|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 0:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 14, 2009 1:18:55 GMT
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. climatesci.org/2009/08/13/new-paper-documents-a-warm-bias-in-the-calculation-of-a-multi-decadal-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-klotzbach-et-al-2009/ 1. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends, then there should not be an increasing divergence with time between the tropospheric and surface temperature anomalies [Karl et al., 2006]. The difference between lower troposphere and surface anomalies should not be greater over land areas.
2. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends then the divergence should not be larger for both maximum and minimum temperatures at high latitude land locations in the winter.
Both were falsified.[/blockquote
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data. Tiz simple and I did write NOAA about how simple it is. I have as of yet not recieved a response.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 14, 2009 1:20:03 GMT
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. climatesci.org/2009/08/13/new-paper-documents-a-warm-bias-in-the-calculation-of-a-multi-decadal-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-klotzbach-et-al-2009/ 1. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends, then there should not be an increasing divergence with time between the tropospheric and surface temperature anomalies [Karl et al., 2006]. The difference between lower troposphere and surface anomalies should not be greater over land areas.
2. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends then the divergence should not be larger for both maximum and minimum temperatures at high latitude land locations in the winter.
Both were falsified.[/blockquote
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data. Tiz simple and I did write NOAA about how simple it is. I have as of yet not recieved a response. That should read "no reason NOT to remove the city data and rely on the rural data."
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 3:39:42 GMT
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. climatesci.org/2009/08/13/new-paper-documents-a-warm-bias-in-the-calculation-of-a-multi-decadal-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-klotzbach-et-al-2009/ 1. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends, then there should not be an increasing divergence with time between the tropospheric and surface temperature anomalies [Karl et al., 2006]. The difference between lower troposphere and surface anomalies should not be greater over land areas.
2. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends then the divergence should not be larger for both maximum and minimum temperatures at high latitude land locations in the winter.
Both were falsified.[/blockquote
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data. Tiz simple and I did write NOAA about how simple it is. I have as of yet not recieved a response. The author said they were falsified. I should have noted that. Read portions of the paper from Pielke's website. One problem is what is designated as "rural" is not rural at all; that is the crux of the matter once you understand how Parker/Peterson and Jones come to their conclusion "it doesn't matter". Despite criticisms of Anthony Watts, he is the only one who has ever taken the initiative to actually investigate and inspect individual stations. There is no calibration program, no maintenance, nothing. To correct the system would take money, and lots of it. Quite obviously the surface station network is being left on the vine to die, although NOAA did install 100+ new stations in truly rural areas just this past year, hardly a dent. As for adjusting for UHI, read the following and you'll see just where warmer cultists get their information; straight from the Curator of Obfuscation and Disinformation himself, Gavin Schmidt. See if you recognize any of socold or glc's (skeptic) arguments www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 14, 2009 8:57:32 GMT
As for adjusting for UHI, read the following and you'll see just where warmer cultists get their information; straight from the Curator of Obfuscation and Disinformation himself, Gavin Schmidt. See if you recognize any of socold or glc's (skeptic) arguments
I don't need Gavin Schmidt's arguments. I can see for myself that UHI contamination is not significant. The GISS july anomaly is the latest month that GISS has been been relatively cooler than UAH.
I can also see that the UAH readings are consistently warmer than surface readings over the US. I've put these points time and time again but have received no answer.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 13:58:58 GMT
As for adjusting for UHI, read the following and you'll see just where warmer cultists get their information; straight from the Curator of Obfuscation and Disinformation himself, Gavin Schmidt. See if you recognize any of socold or glc's (skeptic) arguments I don't need Gavin Schmidt's arguments. I can see for myself that UHI contamination is not significant. The GISS july anomaly is the latest month that GISS has been been relatively cooler than UAH. I can also see that the UAH readings are consistently warmer than surface readings over the US. I've put these points time and time again but have received no answer. You have yet another paper dispelling your myths about UHI and other issues with the surface station network. If you have points to make, address the article. It supports what I've been saying all along. Your points have been answered time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 14, 2009 14:25:35 GMT
You have yet another paper dispelling your myths about UHI and other issues with the surface station network. If you have points to make, address the article. It supports what I've been saying all along.
Why don't you stop bothering about the surface record and just use the satellite data. The RSS and UAH trend since the early 1990s is ~0.2 deg per decade.
Your points have been answered time and time again.
No they haven't.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 14, 2009 14:55:00 GMT
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data.
Fine. I'd go along with that. Why haven't the sceptics who believe in significant UH done it. I have done it on a small scale. In one case I looked at the much heralded Armagh Observatory. This is the met observatory in Northern Ireland where the surrounding area has been unchanged in ~200 years. I compared Armagh Obs. record with other NI stations including Aldergrove Int. airport over the last 30 years. Guess what?
