• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The warmers are becoming skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except as I noted earlier, the last portion of the line in your graph is based on the temperatures from ground stations that might be biased towards hotter values (the cooler ones having been eliminated when they closed 75% of all stations over that time period).

Don't be ridiculous, surface temperature records are weighted by coverage area, changes in then number of stations does not skew the data in any way. Besides, the stations you are complaining about are in places with more warming not less, if any error is introduced it would be to hide warming, not enhance it.
 
Careful Mhaze. apparently Psychology isn't science so we aren't supposed to mention it. ;) :D

It's more a case of if you have to argue about psychology when the topic is climate science, you don't have any comeback to the scientific argument, and have to resort to handwaving, effectively acknowledging you have nothing of value to say to rebut the science. :w2:
 
I've been lurking around here for years and I pretty much concluded that in order to be a Skeptic you had to absolutely know that AWG was real and that there was know doubt in any credible persons mind, findings or research.

So I ask how you can be a Denier-Skeptic? Although I do realize that is not your label but the label you believed assigned by those you label alarmist Warmer which I assume translates to Skeptic.

I could not be more confused. :confused: :)
 
It's more a case of if you have to argue about psychology when the topic is climate science, you don't have any comeback to the scientific argument, and have to resort to handwaving, effectively acknowledging you have nothing of value to say to rebut the science. :w2:

Close.
I comment on the psychology of the human beings when they are arguing the science and wonder why they resort to a variety of 'poor' tactics.
You are correct that I have little to rebut the science.
See you are starting to pay attention. :p
 
Don't be ridiculous, surface temperature records are weighted by coverage area, changes in then number of stations does not skew the data in any way. Besides, the stations you are complaining about are in places with more warming not less, if any error is introduced it would be to hide warming, not enhance it.

Not true.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

I looked at GHCN input data from various places around the world. … snip … I found that Japan now has no thermometer above 300 M. Who knew Japan was as flat as Kansas … snip … In California, all our thermometers have left the mountains and are now on the beach with 3/4 of them near L.A. and San Diego. … snip … The “issue” is that as of 2009, California has 4 active thermometers in GHCN. 3 on on the beach in Southern California and one is at the airport in San Francisco, we presume waiting for it’s ride to L.A … snip … For Canada, the thermometers have been leaving the Rockies and running to the shore where it is much warmer … snip … In the U.S.A. the mountains are similarly deleted. Snow? Who needs snow? It’s too cold and it is at an “unrepresentative altitude” (at least, that is the reason given for deleting the high altitude thermometer in Hawaii)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

CRU’s Director at the time Phil Jones acknowledges that CRU mirrors the NOAA data. “Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.” … snip … Programmer E.M. Smith’s analysis of NOAA’s GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs.

… snip …

Most of the warming in the global data analyses is in higher latitude areas like Russia and Canada and in higher mountainous regions. These areas have seen significant dropout of stations. The warming comes from interpolations from regions further south, at lower elevations and more urbanized.

* Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.

… snip ...

* In the United States, 87% of the first 1000+of the 1221 US Climate stations surveyed by Anthony Watts and his team of volunteers at surfacestations.org were rated poor to very poorly sited with warm bias exceeding 1C according to the government’s own criteria. International surveys have begun are showing the same biases due to location on or near tarmacs, next to buildings, on paved driveways and roads, in waste treatment plants, on rooftops, near air conditioner exhausts and more.

* China had 100 stations in 1950, over 400 in 1960 then only 35 by 1990. Temperatures reflected these station distribution changes. CRU’s own Phil Jones showed in 2008 peer review paper that contamination by urbanization in China was 1.8F per century. Neither NOAA nor CRU adjusts for this contamination. NASA to their credit, makes an attempt to adjust for urbanization, but outside the United States, the lack of updated population data has NASA adjusting cities with data from other cities with about as many stations warming as cooling (see here).

