|
|
Post by woodstove on May 11, 2009 13:07:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2009 15:00:59 GMT
Steve, glc, and socold will, I suspect, need to do more than scratch their heads to discount the work of Watts and his army. I'm not going to criticise the survey. What are the conclusions though? I look forward to the analysis of the data. The network was never designed to provide the quality of data that one would require to observe a trend at the 0.1C per decade level, so it is wrong to criticise people for trying to make the best of bad data. I don't think it is enough to point out the flaws in a network without putting it into the context of the work done by, for example, Peterson and Parker, in evaluating whether the corrections done to remove the biases are valid. When attempts are made to look at the trends under conditions where the bias would have different impacts (such as calm vs windy, winter vs summer, "rural" vs "urban") trends appear to match quite closely with the overall result. Furthermore the trends match up quite well with data taken using other methods, for example, sea surface temperatures, and supporting data from lengthening growing seasons, observations of increased humidity, arctic ice melt, permafrost melt, etc. It can't all be blamed on urban development. I thought it was a bit rude of Anthony to claim that the US network was the best. I'd bet the European network was better  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 11, 2009 15:17:15 GMT
The network was never designed to provide the quality of data that one would require to observe a trend at the 0.1C per decade level, so it is wrong to criticise people for trying to make the best of bad data. It sure as heck is appropriate to criticize them when it is done with an excess of hubris. Furthermore the trends match up quite well with data taken using other methods, for example, sea surface temperatures, and supporting data from lengthening growing seasons, observations of increased humidity, arctic ice melt, permafrost melt, etc. It can't all be blamed on urban development. Development is an accelerating phenomena so adjustments would not be linear. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 11, 2009 16:28:50 GMT
There's nothing wrong with what Anthony Watts has done (or is doing) but what is his ultimate objective? If it's to show that some stations are not ideally sited - fine. If it's to show that the urban heat effect exists - again fine - but we already knew that.
If, however, it's to show that poor siting and/or UH have had a significant impact on the global temperature trend since, say, 1975, things become less straightforward. It's no good just saying that a station is affected by UH, Anthony will need to show that there has actually been an increasing trend in UH. If a station is recording 1 deg above what it should in 1975 and also recording 1 deg above what it should in 2009 - then there is no UH trend, and the overall trend since 1975 is not affected by urban heat.
I can believe there might be some effect since 1900, but I strongly doubt there is sufficient change in urban development over the past 30 years which can account for a significant bias in the global temperature record.
The trends since 1992 (for the 4th time)
UAH +0.22 deg per decade
RSS +0.22 deg per decade
GISS +0.24 deg per decade
Hadley +0.20 deg per decade
If GISS and Hadley are affected by Urban Heat, then the troposphere is warming faster than the surface since 1992. Exactly what AGW theory predicts. Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 11, 2009 18:58:40 GMT
There's nothing wrong with what Anthony Watts has done (or is doing) but what is his ultimate objective? If it's to show that some stations are not ideally sited - fine. If it's to show that the urban heat effect exists - again fine - but we already knew that. If, however, it's to show that poor siting and/or UH have had a significant impact on the global temperature trend since, say, 1975, things become less straightforward. It's no good just saying that a station is affected by UH, Anthony will need to show that there has actually been an increasing trend in UH. If a station is recording 1 deg above what it should in 1975 and also recording 1 deg above what it should in 2009 - then there is no UH trend, and the overall trend since 1975 is not affected by urban heat. I can believe there might be some effect since 1900, but I strongly doubt there is sufficient change in urban development over the past 30 years which can account for a significant bias in the global temperature record. The trends since 1992 (for the 4th time) UAH +0.22 deg per decade RSS +0.22 deg per decade GISS +0.24 deg per decade Hadley +0.20 deg per decade If GISS and Hadley are affected by Urban Heat, then the troposphere is warming faster than the surface since 1992. Exactly what AGW theory predicts. Be careful what you wish for. I don't think being stuck on the trends from one year is very demonstrative of the overall trends. The trends from other years are not so clearcut. |
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 11, 2009 19:07:07 GMT