Armagh had the largest warming trend. It's a similar story in other locations. It's time the end the BS and put up or shut up.
If UH is a signifcant factor in global trends then the following must be true.
1. Surface and Satellite will show a consistent long term divergence - they don't 2. Urban and rural stations will show a consistent and long term divergence - they don't.
If anyone can show that either (1) or (2) holds - then I'll take notice - otherwise it's just playing with numbers. I don't need to be told that urban heat exists - I know it does. The question is by how much it affects the decadal trends and I'd suggest not a lot.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 14, 2009 17:08:38 GMT
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data.Fine. I'd go along with that. Why haven't the sceptics who believe in significant UH done it. I have done it on a small scale. In one case I looked at the much heralded Armagh Observatory. This is the met observatory in Northern Ireland where the surrounding area has been unchanged in ~200 years. I compared Armagh Obs. record with other NI stations including Aldergrove Int. airport over the last 30 years. Guess what? Armagh had the largest warming trend. It's a similar story in other locations. It's time the end the BS and put up or shut up. If UH is a signifcant factor in global trends then the following must be true. 1. Surface and Satellite will show a consistent long term divergence - they don't 2. Urban and rural stations will show a consistent and long term divergence - they don't. If anyone can show that either (1) or (2) holds - then I'll take notice - otherwise it's just playing with numbers. I don't need to be told that urban heat exists - I know it does. The question is by how much it affects the decadal trends and I'd suggest not a lot. so 25 astronomers were working at Armagh 200 years ago and the buildings were centrally heated and there was a car park and administrative buildings and so forth? The area has not changed in 200 years? I wonder if 200 years ago this was a very cold drafty old building with no significant heat radiation or local influence upon the environment and there was perhaps just a handful of staff? How about we have a look at the before and after situation so we can know if the claim of being unchanged stacks up? What about the local crops and the local trees? how have they changed? Crops or trees can produce a heat island effect so that one area produces rising warm air while another does not and must by implication have mainly sinking colder air to move into replace the rising air happening elsewhere. The Irish potato famine was a period of starvation, disease and mass emigration between 1845 and 1852. Just as Ireland suffered cooling in the little ice age and difficulty in growing crops so it would find it possible to go back to different plantings as the earth moved out of the little ice age. How actually are we going to quantify all of this? Armagh observatory is on a hill it is quite possible local heating of darker crops or dark trees tends to rise up the hill near the surface and alter the observatories temperatures. And as we know the roads around armagh must be made of asphalt. the observatory appears to be slated which is dark and gets tremendously hot but elsewhere in ireland roofs were made of stone slabs or thatched - never mind the modern preferences for central heating. When were roofs slated? when were concrete tiles introduced? What is the mix in armagh now compared to what it was like before? It seems to me there is a massive pile of unknowns there. You and I are different. You see this world of facts and knowns which are known by you. I see a different world of chaos and confusion. The Observatory is located close to the centre of the city of Armagh, adjacent to the Armagh PlanetariumAre we to suppose they measure the temperatures at the observatory still? I see Amargh record a history of all the changes made at the observatory near the temperature gauge. climate.arm.ac.uk/photos/metstations.htmlFrom this picture taken in 1983 you can see there is a nice new building and nice new white reflective paint on the dome near the gauges. I imagined at first that the information was provided by www.denialosphereskepticflatearthalienlizard.comFinally we see the dark trees and massive amounts of metal that are also now surrounding the temp guage. Some of the trees look like pines and this could be a shelter belt to protect the buildings and make the working environment a little more pleasant on top of the hill. Well at least i assume thats where they measure the temperature? Then there is all the paint science, the large concrete base of the sun guage and all the other changes that have happened while 200 years of changes have happened to a city. Guess what? Armagh had the largest warming trend. It's a similar story in other locations. It's time the end the BS and put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 18:28:06 GMT
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were falsified. I would say that there have been and continue to be problems with the surface station data. Throughout the world there are still plenty of rural places, and with radio tech now, no reason to remove the city temp data and rely on the rural data as this would be much more correct. There is a lot of correcting for UHI, and rather than correct, just don't use that data.Fine. I'd go along with that. Why haven't the sceptics who believe in significant UH done it. I have done it on a small scale. In one case I looked at the much heralded Armagh Observatory. This is the met observatory in Northern Ireland where the surrounding area has been unchanged in ~200 years. I compared Armagh Obs. record with other NI stations including Aldergrove Int. airport over the last 30 years. Guess what? Armagh had the largest warming trend. It's a similar story in other locations. It's time the end the BS and put up or shut up. If UH is a signifcant factor in global trends then the following must be true. 1. Surface and Satellite will show a consistent long term divergence - they don't 2. Urban and rural stations will show a consistent and long term divergence - they don't. If anyone can show that either (1) or (2) holds - then I'll take notice - otherwise it's just playing with numbers. I don't need to be told that urban heat exists - I know it does. The question is by how much it affects the decadal trends and I'd suggest not a lot. so 25 astronomers were working at Armagh 200 years ago and the buildings were centrally heated and there was a car park and administrative buildings and so forth? The area has not changed in 200 years? I wonder if 200 years ago this was a very cold drafty old building with no significant heat radiation or local influence upon the environment and there was perhaps just a handful of staff? How about we have a look at the before and after situation so we can know if the claim of being unchanged stacks up? What about the local crops and the local trees? how have they changed? Crops or trees can produce a heat island effect so that one area produces rising warm air while another does not and must by implication have mainly sinking colder air to move into replace the rising air happening elsewhere. The Irish potato famine was a period of starvation, disease and mass emigration between 1845 and 1852. Just as Ireland suffered cooling in the little ice age and difficulty in growing crops so it would find it possible to go back to different plantings as the earth moved out of the little ice age. How actually are we going to quantify all of this? Armagh observatory is on a hill it is quite possible local heating of darker crops or dark trees tends to rise up the hill near the surface and alter the observatories temperatures. And as we know the roads around armagh must be made of asphalt. the observatory appears to be slated which is dark and gets tremendously hot but elsewhere in ireland roofs were made of stone slabs or thatched - never mind the modern preferences for central heating. When were roofs slated? when were concrete tiles introduced? What is the mix in armagh now compared to what it was like before? It seems to me there is a massive pile of unknowns there. You and I are different. You see this world of facts and knowns which are known by you. I see a different world of chaos and confusion. The Observatory is located close to the centre of the city of Armagh, adjacent to the Armagh PlanetariumAre we to suppose they measure the temperatures at the observatory still? Good post, however you are trying to reason with someone who says things like There is no evidence that the temperature peak was as high as the current peak. He's so stuck on fitting a line from point A to point B (playing with numbers) he can't see the forest through the trees. Now there is a another published paper and again glc's best argument is.... 1. Surface and Satellite will show a consistent long term divergence - they don't 2. Urban and rural stations will show a consistent and long term divergence - they don't.
Surely you've noticed by now glc doesn't need evidence to support an argument, his word alone is sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 14, 2009 18:39:32 GMT
Surely you've noticed by now glc doesn't need evidence to support an argument, his word alone is sufficient. You are being unfair. Please edit your reply to include the new building by the temperature gauge. ;D
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 18:50:03 GMT
Surely you've noticed by now glc doesn't need evidence to support an argument, his word alone is sufficient. You are being unfair. Please edit your reply to include the new building by the temperature gauge. ;D Don't believe your lying eyes.....
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Aug 14, 2009 20:43:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 1:12:35 GMT
You and I are different. You see this world of facts and knowns which are known by you. I see a different world of chaos and confusion.
I've read your post and I beg to differ. Certainly there is some chaos and confusion, but you are exaggerating the extent. It is unlikely that the 200 year Armagh trend has been significantly affected by UH. It is even less likely that it has been affected over the past 30 years. If the Armagh trend has been affected then the Aldergrove (airport) trend must surely have been affected considerably more.
This is where your argument falls down. It's possible to compare stations and to quantify the different local effects. We can look at the trend for NI as a whole and then at individual counties and so on. Northern Ireland as a whole, Aldergrove (airport), Armagh, and numerous other stations all show similar trends over the past 30-odd years. The development at Aldergrove has been considerably different to that at Armagh...and the urban development across NI has been considerably different to that at both Armagh and Aldergrove - yet we still get broadly similar trends right across the province.
Conclusion: Yes UH exists but it does not have a significant impact on the long term trend.
Incidentally it's not me that regards Armagh as the ideal site, it's the general sceptic view. David Archibald regularly refers to Armagh data in his 'papers' and the data has often been cited on the Warwick Hughes site.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2009 1:46:19 GMT
I've read your post and I beg to differ. Certainly there is some chaos and confusion, but you are exaggerating the extent. It is unlikely that the 200 year Armagh trend has been significantly affected by UH. It is even less likely that it has been affected over the past 30 years. If the Armagh trend has been affected then the Aldergrove (airport) trend must surely have been affected considerably more. Why? You have not made a case for either claim.
|
|