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.
I thought this to be rather interesting. This incident does not conclude anything in any direction, it merely points out the problems we have as it concerns "record temps" and something that has been brought up numerous times to agencies that use this data as well as how the media often misreports issues without applying proper due diligence.
A friend of mine, Justin Berk, a local TV Met in Baltimore, MD had this story to tell today:
“There’s something fishy going on at BWI (Baltimore International Airport),” he says. Hourly obs at BWI airport (April 12, 2012) never went higher than 59 degrees.
(See the obs from BWI below – Anthony)
But, he noticed the official high temperature was listed as 62 degrees. “There’s no way a jump of 3-4 degrees occurred and then fell back down between obs,” he added. Why the discrepancy? Justin called the local NWS office.
Quote:
The NWS employee concurred that the extra warmth came from the runway.
So it is with some disgust that I provide an excerpt of this article on NOAA rejecting a record snowfall at the BWI airport, where they set up a snow measuring board, but didn’t follow through on procedure. Again, the airport was doing measurements to serve the airport interests, not NOAA.
The point of this is not to claim that this shows that the warming is false, merely that better attention needs to be paid to these stations and the various influencing factors concerning them.
When the average citizen has to call in and have them check their records because they notice an oddity, well... it suggests some are not being diligent with their evaluation of these stations. I mean, they are supposed to be the experts right?
I noticed similar issues with certain stations in other "record areas" as well. Airports seem to be warmer in general and if one is not careful in their analysis of the stations, they can get false interpretations of the data (which has been pointed out with some of the issues concerning GISS and their gridcell routines).
I really don't think we can jump to any conclusions until we truly evaluate the factors of other influences with our systems, an no, statistical meandering is insufficient to account for many of these occurrences.
It is insulting how fast some supporting CAGW work gets published too. I remember Trenberth published a response to a piece of controversial research and it was like a couple days turn around while the paper he was attacking took months jumping through a ridiculous politically styled bureaucracy to get published.
Sometimes I think their idea of "peer review" is a football teammate running down the middle of lineup high fiving everyone.
and if memeory serves, part of Trenberth's math was off a bit and he had to revise.
and if memeory serves, part of Trenberth's math was off a bit and he had to revise.
The problem was the haste to return a rebuttal. The result was not to accurately assess something within the paper, but to get media out reporting that the original paper was flawed. This way, they can dismiss the work when it is very public, and then deal with the retraction later when nobody is paying attention. Typical tactic for "the cause". It is disgusting.
I find it amusing that you complain about "Watts up with that" and then link me an article that fails to even site the research and work to which they lay claim and is made by a political organization.
You guys don't even get how silly you look, which really is the hilarious thing.
Oh, do you mean I look as silly as you do with all your "Watts up with that" biased links? I don't think that is possible.
Oh, do you mean I look as silly as you do with all your "Watts up with that" biased links? I don't think that is possible.
Bias is to be expected from any source. What is important is that they properly cite their work and provide the data and methodology to their commentary so we can see how they come to their positions.
I know that is hard to understand when you are used to simply taking someones word as evidence. /shrug
The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently published a study by Menne et al. which examined the record of stations picked out by Watts' Surfacestations.org, and concluded that "In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting." in fact, the analysis of unadjusted data from poorly sited stations did reveal a bias, however, it was not the expected bias. The poorly sited stations measured maximum temperatures on average lower than the well sited stations.
Cut and pasting from wiki as if it were your own comment? Have you no shame?
Also, let us see the entire discussion of the issue with Watts being able to respond concerning the issue, rather than lazily pasting a stupid wiki reference as if you had written yourself. He explains the issues, cites points of his mentions with the data and outlines it for all to see. Knock yourself out if you want to object to it, though I imagine you will have a tough time finding something you can cut and paste off as your own discussion without looking like an idiot.
There’s also claims of this paper being a “death blow” to the surfacestations project. I’m sure in some circles, they believe that to be true. However, it is very important to point out that the Menne et al 2010 paper was based on an early version of the surfacestations.org data, at 43% of the network surveyed. The dataset that Dr. Menne used was not quality controlled, and contained errors both in station identification and rating, and was never intended for analysis. I had posted it to direct volunteers to so they could keep track of what stations had been surveyed to eliminate repetitive efforts. When I discovered people were doing ad hoc analysis with it, I stopped updating it.
So Menne used an old dataset to which Anthony didn't approve of using as it was greatly incomplete and wasn't intended for analysis. Note it only had 43% of the stations surveyed, was not quality controlled, and contained errors.
You might have known this if you educated yourself a bit more about the issues rather than attempting to pass off other peoples comments as your own.
No wonder you worship at the feet of Cook and his ilk, you apply the same devious approaches. Disgusting.
I thought this to be rather interesting. This incident does not conclude anything in any direction, it merely points out the problems we have as it concerns "record temps" and something that has been brought up numerous times to agencies that use this data as well as how the media often misreports issues without applying proper due diligence.
The point of this is not to claim that this shows that the warming is false, merely that better attention needs to be paid to these stations and the various influencing factors concerning them.
When the average citizen has to call in and have them check their records because they notice an oddity, well... it suggests some are not being diligent with their evaluation of these stations. I mean, they are supposed to be the experts right?
I noticed similar issues with certain stations in other "record areas" as well. Airports seem to be warmer in general and if one is not careful in their analysis of the stations, they can get false interpretations of the data (which has been pointed out with some of the issues concerning GISS and their gridcell routines).
I really don't think we can jump to any conclusions until we truly evaluate the factors of other influences with our systems, an no, statistical meandering is insufficient to account for many of these occurrences.
More from the guy PAID by the Heartland Institute to DENY climate change in its entirety.
Second, 3-4o, for a period of minutes, compared to the thousands of stations that are not at airports, is not going to be statistically relevant. Aside from that few models (none that I know of) use data from the ground network and instead use the satellite data which is not going to be subjected to the same issues.
More from the guy PAID by the Heartland Institute to DENY climate change in its entirety.
Do you have proof of this? Or should we wait for you to fraudulently obtain the Heartland memos and then add a fraudulent document to imply a falsehood Mr. Gleick?
Or were you referring to a specific request by Anthony to get some funding for a specific project he was working on unrelated to his site? By all means, lay it out for us Peter!
Oh, by the way... did you want to discuss the amount of funding and all the various sources your CAGW research uses? Nah, I didn't think so... run... run... away!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Second, 3-4o, for a period of minutes, compared to the thousands of stations that are not at airports, is not going to be statistically relevant. Aside from that few models (none that I know of) use data from the ground network and instead use the satellite data which is not going to be subjected to the same issues.
A dismissal is unbecoming.
There are problems with the surface stations, even NASA admits this. You attempting to dismiss the issue by claiming one having a problem excludes the possibilities of many others having problems is simply dishonest. The issue of the stations goes beyond simple issues as I provided. This was merely one example of a problem in the records, note also that it was used as the Official record until someone pointed it out.
I would think that since you proclaim yourself a scientist, that this sort of thing would be interesting to you? I mean, after all, science is a process of discovery and an error is celebrated the same in such pursuits.
So you are trying to tell all of us here, never mind the problems, it all works out in the end? Very scientific of you!
You betray your attempts with your own words. I think we all see why you are here as your arguments show you to be an activist, not a scientist.
Just wanted to add this so those who may not be familiar with the Peter Gleick and Heartland issue. It was an issue of a Climate Scientist who applied activism instead of science and it backfired in a most grievous manner for him.
Here is his bio. He like the above poster made serious accusations levied at the Heartland institute. He was so completely sure they were up to no good that he was going to prove it to the world. So, he fraudulently represented himself as a board member of the Heartland institute using a fake email and asked for the minutes of the board meetings.
Problem was, when he got a hold of the information, there was no smoking gun. In fact, it actually showed that their "funding" of other sources were quite limited and that their "intent" was simply that of getting institutions to go back to proper scientific process. Certainly not some nefarious political entity to which they had been accused of being.
So, naturally the next step as a good scientist when your results don't fit, you change the data, right? /sarc So he created another document that contained all the little greasy view he had of them and then released the memos to the "honest and due diligent" /sarc reporting agencies he knows.
Well, it backfired and they caught him.
Here you can read about all of that progression when it happened:
That is why when a poster pops off about being "paid for", it is quite amusing. It also points out how fallible and emotionally attached to a cause that even a "scientist" can get. So when someone goes off with requirements that you "appeal to their authority" and do not question them, start checking your pockets, you are being suckered.
Do you have proof of this? Or should we wait for you to fraudulently obtain the Heartland memos and then add a fraudulent document to imply a falsehood Mr. Gleick?
Or were you referring to a specific request by Anthony to get some funding for a specific project he was working on unrelated to his site? By all means, lay it out for us Peter!
Oh, by the way... did you want to discuss the amount of funding and all the various sources your CAGW research uses? Nah, I didn't think so... run... run... away!!!
Geez, you are a broken record.
You ask for a source, I post, you ignore, then you demand a source.
And yes, I will discuss the funding for any of the source I have cited.
[quote[A dismissal is unbecoming.
There are problems with the surface stations, even NASA admits this. You attempting to dismiss the issue by claiming one having a problem excludes the possibilities of many others having problems is simply dishonest. The issue of the stations goes beyond simple issues as I provided. This was merely one example of a problem in the records, note also that it was used as the Official record until someone pointed it out.
I would think that since you proclaim yourself a scientist, that this sort of thing would be interesting to you? I mean, after all, science is a process of discovery and an error is celebrated the same in such pursuits.
So you are trying to tell all of us here, never mind the problems, it all works out in the end? Very scientific of you!
You betray your attempts with your own words. I think we all see why you are here as your arguments show you to be an activist, not a scientist.[/quote]
I never said that only one station has a problem. What I said is there to be read. But there are tens of thousands of stations. Not all or even a majority of them are in airports.
But the hypocrisy of your BFFL Watts is evidence when he then goes on in other posts to complain about the fact that many stations are no longer being used because of known problems. Which is it? Should we exclude ones like BWI where we know there are problems or should we include them? Because Watts uses both to support his claims. And if you are going to be talking about dishonest that tops the cake.
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 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.
