Maybe you should ask the person who made the plot, he might (must) know as he has the raw data.Originally Posted by Stroller
And yah, raw data, if you don't know how to process it, you can get any result.
Moderator
Maybe you should ask the person who made the plot, he might (must) know as he has the raw data.
And yah, raw data, if you don't know how to process it, you can get any result.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Established Member
In a way i agree with you.
One should hope all the blogs and independents and sceptics are really wrong about agw, because if it comes to pass that they were right to have reservations about the "official" science then it will be a shocking day for the credibility of science in general.
There is much at stake here not just for people's personal reputations but from a societal point of view.
In other words there better be major warming over the next few years :-)
Established Member
tusenfem,
I expected the point for showing the US surface temperatures when discussing the Russian surface temperatures was obvious.
The US surface temperatures does not show a warming trend.
The Russian surface temperatures does show a warming trend, however, as noted below it is alleged that the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature is excluding Russian temperature which shows cooling or no warming.
Logically CO2 should warm the entire planet. It does not make sense that Russian surface temperature should rise and the US surface temperature does not rise. That logical dichotomy could be explained if someone was cherry picking the data.
In the set of Climate Gate e-mails there is a memo that notes the "skeptics" may notice that the ocean surface temperature rise shows almost no increase in warming while the surface temperature does. That observation (ocean top 150 m warming does not match surface temperature warming) would also support the assertion that the surface data is being manipulated.
The fact the CRU destroyed the past long term temperature data records complicates the base comparison. The finding that the hockey stick graph was created by specifically selecting a very small set of tree ring data and then when that tree ring data did not correlate with planetary temperature the tree ring proxy data was manipulated. (that is the 'trick".)
The US long term temperature data was not destroyed. Hence the US long term surface temperature data does not show warming as it cannot be manipulated.
The scientific method excludes cherry picking data, blocking publishing of papers that do not support a premise, and destroying data. If the data supports a premise there is no logical reason to cherry pick data, block publishing of papers that do not support the premise, destroy data, delete emails, block information requests, and so on.
http://www.bautforum.com/science-tec...ml#post1644893
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/1...mest-stations/Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-fi...=gif&id=110-00
Last edited by William; 2009-Dec-17 at 04:24 PM. Reason: deleted duplicate link
Established Member
It should logically warm the average temperature of the planet. No one has ever said warming should be even and that there cannot be local areas that get cooler, especially in the shorter term.
Order of Kilopi
"often does not show any substantial warming" implies either some small level of warming or no warming. It doesn't imply cooling (and if it did show cooling, I'm sure you would have highlighted the fact). And the "often" suggests there are times and/place where they did show "substantial warming".
So it sounds like it might bring the average increase down a bit, but not reverse the trend.
So you would prefer them to use the set of values from tree rings that are known to be inaccurate rather than actual temperature measurements?when that tree ring data did not correlate with planetary temperature the tree ring proxy data was manipulated. (that is the 'trick".)
Established Member
How about areas which show no warming over 100 years? Like the Siberian surface stations north of 70 degrees CRU decided not to include in their global temperature product.
Given the sparseness of data near the arctic circle, I can see no reason to exclude these data, except for reasons of bias.
Established Member
Spring and early summer were indeed cool, possibly due to the la nina going on at the time. Fall brought an El Nino and amazing warmth.
Established Member
HadCRU doesn’t include higher latitudes, North or South because weather stations are to far apart. This reduces error for the regions they do cover. GISS does the opposite, they use the higher latitude stations and extrapolate between them. This increases error, but allows them to generate more of a global result.
The biggest consequence of this is that GISS is expected to have higher warming trend because it includes the fast warming artic.
Established Member
I agree, it would be a lot less of an obstruction if CRU were to publish their station list and precise, clear details of their homogenisation methodology in accordance with repeated freedom of information requests, and the scientific method. Because they won't, they are under investigation and a cloud of suspicion.
Because their temperature series is not reproducible, it can't be regarded as scientifically useful or valid at present.
Established Member
You might expect monotonically rising temperatures during El Nino, but that doesn't mean that's the way it works in the real world.
You may think that Saskatchewan's summer weather was representative of the whole world, but most people will disagree with you.
You may think that freezing temperatures in Vancouver don't occur during El Nino, but that doesn't change the fact that Vancouver experienced temperatures of -10C in 1998, the year of the mother of El Ninos.
You may not be familiar with BC coastal weather, but snowstorms are entirely possible during El Nino.
I suspect similar revelations about reality vs William's notions of weather in Europe can be made by those living there.
Established Member
First proper snow of the winter in the UK today. A lot of people died in China a month or so ago when the weight of snow collapsed roofs. Cold records are heavily outnumbering warm records at the moment
Established Member
I beg to differ - but we are consistantly hitting record high temps here in Australia. 2009 will be the hottest year ever on record. And the top 5 hottest years on record are all within the last decade.
Australian trend map - temperature
Moderator
How surprising in winter.
November was the 2nd hottest in Austria.
Let's rename this thread in "what was the weather like today."
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Order of Kilopi
I'm still ploughing through the primary science-based material (papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) ...
This post has an aspect that's been puzzling me since I first read it; can any BAUT member help me?
wrt AGW: there are, as I understand it so far, a great many hypotheses concerning the extent of the impact on global warming due to the activities of us humans, in the last century or so (burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, that sort of thing). And many of these hypotheses have been developed to the point of being potentially testable (the extent to which those hypotheses have actually been tested, and what the results of those tests are (etc) are interesting questions, but not the least bit relevant to this particular post).
The aspect of the post I'm quoting that I don't understand is something like this: is there a consistent position (narrative, case, ...) wrt (something like) the impact of the activities of us humans on global warming, in the last century or so, is below the level of detectability (as of today)? Note that this is *not* a 'prove a negative'! And if there is such a consistent position, is it a science-based one?
(Of course, if the answers are yes, and yes (or similar), then where is that case presented?)
Established Member
The agw hypothesis is specifically based on human Co2 emissions being an overwhelming causal factor on global temperatures and other observed phenomenom such as polar ice loss, glacier retreat etc...
But what it looks like you are asking for is a more complete analysis of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism.
Those are two different theories. I think the distinction is important because there is far too much semantic slippage in the climate change vocabulary already.
But I'd like to see a far more wide ranging investigation of UHI (Urban Heat Islands) which have always been treated as unimportant (or a minor influence) by the IPCC's dubious conclusions.
Established Member
The urban heat island effect has been quite heavily studied. Based on the available data, the IPCC quantified the level of uncertainty it introduces to the land record at 0.006C per decade in AR4. (source: section 3.2.2.2 of chapter 3 - pdf link)
What about that analysis do you find to be dubious?
Established Member
They have wildly underestimated the amount by which UHIs have influenced temperatures, particularly at any stations in or close to a city.
Personally i think there should be a complete review of raw global temp data, and a new temp reconstruction should be made without any city records. So only data from rural areas. That way we can rule out UHI completely.
Established Member
This has been done. Read the section I cited.
Established Member
You mean the comparison between rural and urban sites which has the following description in the accompanying text (my bold);
"Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable
from series including urban sites"
So they first "homogonised" the rural and urban sites and then compared them to each other with the exclamation "look they are the same!".
Genius. And individuals lap it up.
Established Member
Am I correct in understanding that from the phrase "other changes", you conclude that what was done to produce that graph is that they took the two different data sets and forced them to match as part of a test whose purpose is to see if they match?
I'm going to need a little more evidence than mere speculation on a two-word phrase before I'm willing to buy a claim as extraordinary as the idea that such buffoonery could pass a review panel.
Established Member
That has not been done. I want to see pure rural data analysed, no homogenisations, and for a new study to be carried out independently of the Jones and Mann brigade.
When that is done and it shows the same hockey stick pattern I will believe agw is a serious concern.
Established Member
The purpose of homogenization is to remove non-climactic influences on the temperature records.
So to my ear, what you just said translates as, "I'm worried that the data is dirty. I would have a much easier time trusting data that is guaranteed to be dirty."
Established Member
The selective nature of the rural sites chosen for comparison.
In most cases, the rural sites are in valley bottoms, which have seen a big increase in pumped water aerosol irrigation, which has lifted night-time temperatures considerably.
It's a real issue that the purveyors of the homogenised data have dropped the stations from higher and drier locations. In a lot of cases, they have dropped long continuous records which show little warming in favour of stations with suitable infrastructure for electronic communication nearby, such as airports.
Airports have many issues, their temperature recording is geared more towards air navigation safety, and less towards long term climatic measurement. Increases in passenger numbers, flights, tarmac aprons, jet engine size etc have affected these stations, and yet the 'adjustments' are always upwards.
Established Member
The uncertainties in our measurement and understanding of the various factors which affect climate are such that we have no idea whether the small amount of warming which has taken place in the last century is enhanced by human activity or not.
Notwithstanding the fact that the error bars mostly exceed the signal wrt most climate indices and proxies, it seems to me that there have been numerous warming and cooling vents within the last 1000 years which indicate that we are not witnessing anything unprecedented in the northen hemisphere. The archeological evidence from the European alps and elsewhere indicates that past warmings have enabled humans to traverse high passes etc which are for most of the time frozen.
You can find the case presented all across the internet wherever people have been sufficiently motivated to contradict the overly generalised doomsaying with their own specialised local knowledge. Diligent historians of science have also recovered mouldering textbooks containing contradictory measurements of co2 concentrations and temperatures.
It's a great puzzle which has kept me busy for a few years now in my spare time. I could provide a hundred links to specific data and general conclusions, but you will only be convinced by your own research.
I wish you well.
Established Member
Established Member
Sorry, but I have to call you on this one. Please supply sources describing station location topographies and proximity to "pumped aerosol irrigation" systems, please.
Last edited by cope; 2009-Dec-19 at 04:34 AM. Reason: syntax
Established Member
Nereid, as you can see from the complete lack of references in Stroller's post (and to large extent, Stroller's all other posts as well), their case is not based on science. It's just about making uncertainties look much worse than they are and making it look like the debate is still alive. Their "papers" have bad quality scientifically, but sometimes they manage to sneek in a paper to the real journals as well but with same level of quality (few months ago published Lindzen & Choi, 2009, for example). Just recently we caught Stroller making up things about Hansen et al. (2007), to give an example (just one of many similar cases) of what really is going on here. Like Stroller says, you can indeed find that kind of case presented all across the internet. Compare this situation to the evolution vs. creation "debate", and you will see that the situation is almost exactly the same here.
Order of Kilopi
Thanks Jetlack.
Sorry if my question wasn't clear; no, I'm not asking for a more complete analysis ("of how humans may have warmed the planet regardless of mechanism"); I'm trying to work out where the science is in Bright_Light's post ... and specifically if any reader knows of a presentation (preferably internally consistent, etc, and published in a relevant journal) of a case to the effect that all the observed GW can be accounted for by mechanisms/processes/etc other than A ones.
Your mention of UHI seems to imply that there is a completely unambiguous, robust case for AW (humans create urban heat islands, which is, by definition anthropogenic warming) - is that so?
Further, you also seem to be implying that - due UHI etc - the case for GW (whether over a period of a century or so, or considerably less) is not at all strong. In my first post in this thread I asked if there was any scientific case for something like this ... and everyone who responded seemed to be saying that such a case does not exist. Are you saying there is such a case?
Finally, can you point me to where the kind of case that answers my question may be found? The one in the post you quoted, that is ...
Order of Kilopi
Thanks Stroller.
Rather than repeat what I just wrote, in response to Jetlack, could you take a look at that post, and have a go at helping me understand?
Also, you seem to be saying that the answer to my question (in the post of mine you're quoting) is that such a case (presentation, narrative, ...) does not exist (if only because people such as yourself have not written it up and published it); is that so? If not, please set me straight.
It may be that my question is not as clear as it could be (I'm still learning the vocabulary), but at its heart it's about a class of hypotheses, the tests they are specifically designed for, and the 'no detectable A in GW' results (that's a shorthand, of course) from those tests. Much of what you write in your post seems to me to be relevant to different hypotheses (though there are, of course, similarities).
Established Member
See Roger Pielke senior's musings and published papers on the subject.
Also, http://www.surfacestations.org
Basically, increased irrigation and more intensive agriculture over the last 50 years has caused increased surface evaporation and lifted the night-time temperatures around cultivated valley bottoms. This has introduced an upward bias into temperature readings.
Established Member
Sure UHIs could be classed as agw, but they are actually ignored within the mainstream defintion of agw. The main thrust of agw theory as concluded by the IPCC is that Co2 is the main culprit. So no, even if UHIs are primarily responsible for a warming average we'll need to call it something else because the "agw" tag is a specific reference to Co2.
Of course UHIs are a local phenomenom in that they may warm the temperature around a city by about a 1 degree compared to the rural areas. Atleast last time i measured the difference in Malaga (Spain) which is not a large city (pop 500,000).
And the problem if UHIs are responsible for all the warming is what do we do about it? Or is it even a problem if confined to a local 1 degree of warming? That's not the end of the world.
I dont think there has been a study which has purposefully pulled city temperatures from the overall record and then compared the city+rural average with a rural only. That would be interesting. All the major datasets today include city temperatures which is frankly highly unscientific from what we know about UHIs.
Posting Permissions
