|
Post by radiant on Aug 15, 2009 8:02:51 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. The amount of temperature change being measured is almost insignificant even with careful standardised observation. Armagh shows that this station does not offer an unchanged environment For the purposes of this conversation it is irrelevant what fred bloggs has to say about Armagh You used it as an example of all that is best and pure in unchanging local environment and consistant measurement to then tell everybody it was time to call an end to the bullshit. And now you want to tell me i am exaggerating and my observations are irrelevant. What actually is your point here? The area has been warming up for about 150 years. The archeological evidence shows that Ireland was a far easier place to grow stuff many centuries ago than it has been in recent decades. The Northern hemisphere ice extent appears to have peaked this century in 1973 and has been declining ever since. The records shows it increases and declines in a declining trend since about 1850 with some kind of significant recovery period from about 1950 to 1973. The evidence to date suggests: 1. The ice will come back again for a while and then melt again for a while in a declining trend or 2. We will return to a longer term cooling little ice age trend in a longer term warming trend or 3 We will return to an ice age. For some reason you want to tell me this is all irrelevant and you already know what the answer is
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 15, 2009 12:06:50 GMT
An interesting article. I would use a different word than 'strange' - in almost any other field of study where quality and correctness is important this would cause considerable concern - but climate 'science' seems to get a pass on lack of quality.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 13:16:17 GMT
You used it as an example of all that is best and pure in unchanging local environment and consistant measurement to then tell everybody it was time to call an end to the bullshit.
I didn't say I thought it was an "example of all that's best and pure" I said that this was a viewpoint shared by the sceptic community.
And now you want to tell me i am exaggerating and my observations are irrelevant.
You are exaggerating the effects.
What actually is your point here?
Right. Lets' say we have 10 weather stations in a region and that every one of those stations has an identical warming trend of, say, 0.3 deg per decade. Let's also suppose that the stations have quite different environments, e.g. airport, rural, urban, open space ...etc. Each of the stations will, therefore, have their own 'local' effect (e.g due to UH or siting). But what is the magnitude of this effect?
There are 2 possibilities: 1. Since the trends are the same across all stations then the local effects are insignificant.
2. There are large local effects but, because the trends are the same, this leaves us with 2 further possibilities, i.e. (a) Each of the local effects is of similar magnitude. In other words, warming due to airport development = warming due to an extra building at Armagh = warming due to urban development in Belfast = and so on. The likelihood of this is tiny. (b) The local effect is 'built in' to the temperaure readings. This is possible but it means that even if temperature readings are inflated the trend is not affected.
In summary, the similarity of the trends, across some quite differing environments, suggests that the trends are not contaminated.
Added: Rural Scottish stations (similar latitude to NI) exhibit similar warming trends.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2009 16:29:47 GMT
[Right. Lets' say we have 10 weather stations in a region and that every one of those stations has an identical warming trend of, say, 0.3 deg per decade. Let's also suppose that the stations have quite different environments, e.g. airport, rural, urban, open space ...etc. Each of the stations will, therefore, have their own 'local' effect (e.g due to UH or siting). But what is the magnitude of this effect? There are 2 possibilities: 1. Since the trends are the same across all stations then the local effects are insignificant. 2. There are large local effects but, because the trends are the same, this leaves us with 2 further possibilities, i.e. (a) Each of the local effects is of similar magnitude. In other words, warming due to airport development = warming due to an extra building at Armagh = warming due to urban development in Belfast = and so on. The likelihood of this is tiny. (b) The local effect is 'built in' to the temperaure readings. This is possible but it means that even if temperature readings are inflated the trend is not affected. In summary, the similarity of the trends, across some quite differing environments, suggests that the trends are not contaminated. Added: Rural Scottish stations (similar latitude to NI) exhibit similar warming trends. Only problem with that statement GLC is you are defending a sample of two in Ireland and have not presented a study of a representative sample of what you are claiming. One cannot extrapolate from a couple of instances to the whole universe.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 17:13:21 GMT
Only problem with that statement GLC is you are defending a sample of two in Ireland and have not presented a study of a representative sample of what you are claiming.
I am including other stations but not a large sample admittedly
One cannot extrapolate from a couple of instances to the whole universe.
I'm not suggesting you can. You should try telling that to David Archibald, though.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2009 17:18:05 GMT
Only problem with that statement GLC is you are defending a sample of two in Ireland and have not presented a study of a representative sample of what you are claiming. I am including other stations but not a large sample admittedly One cannot extrapolate from a couple of instances to the whole universe. I'm not suggesting you can. You should try telling that to David Archibald, though. Do you feels some kind of moral imperative to duplicate David Archibald or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 15, 2009 17:19:09 GMT
Only problem with that statement GLC is you are defending a sample of two in Ireland and have not presented a study of a representative sample of what you are claiming. I am including other stations but not a large sample admittedly One cannot extrapolate from a couple of instances to the whole universe. I'm not suggesting you can. You should try telling that to David Archibald, though. This is funny. Archibald isn't worth spit, yet you are now both defending and attacking his use of Armagh at the same time. There's nothing like talking out of both sides of the mouth.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 15, 2009 17:52:46 GMT
You used it as an example of all that is best and pure in unchanging local environment and consistant measurement to then tell everybody it was time to call an end to the bullshit. I didn't say I thought it was an "example of all that's best and pure" I said that this was a viewpoint shared by the sceptic community. You said it was a good example of the bullshit. I wonder if you even looked at the station to find out? Yes or no please. Lets' say we have 10 weather stations in a region and that every one of those stations has an identical warming trend of, say, 0.3 deg per decade. Let's also suppose that the stations have quite different environments, e.g. airport, rural, urban, open space ...etc. Each of the stations will, therefore, have their own 'local' effect (e.g due to UH or siting). The problem as i understand it, is that we are trying to find out if the earth has warmed .6 of a degree in 100 years which is 0.05 a degree per decade. Perhaps as you suggest the temperature rises in the world in one decade by 6 times the average decadal amount. What we need to be able to do is record the changes with great accuracy because in another decade the temperatures will fall by almost 6 times the average decadal amount. How much radiation does a building close to a temperature gauge radiate in summer when that wall is hot? How much does the central heating radiate thru the wall in winter? Probably most houses in Ireland did not have central heating 30 to 40 years ago. That applies to all stations regardless where they are or if they have had a building with a brick wall build near them like Armagh. I think you like to make assumptions as if assumptions are meaningful when in fact they are guesswork to make your understanding of the subject less complicated and easier to theorise. And in the case of Armagh when confronted with your assumption you dont want to own them instead you blaim somebody else. And it does not matter what you say about Armagh to deflect your responsibility in the matter because it was the site that you chose to say to others it was time to end the bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 19:03:00 GMT
Magellan says: This is funny. Archibald isn't worth spit, yet you are now both defending and attacking his use of Armagh at the same time.
There's nothing like talking out of both sides of the mouth.Radiant finishes off with this And it does not matter what you say about Armagh to deflect your responsibility in the matter because it was the site that you chose to say to others it was time to end the bullshit.Both of you are missing the point (completely). This is from a post by AGW sceptic and solar scientist, Doug Hoyt Douglas Hoyt Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am Valentia and Armagh may be the only suitable sites in the UK that are useful for climate studies. All the other sites suffer from UHI’s and regional land cover changes that make them unsuitable. Doug's geography is slight amiss here as Valentia is not actually part of the UK, but his point is clear. He considers the Armagh data as suitable fro climate studies. Next - this from Junkscience, i.e. Steve Milloy's site which attempts to debunk AGW Armagh Observatory air temperature data Armagh Observatory (lat. 54°21.2'N; long. 6°38.9'W) lies approximately 1 km northeast of the centre of the ancient city of Armagh. It is situated 64 m above mean sea level at the top of a small drumlin (hill) in an estate of natural woodland and parkland of circa 7 ha. To the north and east the observatory’s estate is bounded by meadow, and from the southeast to the southwest by school playing fields and a town park known as ‘The Mall’. Thus, the observatory is still largely surrounded by countryside similar to that which has existed since its foundation in 1790. Together with the fact that the population of Armagh when compared with other Irish and UK cities has increased relatively little since the late 18th and early 19th centuries (population 1816: 7,000; 1911: 7,600; 1991: 14,265), its rural environment has ensured that the observatory suffers from little or no urban micro-climatic effects (see Coughlin and Butler (1998)). In addition, with a relatively exposed site, in a fairly windy maritime climate, any urban climatic effects that did exist would be expected to be minimized. Read it here: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#ArmaghThese are just 2 examples where sceptics have suggested Armagh is the model site for temperature observations. Ok - this is NOT ME saying it. I don't necessarily think that. Have you got that. Armagh is regularly cited by sceptics. In fact there was a post on WUWT just the other day which suggested that a