|
Post by socold on Aug 5, 2009 21:07:49 GMT
I should have said: "Therefore the removal of a load of stations in the cooler areas of siberia raise that average up"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 6, 2009 3:47:26 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. Add about 14.5 to each anomaly and guess what the result is The ignorance of basic Quality Control for measurement systems is obvious in just about everything you two have posted. Can't you people cite supporting references? You've been asked time and again to provide references concerning the missing "hot spot" warmologists now say isn't important. Shall we assume this is only talking points? There are lies, and there are damned lies. Cough up your sources from published literature demonstrating that tropical tropospheric warming is not a necessary signature of GHG (CO2) warming in climate models, otherwise like this conversation concerning surface station issues, it will be considered fluff. Some more propaganda on station dropout: climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpgsocold, do you still not understand the difference between Lights=0 and Lights=1 used to determine whether a station is rural or urban? glc, you said I don't understand the studies I'm citing. You said......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. [/i] I gave you references that conclusively show there is an increasing trend at each area studies using both satellite remote sensing and surface station thermometers, yet you insist I don't "understand" what I'm reading. There are many more such studies. It's getting less and less worth the time attempting to have a logical conversation with you. There is a LOG relationship between population and UHI, well established in the literature. Neither of you have yet to understand this, nor do you apparently comprehend that NOAA/NCDC do not adjust for UHI in the U.S. Only GISS attempts this, and has adjusted current day temperatures upward while adjusting the past downward. Other than platitudes and hand waiving, provide evidence that UHI is properly accounted for for global temperatures. This is apart from the siting issues warmologists want to ignore. Socold cannot claim anything that Hadley does because they refuse to release any data or methods, therefore anything he says is pure conjecture. As glc prefers UK climate data and says T Min and T Max data is available, perhaps he will be gracious enough to locate the CRU raw data ;D References: realclimate and Disinformation on UHI www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901GISS: World’s airports continue to run warmer than ROW wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/giss-worlds-airports-continue-to-run-warmer-than-row/Trends in Peterson 2003 www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859Parker 2006: An Urban Myth? www.climateaudit.org/?p=1718
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 6, 2009 8:06:20 GMT
Add about 14.5 to each anomaly and guess what the result is
Are you referring to your graph. If so (a) the numbers are not anomalies and (b) why would we want to add 14.5 to them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 6, 2009 10:04:01 GMT
I gave you references that conclusively show there is an increasing trend at each area studies using both satellite remote sensing and surface station thermometers, yet you insist I don't "understand" what I'm reading. There are many more such studies. It's getting less and less worth the time attempting to have a logical conversation with you. Ok. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this at the moment but lets’ see if we can’t just put one or two things in perspective. You (Magellan) and lots of other people are claiming that Urban Heat exists and is significantly contaminating the surface temperature record. I am saying UH exists but it does not have a significant effect on the global record. For you to be correct, you need to show 3 things: 1. That an increase in Urban Heat is being measured at 'approved' weather stations in the global network. 2. If (1) is true, then you need to show a proper adjustment is not being made. 3. Finally an estimate needs to be made on the effect of UH at a global temperature level. You have cited a number of studies one of which is the following: files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolHouston/Documents/GrowthUrbanHeatIsland.pdfThis study looks at the increase in urban heat following an increase in population of 20% between ~end of the 1980s and ~end of the 1990s. The study concludes that there has been an increase in UH of ~0.8 deg (~35%) between ~1986 (1985-87) and ~2000 (1999-2001). The first point to note is that the UH is more concentrated at the centre of development and reduces quite quickly as you move further away. Right then let’s do something the study didn’t appear to do. Let’s actually check some of the Houston/Texas trends. The Houston/FAA airport warming for 1987-2001 is ~0.88 deg which appears to support the UH study. However this trend is enhanced by a drop in temperatures in the late 1980s. It’s also far from being the largest trend, but let’s go with it anyway. Checking other trends within 150 km of Houston, though, we find similar trends. It doesn’t matter whether the locations are rural or urban. The 1987-2001 warming trends all lie in the range 0.7 deg to 1.1 deg. In other words, Houston isn’t measuring any more than the less-developed locations. This gives us 2 possibilities, i.e. Urban Heat isn’t being measured or measurements are being adjusted to allow for Urban Heat. A quick glance at your other studies reveals that the LA study suggests that the increase in heatwaves is an early 20th century phenomenon and tells us very little about the effect of urbanization over the past 30-40 years. And, as I mentioned previously, M&M 2007 actually supports the GISS surface record as I’ll show later. The studies you (Magellan) cited show nothing. You rarely hear Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer spouting out about urban heat contamination. That’s because, they are probably aware that the likelihood of significant UH contamination is small.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Aug 6, 2009 20:44:43 GMT
glc. You (Magellan) and lots of other people are claiming that Urban Heat exists and is significantly contaminating the surface temperature record. I am saying UH exists but it does not have a significant effect on the global record.
For you to be correct, you need to show 3 things:
1. That an increase in Urban Heat is being measured at 'approved' weather stations in the global network. 2. If (1) is true, then you need to show a proper adjustment is not being made. 3. Finally an estimate needs to be made on the effect of UH at a global temperature level.
