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

Corsair 115 said:

And, really, there are only two possibilities for such wrongness: (1) they are all honestly mistaken, or (2) they are all deliberately being wrong.

Click to expand...

That argument is a fallacy

In reality, they used computers to do the comparing, based on assumptions, some of it is explained in their documentation. But not the essential parts. They also never did a single experiment with real world stations to check the program, their hubris has prevented them from realizing the error.

The made up scenario using Chicago as an example was very likely the worst thing they could have done. We will see.

I found the problem almost in seconds, because there are no high temp readings anywhere close to 113, something anyone with a computer or phone can do in seconds. In fact, the old air park has 109 as the highest ever (1934), and the University station has 105 (1934), O'Hare has 104 (1995).

By actually doing the work, and doing a detailed study of the records, I discovered all kinds of things. Not that facts seem to matter at all.

Even their claim about the rooftop station is bogus. This too is obvious, so obvious it's unimaginable that anyone who spent even an hour researching Chicago weather station history, would not know this.

The weather station was in the tower, at the back of the photo. Notice what kinds of roofing material the building has. And notice the trees.



The building is still there of course.



And it never had a black asphalt roof. Much less was the thermometer on a black roof.

They just made that up.

Midway, called the Air Park at the time, was a much warmer place, far from the moderating influence of the lake. The minimum temperatures are colder, again, no moderating influence from the lake, or surrounding vegetation.



The summer maximum temp readings from Midway were never cooler. Never. The two stations ran at the same time from 1928-1969, so this is a simple scientific fact. The University max temps were never as high as Midway.

This is also obvious, since the University station continued to record and file daily records, for 27 years after the Midway airport became the official station.

There's more, but it just won't matter, will it?

r-j said:

That argument is a fallacy

Click to expand...

Well, what's the third option ?

In reality, they used computers to do the comparing, based on assumptions, some of it is explained in their documentation.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that all of the data used by climate scientists around the world is false, but _you_ are using the correct data ? Have you told them this ?

Corsair 115 said:

And, really, there are only two possibilities for such wrongness: (1) they are all honestly mistaken, or (2) they are all deliberately being wrong.

Click to expand...

r-j said:

That argument is a fallacy

In reality, they used computers to do the comparing, based on assumptions, some of it is explained in their documentation. But not the essential parts. They also never did a single experiment with real world stations to check the program, their hubris has prevented them from realizing the error.

Click to expand...

This is a claim that they are all honestly mistaken, in other words incompetent.

r-j said:

Or they might actually be committing fraud at this point. We will see.

Click to expand...

This is a claim that they are all deliberately wrong.

Belz... said:

r-j said:

That argument is a fallacy

Click to expand...

Well, what's the third option ?

In reality, they used computers to do the comparing, based on assumptions, some of it is explained in their documentation.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that all of the data used by climate scientists around the world is false, but _you_ are using the correct data ? Have you told them this ?

Click to expand...

Again, you use a fallacy. What I first postulated about this Chicago nonsense was that it is likely they were repeating something they heard. Clearly they did not actually research the records, or they wouldn't have ever claimed that there was "a slew of 113 days" recorded by the University NWS station downtown.

But if you can't grasp that essential fact, how will you follow the rest?

r-j said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ideogram said:

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

Click to expand...

Just when it seems it can't get any more wrong.

Of course you have evidence for this claim. And you will present it.

Right?

ideogram said:

That's what raw data means. It doesn't go in the official records.

Click to expand...

And your source for this is?

Because you are now claiming the NWS doesn't record what is recorded each day, all day long. They have two sets of books? How does that work in your mind?

Here's Midway for yesterday.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMDW/2014/9/25/DailyHistory.html

You are claiming that isn't the actual data recorded at the weather station there? Where did you come up with this?

Oh boy, this should be good.

Who changes the data every hour? What do they use?

I can't wait.

I've not really followed the O'Hare interchange but it seems to centre on the claim that 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). 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...

is fabricated. But the paragraph continues :

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...

Which raises the question of why fabricate when there are genuine examples available?

It may be that the second statement is also fabricated but that seems implausible. Many US airports were established in the 1940's and airports have a real-time interest in matters meteorological. It makes sense to put in a weather-station.

The only alternative which springs to mind is that there is some specific reason why this statement had to be applied to Chicago O'Hare but I can't for the life of me imagine what it might be. It's not as if one weather-station is in any way significant, let alone critical to some nefarious scheme.

At a loss myself I'll throw this open to the floor.

r-j said:

Midway, called the Air Park at the time, was a much warmer place, far from the moderating influence of the lake.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Midway is about 2 miles from the lake, which is over 30 miles wide at the same latitude (both estimates off MapQuest). That data suggests that ignoring lake effects would not be in the interest of good science.

I'm curious how someone can tell the colour of a building's roof from a photograph taken from such a low angle that you can't see the roof.

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.

ETA: just to make it clear these are monthly average figures, not daily.

Pixel42 said:

I'm curious how someone can tell the colour of a building's roof from a photograph taken from such a low angle that you can't see the roof.

Click to expand...

I decided to see if I could find a photo which actually showed the roof. Looking at r-j's post again there's a box with an x in it which is the telltale sign of a failed attempt to post a photo, so it's possible he thinks he posted one. As usual there are no links to where the photo(?s) came from, however.

I'm afraid my own google fu failed me completely, I've been unable to find any photos of the building in which the weather station was originally housed.

Pixel42 said:

I decided to see if I could find a photo which actually showed the roof. Looking at r-j's post again there's a box with an x in it which is the telltale sign of a failed attempt to post a photo, so it's possible he thinks he posted one.

Click to expand...

I had no idea. Can anyone else see the image or not?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31799&stc=1&d=1411740047



Here it is again with an arrow showing the approx location that the Google street view is from.



Doesn't matter, there are thousands of images of the University of Chicago online, as well as video. Let me hand hold you through finding one.

http://www.uchicago.edu/

click "Medicine"

http://www.uchicago.edu/medicine/

click "comprehensive"

http://www.uchospitals.edu/specialties/cancer/index.shtml

click "Our Research Community"

http://cancer.uchicago.edu/

click "Community"

http://cancer.uchicago.edu/community/

click "Cancer and Disparities"

http://cancer.uchicago.edu/community/chicago.shtml

See that little tiny picture of the campus on the page? Open it in a new window.

http://cancer.uchicago.edu/images/Community Jan 2011/Alex MacLean 2005 campus with cityscape (2).jpg

Isn't that just awesome?

Here's a close up to help you focus on the roof of the building the old weather station used to be in.



Isn't that revealing? How can anyone claim there was a hot black roof? (like the rest of the claim, it makes no sense when you go and look)

Here's some video that shows the building, as well as old photos of it. Note the roofs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjutFrKTbmU

Now try to be skeptical of all the other claims as well.

For example, do you believe that Midway is 2 miles from the lake? As was claimed above?

SezMe said:

Hardly. Midway is about 2 miles from the lake,

Click to expand...

Why would anyone claim something like that? When with ease you can Google it?

What does posting false information gain you?

Belz... said:

the conclusion from the data painfully and insultingly obvious, but the vast majority of experts on the topic disagree.

Click to expand...

More fallacies.

If somebody claims the old weather station recorded "a slew of 113 degree F readings", and you go and check, and there are no readings anywhere near that from the NWS, you know the claim is false. It's obvious.

If they claim the 113 degree temperatures were due to a hot black roof, and you ask the Chicago NWS and they laugh, and show you the old building, and you see it doesn't even have flat roofs, much less blacktop or tar, then you know somebody was talking out of their rear. It's obvious.

And it wasn't the hard working scientific minded people who put the weather station together, and took readings for 70 years from it.

If somebody makes up something, like you did, it's obvious.

I was actually looking for photographs of the location at Midway air port, as I assumed that was where the station was moved from.

Pixel42 said:

I was actually looking for photographs of the location at Midway air port, as I assumed that was where the station was moved from.

Click to expand...

You must have missed the station history link.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=history

Remember if you will, a "station move" means "we will now take the official records from a new location", it's not usual that they move all the equipment.

The University station continued to take daily readings after "the move". So did Midway, after the "station move" to O'Hare.

Old photos of Midway.
http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-130523-history-midway-international-airport-pictures/

Note the lake, 8 miles away in the background.

Modern images might make it clear how different Midway is, was, from the lakeside University.

http://www.jethub.com/Private-Jet-C...r-Private-Jet-Travel-6-Chicago-Midway-Airport

That link seems to confirm that the station was moved from Midway to O'Hare.

So it would have been the Midway location that had the black roof.

Pixel42 said:

That link seems to confirm that the station was moved from Midway to O'Hare.

So it would have been the Midway location that had the black roof.

Click to expand...

Dead wrong. Why would anyone make that up? There are actual photos of all of this. It must be the cultural difference.

I really think most people can't grasp what Chicago is. What it means when we discuss Chicago. What it actually means when you hear "the University of Chicago", or "Midway air field", or "the Chicago Air Park" in 1942.

Your own link shows that the official records for the Chicago weather station moved from Midway to O'Hare on 1/17/80. Midway provided the official records from 7/1/42 to 1/17/80. So the location from which the station now at O'Hare was moved was Midway.

ETA: the BEST date (linked to above) indicates a documented station move in 1980.

Pixel42 said:

So the location from which the station now at O'Hare was moved was Midway.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that was discussed weeks ago. But nobody has claimed it was Midway that recorded 113 degree days. I've watched the goal posts get moved here, but now it's entire airfields that are being moved. And apparently rooftops can be moved as needed.

r-j said:

Obviously the claim that the University rooftop station was recording 113 days is actually insane, but by looking at the data, I discovered several things about the changes that actually happen when they switched the official readings from the Uni to Midway, then to O'Hare. There are actual changes due to the switch, but they are nothing like the ones the NCDC uses to modify the data in their presentations.

Click to expand...