separate temperature record is created using sites such as Armagh etc. Now don't get me wrong I have nothing against Armagh. I think it's a very nice part of the world and I have no problem using Armagh data. HOWEVER my original point was this. The recent (~30 years) temperature trend at Armagh is just as large (if not larger) than other sites in Northern Ireland. For example, since the mid-1970s, Armagh shows more warming than Aldergrove airport (Belfast's International airport). It also has a warmer trend than NI as a whole - not much - but warmer nonetheless. Finally this .... The problem as i understand it, is that we are trying to find out if the earth has warmed .6 of a degree in 100 years which is 0.05 a degree per decade.I'm not sure this is "the problem" as you put it. But if you are unhappy with the surface record, then by all means, use either one of the satellite records. UAH has warmed ~0.4 deg in the last 30 years and RSS has warmed ~0.5 deg in the past 30 years. Take your pick. Be careful, though. Since 1992 the trends have been virtually identical, and over the past few years RSS has the sharper cooling trend. I do hope this makes things clear.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 15, 2009 20:05:02 GMT
These are just 2 examples where sceptics have suggested Armagh is the model site for temperature observations. Ok - this is NOT ME saying it. I don't necessarily think that. Have you got that. Armagh is regularly cited by sceptics. In fact there was a post on WUWT just the other day which suggested that a separate temperature record is created using sites such as Armagh etc. The advantage of Armagh is its long and continuous record. Other sites being relocated and moved around suffer from a lack of consistency. There are many issues that affect temperature records. One that is not a problem at Armagh is where it has been located for the past 155 years. . . .its still in the same place. Here you can look at a continuous uninterrupted record. Looking at the Armagh record it looks like the record year was 1846 and we haven't had a warmer year there yet. But understand while that issue is important doesn't mean Armagh is a template of consistency on every issue coming down the pike. You AGW nuts think you are a hammer and everything you look at is a nail.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 20:18:46 GMT
Looking at the Armagh record it looks like the record year was 1846 and we haven't had a warmer year there yet.The warmest year was in 2007. star.arm.ac.uk/press/2008/Weather2007_pr.html"Six of the warmest years at Armagh in the last 212 years have occurred in the last decade."
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 15, 2009 21:20:01 GMT
Is this not missing the point.
CO2 emissions have largely only impacted the last 50 years before that there was much less CO2 output some would argue trivial. So any trend before 1950 say needs to be deducted from a temperature change going forward as it is background.
The AGWs have lost the debate that there was no LIA that is now part of reality, and that we are coming out of that cold period even up to this day. Possibly going forward also. What the debate is about is what is the gradient of the temperature signal from CO2.
I think a CO2 gradiant must exist, but only a fool would say that they know what it is exactly. Clearly there are fools out there in this debate. The fact that the worlds temperature moves around relative to sunspots and other cycles yet to be understood gives hope that the CO2 input to things is much less that the AGW worriers are saying.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 15, 2009 21:40:33 GMT
Looking at the Armagh record it looks like the record year was 1846 and we haven't had a warmer year there yet.The warmest year was in 2007. star.arm.ac.uk/press/2008/Weather2007_pr.html"Six of the warmest years at Armagh in the last 212 years have occurred in the last decade." I am trying to bring science into this conversation. The thermometers at Armagh have been moving around! They began life in a metal box on a north window. Eventually by 1963 they were in front of the new library building and between the two circular observatories inside the circular path in this picture At the time the circular path was not there and there was a black tarmac path coming between the library and the main old building. This is what the view looks like today www.arm.ac.uk/images/pan/pan1.html from the sunshine tower installed in this new metal enclosure built in 1999. The new planetarium is just near by as is the new astropark just near the enormous asphalt football pitch size sports area of one of the two schools immediately near by. From the pan shot you can see the observatory in the developing city of Armagh.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 15, 2009 23:38:36 GMT
I am trying to bring science into this conversation.
Fine. But could you read my post @ 2:03 pm.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 15, 2009 23:53:50 GMT
I am trying to bring science into this conversation.Fine. But could you read my post @ 2:03 pm. I assume you want me to focus on this part of your conclusion? In summary, the similarity of the trends, across some quite differing environments, suggests that the trends are not contaminated.The point i am making is that the site chosen by you seems contaminated to me at this point in time by urban development. If you want to chose another site which you regard as a good example of uncontamination we can progress the conversation using that better example to make the comparison At this point in time i dont see how you can escape the almost certain result that long standing stations will be in areas which are now developed. Many of these areas were in the middle of nowhere when they were established and yet become part of a city sprawl. Amargh is better than some and yet clearly it is developing. Importantly peoples lifestyles are changing. UHI is more or less a given where you have an established community.
|
|