Err no. You need to prove that:
1. The weather station you are using meets the required standard set by the measuring authority. 2. Any adjustments being made are transparent and justifiable. 3. Admit that UH exists and give it a value.
The warmists fail on 1,2 & 3. Look at surfacestations.org for 1. For 2. look at the yearly undocumented upward temperature adjustments, for 3. Look at the measuring stations next to cities and subtract 5 deg c.
You need to prove glc that 5 deg c is too much. Is it? I wonder.
Forget AGW and think about science the way it used to be. The scientist making the claims has to prove it works else we would all have a KTEL Cold Fusion reactor in our basement.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 6, 2009 21:29:26 GMT
Add about 14.5 to each anomaly and guess what the result is Not what you think. You were the one to post this piece of nonsense "analysis": Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 6, 2009 22:51:00 GMT
Err no. You need to prove that:
1. The weather station you are using meets the required standard set by the measuring authority. 2. Any adjustments being made are transparent and justifiable. 3. Admit that UH exists and give it a value.
I don't need to "prove" anything. I've just shown that a city (Houston) with a significant growth in population has a similar warming trend to surrounding rural areas. In other words either the station reperesenting Houston is not affected by UH or the station measurements have been adjusted to remove the UH effect.
It's also the case that across the 48 US states the UAH satellite trend is warmer than the GISS trend.
Now you prove that the surface trend is affected by UH.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 7, 2009 5:08:53 GMT
Right then let’s do something the study didn’t appear to do. Let’s actually check some of the Houston/Texas trends. The Houston/FAA airport warming for 1987-2001 is ~0.88 deg which appears to support the UH study. However this trend is enhanced by a drop in temperatures in the late 1980s. It’s also far from being the largest trend, but let’s go with it anyway. Checking other trends within 150 km of Houston, though, we find similar trends. It doesn’t matter whether the locations are rural or urban. The 1987-2001 warming trends all lie in the range 0.7 deg to 1.1 deg. In other words, Houston isn’t measuring any more than the less-developed locations. This gives us 2 possibilities, i.e. Urban Heat isn’t being measured or measurements are being adjusted to allow for Urban Heat. LOL! What didn't appear to happen GLC is you actually reading the study. (see paragraph from study below). Further in another section the scientists suggested they underestimated the UHI by a degree or more because of differences between urban and rural emissivities but they made no effort to correct for that probable error. They came up with no change over the period in rural temperatures. You must be reading the Jim Hansen adjusted numbers. "For interval 1 the mean rural temperature of the area surrounding the city of Houston is 17.2 ± 0.7C. (The uncertainty quoted is the standard deviation of the mean and does not include any attempt to quantify the errors discussed in the previous section.) The mean rural temperature of the same area for interval 2 is 17.1 ± 0.8C, virtually identical to the earlier interval. Temperature histograms of both of these sets of data are shown in figure 3. Due to the differing number of measurements in the two intervals, each histogram is normalized according to the number of measurements in the corresponding interval. As can be seen in this figure, a large fraction of the rural temperatures from both intervals lie in the range of 20–25C, with the rest of the measurements spread evenly between 0C and 20C. This distribution is due to the measurements being taken throughout the year and during a variety of temperatures. As can be seen in figure 1, the majority of the measurements was taken during the summer and early fall months, resulting in the hightemperature peak in figure 3. The fact that the mean rural temperature and its uncertainty for these two periods are so similar seems to indicate that there were no significant climatic differences in the region between the two intervals, and that the individual AVHRR instruments were well calibrated with respect to each other. "
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 7, 2009 9:31:11 GMT
LOL! What didn't appear to happen GLC is you actually reading the study. (see paragraph from study below). Further in another section the scientists suggested they underestimated the UHI by a degree or more because of differences between urban and rural emissivities but they made no effort to correct for that probable error.
They came up with no change over the period in rural temperatures. You must be reading the Jim Hansen adjusted numbers.
.....or UAH adjusted numbers or RSS adjusted numbers or any other adjusted numbers from other sources. I was actually looking for independent verification of the 'findings'. Quite frankly I don't believe the "no change" in surrounding rural areas. It flies in the face of other data. I suspect that the AVHRR instruments are responding more to the change in surface than to the change in air/surface temperature. Actually this doesn't seem unreasonable if it is using IR detection as the absorptivity/emissivity of the surface materials will be different.
The UAH satellites show the biggest increase in temperature over the US between 1987 and 2001. The SE corner didn't get so much warming, in fact, it cooled slightly, but this did not include Texas.