* High elevation stations have disappeared from the data base. Stations in the Andes and Bolivia have vanished. Temperatures for these areas are now determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.

Though the population of the world has increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people and dozens of peer review papers have established that urbanization introduces a warm bias, the main data bases of NOAA and CRU have no adjustment for urbanization. By using airport stations, the data centers claim they have rural data included, but instruments have been documented in airports near tarmacs, runways and airplane exhaust.

Starting to get the picture?
 

I got the picture long ago, you will believe any information, no matter how poor, as long as it confirms your preconceptions. Chiefio is a grade 'A' amateur, there is a lot wrong with his analysis.

Programmer E.M. Smith’s analysis of NOAA’s GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs.
Nothing is 'systematically eliminated', the GHCN relies on the data being provided to it by it's sources. They don't 'eliminate' anything, the suppliers simply don't report it to them.
 
Last edited:
Close.
I comment on the psychology of the human beings when they are arguing the science and wonder why they resort to a variety of 'poor' tactics.
You are correct that I have little to rebut the science.
See you are starting to pay attention. :p

Maybe next time you should remember that science is not a social issue according to you. :)
 
I got the picture long ago, you will believe any information, no matter how poor, as long as it confirms your preconceptions. Chiefio is a grade 'A' amateur, there is a lot wrong with his analysis.
Is that the sum total of your rebuttal, or does an actual rebuttal exist?

Nothing is 'systematically eliminated', the GHCN relies on the data being provided to it by it's sources. They don't 'eliminate' anything, the suppliers simply don't report it to them.
If that's the truth and nothing but the truth, that sounds like a major quality control problem to me, with apparently no one addressing it.
 
Nothing is 'systematically eliminated', the GHCN relies on the data being provided to it by it's sources. They don't 'eliminate' anything, the suppliers simply don't report it to them.


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/

February 26, 2010

U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say

… snip …

The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) uses this massive network of sensors to determine daily highs and lows at the 1,219 weather stations in its Historical Climatology Network (HCN). The network has existed since 1892, but only in the last decade has it come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the figures it measures can be trusted.

For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

- A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

- A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

- A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

- A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.

- A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

- Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

There’s a new paper out by Dr. Edward Long that does some interesting comparisons to NCDC’s raw data (prior to adjustments) that compares rural and urban station data, both raw and adjusted in the CONUS.

The paper is titled Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets. In it, Dr. Edward Long states:

“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.”

Here is the comparison of raw rural and urban data:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_rural_urban_raw.png
 
Really folks. Does this prediction look reasonable?



ipcc-vs-real-temps-from-syun.png
 
Nothing like fighting blogs.

Got something peer-reviewed?
You're aware that the claim itself comes from a "fighting blog", yeh? You expect a peer-reviewed response to every idiot claim and hit piece made over a blog?

Incidentally, there is one is this case:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Unbeknownst to BaC, UHI and elevation effects have long been known and discounted amongst the scientific community. The claims he attempts to make regarding their effect on the data are flat-out wrong.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html
 
You're aware that the claim itself comes from a "fighting blog", yeh? You expect a peer-reviewed response to every idiot claim and hit piece made over a blog?

Incidentally, there is one is this case:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Something to think about at least.

Unbeknownst to BaC, UHI and elevation effects have long been known and discounted amongst the scientific community. The claims he attempts to make regarding their effect on the data are flat-out wrong.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
IPCC, Jones, Mann?

Another blog with Jones fingerprints cited.

I'd like to see more raw data; after adjust/kludge/filter who knows what was done.

At any rate, thanks.
 
Something to think about at least.


IPCC, Jones, Mann?


Another blog with Jones fingerprints cited.

I'd like to see more raw data; after adjust/kludge/filter who knows what was done.

At any rate, thanks.

Tamino has told you exactly what he has done. What particular part of his method has you bothered?

From some a 'lukewarmer' site.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/effect-of-dropping-station-data/

A long discussion from people on both sides of the fence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom