Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming exagerated by 100%, new paper


Little Fish

Recommended Posts

http://blogs.telegra.../#disqus_thread

"The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a

trend of +0.155 C per decade from the high quality sites,

a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and

a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network."

http://wattsupwithth...e-2/#more-68286

how can NOAA justify adjusting the temperature data higher than the poorest quality sites?

the Urban Heat Island effect is an inherent bias upwards in the data, so the poorest sites yield readings above what they should be, so need to be adjusted downwards if this dataset is to be taken seriously, yet NOAA do not adjust the temperature data down to compensate for urban growth over the last 33 years, they adjust it up! their "adjustments" give temperature trends double the readings from the worst stations!

prima facia evidence for fiddling the data?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you persist in recycling the UHI effect argument your never going to get anywhere.

Did you read Mullers comment piece saying he has gone from been a skeptic to been totally convinced that man is the primary cause of Global Warming - and he came to that conclusion by analyzing the impacts of the UHI effect;

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

Pre-release paper, without any peer review authored by Anthony Watts - I wait and see how that one pans out :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you understand that muller was looking at the suspect dataset, so any conclusions he may have drawn last year were based oin faulty data.

any comments regarding my post?

not interested in ad homs, appeals to authoritys, he-she said arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony Watts has demonstrated nothing as yet. When his paper is peer reviewed and shown to be scientifically valid then he can crow about what he has proved.

Muller took account of any possible bias introduced by poor station placement in his analysis and then dismissed it as insignificant - afterall that was the entire point of the Berkely exercise.

Probably not as dramatic as Mr Watts would like to claim;

http://variable-variability.blogspot.ie/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that don't believe in global warming aren't going to believe it until its too late to do anything about it. I think they are in denial, they don't want to think man's activities have anything to do with it. I think if the rivers dried up and the wildlife died off there would still be some saying we didn't cause this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that don't believe in global warming aren't going to believe it until its too late to do anything about it. I think they are in denial,

people who are in denial are those that ignore evidence. do you have anything to say about the evidence in post #1 ? don't you think it strange that the overall temperature trend given by NOAA has been adjusted upwards above even the trend given by the poorly sited stations? - the poorly sited stations would be the ones next to hot tarmac, hot air conditioner exhausts etc.
they don't want to think man's activities have anything to do with it.

maybe "those" people have looked at things more closely than you realise.

I think if the rivers dried up and the wildlife died off there would still be some saying we didn't cause this.

modified circular reasoning fallacy. it's a logical fallacy, which means you are not correct in your logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a summary from the comments section of wattsupwiththat for the terminally daunted:

U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.

This pre-publication draft paper, titled “An Area and Distance Weighted Analysis of the Impacts of Station Exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures and Temperature Trends”, co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.

In the paper ‘Fall et al, 2011′, results from the ‘Surface Stations Project’, surveying the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) were presented, using a siting classification system developed by Michel Leroy for Meteofrance in 1999 – the same system employed by NOAA to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) in 2002.

In 2010, Leroy improved upon this system with a new area and distance weighted classification system. While the Leroy (1999) system performs well for new station siting evaluation, it does not take into account the surface area of heat sinks and sources that may encroach upon a temperature measurement station over its lifetime. Leroy (2010) adds inclusion of the surface area of heat sinks and heat sources within the viewshed of thermometer, and as a result, does a more complete job of siting assessment, particularly when applied retroactively to existing stations, than the original distance only weighted classification system described in Leroy (1999).

The new Leroy (2010) siting classification system has been approved and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization. Similar to the Leroy (1999) system, it adds total surface area (of heat sources and heat sinks) to the distance measurement as an additional metric for determining station site rating.

The use of Leroy (2010) resulted in a dramatic and statistically significant improvement in the stations quality ratings, as distance alone does not quantify the amount of heat emitted by a source or sink within the thermometer viewshed.

The analysis of this paper demonstrates that siting quality matters. Well sited stations consistently show a significantly cooler trend than poorly sited stations, no matter which class of station is used for a baseline, and also when using no baseline at all.

Further, our review shows, not only does the NOAA USCHNv2 adjustment process fail to adjust poorly sited stations downward to match the well sited stations, it actually adjusts the well sited stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations.

Additionally, it is demonstrated that urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites. Since a disproportionate percentage of stations are urban (10%) and semi-urban (25%) when compared with the actual topography of the U.S., this further exaggerates Tmean trends.

NOAA adjustments procedure fails to address these issues. Instead, again, poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward (not downward), and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations. Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

There is also the issue of equipment inhomogeneity. Modern MMTS sensors show a significantly lower warming trend than the obsolete CRS shelters. Yet rather than lowering the trends of CRS stations, the trends of MMTS stations are, yet again, sharply adjusted upwards.

These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.

feel free to discuss (or deny).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing for the average person to discuss or deny until this is peer reviewed. I'd rather hear why anyone thinks all the crap we spew into the atmosphere has no effect on anything. It seems obvious to me that human activity can change the chemical balance of the atmosphere and therefore change the climate. I don't understand why anyone believes otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even less significant the closer you look at it;

most needs peer review[/i]: based on a lot of judgements and classifications and nitty gritty details that only siting wonks can evaluate. (So does a paper like BEST's -- but their conclusion is nothing surprising.)

And it just doesn't compete with the narrative -- record US heat, the US drought, BEST -- that is quickly sweeping by. It smells a little desperate. If it withstands peer review, then it's worth a good look. Until then it looks like PR, which is, of course, exactly how it's being delivered.

(Can I just say that delivering science as PR, or PR as science, is off-putting and worrisome, whether it comes from private groups or professional journals like Nature.)

Then there are the inconvenient facts that

(1) USA48 is 1.6% of the Earth's surface area, and

(2) the trend of the USA48 lower troposphere, as measured by satellites as calculated by UAH, is 0.23 ± 0.08 °C from 1979 to present (95% confidence limit, no correction for autocorrelation). Satellite measurements almost completely avoid the urban heat island problem. ]

http://opiniondominion.blogspot.ie/2012/07/watts-over-top.html

I can see Mr Watts ending up looking stupid again - now theres a surprise.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing for the average person to discuss or deny until this is peer reviewed. I'd rather hear why anyone thinks all the crap we spew into the atmosphere has no effect on anything. It seems obvious to me that human activity can change the chemical balance of the atmosphere and therefore change the climate. I don't understand why anyone believes otherwise.

I'll attempt to describe why somebody might believe otherwise. Maybe it's because humans don't have any power over the world or the processes within it. We are not gods or godlike no matter how much we want to believe we are. The world will continue onwards without our involvement, hurtling through space at speeds we can't image, constantly being bombarded by radiation and heat and solar winds, creating a completely random, living system that we want to pretend we are the center of. Nuclear fusion happens in the sun completely randomly, oceans swish around with randomness as the moon hurtles by and as the earth wobbles on its axis, clouds move with randomness as winds from the sun push and drive the swilring atmosphere. All this energy is being produced and discharged either we are here or not, but we want to act like we control it somehow?

So we pretend that the inconsequential amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere will upset the world on a galactic level, ignoring the fact that more CO2 is better for plantlife (and ultimately us as we feed off this energy). CO2 stimulates rainforest growth in the tropics, and forest growth in Africa at the expense of the Sahara. That temperatures have been trending downward the last decade despite the fact that the amount of CO2 has been continuing to increase year after year.

Or the fact that there have been no real changes in longterm weather or climate despite every single model and prediction the alarmists have made which tried to claim otherwise. According to the enlightened climate alarmists, the world was supposed to be incontrovertibly changed by now. Yet polar bear populations are healthy and booming; the Antartic ice is unchanged from its norm; sea levels are normal; island nations are not being swallowed into the ocean; some glaciers retreat and others advance, the same way they always have for reasons that aren't quite evident. All major weather events basically occur with the same frequency as they always have.

The question to me is, how much rope are we willing to give these liars? Because now they're just trying to push all their seditious models back to 2030 or 2050, admitting that their models for this decade haven't worked. And we're really just going to sit here and let them do it. That's the depressing part, just so we can go through all this forever and ever.

And besides Watts put out his studt early so that everybody in the world can peer review it if they want to. Even you. The average person does have the ability to discuss and deny and also review the information. Scientists are not a mystical, 'better-than-us' group of people. Do you really think a person like Michael Mann is informed and impartial, or has your best interests at heart? Truthfully, some of them are probably not even as informed in the climate as some people on this forum, and yet sometimes they're the one's doing the peer reviews.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubbish.

The fact that no skeptic has a credible explanation for current events is plenty of explanation for why your statement is baseless musings. The overwhelming desire of men to deny culpability for bad events is what motivates people to deny the empirical evidence of science.

Nice try but its straight out of the standard skeptics crib sheet. No one denies that that planetary system varies over time - but there is always a reason for that variability - until you can supply a half credible and testable hypothesis for what is causing the current changes then you are just producing hot air.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this statement of yours, "until you can supply a half credible and testable hypothesis for what is causing the current changes then you are just producing hot air." You should email it to every warmist and alarmist in the world because they're the one's who need to hear it over and over again. They're the one's trying to claim exceptional changes to the world. Skeptics are generally saying that things are working the same as they always have. And that's what we are seeing. So why is it their responsibility to produce the evidence defining the 'changes'?

Is this really how you look at it: warmists create a change, and then when sceptics can't explain these 'changes' you disregard the sceptics because they can't explain the changes? I know you can't think like that, but that is what you said.

Just because every step of these random processes aren't understood implicitily doesn't mean that the sceptics are wrong. It's so strange to imply that. Sceptics will obviously tell you they don't understand everything. Conversely of course, warmists tell us they understand everything. Warmists are trying to act like they can define the 'abnormal' when nobody even understands the normal.

If this statement of yours is correct: "the fact that no skeptic has a credible explanation for current events," you even imply that the normal isn't known, so how can abnormal climate than be extrapolated from what is normal?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physics of climate change is well understood and described, the science of climate change is all about explaining what effect that physical process will have on the overall system. The basic principle is sound and the models derived from that principle describe the current climate changes well. On top of this is a wealth of empirical observational evidence which supports both the theory and the models.

It is not guess work it is logical deduction from raw data. Until you can match that with more than hot air you are blowing smoke at me.

There is warming and there are no described external forcings which can account for it - explain what you think it is in enough detail to actually refute. Do not try to invoke some magical unknown which gets us all off the hook because thats called wish fulfilment and is delusional when applied to reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physics of climate change is well understood and described, the science of climate change is all about explaining what effect that physical process will have on the overall system. The basic principle is sound and the models derived from that principle describe the current climate changes well. On top of this is a wealth of empirical observational evidence which supports both the theory and the models.

It is not guess work it is logical deduction from raw data. Until you can match that with more than hot air you are blowing smoke at me.

There is warming and there are no described external forcings which can account for it - explain what you think it is in enough detail to actually refute. Do not try to invoke some magical unknown which gets us all off the hook because thats called wish fulfilment and is delusional when applied to reality.

Br Cornelius

isn't this what "creationists" say - "you prove god doesn't exist"

cornelius, you are employing the reverse burden of proof fallacy again and again. those who assert have the responsibility of proof - in science, debate, law and many other realms (with the exception of politics and religion).

"martians may exist and they may be hostile, until we prove martians do not exist we should muster all the world's resources to defend against what could be a global catastrophe."

do you accept or reject the above statement?

if the united nations and other institutions, private and public, put together 100 billion dollars to fund exopolitical science researchers, what do you think the consensus of opinion within that branch of science would be with regards to the statement?

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.telegra.../#disqus_thread

"The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a

trend of +0.155 C per decade from the high quality sites,

a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and

a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network."

http://wattsupwithth...e-2/#more-68286

how can NOAA justify adjusting the temperature data higher than the poorest quality sites?

the Urban Heat Island effect is an inherent bias upwards in the data, so the poorest sites yield readings above what they should be, so need to be adjusted downwards if this dataset is to be taken seriously, yet NOAA do not adjust the temperature data down to compensate for urban growth over the last 33 years, they adjust it up! their "adjustments" give temperature trends double the readings from the worst stations!

prima facia evidence for fiddling the data?

These are editorials, not research papers. They do not back up their claims. Do you mind posting a citation to the original paper? By not doing so, it looks like you are trying to hide what it says. Pardon me if I am a bit suspicious.

On the Ouachita NF, using 31 all-rural stations, the results are consistent with NOAA - a rise of 0.33 degrees F. between 1965 and 2005. This is just one small area, so it may not reflect temperature changes elsewhere. Also, there has been a rise 1.6 degrees C. on the Great Plains between 1828 and 1995, most of that in the last decade. These are averages and you are talking about point estimates, so they are not directly comparable.

I think we have already demonstrated elsewhere on UM that:

1. Watts has no qualifications in climatology at all.

2. He lets simple arithmetic mistakes get by, affecting his results, and

3. Watts is funded by business interests trying to obscure and confuse the research on climate change to head off regulations they are concerned might affect their profits.

If you would care to read "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Report from the Front Line" this is all laid out. There is also a section presenting the case for human causes of global warming and citing supporting reserach. I have not yet finished reasding it, but what I have read is very informative.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the paper is linked in the watts article in post #1, I'm afraid you will have to forgo your habitual self censorship proclivities for once and click it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the paper is linked in the watts article in post #1, I'm afraid you will have to forgo your habitual self censorship proclivities for once and click it.

YOU are the one making the claims posted above. Citations are included in any paper simply as a courtesy to the reader in helping him establish the truth of your contentions; if you don't believe what you're saying, why post it?. I don't have the time or inclination to wade through pages of BS to find a hidden link. How about supporting your cause with a little effort for once?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even less significant the closer you look at it;

"USA48 lower troposphere[/url], as measured by satellites as calculated by UAH, is 0.23 ± 0.08 °C from 1979 to present (95% confidence limit, no correction for autocorrelation). Satellite measurements almost completely avoid the urban heat island problem. ]"

http://opiniondomini...s-over-top.html

I can see Mr Watts ending up looking stupid again - now theres a surprise.

Br Cornelius

apples and oranges, UAH is not land temperature. UAH measures upper air, NOAAs temperature (under discussion) measures land temperature.

"Within “compliant” stations, the effect of urbanization is as expected and ranges from 0.11 to 0.14°C/decade. Similarly, the effect of ratings on rural stations is directionally as expected at the outset of the surface stations project but with a marked interaction with max-min: the effect of ratings is much stronger with minimum temperatures (0.15°C/decade) than for maximum temperatures (only 0.03°C/decade), in line with the emphasis of Christy et al (2008) on maximum temperatures as an indicator.

By way of comparison, the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere CONUS trend over this period is 0.25°C/decade and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has 0.23°C/decade, the average being 0.24°C/decade. This provides an upper bound for the surface temperature since the upper air is supposed to have larger trends than the surface (e.g. see Klotzbach et al (2011). Therefore, the surface temperatures should display some fraction of that 0.24°C/decade trend. Depending on the amplification factor used, which for some models ranges from 1.1 to 1.4, the surface trend would calculate to be in the range of 0.17 to 0.22, which is close to the 0.155°C/decade trend seen in the compliant Class 1&2 stations."

http://wattsupwithth..._webrelease.pdf

in summary then, if you are arguing that UAH is the same/similar as the adjusted NOAA dataset, you are in fact acknowledging the land temperature adjustments are invalid, and by logical extension admitting that global warming is falsely exaggerated by 100%. tadaa!

welcome aboard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU are the one making the claims posted above. Citations are included in any paper simply as a courtesy to the reader in helping him establish the truth of your contentions; if you don't believe what you're saying, why post it?. I don't have the time or inclination to wade through pages of BS to find a hidden link. How about supporting your cause with a little effort for once?

Doug

doug, I have already told you where the paper is in post#16.

here are some simple instructions for you:

1. click on the wattsup link in post#1 to get the press release.

2. note the linked large bold letters "The paper in draft form: Watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease (PDF)"

3. stop wasting my time polluting this thread with sophistic distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doug, I have already told you where the paper is in post#16.

here are some simple instructions for you:

1. click on the wattsup link in post#1 to get the press release.

2. note the linked large bold letters "The paper in draft form: Watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease (PDF)"

3. stop wasting my time polluting this thread with sophistic distraction.

You don't get it. Both these links are to editorial articles. How about citing a paper that actually supports what you're saying?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't this what "creationists" say - "you prove god doesn't exist"

cornelius, you are employing the reverse burden of proof fallacy again and again. those who assert have the responsibility of proof - in science, debate, law and many other realms (with the exception of politics and religion).

"martians may exist and they may be hostile, until we prove martians do not exist we should muster all the world's resources to defend against what could be a global catastrophe."

do you accept or reject the above statement?

if the united nations and other institutions, private and public, put together 100 billion dollars to fund exopolitical science researchers, what do you think the consensus of opinion within that branch of science would be with regards to the statement?

Science has provided a body of evidence that p-roves the case beyond reasonable doubt. Skeptics have a bunch of half baked notions which crumble on closer inspection. I am waiting for evidence which refutes the compelling body of evidence - is that so unreasonable ??

To my knowledge you have never provided an argument which has stood up to close inspection so I feel more than vindicated in my request that you actually prove the basis of your denial.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't get it. Both these links are to editorial articles. How about citing a paper that actually supports what you're saying?

Doug

P.S.: After checking out about a half-dozen of your references from Watts' site, I found numerous misquotes, distortions and "misrepresentations" (That's the nice way to say it.). With that history behind us, we cannot accept Watts' interpretation of anything and instead must go back to the original papers to see what they said. Usually, it was something quite different.

That's why we need you to post THE ORIGINAL citation, not Watts' editorials. Post the paper he claims he is referencing. If you really believe yourself to be right, then you owe it to yourself to do this; otherwise, we end up beleiving that you can't tell the difference.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, wow. This is not a scientific forum, as i haven't been asked my credentials before posting, so we should calm down on the attacks and demands.

I know that this topic requires understanding the scientific methods, but Little Fish posted links to media websites. Now you are demanding him to find the scientific article? Seems a bit rich, considering. If you have any evidence to the contrary (something to do with how accurate the NOAA readings are, and how important it is to adjust them so heavily would be nice) then please post it so that we can have a thought provoking discussion.

But to be fair I haven't seen a post on topic for a while, so job well done Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Fish posted links to media websites. Now you are demanding him to find the scientific article? Seems a bit rich, considering

I have given the link to the article - it is in the watts link I gave in post#1. I have explained this several times to doug, if he refuses to click the link or read my posts then I cannot have any discussion with him since his intentions are obviously not honourable. I have even linked the paper in this thread, post#18 !

Edited by Little Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Watts has been shown to be a poor scientist (he is not a scientist) and a repeat liar and purveyer of untruths, hence peoples reluctance to accept anything he says at face value. Watts is a propegandist for the right wing oil industry and I would not trust him to read a themometer correctly let along make a nuanced analysis of the whole North American temperature record.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.