Early work on just using the data from the "high quality, rural" (CRN 1 and 2) surface stations basically validated the NASA GISS temperature data for the US. After that, it seems like most commentors on WUWT lost interest in the project.  |
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on May 11, 2009 23:38:50 GMT
"If GISS and Hadley are affected by Urban Heat, then the troposphere is warming faster than the surface since 1992. Exactly what AGW theory predicts. Be careful what you wish for. "
So the current plummeting temperatures will end shortly and we will all be saved by CO2 emissions as the heat flows downwards in the AGW (Anti Gravity Winds). Thank god, better get a bigger car whilst we still have some atmosphere and I can turn the heating down. Can you tell I'm getting bored now by all the data falsification. BTW AGW theory predicts everything. I will win the AGW lottery tomorrow because I bought all the AGW tickets. Not of any value as an argument for anything.. Yawn
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on May 12, 2009 1:44:31 GMT
Early work on just using the data from the "high quality, rural" (CRN 1 and 2) surface stations basically validated the NASA GISS temperature data for the US. After that, it seems like most commentors on WUWT lost interest in the project. WOW!!!! Was there no increase in CO2 between 1932 and 1980??? |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 12, 2009 4:07:22 GMT
Early work on just using the data from the "high quality, rural" (CRN 1 and 2) surface stations basically validated the NASA GISS temperature data for the US. After that, it seems like most commentors on WUWT lost interest in the project. Um...did you notice how GISS is warmer most of the time? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 12, 2009 6:01:56 GMT
Um...did you notice how GISS is warmer most of the time? The modifications haven't just increased the trend...they made the temperatures to look more like the trend overall. They lowered the starting temperature, reduced the depths of the previous cold periods, left the peak of the previous warm period alone and raised temperatures across the board during this last warming period. |
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on May 12, 2009 6:15:51 GMT
Steve, glc, and socold will, I suspect, need to do more than scratch their heads to discount the work of Watts and his army. I'm not going to criticise the survey. What are the conclusions though? I look forward to the analysis of the data. The network was never designed to provide the quality of data that one would require to observe a trend at the 0.1C per decade level, so it is wrong to criticise people for trying to make the best of bad data. And yet that is exactly what they use it for I don't think it is enough to point out the flaws in a network without putting it into the context of the work done by, for example, Peterson and Parker, in evaluating whether the corrections done to remove the biases are valid. Rather than write a bit of code to presumably get rid of percieved errors why dont they FIX THE FLAWS in the network? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 12, 2009 8:35:45 GMT
Steve, glc, and socold will, I suspect, need to do more than scratch their heads to discount the work of Watts and his army.
Woodstove
My criticism of Anthony's work concerns his overall objectives. I'm not sure he was clear on these before he started the project. There seemed to be a feeling that provided he could find a sufficient number of stations that were 'badly sited', that would be enough to discredit the surface record. I sense that Anthony now realises that this is not the case. It's becoming clear that there is no significant difference between 'good' station trends and 'bad' station trends. There is a good reason for this.
Even if no UH 'correction' is made, unless there is a definite UH trend (i.e. UH has increased during the observed period) the station trend will NOT be affected by UH. Apart from that, there are other issues.
The global temperature record is a combination of land AND ocean data, of which the ocean (at 71%) is the largest contributor. You can't seriously suggest that the ocean is affected by urban heat. The same goes for the troposhere. Both RSS and UAH show warming and, since 1992, show the same warming as the surface record.
Finally - some perspective. The area of the US represents just 2% of the earth's surface. Let's just suppose that Anthony found that every single station in the US network was contaminated by UH and it had all happened since ~1975. Let's say the situation was so bad that every station was measuring 1 deg warmer than under the same weather conditions in 1975. I'm sure you'll agree this is highly unlikely as it would mean that the US, in reality, would be colder now than at any time since records began. But let's stick with this 'thought experiment'. What would be the effect on the global temperature trend if we were to remove the 1 degree rise due to urban heat?
The reduction in total warming would be 0.02 degrees which over ~30 years is a reduction in trend of ~0.007 deg. So if the current trend is 0.17 deg per decade, it might be reduced (at best) to 0.16 deg per decade.
