U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-26-2010, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Long Island
38,773 posts, read 16,144,930 times
Reputation: 8726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Looks like you didn't read the links I provided.
The part where they criticize NASA for handpicking the data for 2003-2007 or Goddards one flight over Greenland in 2003? The photos in my link showed the Jakobshavn Glacier up to 2009.

Your link indicates the long term rate hasn't changed but that is certainly not the case with the Jacobshavn Glacier. The last 10 years there has been a dramatic increase, more than the loss of the first 100 years starting 1851.

The GISS data is lacking information for the period stated 1920 to 2009 and he indciates they used the 2003-2007 warming trend to make their point, This year 2010 had the highest mean temperature on record Jan - June in 131 years and the Northern Hemisphere had the warmest temperatures.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2010, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Sutherlin OR
130 posts, read 210,635 times
Reputation: 38
Simple..........Earth is 1/" closer to the Sun for some reason. A carpenter can cut wood closer than that!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2010, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Long Island
38,773 posts, read 16,144,930 times
Reputation: 8726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The facts do not agree with you. Look back at the graph for the USHCN.

Here is one when it was at 78%



91% of the stations are outside of accepted CRN values. 69% are showing a CRN of 4 and 8% at 5.

As I said, the stations are out of acceptable measurement range. Most are not OK, most are in bad shape. There is no discussion here, it is what it is.

Actually, no it is not quite possible without influencing factors. Temperature does not change that drmatically if monitored correctly in that distance. What you are seeing in terms of change is the influence of bias. That is, if you are sitting in a low cut field and walk over on to an air port, you are going to see a change, but not because it is "normal", rather because where you are standing directly is affecting the change.

There is a reason why they standardize stations and why they require a strict set of conditions. It is so they can get readings that have meaning. You don't get any meaningful reading by placing a station next to an air conditioner spewing out hot air or placing it on tarmac. You get the temperature of that road or that air conditioner.

The simple fact is, they are not useful like that and your position is making giant leaps to proclaim itself valid. The facts are there, in this case, you are wrong. No discussion necessary.

So you know, these stations are all in violation of policies put forth for their placement and monitoring. They are wrong by their own policies.
The policies came after their placement in almost all cases and siting has its limits as far as funding, property leases, protective easements, power sources. Siting documents are ideal but in reality are not achievable in reality. I still have a problem visualizing a 5 deg C and a 2 deg C 10 meters from a heating source. Also a very limited study relative to the anomalies at selected stations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2006tp1073.pdf
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:45 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,823,362 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The part where they criticize NASA for handpicking the data for 2003-2007 or Goddards one flight over Greenland in 2003? The photos in my link showed the Jakobshavn Glacier up to 2009.

Your link indicates the long term rate hasn't changed but that is certainly not the case with the Jacobshavn Glacier. The last 10 years there has been a dramatic increase, more than the loss of the first 100 years starting 1851.

The GISS data is lacking information for the period stated 1920 to 2009 and he indciates they used the 2003-2007 warming trend to make their point, This year 2010 had the highest mean temperature on record Jan - June in 131 years and the Northern Hemisphere had the warmest temperatures.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
Please go back and read it again. You are arguing a position that has already been answered to. You are dismissing it.


GISS surface temperature analysis is in a sore state. Might want to go back to the beginning of the thread where we discuss the problems with the grid cells.

Last edited by Nomander; 07-27-2010 at 09:55 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:54 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,823,362 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The policies came after their placement in almost all cases and siting has its limits as far as funding, property leases, protective easements, power sources. Siting documents are ideal but in reality are not achievable in reality. I still have a problem visualizing a 5 deg C and a 2 deg C 10 meters from a heating source. Also a very limited study relative to the anomalies at selected stations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2006tp1073.pdf
Ahh yes, the talking point memo, I remember that.

The Talking Points Memo « Climate Audit

Quote:
They presented the following graphic that purported to show that NOAA’s negligent administration of the USHCN station network did not “matter”, describing the stations as follows:
Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best… the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

Figure 1. From Talking Points Memo.
Beyond the above sentence, there was no further information on the provenance of the two data sets. NOAA did not archive either data set nor provide source code for reconciliation.
The red graphic for the “full data set” had, using the preferred terminology of climate science, a “remarkable similarity” to the NOAA 48 data set that I’d previously compared to the corresponding GISS data set here (which showed a strong trend of NOAA relative to GISS). Here’s a replot of that data – there are some key telltales evidencing that this has a common provenance to the red series in the Talking Points graphic.

Figure 2. Plot of US data from http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...964x.tmpst.txt
An obvious question is whether the Talking Points starting point of 1950 is relevant. Here’s the corresponding graphic with the 1895 starting point used in USHCN v2. Has the truncation of the graphic start at 1950 “enhanced” the visual impression of an increasing trend? I think so.

Figure 3. As Figure 2, but to USHCN v2 start
The Talking Points’ main point is its purported demonstration that UHI-type impacts don’t “matter”. To show one flaw in their arm-waving, here is a comparison of the NOAA U.S. temperature data set and the NASA GISS US temperature data set over the same period – a comparison that I’ve made on several occasions, including most recently here. NASA GISS adjusts US temperatures for UHI using nightlights information, coercing the low-frequency data to the higher-quality stations. The trend difference between NOAA and NASA GISS is approximately 0.7 deg F/century in the 1950-2008 period in question: obviously not a small proportion of the total reported increase.

Figure 4. Difference between NOAA and NASA in the 1950-2008 period. In def F following NOAA (rather than deg C)
So, they say the bad station averages are the same as the good station averages, yet they are using USHCN's methodology of calculating such to which is not open for examination. And we wonder why there was an FOI scandal and why they don't want to release their methods? *chuckle*

Yeah, ok, riiiight.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:46 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,261 posts, read 20,620,608 times
Reputation: 9066
Russia is reporting the hottest July in 130 years...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:40 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,823,362 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Russia is reporting the hottest July in 130 years...
That is incorrect, the story does not state that anywhere. It is the worst drought in 130 years being claimed by the story, no mention of the temperature in that story.

It is bad enough that the news misleads people constantly, we don't need you helping by inserting your own spin on it.

Also, that story provides no source to its claim. Might as well have heard it at the street corner.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:45 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,261 posts, read 20,620,608 times
Reputation: 9066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
That is incorrect, the story does not state that anywhere. It is the worst drought in 130 years being claimed by the story, no mention of the temperature in that story.

It is bad enough that the news misleads people constantly, we don't need you helping by inserting your own spin on it.

Also, that story provides no source to its claim. Might as well have heard it at the street corner.
News.Az - July 2010 becomes hottest month in Moscow history
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 12:00 PM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,823,362 times
Reputation: 2611
The twisting you are posting is silly.

First, this second news report claims:

Quote:
The worst drought in almost three decades came to the Moscow Region, which is also suffering from forest fires.
and yet the story before claimed:

Quote:
Russia's worst drought in 130 years became a political issue Friday as the Kremlin held an emergency meeting to combat the impacts of a month long heat wave that is shriveling crops,
So which is it? Is it the worst in 3 decades or the worst in a 130 years?

Can't your sources get their claims straight?

Also, again you make a claim in your URL edit of:

Quote:
"July 2010 becomes hottest month in Moscow history"
But the story says:
Quote:
Temperatures like this have not been recorded in 130 years,...
So they haven't been recorded at that since 130 years ago which means that the temperatures were like that a 130 years ago?

So again? Is it the hottest month in history or the hottest month since a 130 years ago?

A "source" at the city's meteorological bureau is claimed, but there is no reference to the actual record, what stations were used, who is the source, is this an official statement, etc...


I really hate news stories, could you provide something more than media garbage please? Maybe provide the station data for Moscow or any temperature data over the last 100 years or so? anything other than a stupid news report claiming a source of a organization to which they will not officially name is making a claim?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 12:05 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,261 posts, read 20,620,608 times
Reputation: 9066
Probably 130 years and on record are the same as the record started 130 years ago.

No idea about the drought, it will be more difficult to pinpoint as it is not a simple number such as temperature. Also the two sources are not from the same day.

My URL edit? I did not edit anything.

Why don't you just believe what you want and keep dreaming? If you don't want to believe the climate is getting hotter, you won't. And I really have better and more interesting things to do than trying to convince you of anything. I don't care whether you believe it or not.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top