|
Post by glc on Aug 16, 2009 0:14:49 GMT
I assume you want me to focus on this part of your conclusion?
No!
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.
It isn't "chosen by me" it's chosen by Steve Milloy and Doug Hoyt among many others. Steve and Doug are renowned AGW sceptics.
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
I don't want to choose another station. You are again completely missing the point. Steve Milloy (at Junkscience) points to studies which show that the UH effect at Armagh is negligible. You have not read the post to which I referred.
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.
Clearly it isn't as the study cited by Steve Milloy shows. Can I remind you again it is not me who is pushing the Armagh data it is AGW-sceptical scientists.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 16, 2009 0:27:18 GMT
I assume you want me to focus on this part of your conclusion?No! 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.It isn't "chosen by me" it's chosen by Steve Milloy and Doug Hoyt among many others. Steve and Doug are renowned AGW sceptics. 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 comparisonI don't want to choose another station. You are again completely missing the point. Steve Milloy (at Junkscience) points to studies which show that the UH effect at Armagh is negligible. You have not read the post to which I referred. 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. Clearly it isn't as the study cited by Steve Milloy shows. Can I remind you again it is not me who is pushing the Armagh data it is AGW-sceptical scientists. You are like a little worm that keeps slipping off my hook. You said: 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. How about you end the bullshit and fess up to what you did? You made the comparison to www.maplandia.com/united-kingdom/airports/belfast-aldergrove-airport/. seems a fairly rural scene for an international airport and near a big lake which armagh is relatively far from The point i am making as best i can is that these simplistic comparisons from our desk tops dont really tell us much. We need to get down there and do the science. And being up in space is not going to help us much either as the degree of accuracy we need is not available to us. That is why the whole thing about ice melting is so important because it is the largest thermometer we have and we get to have one in each hemisphere.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 16, 2009 0:53:14 GMT
How about you end the bullshit and fess up to what you did?
I showed that the Armagh Obs temperature trend was warmer than the Aldergrove airport trend.
You made the comparison.
I used Armagh because it is recognised by sceptics as a reliable source. It's not me that pushed the Armagh data - it's Steve Milloy and Doug Hoyt and David Archibald and numerous others.
BUT - if you don't like Armagh data for some reason then use the UAH satellite data. This, though, tends to very much agree with the Armagh, Aldergrove, NI, CET, UK records, i.e. the UK (& Ireland) has warmed over the past 30 years at a rate which is consistent with both satellite and surface observations.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 16, 2009 1:01:31 GMT
How about you end the bullshit and fess up to what you did?I showed that the Armagh Obs temperature trend was warmer than the Aldergrove airport trend. You made the comparison. I used Armagh because it is recognised by sceptics as a reliable source. It's not me that pushed the Armagh data - it's Steve Milloy and Doug Hoyt and David Archibald and numerous others. BUT - if you don't like Armagh data for some reason then use the UAH satellite data. This, though, tends to very much agree with the Armagh, Aldergrove, NI, CET, UK records, i.e. the UK (& Ireland) has warmed over the past 30 years at a rate which is consistent with both satellite and surface observations. Please explain to me how you calibrate a satellite to measure the earths temperature to the degree of accuracy required to measure a warming trend of whatever you claim is happening per century that is not happening anyway due to the ending of the little ice age It cannot be done. You cant be here and measure something over there with sufficient accuracy when you are miles away from what you are measuring and you have had to launch the thing into a vacuum with multiple g's and have had to recalibrate based on earth bound known temperatures in perfect conditions which you then imagine can give you an accurate result How much do you know about science and instrument calibration? So far your science is to rely on the people who you think are idiots when you came up with the bright idea of using Armagh as an example of a station that was unchanged in 200 years And you still dont seem to understand anything about the basic science as to why armagh observatory is not a good choice to compare temperatures in the last 10 years when you make out it is my objection that rejects Armagh. Do you know anything about the scientific method? For some reason you want to tell me that you can prove the bullshit by using armagh with a Stevenson enclosure incircled in metal since 1999 in an expanding city with very nearby developements including large artificial stone areas and metallic roofing to compare to an airport near a lake and a small village that has been used as an RAF airport since ww2 and for all i know is actually smaller than in ww2. And if it is an RAF airport with common runways shared by civilians does the RAF operate the met office? I have no idea at this stage but i am doing the science to find out right now. www.maplandia.com/united-kingdom/airports/belfast-aldergrove-airport/. This was your proof to end the bullshit Until recently RAF Aldergrove was the head office