If Anthony's intention is to create doubts about the global temperature record, I fear he may have done a lot of hard work for very little return.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2009 8:48:48 GMT
Rather than write a bit of code to presumably get rid of percieved errors why dont they FIX THE FLAWS in the network? Because they aren't time travellers - you need to fix the historical flaws to get more accurate historical data, and because of government cuts in the surface station networks and a move to more satellite observations I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 12, 2009 14:50:28 GMT
Steve, glc, and socold will, I suspect, need to do more than scratch their heads to discount the work of Watts and his army. Woodstove My criticism of Anthony's work concerns his overall objectives. I'm not sure he was clear on these before he started the project. There seemed to be a feeling that provided he could find a sufficient number of stations that were 'badly sited', that would be enough to discredit the surface record. I sense that Anthony now realises that this is not the case. It's becoming clear that there is no significant difference between 'good' station trends and 'bad' station trends. There is a good reason for this. Even if no UH 'correction' is made, unless there is a definite UH trend (i.e. UH has increased during the observed period) the station trend will NOT be affected by UH. Apart from that, there are other issues. The global temperature record is a combination of land AND ocean data, of which the ocean (at 71%) is the largest contributor. You can't seriously suggest that the ocean is affected by urban heat. The same goes for the troposhere. Both RSS and UAH show warming and, since 1992, show the same warming as the surface record. Finally - some perspective. The area of the US represents just 2% of the earth's surface. Let's just suppose that Anthony found that every single station in the US network was contaminated by UH and it had all happened since ~1975. Let's say the situation was so bad that every station was measuring 1 deg warmer than under the same weather conditions in 1975. I'm sure you'll agree this is highly unlikely as it would mean that the US, in reality, would be colder now than at any time since records began. But let's stick with this 'thought experiment'. What would be the effect on the global temperature trend if we were to remove the 1 degree rise due to urban heat? The reduction in total warming would be 0.02 degrees which over ~30 years is a reduction in trend of ~0.007 deg. So if the current trend is 0.17 deg per decade, it might be reduced (at best) to 0.16 deg per decade. If Anthony's intention is to create doubts about the global temperature record, I fear he may have done a lot of hard work for very little return. Anthony had no agenda when he began his work looking at surface stations. He was (and is) a meteorologist, living in Chico, California, and one day, on a lark, he went to a temperature station in his town just to look at it. What he found surprised him, and awakened some curiosity. He went to another station in Chico, and it, too, was badly sited. The more he dug, the worse it got. Pavement, air conditioning ducts, barbecues, gas-emitting sewage ponds, south-facing Stevenson screens, rooftop Stevenson screens -- you name it. There is every chance that heat islands are distorting the U.S. temperature record more than you realize, glc. There is every chance that heat islands at other land-based stations around the globe are causing significant distortions of the land-based temperature record. Here in Austin, we have two principal temperature stations. One is at Camp Mabry, an Army base, and the other is at the airport. In winter, Camp Mabry is routinely 3 degrees celsius warmer than the airport. In summer, Camp Mabry is routinely 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the airport. When I lived in NYC, Central Park's number was frequently 5 to 6 degrees celsius warmer than those measured in the surrounding countryside. The idea that heat islands create data problems only in the United States is spurious. Blaming Anthony Watts for "only" dealing with more than a thousand temperature stations in the way that he has is odd. What his work is likely to lead to is an understanding that little of the land-based temperature record, worldwide, is uncorrupted by heat islands and bad siting. Your idea that there is some kind of overarching stasis within the worldwide temperature record is odd. Urban heat islands are proliferating; rural stations used by GISS are declining. I do not accept 1992 as a reasonable start date for global temperature anomaly trends, land, sea, or combined. You claim that you chose your number for another reason than that it yields the maximum warming per decade signal. Timo is correct to call you on this. Fortunately, those with eyes to see will recognize that Anthony's extraordinary unpaid effort to collect data on the way that we collect data in this country is likely to lead to similar research, country by country, down the road. And when it comes to this important project, you can lead, follow, or get out of the way. p.s. It is ironic that GISS, on Columbia University campus in Manhattan, is situated in one of the most significant heat islands in North America. The effect is significant enough to diminish the annual snowfall there by at least half ... |
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on May 12, 2009 15:15:47 GMT
Well said! As an Engineer who has done research for NOAA in the 70's I joined Surface Stations as a volunteer when I first heard of it.
Anyone who has any problem with instrumentation calibrations or audits has never done solid research or is afraid the data they want will be changed.
Agreed that noone has ever considered that the data these stations produced would be used for the IPCC proof before, but they have. So its incumbent for us to understand the source of the data quality. I think we can all agree that these 'offical' stations have been treated as an afterthought. I think it's also apparent that any warming or cooling signal is way smaller than site errors. And that untangling any bias because of the terrible siting variations may be impossible.
I have to think that any legit scientist feels dismay that much of this data has such a huge error bar it's almost useless for any long term analysis and that if any corrections are done someone will cry foul.
This more than anything should cause a pause in the rush to action to impact and control every aspect of our lives.
|
|