I didn't really want to spend too much time on this particularly as the satellite record completely debunks the idea that the US record is contaminated by urban heat. Quite why Jim Hansen would bother trying to fiddle the most closely monitored 2% in the world when he has Africa, South America et al to choose from is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 7, 2009 10:38:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 7, 2009 12:07:27 GMT
AW is correct to try and get the temp stations correct. Whether you believe in AGW or not, that is totally irrevelant. Accuracy of data should always have the highest place in anyone's thoughts. It is that plain and simple. AW did find numerous poor sightings and hopefully those poor siteings get corrected.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 7, 2009 13:22:25 GMT
AW is correct to try and get the temp stations correct. Whether you believe in AGW or not, that is totally irrevelant. Accuracy of data should always have the highest place in anyone's thoughts. It is that plain and simple. AW did find numerous poor sightings and hopefully those poor siteings get corrected. Fair enough, but I doubt the intention was to highlight poor station siting. I'm sure he was more interested in raising questions about the US warming trend. He clearly hasn't done this. The 'good' stations and satellites have seen to that.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 7, 2009 14:31:00 GMT
LOL! What didn't appear to happen GLC is you actually reading the study. (see paragraph from study below). Further in another section the scientists suggested they underestimated the UHI by a degree or more because of differences between urban and rural emissivities but they made no effort to correct for that probable error.
They came up with no change over the period in rural temperatures. You must be reading the Jim Hansen adjusted numbers......or UAH adjusted numbers or RSS adjusted numbers or any other adjusted numbers from other sources. UAH doesn't give rural numbers GLC. UAH gives you numbers that are an average of urban and rural combined. I was actually looking for independent verification of the 'findings'. Quite frankly I don't believe the "no change" in surrounding rural areas. It flies in the face of other data. I suspect that the AVHRR instruments are responding more to the change in surface than to the change in air/surface temperature. Actually this doesn't seem unreasonable if it is using IR detection as the absorptivity/emissivity of the surface materials will be different. Flies in the face of what data GLC? Do you mean the Dr. James Hansen supervised datasets? What you have here is something that brings into question those datasets at least to some extent. The UAH satellites show the biggest increase in temperature over the US between 1987 and 2001. The SE corner didn't get so much warming, in fact, it cooled slightly, but this did not include Texas. I didn't really want to spend too much time on this particularly as the satellite record completely debunks the idea that the US record is contaminated by urban heat. Quite why Jim Hansen would bother trying to fiddle the most closely monitored 2% in the world when he has Africa, South America et al to choose from is beyond me. Why? Probably because nobody is going to care if its just getting warm in Africa. Anyway the criminal mind is a strange bird to begin with. Why does a smart guy like Bernie Madoff not stop with a few million and never get caught? Once the hand goes into the cookie jar it becomes an uncontrollable lure. What you are doing is over rationalizing all this. For a seasoned investigator this becomes an excellent starting point for an investigation. . . .but to do that one really needs some access to data and it seems the guardians of the datasets are getting a little sensitive about that!! Thats a good question to ask why about! Hey GLC you seem to even have accepted about a 50% margin of error on their theory by adopting the 1.5C number. Thats probably not a bad estimate. . . .except that its still relies on the same fallacy the original theory relied upon (namely: no other physical explanation) But all that good analysis of yours comes before any possible fudged numbers or stuff like GCRs or magnetic effects on clouds and UHI effects. All unproven suppositions. . . .not to their existence but entirely to their importance. Then there is the investigator hunch. When I see a theory doing this. . . .its usually not a controlled free fall like the vomit comet. . . .usually more on the order of a flat spin. But thats just a hunch born of experience. The only thing I can be assured of is some air is going to be left under the theory when its all said and done, just that the pilots are not at all in control and the only thing that will save them from total annihilation will be natural bouyancy at some point above the ground. . . .but do I believe anybody has a real handle on that. . . .NOPE!!
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 7, 2009 14:55:30 GMT
AW is correct to try and get the temp stations correct. Whether you believe in AGW or not, that is totally irrevelant. Accuracy of data should always have the highest place in anyone's thoughts. It is that plain and simple. AW did find numerous poor sightings and hopefully those poor siteings get corrected. Fair enough, but I doubt the intention was to highlight poor station siting. I'm sure he was more interested in raising questions about the US warming trend. He clearly hasn't done this. The 'good' stations and satellites have seen to that. Actually, you're not "sure" about that -- you are mistaken. We have been through this before. A career meteorologist, Anthony went to the primary temperature recording station for his own town out of simple curiosity. (He had been trained in station maintenance while in meteorology schoool.) When that ONE station was rife with issues, he went to look at another station. The second station was OK. He went to see a third station, and it was worse than the first. Thus began a sustained examination of the United States Historical Climatology Network, something that was overdue. Again, this is an ad-hominem attack. If you dispute any single finding of Anthony Watts', please bring it to his and the rest of our attention.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 7, 2009 20:08:26 GMT
Actually, you're not "sure" about that -- you are mistaken. We have been through this before. A career meteorologist, Anthony went to the primary temperature recording station for his own town out of simple curiosity. (He had been trained in station maintenance while in meteorology schoool.) When that ONE station was rife with issues, he went to look at another station. The second station was OK. He went to see a third station, and it was worse than the first.
If Anthony's intention was to audit the meteorological stations across the US - fine.
Again, this is an ad-hominem attack. If you dispute any single finding of Anthony Watts', please bring it to his and the rest of our attention.
I will only dispute unjustified claims based on the findings.
|
|