for the Northern Island Met office - maybe they know how to position a temperature gauge to measure air temperatures? However since this lake is Loch Neagh the largest lake in the united kingdom it will no doubt influence the local temperatures to create a cooling influence that Armagh probably does not experience. I agree there is plenty of new buildings and concrete in some areas of Aldergrove. What we dont know is how the sites weather characteristics and gauge positionings influence the results obtained as compared to Armagh. I dont think you will find many sites which do not have extra buildings and concrete. The effect of this is that these sites are warmer and surrounding areas are cooler. For example the developments in Belfast city some 20 miles away may cause heat island effects that increase local cooling at Aldergrove which is essentially in the middle of the countryside. The other factor was that during the northern ireland troubles aldergrove had over 2000 RAF personnel to support UK troups in the area and this is now all scaled down as other traffic has increased. Each station will have its peculiarities and almost certainly have its own modern changes that alter the local climate. A village for example can create a significant heat island influence to enable thermals to be produced creating cumulus clouds at that location There are so many variables it is impossible to read much into the small changes in temperature recorded over 100 years to say why there was warming if there was any warming. The issue is why is it warming if it is warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 16, 2009 1:32:03 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." So after 155 years the record gets broken by .15 degrees. What does that work out to? .01 degrees per decade? ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 16, 2009 11:15:50 GMT
There are so many variables it is impossible to read much into the small changes in temperature recorded over 100 years to say why there was warming if there was any warmingThere is warming there is no doubt about this. The Armagh and Aldergrove trends are consistent with the rest of the UK. The variable effects are negligible. The warming patterns are too similar and the trends are statistically significant. There are no 'steps' in the Armagh record which might be expected if a new development was affecting the data. So far your science is to rely on the people who you think are idiots when you came up with the bright idea of using Armagh as an example of a station that was unchanged in 200 yearsI don't think Steve Milloy is an idiot and I most definitely don't think Doug Hoyt is an idiot. Both support the view that Armagh is uncontaminated by urban heat or other siting problems. Steve Milloy has provided references to studies which conclude exactly that. This is from junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#Armagh...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. -- Butler et al (Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1055–1079 (2005)) Perhaps you should take note of these studies. And you still dont seem to understand anything about the basic science as to why armagh observatory is not a good choice to compare temperatures in the last 10 years when you make out it is my objection that rejects Armagh.You appear rattled and your opinion on Armagh is unfounded. Leave out the last 10 years if you like. It makes no difference. The issues you raise about Armagh would have no effect whatsoever on the overall temperature trend. If you can't see this then it is you who doesn't understand the basic science. You cannot bring laboratory standard conditions to met stations- nor would you want or need to. We have error bars (confidence Intervals) to provide the range of the true values. Please explain to me how you calibrate a satellite to measure the earths temperature to the degree of accuracy required to measure a warming trend of whatever you claim is happening per century that is not happening anyway due to the ending of the little ice age You'd be better off asking Roy Spencer, John Christy or Carl Mears to explain MSU calibration. RSS do provide some information on their web-site. However, if you are questioning the UAH record you really are out on a limb in the sceptic community. I am interested to know, though, how you know there was a LIA. You seem to have decided that we can't tell there has been any warming in the UK despite the fact MSUs on board satellites, long-term temperature records, short-term temperature records, rural temperature records and urban temperature records all indicate warming. Oh yes - it's also the opinion of anyone over 45 who lives in the UK. Yet with one or two records, a few proxies and, presumably, a smattering of anecdotal accounts you are able to assert with confidence that the LIA existed - and probably the MWP as well. I bet you can even tell us how much colder/warmer it was. Tell me - who was calibrating the satellite instrumentation during the Norman conquest. Finally, let me assure you, you have no need to post any more information on Armagh, Aldegrove or any other feature of Northern Ireland. I am very familiar with NI. All of my wife's immediate family live in the province. I have been to NI on several occasions which included a number of visits to Aldergrove and Armagh. Thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 16, 2009 11:33:41 GMT
Looking at the Armagh record it looks like the record year was 1846 and we haven't had a warmer year there yet.
where do you get this from?
The warmest year was in 2007. The next warmest year was in 2006. The next 4 warmest years were all since 1998.
So after 155 years the record gets broken by .15 degrees. What does that work out to? .01 degrees per decade?
