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.
Not all have been surveyed as of yet, its a work in progress so not every station listed as record temperature can be correlated to the surveys. That said, an overwhelming number of the stations that have been surveyed are in severe violation of monitoring standards. That is, they have factors which may be skewing an accurate reading.
Now you might claim that these issues are accounted for, here is a response concerning this in the FAQ.
Now when we are talking about record temperatures with many only being within 1 degree of the record, these unaccounted issues could change things entirely.
Wouldn't it be prudent to first make sure our information is accurate before we start drawing conclusions on the results or are these just "details" that we should explain away because the matter is settled?
yes, there can be issues with stations, which are generally accounted for in global averages. could they be better accounted for? maybe. now, if you completely ignore any thermometers, what might you say about the widespread melting of permafrost, glaciers, seaice, and icesheets? or about the global decrease in snow cover? or satellite retrievals of tropospheric temperature increases? would you say these, too, might be indications of warming (among other anthropogenic influences, perhaps)? and as a hand waiving afterthought, would you think that errors in the surface stations might fall on either side of reality, such that they may cancel when averaged over hundreds or thousands of stations? that is no excuse or rigorous line of thinking, i know.
as for "None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers", that is simply incorrect.
Last edited by hello-world; 12-30-2007 at 10:44 AM..
The researches I have read about do not believe it is an issue to be so darn worried about.
People are getting suckered into worrying about something when there are far more issues more important then global warming.
The researches I have read about do not believe it is an issue to be so darn worried about.
People are getting suckered into worrying about something when there are far more issues more important then global warming.
Didn't realize we could only worry about a limited number of issues.
If this turns out to be legitimate, and has a negative effect on things like food growth, then maybe it gets kicked up as a priority.
Didn't realize we could only worry about a limited number of issues.
If this turns out to be legitimate, and has a negative effect on things like food growth, then maybe it gets kicked up as a priority.
I didnt say you should focus on limited issues, what I said was people who are into the global warming issues believe it is a top priority when we have far more important issues then global warming at this point in time.
yes, there can be issues with stations, which are generally accounted for in global averages. now, if you completely ignore any thermometers, what might you say about the widespread melting of permafrost, glaciers, seaice, and icesheets? or about the global decrease in snow cover? would you say these, too, might be indications of warming (among other anthropogenic influences, perhaps)?
With roughly 60% or more of the stations being skewed, don't you think that would affect the average?
Also, look at how severe some of these stations are:
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Nomander/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg (broken link)file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Nomander/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg (broken link) How not to measure temperature, part 3
The picture below is from Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor. You may have heard of him, the Governor of Oregon tried to get him fired (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html - broken link) for not jumping on to the global warming bandwagon because he doesn't see enough supporting evidence.
The picture is of Forest Grove, Oregon, and the temperature plot below shows how it is warming. But George says:
"Yes, it’s a window air conditioning unit to the east and the edge of a large asphalt parking lot to the north, northwest, and west. The pic is shot looking northeast. For those of you that may not immediately realize this, air conditions exhaust hot air to the outside.
Not only that, but Forest Grove is located in Washington County, Oregon’s fastest-growing county (in terms of population growth, not percentage) for the last 40 years. No wonder it’s seeing unprecedented high temperatures…"
It looks like the air conditioner may have been installed around 1985, notice the sustained 1 degree jump that started about then and sustained a plateau.
And this is a station of record, a US Historic Climatology Network station that is used in global climate models by NASA, in fact the plot is from that database.
Posted by Anthony Watts on May 31, 2007 08:21 AM | Permalink
Also, let me take us back 10 years to statements made by the same people who are claiming these stations are definitive evidence of severe climate change.
Message from the 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Well over 300 members of the climate research and policy communities present at the Conference on the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) (Geneva, Switzerland, 26–28 August, 1997) agreed that comprehensive observations of the climate system are critical, and noted with concern the decline in conventional observation networks in some regions. This is a serious threat to continuing progress in climate research, and to detection of climate change and attribution of its causes. Without action to reverse this decline and develop the Global Climate Observation System, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century. (emphasis added) In some regions, for example, drought-prone parts of Africa, climate change detection, prediction of seasonal and long-term variations and reliable assessment of climate impacts could become impossible.
