My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Looks like IPCC report was indeed wrong on hurricanes | Main | Overwhelming support for changing or ditching MMP »

Comments

CM

Oceans are not warming because of UHI, spring is not coming earlier because of UHI, and indeed, glaciers are not melting because of UHI. No evidence of significant UHI contamination was found by Parker (2004, 2006), the record from GISTEMP which applies a different UHI correction than HadCRUT does not differ substantially at the global or regional scale.
Even the more recent analyses of the Chinese stations themselves and even in an environment where urbanisation is happening faster than ever, UHI effects are still small (Jones et al, 2008).

So how do we explain all that? It's all wrong? Really?

Ian Wishart

CM, oceans are not warming due to CO2 either, and in fact there's considerable doubt that oceans are warming much at all at the moment.

Ocean heat cycles are poorly understood and may be hundreds of years long.

CM

At the moment? You mean like this week (or that sort of equivalent)?

I like your 'either' even though there is 'considerable doubt' that your theory about C02 warming the air is correct.

But yeah I'll agree about the cycles not being understood.

I thought this piece from Josh Willis was interesting:

http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/V6N2.pdf

e.g.
"So you can imagine how I felt when
I finally discovered that the result was
wrong. After more scrutiny of the data,
we eventually showed that the cooling
was caused by a small warm bias in the
old ocean observing system, along with
a huge cold bias among a few instruments
in the new one (Willis et al., 2008a). When the dust finally settled,
rapid ocean cooling was gone...."

MC toidi

It seems NCDC has been making strange adjustments to raw temps. Instead of adjusting urban stations down to account for UHI, they've adjusted rural stations up to mimic temp increases in urban stations.

I'm curious, when I look at my thermometer should I adjust it up or down to know what the temperature really is where I am? I figure up, so it complies with the warming trend?
And here I was thinking it was a crap summer, turns out I hadn't adjusted my thermometer for AGW

Jim Owen

CM - So you really believe that Josh Willis's statement was correct? That the biases in both systems worked to eliminate the ocean cooling? Tell you what - I've got this ocean front property in Arizona. I'll make you a deal.

Your argument is obsolete - it's been superceded by other data/studies.

The probability that ALL biases in ALL data sets will be in the direction of non-cooling oceans and rapidly warming atmosphere (as the alarmist community assume/insist) is vanishingly small.

(not so) Silent

Another paper on strange adjustments to raw temps.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

“The problem would seem to be the methodologies engendered in treatment for a mix of urban and rural locations; that the ‘adjustment’ protocol appears to accent to a warming effect rather than eliminate it. This, if correct, leaves serious doubt for whether the rate of increase in temperature found from the adjusted data is due to natural warming trends or warming because of another reason, such as erroneous consideration of the effects of urban warming.”

(not so) Silent

And this from that paper

"The analysis concludes that NCDC “…has taken liberty to alter the actual rural measured values”.

"Thus the adjusted rural values are a systematic increase from the raw values, more and more back into time and a decrease for the more current years. At the same time the urban temperatures were little, or not, adjusted from their raw values. The results is an implication of warming that has not occurred in nature, but indeed has occurred in urban surroundings as people gathered more into cities and cities grew in size and became more industrial in nature. So, in recognizing this aspect, one has to say there has been warming due to man, but it is an urban warming. The temperatures due to nature itself, at least within the Contiguous U. S., have increased at a non-significant rate and do not appear to have any correspondence to the presence or lack of presence of carbon dioxide."

CM

>>>CM - So you really believe that Josh Willis's statement was correct? That the biases in both systems worked to eliminate the ocean cooling? Tell you what - I've got this ocean front property in Arizona. I'll make you a deal.<<<

Yeah why don't you just calm down for a little bit. Take a breath. You're going to give yourself a heart-attack.
I said it was interesting.

>>>Your argument is obsolete - it's been superceded by other data/studies.<<<

Such as?

>>>Another paper on strange adjustments to raw temps.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf<<<

Only 48 selected data points in total across the whole continental country??!. One per state leaves a lot of room for error in choosing stations and in geographical weighting. It gives a big skew in data density towards all those little states on the east coast. Seems like a pretty basic flaw. Also, how adjacent are the rural/urban “pairs”?

This is presumably why these people "publish" with SPPI (a political group) and not a scientific journal. Do you really think this would pass peer-review?

CM

Ian, you should just rename this place "WUWT-SPAM" and be done with it.

Mack

SPPI, IPCC ,all political ain't it CM., Science all politicised eh boy.

Jim Owen

ROTFLMAO!!!

You denigrate SPPI as a political group but apparently fail to realize that IPCC and WWF (among others) are also political groups. And yet you seem to be willing to accept their pubs as gospel.

I'm sure many of the "sceptic" scientists would like to publish in the journals you consider appropriate for "real" science. But they've also learned that, ala Climategate, those journals are unavailable to anyone who doesn't follow the alarmist narrative. I'm sure I've mentioned before that the major journals have been suborned by the Hockey Team. Read the Climategate emails - it would be an education for you. Until you read them, you're just ignorant about climate politics.

As for "48" - it wasn't, it was "96". One urban and one rural for each state. Not as a comprehensive survey, but as a preliminary look at whether UHI is reflected in the data sets. It is, but not in any way that's logical or scientifically acceptable. Read it. You might learn something for a change. You might also want to read another take on a single station in Virginia (by another retired NASA scientist):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/contribution-of-ushcn-and-giss-bias-in-long-term-temperature-records-for-a-well-sited-rural-weather-station/

Not to worry, CM. You have yet to raise my blood pressure. But you have given me a few chuckles. And a little entertainment.

CM

You're hitting all the crank notes Jim. If you can't see the difference between SPPI and IPCC in terms of standards then there is nothing that anyone can probably do for you.

>>>I'm sure many of the "sceptic" scientists would like to publish in the journals you consider appropriate for "real" science. But they've also learned that, ala Climategate, those journals are unavailable to anyone who doesn't follow the alarmist narrative.<<<

I've read the relevant ones. None of them talk about how they've kept any skeptic paper from being published as part of a great conspiracy.
The emails are a crushing disappointment to the skeptics and deniers. There is just so little there. In all those years, and there's no fraud. And those were the best emails they could find.
You're hiding your disappointment well though.

>>>I'm sure I've mentioned before that the major journals have been suborned by the Hockey Team.<<<

You can talk about it until the cows come home. Where is your evidence? Until you can prove it, you're just another conspiracy crank.

>>>As for "48" - it wasn't, it was "96". One urban and one rural for each state.<<<

48 pairs Jim.
Did you even read the Long ‘paper’?

1. He chooses the grid size that isn’t recommended (by the source he himself provides).

2. There is no explanation about why he chose such a low sample. The paper states “The state boundaries are included and suggest, with the exception of the North Eastern portion, an alternate approach would be to select an equal number of stations per State. To make such an approach simple we elected to select one station per State.”. Why is that a valid ‘alternate approach’ when it’s not recommended? Why does making something ‘simple’ outweigh the fact that you’re not going to get results you can rely on?

3. The paper also states “No knowledge is assumed regarding the conditions at the station sites, such as those made recently for classifying the actual conditions of existing stations, Ref 9. Also, no consideration was given for the duration of service.” The author then concedes that there is a good argument that the set he’s chosen is “not adequate” (after admitting “...the raw data set has some missing years, for most of the stations, and since the missing years are not coupled from one station to another, nor did all of the stations begin in 1895 and continue through 2008....."). Just before that part of the paper is this sentence: “Thus the statistics according to the number of sampled stations should similar.” Yikes.
4. The author points to this from the NCDC site: “Because stations in the same latitude bands tend to share a more similar climate....” and uses it to justify this: “This is based on the assumption that within a certain latitude band stations along an East-West line experience the same climate”. A very weak premise to rely on, and even then he misrepresents the weak premise.

>>>You might learn something for a change.<<<

If that's what you need to say in lieu of an argument....

>>>You might also want to read another take on a single station in Virginia (by another retired NASA scientist)<<<

Wow, another WUWT spam post. Awesome.

Can't see any mention of NASA here:
http://thehardlook.typepad.com/about.html

He is a Heartland Institute associate though, so that figures.

This all comes down to the accusation that adjustment = cheating.
He may have a point with that specific station, but references to “hard partying, college kids” and sweeping generalisations about the terrain away from the station’s actual micro-climate suggest that he’s trying to distract from the poverty of his evidence.

If this is the quality of 'research' that you rely on and even promote, ahead of peer-reviewed published research that stands the test of time, good luck to you and everyone else you manage to fool.

The comments to this entry are closed.