No - the record got broken after one year. I have no idea where this 1846 record comes from. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 16, 2009 14:04:52 GMT
I am interested to know, though, how you know there was a LIA. I dont know. What i have been told is glaciers were advancing until the 1850's or so in many places in the northern hemisphere from california to iceland and all between. And since then they have been receding. And they began advancing in iceland and greenland about 1350 at which time bodies buried in the ground appear to have been permanently frozen whereas before that time they are not so well preserved. Our opinions dont matter what counts is what is real. But you seem confused. My point is we dont know how much the earth has warmed in 100 years, if it has warmed, or what is causing the warming. All we have is some clues. You have too much faith in your ability to know what you cannot know. And you still want to tell me that met stations in Northern ireland have not been compromised by urbanisation or other similar influences to stations. In your mind any objections to your opinions are unscientific and unwarranted And apparently your religion uses faith in mans abilities to measure temperatures from outerspace and if i question that then i am an exstremist in your mind who is even more exstreme than the most misguided exstremist. Evidently anybody who questions your faith will get the same kind of treatment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurementsams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/86/9/pdf/i1520-0477-86-9-1303.pdf
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 17, 2009 2:38:02 GMT
I'm still waiting for glc to refute one point in the OP, other than employing his usual Bart Simpson defense. glc's rendition of surface stations agreeing with satellite
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 17, 2009 2:58:15 GMT
Looking at the Armagh record it looks like the record year was 1846 and we haven't had a warmer year there yet.where do you get this from? The warmest year was in 2007. The next warmest year was in 2006. The next 4 warmest years were all since 1998. So after 155 years the record gets broken by .15 degrees. What does that work out to? .01 degrees per decade? No - the record got broken after one year. I have no idea where this 1846 record comes from. Do you? Here is the complete Armagh record: solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/wilsorm/WilsonHathaway2006c.pdfThe 1846 annual average was 10.4 degrees. I didn't read your reference carefully so I missed the 2006 number. But the record annual average temperature occurred in 1846 and that record held at least through 2004. p.s. The station was reconstructed in 2006. climate.arm.ac.uk/aws2/aws2.html"This new automatic weather station was installed in July 2006 to replace the old one. It measures and records; air temperature and humidity, pressure, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, ground temperature, soil temperature at 30 and 100 cm, and rainfall. It is installed within the existing met enclosure to the south of the main observatory building. Initial calibration problems meant that accurate data was collected only from 2007 April 1st at which time a more accurate pressure sensor, or digital barometer, was added. " So one has to ask where are the two record sets?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 17, 2009 3:26:06 GMT
Please explain to me how you calibrate a satellite to measure the earths temperature to the degree of accuracy required to measure a warming trend of whatever you claim is happening per century that is not happening anyway due to the ending of the little ice age You'd be better off asking Roy Spencer, John Christy or Carl Mears to explain MSU calibration. RSS do provide some information on their web-site. However, if you are questioning the UAH record you really are out on a limb in the sceptic community. I am interested to know, though, how you know there was a LIA. You seem to have decided that we can't tell there has been any warming in the UK despite the fact MSUs on board satellites, long-term temperature records, short-term temperature records, rural temperature records and urban temperature records all indicate warming. Oh yes - it's also the opinion of anyone over 45 who lives in the UK. Yet with one or two records, a few proxies and, presumably, a smattering of anecdotal accounts you are able to assert with confidence that the LIA existed - and probably the MWP as well. I bet you can even tell us how much colder/warmer it was. Tell me - who was calibrating the satellite instrumentation during the Norman conquest. One can say with certainty the LIA existed. You can argue whether it was related to cold temperatures on the basis of a lack of a carefully constructed temperature record, but one cannot argue with the artifacts being discovered under glaciers as they retreat from the LIA furthest advance. Finally, let me assure you, you have no need to post any more information on Armagh, Aldegrove or any other feature of Northern Ireland. I am very familiar with NI. All of my wife's immediate family live in the province. I have been to NI on several occasions which included a number of visits to Aldergrove and Armagh. Thanks anyway. You are married to a thermometer? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 17, 2009 6:07:12 GMT
p.s. The station was reconstructed in 2006. climate.arm.ac.uk/aws2/aws2.html"This new automatic weather station was installed in July 2006 to replace the old one. It measures and records; air temperature and humidity, pressure, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, ground temperature, soil temperature at 30 and 100 cm, and rainfall. It is installed within the existing met enclosure to the south of the main observatory building. Initial calibration problems meant that accurate data was collected only from 2007 April 1st at which time a more accurate pressure sensor, or digital barometer, was added. " So one has to ask where are the two record sets? Icefisher Temperatures are still also being measured using a manually read thermometer at Armagh according to the web site i think. What is not clear though is when the thermometers were moved around the site, when nearby buildings and other structures were built. The idea from GLC that this kind of change will cause a stepwise change in temperatures seems a guess. More likely in specific conditions you will get particular local heating influences that were not possible before. Given the fairly consistant prevailing windy conditions there it wont be a constant influence of significance we can guess. But how does it effect clear evening cold and temperature inversion hot? I think one of my own developing ideas is that humans and their cars etc live in a high humidity local green house environment which at times of temperature inversion which is common when it is most hottest creates a significant local difference to what a thermometer reads - after all only highs and lows are read we dont have the total temperature historical level of the days. Perhaps the idea is already covered by UHI theories? However i think this might apply to many modern stations since so few are undeveloped. Where actually are the long standing undeveloped ones? Perhaps lighthouses? And then it comes down to consistancy of observation. And in the uk almost no lighthouses are manned since decades i think.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 17, 2009 7:27:14 GMT
glc's rendition of surface stations agreeing with satellite
The NCDC record is not recognised by the WMO or the IPCC. Pielke has chosen the NCDC record to highlight a differecnce which does not exist in the GISS record. I've read the Pielke post on WUWT and, believe me, if I choose to attack it I could tear it apart. There are huge inconsistencies in his findings
I'll repeat it again - and again if you like. Since the early 1990s, the trends for all 4 main data sets (GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH) are virtually the same.
