Register to Comment
Like Tree9087Likes
  1. #38581
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Let's apply the sniff test. The single largest possible bias one could think of in temperature data collected from ground stations is the UHI.
    That pure assertion doesn't pass the sniff test. TOB bias is clearly the largest. Have you read the research on it?

    Secondly, I point to your observation that Christie and Spencer have 7 documented revisions. 3 down and 4 up. Now that is the type of distriubtion of revisions one would expect to see.
    But you show favour with no rationale. The adjustments resulted in a trend that was twice as large (increase of 0.07C/decade - half the current trend). Wouldn't you argue that the sum of biases should be neutral?


    There is no inherent reason why 99% of the time the temperature trend gets revised up.
    HadCRUt total station adjustments are 50/50 up and down. It's in the links I gave you.

    Far as I can see, what your saying is that UHI is not corrected for when it is, and that all other corrections are spurious. Until I see a comprehensive analysis that finds a significant difference between the resulting temp record and the official ones, I'm left wondering what the basis for the dispute is. Where is Stephen McIntyre's global temperature series?

    Can you even find a thoroughly analysed global temperature record from a skeptic that shows significant differences GISS etc? I can link you to skeptics showing the opposite (again).
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 1st April 2014 at 06:36 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #38582
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Here are charts of temps and trends for rural and urban stations globally



    http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/ghcn-results.html

    A trend difference of 0.006C/decade from 1900, which they adjust downward anyway. HadCRUT4 adjusts urban data downward by 0.0055C/decade from 1900. According to this analysis, HadCRUt have a UHI bias that warms the centennial trend by 0.0005C/decade - five thousandths of a degree per century. Some bias!

    When anyone does a comprehensive global analysis, this is the result. There is no basis for thinking UHI is a massive influence, bar supposition.
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 1st April 2014 at 06:56 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #38583
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Anthony Watts says of the US temperature record:

    The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time‐of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.
    http://iclimate.org/dev/publications-protected/J108.pdf

    Jeff Condon says of his analysis of the global record:

    First the obvious, a skeptic, denialist, anti-science blog published a greater trend than Phil Climategate Jones. What IS up with that?

    ...Several skeptics will dislike this post. They are wrong, in my humble opinion. While winning the public “policy” battle outright, places pressure for a simple unified message, the data is the data and the math is the math. We”re stuck with it, and this result. In my opinion, it is a better method.


    Thermal Hammer « the Air Vent
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #38584
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,805

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    That's what I've said. So why are UAH data adjustments sound and others not?
    They are not.

    Ground-based thermometers are going to need less adjustment than microwave scanners that are picking up radiation from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. Given atmospheric turbulence and temperature layering that does not affect surface data collection, we should be even more sceptical of satellite-gathered temperature measurements.

    Yet deniers always insist that these flaky enough model-based data are more "accurate" than surface-only data. Why?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #38585
    Volatire Volatire is offline
    Volatire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4,002

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Ground-based thermometers are going to need less adjustment than microwave scanners that are picking up radiation from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. Given atmospheric turbulence and temperature layering that does not affect surface data collection, we should be even more sceptical of satellite-gathered temperature measurements.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #38586
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Here's a bunch overlayed:



    Raw, GHCN v2 and v3. Different methods. Skeptics, official and others. The magnitude in differences is not what some people suggest.

    There is an alternative reference network to GHCN.



    Recent work by an amateur science blogger and software engineer named Ron Broberg has dramatically expanded the number of stations available. Broberg’s work involved parsing daily temperature data from 10,000 additional stations in NOAA’s Global Summary of Day (GSOD) network into a form readily usable for climate analysis.

    The data can be used to fill in some of the regional gaps in GHCN that have cropped up in recent years as the number of stations available decreased. It can also be used as an independent check that temperature reconstructions produced using GHCN data are in-line with raw data from other stations.

    An Alternative Land Temperature Record May Help Allay Critics’ Data Concerns | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media


    moyhu: Global Land/Ocean - GSOD and GHCN data compared
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #38587
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,805

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    Here are charts of temps and trends for rural and urban stations globally



    moyhu: More GHCN results.

    A trend difference of 0.006C/decade from 1900, which they adjust downward anyway. HadCRUT4 adjusts urban data downward by 0.0055C/decade from 1900. According to this analysis, HadCRUt have a UHI bias that warms the centennial trend by 0.0005C/decade - five thousandths of a degree per century. Some bias!

    When anyone does a comprehensive global analysis, this is the result. There is no basis for thinking UHI is a massive influence, bar supposition.
    Talk about the dog returning to his/ her vomit.

    Now that the "pause" seems to be vanishing in a puff of heat haze, deniers are back at the old excuse: "The surface record is unreliable".

    These are still the top 10 escape hatches for deniers:

    1. Climate's changed before
    2. It's the sun
    3. It's not bad
    4. There is no consensus
    5. It's cooling
    6. Models are unreliable
    7. Temp record is unreliable
    8. Animals and plants can adapt
    9. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    10. Antarctica is gaining ice


    Thsi particular one seems to have dropped to Number 7 in the Hit Parade.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #38588
    correr correr is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    885

    Quote Originally Posted by ireallyshouldknowbetter View Post
    You = currently proving me right about your not being a very effective communicator.


    Man you're some comedian which one of us are you referring to?, so right back at ya.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #38589
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,805

    Professor Kerry Emanuel of MIT responds to Dr Roger Pielke Jnr's post at 538.com about extreme weather, the costs and the risks.

    I’m not comfortable with Pielke’s assertion that climate change has played no role in the observed increase in damages from natural hazards; I don’t see how the data he cites support such a confident assertion.

    • To begin with, it’s not necessarily appropriate to normalize damages by gross domestic product (GDP) if the intent is to detect an underlying climate trend.
    • GDP increase does not translate in any obvious way to damage increase; in fact, wealthier countries can better afford to build stronger structures and to protect assets (for example, build seawalls and pass and enforce building regulations).
    • A grass hut will be completely destroyed by a hurricane, but a modern steel office building will only be partially damaged; damage does not scale linearly with the value of the asset.


    MIT Climate Scientist Responds on Disaster Costs And Climate Change | FiveThirtyEight
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #38590
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,805

    Both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have now told MPs they believe climate change is happening and humans play a role in it.

    Editors at the Telegraph told the science and technology committee that "we believe that the climate is changing, that the reason for that change includes human activity, but that human ingenuity and adaptability should not be ignored in favour of economically damaging prescriptions."

    The Mail told the MPs that "there are very few serious scientists who deny the climate is changing."

    Of course, both qualified their statements a bit, but you will have to read here to find out why. Telegraph and Mail concede on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

    I await David Rose's next foray into climate science. Apparently, Delingfool has been cut loose by the Torygraph.

    I watched a Sky News bulletin that did not mention the IPCC Report at all, let alone comment on it. Rupert Murdoch is still on the ball!. But here is an opinion article from the Fox News website that may herald a change (or not!):

    Time for real leadership on climate change, energy, national security | Fox News

    While we do not know exactly how climate change will evolve, we do know that ignoring climate change is the same as assuming that there will be no change. And that is exceeding unlikely.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment