|
Post by glc on Aug 3, 2009 8:34:37 GMT
Oh what the heck lets respond to all of it .....
(1) 70% of surface temperatures come from the oceans. And how well is that measured? Since ARGO was implemented, OHC has mysteriously stopped increasing. Then there are the "adjustments" to SST measurements taken 60+ years ago. Also, SST is not air temperature, so what is your point?
My point is that the oceans represent ~70% of the GISS global temperature index. What's your point?
(2) Satellites and surface agree over most land regions What makes you think they should agree? They shouldn't agree, that's the point. The atmosphere should be warming at a faster right. Sheesh.
They shouldn't agree - providing all other factors remain the same. However that is rarely the case.
(3) Any recent divergence will not be due to UH. How do you know that?
Because there would need to be some massive simultaneous worldwide development for UH to affect the global trend over a period of a few years. Let's take an example. Let's say that every single station in the US was, due to UH, measuring 1 degree warmer than it was 5 years ago. That's all stations - not just urban stations. How much warmer would the global temperature be? I'll leave you to think about that.
(4) Unless the trend of UH has risen then UH cannot affect the overall trend. LOL, have you even read anything on the subject of UHI? It isn't all about UHI to begin with; it's Quality Control as well.
Not with respect to the global trend it isn't. If a station was measuring 2 deg too warm in 1975 and it is still measuring 2 degrees too warm in 2009 then the 1975-2009 trend is unaffected. AW has not yet grasped this basic truth.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Aug 3, 2009 19:26:20 GMT
glc. My point is that the oceans represent ~70% of the GISS global temperature index. What's your point?
Probably the point is that argo shows a drop in temperature since 2003 and if it accounts for 70% of the GISS record then land temperatures must have doubled to still show a warming, or the data has been corrupted.
glc. They shouldn't agree - providing all other factors remain the same. However that is rarely the case.
I think given the lack of quality control and UHI we can pretty much ignore the land temperatures in any scientific discussion.
glc. Let's say that every single station in the US was, due to UH, measuring 1 degree warmer than it was 5 years ago. That's all stations - not just urban stations. How much warmer would the global temperature be? I'll leave you to think about that.
Be serious glc. All of the urban stations were phased out over this period as they lowered the average. All they are measuring now is airport runways and car parks. All the ones measuring 5 degrees lower were shut down.
glc. Not with respect to the global trend it isn't. If a station was measuring 2 deg too warm in 1975 and it is still measuring 2 degrees too warm in 2009 then the 1975-2009 trend is unaffected. AW has not yet grasped this basic truth.
See the above answer.
It's so warm now that crops are failing from the cold.
Stop reading the IPCC reports and look out of the window now and then.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Aug 3, 2009 19:32:36 GMT
For urban read rural of course.
Tired now, plus we can all watch 'The Day after Tomorrow at 9.00pm here in the UK'
To 'Manchester United'....
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 19:46:08 GMT
Be serious glc. All of the urban stations were phased out over this period as they lowered the average. All they are measuring now is airport runways and car parks. All the ones measuring 5 degrees lower were shut down. If stations in cooler areas are removed it doesn't reduce the warming trend. Only if stations with lower than average warming trends were removed would it do so. And what about GISTEMP in the US showing less warming than UAH? We've already been told that UAH is affected by UHI and doesn't correct for it. Does that mean we should throw out UAH also?
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Aug 3, 2009 20:58:05 GMT
Advert break socold.
socold. If stations in cooler areas are removed it..
