Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[David Rodale]

If there are errors, they will also tend to cooler, as well has hotter. The people who process the readings add in UHI compensation, and statistical checks for local errors across sites.

Australia also has weather recording sites, and they match pretty well the temperature record across the globe.

Yet another fantastic unsupported claim by a Warmologist. Once one examines both the data and the method, your assertion is laughable. Tomorrow I will post what I have, you will post.....more drivel from IPCC. Parker and Pederson's assessment is a joke to those work in the metrological field.

In the meantime, would you explain how a USHCN site such as below can possibly be "adjusted" to any degree of confidence? AUP, I'm beginning to wonder if warmers have any independent thought processes. Can all you do is parrot the party line?


Tuscon, Arizona

 

[mhaze]

If there are errors, they will also tend to cooler, as well has hotter. The people who process the readings add in UHI compensation, and statistical checks for local errors across sites.

Australia also has weather recording sites, and they match pretty well the temperature record across the globe.

Ready for a laugh?

Conservation group WWF has blamed climate change for the coldest August in Sydney for more than 60 years. The freezing temperatures are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution, according to WWF development and sustainability program manager Paul Toni.
​

Wait....Never Mind. We've caught the WWF lying before.

 

[BenBurch]

If there are errors, they will also tend to cooler, as well has hotter. The people who process the readings add in UHI compensation, and statistical checks for local errors across sites.

Australia also has weather recording sites, and they match pretty well the temperature record across the globe.

Every major nation has its own weather service and its own stations, and they all show the same trends.

 

[Pixel42]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm

Climate 'hockey stick' is revived

A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.

Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm".

Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Spud1k]

Yet another fantastic unsupported claim by a Warmologist. Once one examines both the data and the method, your assertion is laughable. Tomorrow I will post what I have, you will post.....more drivel from IPCC. Parker and Pederson's assessment is a joke to those work in the metrological field.

In the meantime, would you explain how a USHCN site such as below can possibly be "adjusted" to any degree of confidence? AUP, I'm beginning to wonder if warmers have any independent thought processes. Can all you do is parrot the party line?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348bcb60b826c4.jpg[/qimg]

Tuscon, Arizona

Pur-lease. The 'urban heat island' argument against global warming grew old a long time ago. To save getting mired in a discussion of how they correct for it, this is taken from the USHCN website:

Most of these stations are U.S. Cooperative Observing Network stations located generally in rural locations

So your photograph is most definitely not the norm.

The assimilation of surface network data and the accurate reconstruction of the mean temperature trend have been a major field of study for quite a long time now and there have been lots and lots of papers published on it. For instance, take Brohan et al. (J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548, 2006) or Smith and Reynolds (J. Clim., 18, 2021–2036, 2005). They don't all agree on the specifics but the overall trend is consistently there. Perhaps you could point me to the paper that says this is all bunk?

 

[Spud1k]

This is a photo of an actual temp monitor site. Many do look like this. Documentation does exist. Anyone want to point to the site reference?

I'm more interested in the vast difference between claim of Spud1k and DR.

If it's references you're after, would the ASOS network be a good start? (bolding mine)

The Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS systems serves as the nation's primary surface weather observing network. ASOS is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities.

With the largest and most modern complement of weather sensors, ASOS has significantly expanded the information available to forecasters and the aviation community. The ASOS network has more than doubled the number of full-time surface weather observing locations. ASOS works non-stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

Based on my own experience, I've been to dozens of field sites on five continents and the only time I've ever witnessed one of the old-style weather stations in use was for teaching purposes. I'm not saying non-automated stations don't exist, but they are not the preferred option by any stretch and certainly not, as DR put it, the rule rather than the exception.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yet another fantastic unsupported claim by a Warmologist. Once one examines both the data and the method, your assertion is laughable. Tomorrow I will post what I have, you will post.....more drivel from IPCC. Parker and Pederson's assessment is a joke to those work in the metrological field.

In the meantime, would you explain how a USHCN site such as below can possibly be "adjusted" to any degree of confidence? AUP, I'm beginning to wonder if warmers have any independent thought processes. Can all you do is parrot the party line?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13624http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348bcb60b826c4.jpg

Tuscon, Arizona

The other method of compensating for bias is the use anomolies, not the absolute temperature. If a site is biased hot or cold, it will still reflect the change accurately.

 

[TrueSceptic]

DR said "the rule, not the exception", i.e. that it is the norm for weather stations. That is one hell of a claim.

Spud said "things like". That is not absolute in any sense.

So, when are you and Watts and the rest going start your campaign against all the weather people for using such garbage data for their forecasts?

I mean, real people, like farmers, depend on these forecasts and it's a disgrace that it's all based on lies, don't you think?

The caption claims it's real and Rodale claims that it is the "rule". That's quite a claim.

(We all know the sign is a joke.)

I've got peer reviewed articles supporting my claim. What have you got? Nothing. Psychobabble.

Visual evidence doesn't even register in a warmer's brain. Amazing.

You have a captioned photo, which might well be genuine; I'm not disputing that. You claim that stations like this are the rule, i.e., the norm: I am disputing that.

Are you claiming that peer reviewed articles support the claim that it is normal for weather stations to be of similar poor quality?

I'll repeat my other question as it is quite genuine.

So, when are you and Watts and the rest going start your campaign against all the weather people for using such garbage data for their forecasts?

I mean, real people, like farmers, depend on these forecasts and it's a disgrace that it's all based on lies, don't you think?

After all, Watts used to be (still is?) a TV and radio weather man.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yet another fantastic unsupported claim by a Warmologist. Once one examines both the data and the method, your assertion is laughable. Tomorrow I will post what I have, you will post.....more drivel from IPCC. Parker and Pederson's assessment is a joke to those work in the metrological field.

In the meantime, would you explain how a USHCN site such as below can possibly be "adjusted" to any degree of confidence? AUP, I'm beginning to wonder if warmers have any independent thought processes. Can all you do is parrot the party line?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348bcb60b826c4.jpg[/qimg]

Tuscon, Arizona

And your party line is...Watts? You know, that weatherman who posts graphs displaying his gross incompetence (or dishonesty, who can tell?)?

 

[TrueSceptic]

If it's references you're after, would the ASOS network be a good start? (bolding mine)


Based on my own experience, I've been to dozens of field sites on five continents and the only time I've ever witnessed one of the old-style weather stations in use was for teaching purposes. I'm not saying non-automated stations don't exist, but they are not the preferred option by any stretch and certainly not, as DR put it, the rule rather than the exception.

Thanks for that. It's always good to see first-hand information.

Hmm...perhaps we need a RealSurfaceStations site?

 

[mhaze]

If it's references you're after, would the ASOS network be a good start? (bolding mine)


Based on my own experience, I've been to dozens of field sites on five continents and the only time I've ever witnessed one of the old-style weather stations in use was for teaching purposes. I'm not saying non-automated stations don't exist, but they are not the preferred option by any stretch and certainly not, as DR put it, the rule rather than the exception.

No one is going to argue about what is preferred, of course.

Ye, I am well aware of ASOS and that is why I posed the simple question. Whatever is the "rule rather than the exception" is capable of being quantified.

So far you haven't done that.

 

[Spud1k]

No one is going to argue about what is preferred, of course.

Ye, I am well aware of ASOS and that is why I posed the simple question. Whatever is the "rule rather than the exception" is capable of being quantified.

So far you haven't done that.

Uh? Why should I? What would that prove?

DR, with his humorous photoshop job, was trying to say that NOAA "as a rule" relies on outdated, manually operated weather stations for its surface data. The fact they use ASOS as their primary data source in that department shows that statement to be completely wrong. As a rule, they use automated stations wherever possible, just like any competent weather service.

I, on the other hand, responded by saying that they use more modern automated weather stations (such as the one I linked to). The mere existence of ASOS says that they do (as opposed to don't) use such devices, so I was right.

What's there to quibble? Are you asking me to draw up a report of the number of manual vs automated weather stations out there? Even if I did do that, it'd mean nothing because the data from the automated stations is treated as the more useful anyway, which is why they are considered 'primary'.

 

[mhaze]

Uh? Why should I? What would that prove?

DR, with his humorous photoshop job, was trying to say that NOAA "as a rule" relies on outdated, manually operated weather stations for its surface data. The fact they use ASOS as their primary data source in that department shows that statement to be completely wrong. As a rule, they use automated stations wherever possible, just like any competent weather service.

I, on the other hand, responded by saying that they use more modern automated weather stations (such as the one I linked to). The mere existence of ASOS says that they do (as opposed to don't) use such devices, so I was right.

What's there to quibble? Are you asking me to draw up a report of the number of manual vs automated weather stations out there? Even if I did do that, it'd mean nothing because the data from the automated stations is treated as the more useful anyway, which is why they are considered 'primary'.

What in the world are you rambling about? ASOS are aviation support stations. There are lots of places reporting temperature which are not airports. Before you dig yourself further into a corner, note that I've only asked for the facts and only did so because of the obvious great disparity between your comments and DR's.

You've asserted a lot about ASOS, but you haven't even begun to provide anything more than unsubstantiated opinion about the actual composition of the temperature measuring network. I'm sure you are aware that skeptics have examined this in great detail. So in this particular case, you have a "Fantastic claim". Yes, go find statistics that show to what extent the stations measure up to the standards. Support your claim.

But hey, prove me wrong. And I certainly agree with you on how nice ASOS is, and that they should all be like that.

 

[lomiller]

And your party line is...Watts? You know, that weatherman who posts graphs displaying his gross incompetence (or dishonesty, who can tell?)?

Grey’s law: Any Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”

 

[Pipirr]

Wasn't it the case that with Watts, he started out with the hypothesis that poor quality stations would provide poor quality data. So he used some guidelines for station quality, then ranked stations according to how well they met the guidelines.

Not surprisingly, given the size of the US network, he found a bunch of stations that fell below this standard.

The question is, do the stations that don't meet the guidelines actually provide poor quality information?

He never proved that. As far as I know, unless he has gotten something to the contrary published in the peer reviewed climate science literature, even poor quality stations provided good data.

The last I heard on it is summed up here. To quote:

After Watts and his team released the data from the sites surveyed so far, John Vliet, a Canadian software developer and mathematician, decided to compare to the official NASA GISTEMP record the temperature record from the sites identified as both good quality (rated one, two, or three) and rural. The results were surprising to many in the Climate Audit community, as they found that the GISTEMP record matches the best site rural record quite well.

"For the USA lower 48, there is excellent agreement between GISTEMP and my results using only the best stations," Vliet explained. Vliet has published the code he used in an open source project called OpenTemp.org, and his calculations have so far stood up to the rigorous analysis of the community at Climate Audit.

As Gavin Schmidt from NASA Goddard explained, "That fact that his analysis is very similar to GISTEMP is a validation of both approaches."

So unless he managed to publish something on this, whenever I see pictures like DR's photoshopped station I just think 'so what'? Case not proven.

Of course I eagerly await the publication of his evidence in the peer reviewed climate science literature, where it will get the attention that it deserves.

 

[Spud1k]

What in the world are you rambling about? ASOS are aviation support stations. There are lots of places reporting temperature which are not airports. Before you dig yourself further into a corner, note that I've only asked for the facts and only did so because of the obvious great disparity between your comments and DR's.

You've asserted a lot about ASOS, but you haven't even begun to provide anything more than unsubstantiated opinion about the actual composition of the temperature measuring network. I'm sure you are aware that skeptics have examined this in great detail. So in this particular case, you have a "Fantastic claim". Yes, go find statistics that show to what extent the stations measure up to the standards. Support your claim.

Exactly what is fantastical about my claim? I said NOAA uses data from automated stations. I've shown they do. Unless you're claiming they throw all the data away instead of using it.

ETA: You'll note that at no point do I use the word 'exclusively', although you seem to think I have.

ASOS is partly aviation motivated but it also acts as a source of data for the National Weather Service (which is part of NOAA). To repeat part of my earlier quote:

ASOS is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities.

If you want to know how many stations there are on the network and where they are, it's all on their website. Which is hosted by NOAA, incidentally.

I'm well aware that the sceptics have been trying to tease apart surface measurements for a long time to try to undermine the evidence provided by temperature records. Don't get me wrong; some of this criticism has actually proven constructive over the years and has lead to better assimilation and reconstruction techniques. However, as the techniques and datasets have improved, the problems have diminished so the general argument of 'can't trust the thermometers' got old a long time ago.

If you have a specific point to make, let's hear it but make it a better one than claiming manual weather stations are "the rule rather than the exception".

But hey, prove me wrong. And I certainly agree with you on how nice ASOS is, and that they should all be like that.

Ummm.... pretty much every airport in the world is like that. And there are a lot of airports out there.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Grey’s law: Any Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”

Seems to be a variant of Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

But my view is more on the lines of how Randian* scepticism is applied to claims of the paranormal.

First, assume dishonesty (deliberate, calculated, deception).

Second, assume delusion (unwitting deception, including self-deception).

Third, assume incompetence (basic inability to judge evidence).

Only when those 3 filters have been passed is it worth seriously examining the claim.

*If the word does not exist, it should!

 

[varwoche]

lately NONE of the big pointers that would back AGW theories are coming true.

Dead wrong on the facts...

he [varwoche] has since called others stupid

... and dead wrong on the meta facts.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Wasn't it the case that with Watts, he started out with the hypothesis that poor quality stations would provide poor quality data. So he used some guidelines for station quality, then ranked stations according to how well they met the guidelines.

Not surprisingly, given the size of the US network, he found a bunch of stations that fell below this standard.

The question is, do the stations that don't meet the guidelines actually provide poor quality information?

He never proved that. As far as I know, unless he has gotten something to the contrary published in the peer reviewed climate science literature, even poor quality stations provided good data.

The last I heard on it is summed up here. To quote:



So unless he managed to publish something on this, whenever I see pictures like DR's photoshopped station I just think 'so what'? Case not proven.

Of course I eagerly await the publication of his evidence in the peer reviewed climate science literature, where it will get the attention that it deserves.

The results you cite are what you would expect, given than anomalous data is taken into account by scientists (in general, not just in climate science).

 

[Pipirr]

The results you cite are what you would expect, given than anomalous data is taken into account by scientists (in general, not just in climate science).

Exactly. So I think if Watts were on to something, he should be able to show some serious problems with the data, and he hasn't been able to do that. The pictures alone just can't be used to conclude that there are serious problems with the surface data.