there is no enhanced greenhouse effect involved.

The idea that warming may be causing the cooling is on the table, and is being studied by a lot of scientist.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...
It is actually r-j's citation: History of the Chicago and Rockford weather observation sites.
He has been going in on about the official temperatures being the temperatures recorded by the actual weather station in the RealClimate article. They state that this weather station was moved from a site "close to the city" to O'Hare airport and talk about 1930s and early 1940s records before the move. But his own citation shows that the official temperature records were taken at University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall (probably the hall in his images) from 1926 to 1942 and then moved to Midway airport from 1942 to 1980. O'Hare became the official weather station in 1980 - almost 40 years after the period of interest :jaw-dropp!

ETA: The University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall station was there until circa 1998: Weather station behind Rosenwald Hall on the University of Chicago campus. It was moved, circa 1998, to the rear of 5730 S. Woodlawn. and maybe never on the tower that r-j thinks it was on.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
There will never be one. ....
Click to expand...
Wrong:
Reality Check said:
It is actually r-j's citation: History of the Chicago and Rockford weather observation sites.
He has been going in on about the official temperatures being the temperatures recorded by the actual weather station in the RealClimate article. They state that this weather station was moved from a site "close to the city" to O'Hare airport and talk about 1930s and early 1940s records before the move. But his own citation shows that the official temperature records were taken at University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall (probably the hall in his images) from 1926 to 1942 and then moved to Midway airport from 1942 to 1980. O'Hare became the official weather station in 1980 - almost 40 years after the period of interest :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...
You can understand the simple fact that O'Hare became the official weather station in 1980, r-j?
 
There is no mystery at all about the station moves. This latest nonsense is just more handwaving or something.
 
This latest round of just making things up, it's very special.

Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
r-j said:
There is no mystery at all about the station moves.
Click to expand...
There is a mystery about why you think that the selection of a different weather station for taking official weather measurements means that the physical weather station was moved, r-j :jaw-dropp!

ETA: I suspect that it is the other way around. The official weather station should be selected as the one that has a long term record of temperatures that are typical of the city as a whole. So selecting a new location even with an old weather station moved to it would not be done.
 
Last edited:
r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall and Greenwood Ave stations were not moved to O'Hare

r-j said:
This latest round of just making things up...usual fantasies snipped....
Click to expand...
Then answer the questions, r-j, rather then making up fantasies about the selection of an official weather station meaning that the weather station was moved :eek:!

Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by
* a lack of basic reading comprehension
* making up fantasies based ignorance and
* using the wrong data.

P.S. The University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall station was there until circa 1998: Weather station behind Rosenwald Hall on the University of Chicago campus. It was moved, circa 1998, to the rear of 5730 S. Woodlawn. and maybe never on the tower that r-j thinks it was on.
Can you understand that the University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall station was never at Midway or O'Hare, r-j?
Nor was the University of Chicago (Greenwood Ave) weather station.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
As I also pointed out, the one heat wave that set the all time high record for Chicago came from the roof top station, the airfield recorded 4 degrees higher. 109 degrees F
Click to expand...

That is not correct. Since then I have learned there never was any rooftop station at the Uni, it was on the ground. Considering the architecture of the building, no flat roof, this is understandable.

The official Midway station was of course, also on the ground. Never any hot black rooftop station like the realclimate blog claims.
 
r-j said:
Since then I have learned there never was any rooftop station at the Uni, it was on the ground.....
Click to expand...
And that is your basic mistake, r-j: You still have no idea what the specific station in the RealClimate was after 3 weeks :jaw-dropp!
The fact that the 2 university weather stations were never moved shows that it was neither of them as you think, r-j.
This of course shows that you have to be lying about reading the records of that specific weather station - you are looking at the records of another weather station.

r-j: The UoC Rosenwald Hall and Greenwood Ave weather stations were not moved to O'Hare airport :jaw-dropp!
They existed in their locations ~40 years after the period of interest.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to try and explain it. I will take it in parts, I am actually trying to explain how I see your words.
Belz... said:
How come the data is so obvious to a layman like you, and yet most experts in the field disagree with your conclusions
Click to expand...

How come the data is so obvious - Because it is, there is no explaining this. For example, the issue of the station moves in Chicago. Let me use that as an example to answer you. If the NWS/NCDC/NOAA official data says something, that is what it says. Now why it says what it does can be discussed forever and a day. But you can't argue that the data isn't what they show us. The official page explaining the moves is what it is. If someone claims the official station in Chicago was located at Midway in 1919, you know they are wrong. It's obvious.

How come the data is so obvious to a layman like you - I used the example of my instant recognition of not one, but two times somebody stated "the facts" in the middle of a heated debate, and was wrong. Why I noticed it, while nobody else did? That is what you are in essence asking me. Why am I seeing it and you are not?

The other part that is slightly wrong, is you are assuming I am "a layman", and have no contacts or colleagues, that I only get my understanding all alone. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

most experts in the field disagree with your conclusions - There is the fallacy. First, you can't actually know what "most experts in the field" would say about my commentary. Since they haven't even read it, they don't even know if they would agree or not. So it's a fallacy to ask like you did. You assume a fact not in evidence, in the question you ask. That is a fallacy. I can't answer that question, because it is illogical.

I hope that helps.

Now if you were asking "How come you are so much smarter than almost everyone I ever read or heard from about the climate and data and records and trends and what not?", or in other words, "Why am I only hearing this from you alone?", those questions I can answer.

:)
 
r-j said:
How come the data is so obvious...
Click to expand...
Sorry, r-j but the data is obviously not obvious since you still have not established which weather station the RealClimate article is talking about.
We know that it is not
* The official weather station that NWS Chicago uses.
* Either of two University of Chicago weather stations.

You have not even taken the first step. This is the O'Hare weather station that was there after the "early 1940s" So what is the ID of that weather station, r-j? Where are the records for that that station, r-j?

If you could look at the overwhelming evidence for and acknowledge that the NWS records (and maybe other not cited records) are not for the RealClimate weather station then most of the questions in
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.
are moot.
It all boils down to you finding the actual RealClimate weather station and its records and then forming a conclusion from the actual data from the actual station rather than the wrong conclusion from the wrong weather station.
 
Reality Check said:
Sorry, r-j but the data is obviously not obvious since you still have not established which weather station the RealClimate article is talking about.
Click to expand...
Now see, there'a another fallacy. I established right away that the claim they made is false, that the station now at O'Hare was not on a hot roof near the city, that it never recorded a slew of 113 degree days, so what they wrote isn't true. It's obvious. The only way anyone can know what they are talking about is if they explain it, provide evidence.

Reality Check said:
We know that it is not
* The official weather station that NWS Chicago uses.
* Either of two University of Chicago weather stations.
Click to expand...

No, not only do you not know that, you can't know that. Of course you will provide evidence to support your claim, but since it has no hint of reality in it, there will be no evidence from you.

But lets shift the burden of proof, shall we?

Reality Check said:
It all boils down to you finding the actual RealClimate weather station and its records and then forming a conclusion from the actual data from the actual station rather than the wrong conclusion from the wrong weather station.
Click to expand...
There you go. That's how the woo woo mind works. Somebody makes a claim, it is shown to patent nonsense, but even after that, they still want to insist everybody else has to prove them wrong.

Priceless.
 
r-j said:
The official page explaining the moves is what it is.
Click to expand...
What is this official page that explains the moves, r-j?
It is not your citation of History of the Chicago and Rockford weather observation sites. That is a history of the stations selected to be the official weather station. Your source shows that
  • If someone claims the official station in Chicago was located at University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall in outside of 1/01/1926 to 6/30/1942, you know they are wrong.
  • If someone claims that the University of Chicago Rosenwald Hall station was moved to Midway then you know that they wrong: that station was used for supplementary measurements until at least March 31, 1962 and a station was there until 1998.
  • If someone claims that the Midway station was moved to O'Hare to became the station that was there after the "early 1940s" then you know that they are extremely wrong: The Midway station was at Midway until 1/17/1980. The O'Hare only became the official station on 1/17/1980 :jaw-dropp!
 
r-j said:
I established right away that the claim they made is false, that the station now at O'Hare was not on a hot roof near the city,
...
Click to expand...
What priceless ignorance, r-j.
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 :p.
* 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 :eye-poppi.!
 
Reality Check said:
The Midway station was at Midway until 1/17/1980.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't true. The thing you are missing is when they "move" the official station, they do not move the physical instruments. The "new official station" has always been up and running for a long time before the "move". Different equipment, already being used long before they start using the data to record the official statistics.

The Midway station is still up and running. I just got permission to show you these images. (I do not have permission to upload most of the documents however)

attachment.php


attachment.php


That's an official document. From Midway. When they move a station, it doesn't mean the old station shuts down. That's what makes Chicago so interesting. Chicago has great records, going back a very long time.

That's how, when you study Chicago, you know the realclimate nonsense is just not true. It's not even close to true.
 

Attachments

  • Midway aug 2014.jpg
    Midway aug 2014.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 109
  • Midway 2 aug 2014.png
    Midway 2 aug 2014.png
    75.9 KB · Views: 110
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom