Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[David Rodale]

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.

It would be best if you'd change the subject before digging a hole you can't get out of. None of you have researched this, but instead raise your hands and waive furiously.

The WMO has internationally recognized standards for siting of surface stations. The pictures on Watts website document clearly differentiate those that meet the standards from those that do not.

There are numerous examples demonstrating statements such as yours is not supported by any empirical data. The "studies" your side provided are nothing but speculation or single-site evaluation. To say that wind evens out the UHI effect is ludicrous to be generous.

There are many details not addressed thus far, but one very simple reason why there are so many thermometers shown attached to roof tops, sides of buildings, parking lots, sidewalks etc., is because the cabling requirements do not allow for long distances to the data collection source.

We can go into more detail on other issues which you've likely never considered, but for now, dwell on these:

Detecting urbanization effects on surface and subsurface
thermal environment — A case study of Osaka

A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Tremendous efforts have been devoted to improve our understanding of the anthropogenic effects on the atmospheric temperature change. In comparison, little has been done in the study
of the human impacts on the subsurface thermal environment. The objective of this study is to analyze surface air temperature records and borehole subsurface temperature records for a better understanding of the urban heat island effects across the ground surface. The annual surface air
temperature time series from six meteorological stations and six deep borehole temperature profiles of high qualities show that Osaka has been undergoing excess warming since late 19th century. The mean warming rate in Osaka surface air temperature is about 2.0 °C/100a over the
period from 1883 to 2006, at least half of which can be attributed to the urban heat island effects.

However, this surface air temperature warming is not as strong as the ground warming recorded in the subsurface temperature profiles. The surface temperature anomaly from the Osaka meteorological record can only account for part of the temperature anomaly recorded in the
borehole temperature profiles. Surface air temperature is conventionally measured around 1.5m above the ground; whereas borehole temperatures are measured from rocks in the subsurface.
Heat conduction in the subsurface ismuch less efficient than the heat convection of the air above the groundsurface.Therefore, the anthropogenic thermalimpacts onthe subsurface can bemore
persistent and profound than the impacts on the atmosphere. This study suggests that the surface air temperature records alone might underestimate the full extent of urban heat island
effects on the subsurface environment.

“The Osaka station shows a warming trend of 1.99 °C/100a over the 124 year period from 1883 to 2006, more than triple the 20th century global warming rate 0.6 °C/100a (IPCC, 2001). The anomalous urban warming is consistently recorded in the
records from the nearby urban/suburban stations, of which the warming rates are 2.24 °C/100a for Kyoto, 1.45 °C/100a for Kobe, and 1.96 °C/100a for Nara, respectively. In comparison, the warming rates recorded in the two rural stations are more diverse. Over its 55-year life span, the Tsurugisan station showed a warming rate of 0.47 °C/100a which is slightly lower than the global average; whereas the 82-year Ibukiyama record showed a 1.60 °C/100a warming rate that is much greater than the global average.”

“The JMA (JMA, 2006) cautions that its regional estimate might be not entirely free of urbanization perturbation. Based on the records from the urban stations around Osaka and the JMA regional estimate, a conservative estimate of the urban heat island effects in Osaka would be in the range of 1–2 °C/ 100a. This estimate agrees in general with the early analysis of Kato (1996). Based on principal component score analysis of monthly mean temperature data for the period from 1920 to 1992 from 51 meteorological stations in Japan, Kato suggests that the maximum urban effects with a population of over 100,000 in 1993 were 1.0–2.5 °C/100a in Japan (Kato, 1996).”

MICROCLIMATE EXPOSURES OF SURFACE-BASED WEATHER STATIONS

The USHCN sites with good temperature exposure characteristics (i.e., meet all or almost all of the WMO standards) are in the minority in the set discussed in this paper. If the majority
of observing sites elsewhere have similar problems
to those in eastern Colorado, a significant number
will have nonrepresentative exposure features.

Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001–2005

The village of Barrow (71_N latitude) is the largest native community in the Arctic,
with a population of approximately 4500 people. Situated on the coast of the Arctic Ocean in northernmost Alaska, the area is entirely underlain by permafrost. Although most
supplies must be imported, Barrow relies on local natural gas fields to meet all energy
requirements for building heat and electrical power generation. This energy eventually
dissipates into the atmosphere, and can be detected as a pronounced urban heat island
(UHI) in winter. Since 2001, a 150 km2 area in and around Barrow has been monitored using _70 data loggers recording air temperature at hourly intervals. The mean daily temperature of the urban and rural areas is calculated using a representative sample of core sites, and the UHI magnitude (MUHI) is calculated as the difference in the group averages. The MUHI is most pronounced in winter months (December–March), with temperatures in the urban area averaging 2_C warmer than in the surrounding tundra and occasionally exceeding 6_C.

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and
inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data

Local land surface modification and variations in data quality affect temperature
trends in surface-measured data. Such effects are considered extraneous for the purpose of measuring climate change, and providers of climate data must develop adjustments to filter them out. If done correctly, temperature trends in climate data should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables that determine these extraneous factors. This hypothesis can be tested, which is the main aim of this paper. Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 _ 10_14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.

How much Estimation is too much Estimation?

 

[lomiller]

The WMO has internationally recognized standards for siting of surface stations. The pictures on Watts website document clearly differentiate those that meet the standards from those that do not.

Does the word non-sequitur mean anything to you? No data is perfect; you work with what you have.

Watts has done absolutely nothing to show his pictures are either meaningful or useful to the process of making use of the available data, nor has he even attempted to show there isn’t a useful signal contained in that data. If the things he is complaining about had any meaningful effect it should be very easy to prove in a published paper, the fact that he hasn’t even attempted this is telling.

 

[Pipirr]

It would be best if you'd change the subject before digging a hole you can't get out of. None of you have researched this, but instead raise your hands and waive furiously.

Yeah, I was talking about Watts. Did you miss that?

Has he published yet?

His picture blog does not equal a debunking of the US surface data.

Neither does your pathetic photoshopping effort.

Once again: The pictures alone just can't be used to conclude that there are serious problems with the surface data.

And waive what, exactly? I've already told you, I ain't giving up my guns.

 

[Spud1k]

It would be best if you'd change the subject before digging a hole you can't get out of. None of you have researched this, but instead raise your hands and waive furiously.

I don't need to research it because lots of other people already have and they all get the same answer. How's this?

Peterson, T.C.: Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found, J. Clim. 16: 2941–2959 (2003)

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

Or this?

Parker, D.E.: A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban, J. Clim. 19: 2882–2895 (2006)

On the premise that urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather, daily minimum and maximum air temperatures for the period 1950–2000 at a worldwide selection of land stations are analyzed separately for windy and calm conditions, and the global and regional trends are compared. The trends in temperature are almost unaffected by this subsampling, indicating that urban development and other local or instrumental influences have contributed little overall to the observed warming trends. The trends of temperature averaged over the selected land stations worldwide are in close agreement with published trends based on much more complete networks, indicating that the smaller selection used here is sufficient for reliable sampling of global trends as well as interannual variations. A small tendency for windy days to have warmed more than other days in winter over Eurasia is the opposite of that expected from urbanization and is likely to be a consequence of atmospheric circulation changes.

Need I go on? If you ask me, it is Watts that is 'hand waiving'.

 

[mhaze]

I don't need to research it because lots of other people already have and they all get the same answer. How's this?

Peterson, T.C.: Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found, J. Clim. 16: 2941–2959 (2003)

Or this?

Parker, D.E.: A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban, J. Clim. 19: 2882–2895 (2006)
Need I go on? If you ask me, it is Watts that is 'hand waiving'.

Probably should try to do a bit better, yes. Your references predate Watts survey and their conclusions were rejected after consider able study.

On your other assertions regarding the impact of automated weather stations, you are future, not past or present in orientation:

Day 2 at NCDC and Press Release NOAA to modernize USHCN « Watts Up With That
4-24-08
Dr. Baker providing me with a press release (new today) to post here for you all to see. CRN is getting completed and USHCN modernization is starting:

NOAA today announced it will install the last nine of the 114 stations as part of its new, high-tech climate monitoring network. The stations track national average changes in temperature and precipitation trends. The U.S. Climate Reference Network (CRN) is on schedule to activate these final stations by the end of the summer.

NOAA also is modernizing 1,000 stations in the Historical Climatology Network (HCN), a regional system of ground-based observing sites that collect climate, weather and water measurements. NOAA’s goal is to have both networks work in tandem to feed consistently accurate, high-quality data to scientists studying climate trends.

​

Hint of a problem:

Climate databases are past ...not...future ..observations.

​

 

[CapelDodger]

Probably should try to do a bit better, yes. Your references predate Watts survey and their conclusions were rejected after consider able study.

No, they weren't.

On your other assertions regarding the impact of automated weather stations, you are future, not past or present in orientation:

That applies far more to you, since you concentrate on the last nine of 114.

Keep it up. We all love it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Need I go on? If you ask me, it is Watts that is 'hand waiving'.

The Arctic melts before our very eyes, and what are these people still on about? US weather stations, with pictures. Pathetic, isn't it? "Don't look at that, look at this!".

"'Urban Heat Island Effect Melts The Arctic! Read all abaht it!"

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

But there are pictures. Lots of people prefer stuff that has pictures in it. Proper pictures, not graphs and "visual representations of data" but real pictures of real stuff taken by real people and available over the internet.

Not even Megalodon's artistry can make a dent in that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

But there are pictures. Lots of people prefer stuff that has pictures in it. Proper pictures, not graphs and "visual representations of data" but real pictures of real stuff taken by real people and available over the internet.

Not even Megalodon's artistry can make a dent in that.

Meanwhile, I'll just "waive" my rights to look at all that stuff...

 

[CapelDodger]

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).

And, en masse, scientists do it conservatively. The inbuilt inertia of science is one of its great feaures. Its proven flexibility in the face of evidence is another.

 

[CapelDodger]

Meanwhile, I'll just "waive" my rights to look at all that stuff...

You lose nothing by it. I waive my rights to hunt mastodon in my garden. What the hey, I'm getting too old for it, and who wants to hunt mastodon in this weather anyway?

A photo-album and associated innuendo of US weather-stations confirms to us Brits - am I wrong? - how up-its-own-bum the denialist community is.

 

[mhaze]

...you concentrate on the last nine of 114.

Keep it up. We all love it.

Since you exhibit a naive cluelessness about the 114 of which we speak, I leave you to the reading of sign and portent in your garden.

 

[Spud1k]

Probably should try to do a bit better, yes. Your references predate Watts survey and their conclusions were rejected after consider able study.

That a fact? I don't suppose you have any references you can back that statement up with, do you?

The Barrow and Osaka case studies were interesting, but they were only case studies. And as pointed out before, someone has yet to show that any nit-picking in station QA translates to a drastic effect on the ensemble data products.

On your other assertions regarding the impact of automated weather stations, you are future, not past or present in orientation:

AWSs have been widespread for some time now (ASOS was started in 1992 and is predated by systems such as AWOS); it's not like they're only just getting round to installing them. But anyway, I never said AWSs were good for historic records; you won't catch me trying to claim they had them before they were invented or anything daft like that. The issue about those originally came about when DR was questioning how good ground sites were in comparison to satellites. That puts the issue in the present.

ETA: Having re-read how it has progressed, this whole argument about automated vs non automated got stupidly irrelevant a very long time ago. DR made the point that he didn't trust surface sites (mentioning mercury in glass thermometers as an off-the-cuff remark) and I responded by saying it was in the various agencies' interests to provide quality data using modern equipment. I propose knocking the whole automation line of argument on the head because I fail to see what it has to do with the topic under discussion.

 

[mhaze]

...various agencies' interests to provide quality data using modern equipment. I propose knocking the whole automation line of argument on the head because I fail to see what it has to do with the topic under discussion.

Well, yes. Watts is concerned about siting, not automation + or -.

Automation doesn't imply good siting, but I like the ASOS systems. Generally. Were you arguing that the surface network was as good or better than sat?

 

[Spud1k]

Automation doesn't imply good siting, but I like the ASOS systems. Generally. Were you arguing that the surface network was as good or better than sat?

I wasn't arguing either was better; they're two different tools that do two different jobs and the best data products are the ones that take account of both.

It was DR's assertion about surface sites in general I took issue with. To take one of the poorest examples of a USHCN station Watts could find and then present it as the NOAA-endorsed norm was a bit rich to say the least.

 

[David Rodale]

I don't need to research it because lots of other people already have and they all get the same answer. How's this?

Peterson, T.C.: Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found, J. Clim. 16: 2941–2959 (2003)



Or this?

Parker, D.E.: A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban, J. Clim. 19: 2882–2895 (2006)



Need I go on? If you ask me, it is Watts that is 'hand waiving'.

Oh please, go on.

I am well aware of Parker/Peterson and have already quoted them (many times in the past as well); the IPCC cherry picking campaign saga.

A person of even below average intelligence would notice a parking lot is much warmer than it would be if it were grass, and that leaving a city one would notice the temperature drops. Another would notice the larger the city, the more UHI. Yet Parker, a "scientist", without ever taking one measurement can determine UHI is a myth.

Peterson, who acknowledges UHI, claims the effects are negligible after adjustment. He simply classified stations as to being rural or urban. How many of the stations in his "study" did he evaulate? Take a guess. Well, since there is no photographic evidence, that pretty much answers that.

If you had read any of the other articles, you could have found:

Peterson [2006] concluded that any biases associated
with the poor siting in eastern Colorado, when adjusted, did
not affect estimates of regional temperature trends. However,
in a response to the Peterson article, Pielke et al. [2007]
Figure 5. USHCN station exposure at Greensburg, pointed out several issues which Peterson did not adequately investigate, including often undocumented station changes, ignored uncertainties in the adjustments, and land use/land cover change issues associated with climate
station adjustments.

I presented you with empirical evidence refuting Parker and Peterson, and the blinders are still on.

Further, since GISS considers rural to be <100,000 (with no justification) and the Barrow, Alaska study (an actual study using 70 thermometers) in a population of 4500 blows that assumption away.

Google lights=0 for fun.

There are hundreds more as below. It is called evidence, which is not to be found in Parker/Peterson.



Here's another paper to think about:
SITING AND EXPOSURE OF METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS AT URBAN SITES

Pipirr, the photographic evidence is in the paper(s) I posted, one of which is the above Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Does one need a manual to change a light bulb? The evidence is plain to see without need for a "peer reviewed" photo album.

Lomiller, I take and analyze dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of measurements every single day for my job. Variation and uncertainty are no strangers. If have evidence to support your POV, please post it.


Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook
As of April 2008, 534 stations surveyed; the results:



Oh, BTW, if you think Watts is such a dimwit, please explain why NCDC acknowledged his work and gave him a formal invitation to their facility this April?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

A person of even below average intelligence would notice a parking lot is much warmer than it would be if it were grass, and that leaving a city one would notice the temperature drops. Another would notice the larger the city, the more UHI. Yet Parker, a "scientist", without ever taking one measurement can determine UHI is a myth.

Ah, yes, what would a discussion be without another mis-representation by David Rodale. Exactly where does Parker claim that there is no such thing as UHI?

If you had read any of the other articles, you could have found:

Could you point out the paragraph where Pielke, et al., show that land use changes could account for all of the measured warming over the past 3 decades.

 

[David Rodale]

I wasn't arguing either was better; they're two different tools that do two different jobs and the best data products are the ones that take account of both.

It was DR's assertion about surface sites in general I took issue with. To take one of the poorest examples of a USHCN station Watts could find and then present it as the NOAA-endorsed norm was a bit rich to say the least.

How many hundreds of examples do you need? Over half have been surveyed and the results aren't looking so good.

Automated doesn't mean better. They can have several problems, as was noted as long ago as 1991. I still keep a calibrated mercury thermometer in my lab. Without a calibration frequency schedule, there is no way to know if problems crop up even today. Fortunately, NOAA is now budgeted to modernize and add ~100 new rural stations.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/5/6/pdf/i1520-0442-5-6-657.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/8/5/pdf/i1520-0442-8-5-1394.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/74/2/pdf/i1520-0477-74-2-215.pdf

Examination of differences between the two instruments found that the original version of the HO-83 read approximately 0.6 deg C warmer than the redesigned instrument. Significant changes in the differences between the two instruments were noted between winter and summer. It is suggested that for stations with climatology similar to the ones used in this study monthly mean temperatures reported by the original version of the HO-83 be adjusted by adding -0.4 deg C to June, July August and Sept observations and by adding -0.7 deg C for the remainder of the year.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0426/18/9/pdf/i1520-0426-18-9-1470.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0426/18/9/pdf/i1520-0426-18-9-1470.pdf

The HO-83 maximum temperature readings were about +1 to +3 C higher on sunny, light wind days. The research of both Kessler et al. (1993) and Gall et al. (1992) illustrates the need to account for shield/sensor bias prior to analysis of operational NWS temperature data and determination of short-term temperature trends. Other researchers (Robinson 1990; Canfield and McNitt 1991; Meyer and Hubbard 1992; Croft and Robinson 1993; Blackburn 1993; Easterling et al. 1993; Guttman and Baker 1996; Andresen and Numberger 1997), in various ways, pointed out the climate data discontinuities and trends or changes in variability resulting from changes of temperature measuring systems and site locations.

Now, do you think that mess was ever accounted for?

 

[a_unique_person]

Now, do you think that mess was ever accounted for?

Sounding a little alarmist, aren't you?

Using anomolies is one way of accounting for errors.

 

[Wangler]

Where is Piggy?

He would love this slaughter........................

Oh, wait, wrong side...