Recognizing the obligations of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change under Article 4.1 (g) and (h) (Commitments) and Article 5 (Research and Systematic Observations), we strongly urge that, at the coming session of the Conference of Parties, arrangements be put in place to ensure funding and support for the essential observation networks of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and its oceanographic and terrestrial counterparts, and for research involving data interpretation and analysis, as well as for retrieval and preservation of historical data in electronic form.
Without such support, future assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which draw heavily on WCRP research and on the observational data sets, will be significantly compromised.
As for the chairmen of the council, these people might look familiar:
Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center
Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS.
Interesting, Hansen who did all the research for the "1998 is the hottest day" and was proven incorrect (actual day initially was 1934 and later reverted back to 1934 by GISS in a below media radar revision statement when Hansen's research was found incorrect) is the same person who was the chairman on the council who concluded:
Quote:
"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."
This same network to which no plans, changes, or improvements have been made in the system since this statement.
So which is it? The network is adequate or is it inadequate? See the problem? Don't you find it odd?
Edit:
As for you claiming this:
Quote:
as for "None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers", that is simply incorrect.
biases in surface stations are accounted for/calibrated in global averages (for example, some calculations of global average exclude urban stations). are these calibrations perfect? probably not. could there be some compensation in the direction (+ or -) across many stations averaged such that the error tends more towards zero in the overall average of a global temperature value? maybe to some degree. do things like satellite measurements and balloon measurements of atmospheric and surface temperature as well as ice and snow coverage, eye witness accounts of disappearing ice, etc. corroborate that there has been a significant warming trend? yes. do models and theory indicate that there has been, is, and will be warming? yes. does the fact that you read that james hansen may have misspoken or made an error in his life mean that his body of work and overall point are useless, or that he is not an exceptionally capable person? no.
while surface stations may degrade with time, and while this is something we need to be mindful of, they are NOT the only things that indicate the warming trend.
regarding your last question, the very paragraph that "Noone knows about this" ( i paraphrase) was written in mentions that some climate researchers had been involved in the study of possible bias in the network, for one. for another, i have conversed with many climate scientists about this, so they are not "unaware". you can also look into how some effort has been devoted to trying to account for some of the biases (urban heat islands, e.g.) if you wish.
Last edited by hello-world; 12-30-2007 at 12:49 PM..
biases in surface stations are accounted for/calibrated in global averages (for example, some calculations of global average exclude urban stations). are these calibrations perfect? probably not. could there be some compensation in the direction (+ or -) across many stations averaged such that the error tends more towards zero in the overall average of a global temperature value? maybe to some degree. do things like satellite measurements or atmospheric and surface temperature as well as ice and snow coverage, eye witness accounts of disappearing ice, etc. corroborate that there has been a significant warming trend? yes. do models and theory indicate that there has been, is, and will be warming? yes. does the fact that you read that james hansen may have misspoken or made an error in his life mean that his body of work and overall point are useless, or that he is not an exceptionally capable person? no.
while surface stations may degrade with time, and while this is something we need to be mindful of, they are NOT the only things that indicate the warming trend.
First off, we are talking about one specific thing which is surface reconstructions based on "inadequate and deteriorating" stations which are not placed according to the very standards which GISS requires them to be.
You said that it may have a (+/-) bias due to these conditions, yet many of these "records" being claimed are only within that very bias. Much like Hansen's belief that 1998 was the warmest, we find when we correct it that 1934 is still the warmest. This error was a small difference, yet it has significant meaning when we are talking about overall warming as well as warming locations, trends and confidence in max findings. It pokes holes in the initial hypothesis and you can't simply throw out the facts you don't like to keep your hypothesis, thats called self serving data and is a big no no in the scientific process.
Their data simulations are a series of proxies of manipulated data to find a correlation to something they are looking to prove. They "adjust" based on estimates of possible outcomes (manually adjusting the inputs). Any divergence must be accounted for and explained or its called cherry picking data. The hockey stick itself was proven wrong for one of these very reasons. It contained a divergence in the Brifta reconstruction at 1960 and the answer to the divergence by the IPCC was to truncate it at that date so it would look like all of the reconstructions reached a correlation. That again is very poor scientific practice.