The ocean areas show warming in both satellite and surface records. This cannot be due to urban heat. The satellites show warming in the troposphere which again cannot be due to urban heat. Yet Pielke cites a paper (his own) which suggests a conservative estimate for UH warming is ~0.21 deg per decade.
In other words, Pielke is claiming that although the oceans and the troposphere have warmed for whatever reason, the land surface has not warmed and the only reason it shows warming is due to the siting of station thermometers. It's totally and urtterly implausible.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 17, 2009 7:33:38 GMT
Here is the complete Armagh record: solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/wilsorm/WilsonHathaway2006c.pdf
The 1846 annual average was 10.4 degrees. I didn't read your reference carefully so I missed the 2006 number. But the record annual average temperature occurred in 1846 and that record held at least through 2004.Why are you using the Wilson/Hathaway interpretation of the Armagh record. Why don't you use the actual Armagh record - as constructed by the Armagh Observatory. The data used by Wilson/Hathaway is clearly not the same as that used by th Observatory. There was a clue in the press release when it said "Six of the warmest years at Armagh in the last 212 years have occurred in the last decade." 1846 was not in the last decade. UPDATE: It does appear that a record exists which shows the mean Armagh temperature in 1846 is 10.4 deg. However the data at Armagh is the same as in the Butler paper here: star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf The top of Page 15 shows the monthly figures for 1846. The mean is ~10.07. On page 21, there is a plot which compares different records. Armagh and the CET track quite closely but cconverge in the mid-1840s but the peak temp appears to be ~10 deg. I will look into this but there's either an error or a mismatch in instrumentation and/or method of recording. But rest assured the late 20th century warming is still evident (0.35 deg per decade) whichever data is used.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 17, 2009 8:11:41 GMT
glc's rendition of surface stations agreeing with satellite believe me. It's totally and urtterly implausible. A satellite cannot tell us what the temperature is at the surface of the earth. A themometer in a Stevenson 'station' is showing us some other temperature which is not that of the earth or that of the air. It just shows the temperature in a box that can vary in distance from the earth by several meters and can have different radiation and absorbing qualities depending on whether it is newly painted or dirty and who made that paint and even who painted it whether it was sprayed or by hand. Even clean rain brings sand from the sahara or pollen from the trees. In NZ it is common for my car to be dusted and yellowed from the pollen in spring from trees. The earth measurements are what they are. No more and no less. The satellite records a voltage or current after a detector has received radiation from clouds mists pollutions reflections water earth roof tops and so forth. Back on earth a person then has to calibrate the satellite using best possible measurements made on earth thru best possible atmospheric conditions so that the detectors voltage or current can be graphed against the test temperature on earth in perfect conditions. That is the reality of the instrumentation involved. The other way to consider this instrumentation is to consider how accurately a trained NASA technician can measure the temperature of the surface of a very large stevenson box from his orbiting satellite in good conditions thru the atmosphere compared to how accurately he could measure the temperature of the surface if he had whatever state of the art devices to measure the temperature of this surface while he was on earth and then compare how his satellite temperature compared moment to moment with his best possible earth bound measurement. Each measurement device he was using on earth would have to be calibrated and have a graph of temperatures produced versus a standard temperature recording device such as a mercury thermometer which was itself graphed (calibrated) between say freezing point of water and boiling point of water. At the current point in time two calibrated satellites produce different temperatures of the earth. From what i can understand so far the results are pooled and processed in some manner so that they fit the available earth data from earth measurements. In order to allow for clouds or whatever interferes with best possible conditions the data is altered to account for the observed changes. For example a measuring group of scientists might have version 5.5 of their latest man made changes being applied to the voltage or current measured to produce the temperature regarded as the best they can detect. And each group tends to view the others work and recommend changes via critical examination of the data. It is a guide. There is no absolute ability to measure the surface of the earth and never will be. Similarly if you record the temperature of the day as a high and a low you have a guide to the total heat of the day but you dont actually know the total actual heat of the day for all of the day. All you have is two guide periods of that day. It is the wrong answer but it acts as a guide.
|
|