Almost socold BUT! If stations in COOLING areas are removed it distorts the whole warming misinformation data to deceive the uneducated public that the planet is still warming instead of the reality that it has been cooling for almost a decade. (Half your life socold. Think about it)!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 4, 2009 3:46:17 GMT
Sometimes it's best to take baby steps: files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolHouston/Documents/GrowthUrbanHeatIsland.pdfSatellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, TexasBetween 1990 and 2000, the city of Houston, Texas grew in population by over 300,000 residents, an increase of nearly 20%. The Houston metropolitan area grew from 3.3 million to 4.2 million persons, an addition of nearly one million residents. One manifestation of this considerable growth is a change in the heat island signature of the city. Over the course of twelve years, between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 K in magnitude. It increased in area 170 ± 30 km2 using the Gaussian method of area determination, and 650 ± 60 km2 using the 1 K threshold method. It is curious to note that the growth of urban heat island, both in magnitude and spatial extent (using the Gaussian method of determination), scales roughly with the increase in population (extrapolated to 1987 levels), at approximately 30%. Thus it supports M&M 2007 where they conclude Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half. Nowhere will anyone find where I said the earth on a global scale has not warmed. The warming is exaggerated due to effects of the slow creep of UHI and land use change in general. This is not even taking into account the poorly sited thermometers. Only in the NH has it warmed much more than at the poles and in the tropics. A case study done of LA, California proves beyond doubt that UHI has increased the temperature trend in that city significantly. I didn't bother linking (again ad nauseum) as apparently neither glc or socold care to read. This is diametrically opposed to glc's claim: Not with respect to the global trend it isn't. If a station was measuring 2 deg too warm in 1975 and it is still measuring 2 degrees too warm in 2009 then the 1975-2009 trend is unaffected.
You would be correct if you weren't wrong ;D When NOAA is used as references for temperature, keep in mind there is no adjustment for UHI or any other non-climatic effect for that matter. Zero. GISS is the only product that attempts to account for UHI in the U.S.. ROW is not adjusted for UHI. Prove me wrong. Also note none of the surface products list T Max or T Min, only the "mean". Hmm. Greenland, once the "canary in the coal mine" for warmology, has been thrown under the bus as the observational evidence debunks AGW claims about Greenland.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Aug 4, 2009 8:29:01 GMT
My point is that the oceans represent ~70% of the GISS global temperature index. Very interesting. I compared the giss, uah and hadsst records and came to the same conclusion myself. But it looks to me like the balance has shifted with giss to a more ocean based algoreithm since jan 2007. Before then uah and Giss tracked far closer together.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 4, 2009 10:42:19 GMT
Sometimes it's best to take baby steps:Good idea. You don't appear capapble of gasping the wider picture. files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolHouston/Documents/GrowthUrbanHeatIsland.pdf Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, TexasOh dear he's going to start telling me about Urban Heat again. It's ok, Magellan, you can assume I know about Urban Heat and it's influence. Despite living in the UK, I have witnessed strong urban heat effects. Between 1990 and 2000, the city of Houston, Texas grew in population by over 300,000 residents, an increase of nearly 20%. The Houston metropolitan area grew from 3.3 million to 4.2 million persons, an addition of nearly one million residents. One manifestation of this considerable growth is a change in the heat island signature of the city. Over the course of twelve years, between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 K in magnitude. It increased in area 170 ± 30 km2 using the Gaussian method of area determination, and 650 ± 60 km2 using the 1 K threshold method. It is curious to note that the growth of urban heat island, both in magnitude and spatial extent (using the Gaussian method of determination), scales roughly with the increase in population (extrapolated to 1987 levels), at approximately 30%.Right let's just assume that no adjustment is made for the increase in urbanisation and also assume that all of the ~0.8 night-time increase (~0.4 mean increase) is due to increased urbanisation. Let's go further still and assume that the ~0.4 degree mean increase is replicated right across Texas - not just Houston. Right then How much effect will this have on global temperature trend? The answer, to save you the trouble, is NONE. By which I mean the change would be undetectable. Thus it supports M&M 2007 where they concludeNow then, Magellan, have you read M&M. I've just scanned through it now and a couple of interesting things have cropped up. I need to check through all the data again, but it seems as though M&M may have confirmed that GISS adjustments are, in fact, correct. I'll return to this when I get time. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.M&M use a multiple regression technique which is Ok but the way some of the varaibles are defined is somewhart arbitrary. But, as I say, I want to look over this paper when I get the chance and I'll go into all the issues then. As far as their conclusion is concerned I'd like to know what global temperature trend they are referring to (do you know, Magellan?). In any case the upshot is that, even if M&M are correct, it's only going to lower the global trend by a few hundredths of a degree at most. Nowhere will anyone find where I said the earth on a global scale has not warmed. The warming is exaggerated due to effects of the slow creep of UHI and land use change in general. This is not even taking into account the poorly sited thermometers. Only in the NH has it warmed much more than at the poles and in the tropics.This is rubbish. The region north of 60 deg N (i.e. the arctic) has warmed considerably more than any other latitude band. The NH mid-latitudes have warmed more than the SH and the tropics which would explain some of the agreement between warming and socio-economic factors in M&M. The UAH satelllite trend at the North Pole is ~0.44 deg per decade which is almost 4 times the global average. The GISS zonal record tells a similar story. Please stop spreading misinformation A case study done of LA, California proves beyond doubt that UHI has increased the temperature trend in that city significantly. I didn't bother linking (again ad nauseum) as apparently neither glc or socold care to read.Again you refer to UH. Which study and what was done? This is diametrically opposed to glc's claim:
Not with respect to the global trend it isn't. If a station was measuring 2 deg too warm in 1975 and it is still measuring 2 degrees too warm in 2009 then the 1975-2009 trend is unaffected. It's not. The fact that "some" places have undergone significant urban development in the past 30 years needs to be put into context. When NOAA is used as references for temperature, keep in mind there is no adjustment for UHI or any other non-climatic effect for that matter. I don't reference NOAA. I prefer UK sources anyway. GISS is the only product that attempts to account for UHI in the U.S.. ROW is not adjusted for UHI. Prove me wrong.Hadley, GISS and RSS all ~0.16 deg per decade. UAH is ~0.12 deg per decade but the disagreement appears to come from the 1980s it's unlikely t o be related to UH. Also note none of the surface products list TMax or TMin, only the "mean". Hmm. Tmax and Tmin data are available if you want them. What do you think you could prove with them. Greenland, once the "canary in the coal mine" for warmology, has been thrown under the bus as the observational evidence debunks AGW claims about Greenland. What observational evidence?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 4, 2009 11:02:44 GMT
But it looks to me like the balance has shifted with giss to a more ocean based algoreithm since jan 2007. Before then uah and Giss tracked far closer together
Be careful. Your start period of Jan 2007 is not that long ago and we've had some significant ENSO fluctuations since then. I still think the satellites lag the surface in their response to SST changes so I 'd give it a while longer before jumping to any conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 5, 2009 0:04:23 GMT
Sometimes it's best to take baby steps:Good idea. You don't appear capapble of gasping the wider picture. files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolHouston/Documents/GrowthUrbanHeatIsland.pdf Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, TexasOh dear he's going to start telling me about Urban Heat again. It's ok, Magellan, you can assume I know about Urban Heat and it's influence. Despite living in the UK, I have witnessed strong urban heat effects. Between 1990 and 2000, the city of Houston, Texas grew in population by over 300,000 residents, an increase of nearly 20%. The Houston metropolitan area grew from 3.3 million to 4.2 million persons, an addition of nearly one million residents. One manifestation of this considerable growth is a change in the heat island signature of the city. Over the course of twelve years, between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 K in magnitude. It increased in area 170 ± 30 km2 using the Gaussian method of area determination, and 650 ± 60 km2 using the 1 K threshold method. It is curious to note that the growth of urban heat island, both in magnitude and spatial extent (using the Gaussian method of determination), scales roughly with the increase in population (extrapolated to 1987 levels), at approximately 30%.Right let's just assume that no adjustment is made for the increase in urbanisation and also assume that all of the ~0.8 night-time increase (~0.4 mean increase) is due to increased urbanisation. Let's go further still and assume that the ~0.4 degree mean increase is replicated right across Texas - not just Houston. Right then How much effect will this have on global temperature trend? The answer, to save you the trouble, is NONE. By which I mean the change would be undetectable. Thus it supports M&M 2007 where they concludeNow then, Magellan, have you read M&M. I've just scanned through it now and a couple of interesting things have cropped up. I need to check through all the data again, but it seems as though M&M may have confirmed that GISS adjustments are, in fact, correct. I'll return to this when I get time. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.M&M use a multiple regression technique which is Ok but the way some of the varaibles are defined is somewhart arbitrary. But, as I say, I want to look over this paper when I get the chance and I'll go into all the issues then. As far as their conclusion is concerned I'd like to know what global temperature trend they are referring to (do you know, Magellan?). In any case the upshot is that, even if M&M are correct, it's only going to lower the global trend by a few hundredths of a degree at most. Nowhere will anyone find where I said the earth on a global scale has not warmed. The warming is exaggerated due to effects of the slow creep of UHI and land use change in general. This is not even taking into account the poorly sited thermometers. Only in the NH has it warmed much more than at the poles and in the tropics.This is rubbish. The region north of 60 deg N (i.e. the arctic) has warmed considerably more than any other latitude band. The NH mid-latitudes have warmed more than the SH and the tropics which would explain some of the agreement between warming and socio-economic factors in M&M. The UAH satelllite trend at the North Pole is ~0.44 deg per decade which is almost 4 times the global average. The GISS zonal record tells a similar story. Please stop spreading misinformation A case study done of LA, California proves beyond doubt that UHI has increased the temperature trend in that city significantly. I didn't bother linking (again ad nauseum) as apparently neither glc or socold care to read.Again you refer to UH. Which study and what was done? This is diametrically opposed to glc's claim:
Not with respect to the global trend it isn't. If a station was measuring 2 deg too warm in 1975 and it is still measuring 2 degrees too warm in 2009 then the 1975-2009 trend is unaffected. It's not. The fact that "some" places have undergone significant urban development in the past 30 years needs to be put into context. When NOAA is used as references for temperature, keep in mind there is no adjustment for UHI or any other non-climatic effect for that matter. I don't reference NOAA. I prefer UK sources anyway. GISS is the only product that attempts to account for UHI in the U.S.. ROW is not adjusted for UHI. Prove me wrong.Hadley, GISS and RSS all ~0.16 deg per decade. UAH is ~0.12 deg per decade but the disagreement appears to come from the 1980s it's unlikely t o be related to UH. Also note none of the surface products list TMax or TMin, only the "mean". Hmm. Tmax and Tmin data are available if you want them. What do you think you could prove with them. Greenland, once the "canary in the coal mine" for warmology, has been thrown under the bus as the observational evidence debunks AGW claims about Greenland. What observational evidence? Keep lecturing, I'll just keep trickling out studies..... Have you wondered why nobody responds to your post at Warwick using that silly 'since 1992' agreement argument? Urbanization Effects on Observed Surface Air Temperature Trends in North China ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1348.1The urban warming bias for the regional average temperature anomaly series is corrected. After that, the increasing rate of the regional annual mean temperature is brought down from 0.29°C (10 yr)−1 to 0.18°C (10 yr)−1, and the total change in temperature approaches 0.72°C for the period analyzed. Cities grow, the trend grows with them. Heat Waves in Southern California: Are They Becoming More Frequent and Longer Lasting?climate.jpl.nasa.gov/files/LAHeatWaves-JournalArticle.pdfWhen these data were analyzed, it became evident that the average annual maximum temperature in Los Angeles was indeed warming by 5.0±0.2 (standard error) degrees F over the 100-year period (Figure 2). 2e average annual minimum temperature is also steadily warming at 4.2±0.1 degrees F per century (Figure 3). It sure looks like as population increases, so does UHI. Do you still think there are no trends with UHI? What observational evidence? Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html[22] To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930. The temperature trend during the next ten years may be a decisive factor in a possible detection of an anthropogenic part of climate signal over area of the Greenland ice sheet.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 5, 2009 0:46:06 GMT
Maggellan: Those thermometers wayyyy back in the 1920-1930 period in Greendland were prob not calibrated like todays, so who could really use old data like that to compare todays calibrated temps?
I mean......there is no way that Greendland could ever have been as warm as it is today with all the AGW going on.....is there?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 5, 2009 1:04:44 GMT
Maggellan: Those thermometers wayyyy back in the 1920-1930 period in Greendland were prob not calibrated like todays, so who could really use old data like that to compare todays calibrated temps? I mean......there is no way that Greendland could ever have been as warm as it is today with all the AGW going on.....is there? It's all purely coincidental.....
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 5, 2009 8:32:04 GMT
It's all purely coincidental.....
Do you mind telling us where your graphic comes from and what it 's supposed to represent.
It sure looks like as population increases, so does UHI. Do you still think there are no trends with UHI?
I don't think UHI has affected the global surface trend. And nothing you've shown suggests it does either. You're not really understanding the studies you're citing. I know about the UH effect. I don't need anyone to tell me about the UH effect. I've seen it fot myself. I've seen a difference of more than 7 deg C in less than 5 miles.
The M&M study actually shows that the UH effect has been accounted for. It's not a problem . There's no point in keep keep "trickling out studies" when you don't really understand the implications.
Have you wondered why nobody responds to your post at Warwick using that silly 'since 1992' agreement argument?
In my experience they don't respond because the can't. There is no argument. I've got others to check the trends and they all agree. Since 1992, the trends for all 4 datasets are virtually identical.
So tell me, Magellan (or anyone else), how can GISS and Hadley be affected by UH when the satellites show exactly the same trend.
Re: Greenland
You wrote
Greenland, once the "canary in the coal mine" for warmology, has been thrown under the bus as the observational evidence debunks AGW claims about Greenland.
I replied
What observational evidence?
You responded with the Chylek study which states that the rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.
I'm not sure how this debunks AGW claims about Greenland. I know the northerly latitudes warmed between 1915 and 1945. You obviously didn't. I am also fully aware that there was very little difference between the 1915-1945 warming trend and the 1975-2005 warming trend in the arctic region which suggsts a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling. However, there is still an underlying warming trend which is not part of the cyclical pattern. I've been over this several times, but it's clearly lost on some.
Magellan, be aware, many of the papers you refer to I have read. I did not read M&M 2007 bcause they made such a mess of the 2004 version. I have station data from most regions of the arctic - including Greenland. I am very, very familiar with the trends in these regions as I've used them on a number of occasions to argue against the AGW position on aerosol cooling(1945-1975) .
Oh and, by the way, when I put forward my arguments in full there wasn't much response from RC or Tamino readers because as on Warwich Hughes site, they knew I was right. Actually I say there wasn't much response. Tamino did actually ban me from posting on his site.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 5, 2009 18:25:00 GMT
It's all purely coincidental.....Do you mind telling us where your graphic comes from and what it 's supposed to represent. Perhaps you are asking rhetorically, but I can tell you how that graph was produced and what it's flaw is. It's the number of stations over time used to produce some surface record, which I cannot remember, probably GISTEMP. The large drop is due to the reduction in stations in Russia I believe. IIRC with the collapse of the soviet union. The flaw with the graph is that it plots the average of absolute temperatures at each station. Therefore the removal of a load of stations in the cooler areas of siberia drop that average down significantly. However the temperature records such as GISTEMP don't average the absolute temperature of each station, they average the anomaly of each station. Removing stations from siberia therefore isn't guaranteed to raise the average temperature amonaly in those records. In fact it could cause it to jump down. This is all quite evident without even this analysis however, because neither GISTEMP or HadCrut show a large jump in temperatures in the 90s as the graph depicts. That sad flawed graph is paraded around by skeptics soley to mislead poor souls unfamilar with GISTEMP or HadCrut into thinking that temperature records show a large jump in the 90s due to station removal and this is "global warming". There's no other reason to use such a graph, it has no utility other than a propaganda tool.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 5, 2009 19:52:10 GMT
The flaw with the graph is that it plots the average of absolute temperatures at each station. Therefore the removal of a load of stations in the cooler areas of siberia drop that average down significantly
Ok - that explains it. I was wondering how we'd got a ~2.5 deg increase between 1989 and 1990. I've probably seen the graph before but not looked at it properly. If this is typical of the standard of scepticism then 'our' side are in deep trouble.
|
|