The surface reconstructions are heavily used as evidence to support their hypothesis. To discount the significance of the conditions and effects these stations have is irresponsible science. You can't just input and estimate and average it out. An average of mostly incorrect data leads to simply an incorrect result, garbage in, garbage out. These stations must be properly surveyed to give an accurate account of their affected deviation. To claim it is not necessary is suspicious of attempting to cling to a personal hypothesis and not the science itself.
As for Hansen, he didn't mistake his speech, he was a chairman on a council that evaluated the condition of their climate monitoring system. To say he "misspoke" is avoiding the issue. It was agreed by 300 climate scientist in that report that their stations were "inadequate and deteriorating". Now they could have been "wrong" in their conclusions due to their research, are you saying this is the case? So far, the evidence of the stations are showing they were correct. They are "inadequate and deteriorating".
Hansen was also VERY adamant about his findings and he attacked McIntyre greatly to defend his findings. Thats not a "misspoke" issue, thats a clear and cut application of clinging to ones hypothesis in spite of the facts. This is why I thought it odd that he was chairman of these previous findings. This is not a question of Hansen's capability, I am sure he is quite qualified in his field, but the issue is the findings. Hansen's findings that are wrong are garbage. There is nothing to be gained from attempting to correlate faulty data. Are you suggesting their is a use for incorrect and faulty findings? I mean, other then studying it to see where he went wrong that is. The results are useless and yet this is what many attempt to base their position on, results that are incorrect. A position built on an incorrect premise also makes the conclusion incorrect, thats simple logic and a basis in scientific study.
As for other areas of study supporting the faulty conclusion of a study. Well, thats the thing. Not all of your studies are also correct. I am not denying we are in a warming cycle, though it could be questioned by some (right or wrong, they have some questions unanswered). What I have a problem with is self serving data, cherry picking, and basically bullying the science to achieve ones position. Much of the other things you refer to have severe questions as well. Not that it may or may not be happening, but as to the conclusions one draws from it.
The key problem is the attempt to take these issues which some are clear and others are questionable as to the results and then attempting to make a huge leap of faith to conclude AGW. Thats a straw man that politicians use to get people rushing to a solution and to be honest, it is the exact thing the AGW crowd is doing in order to get policies enacted.
What I find is that there is a lot of politics going around on the issue which merely cherry picks the data to support its conclusions. Nothing new to be honest, its been done throughout history, but in this case we are talking about global mass hysteria using fear to push people to their pocket books. If you think this isn't about money and power, then you would be mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello-world
regarding your last question, the very paragraph that "Noone knows about this" ( i paraphrase) was written in mentions that some climate researchers had been involved in the study of possible bias in the network, for one. for another, i have conversed with many climate scientists about this, so they are not "unaware". you can also look into how some effort has been devoted to trying to account for some of the biases (urban heat islands, e.g.) if you wish.
He is talking about the people "climate researchers" who have used these stations to run their reconstructions. He does mention that the GISS "knows" about it, but a large portion of the studies, namely the IPCC's do not account for it. That is, they "estimate" contamination, but aren't we really just talking about a guess? Also, as I said before, when we are dealing with roughly 1 degree or less results being claimed conclusive, it seems that we are rolling dice with the confidence intervals. If people are calling doom on less than 1 degree changes in caps and our error values are within 1 degree, wouldn't it seem rather silly?
Look at that initial list of stations I linked you. The majority of them are class 4's and 5's. Many have been documented in this current research as to having shown a 1 degree or more increase under these environments. You seriously can't brush this aside as insignificant. If you are interested in the science as you claim you are, I would expect you to be intrigued by this and interested to see what the changes would produce outside of those conditions. Why do you jump quickly to an excuse to the conclusion? Isn't that why we are having problems with this area of research in the first place? Not very scientific in my opinion.
i'm glad you're thinking about these things, and provoking thought and questions. and i don't "brush your views and links aside as insignificant". yes, it is important to contemplate the surface station record, while considering that - whether you trust it or not (and of course your questions are valid) - it is well corroborated by other lines of evidence and various ways of getting at it's "representative global mean".
overall, global warming IS unequivocal, and our influence on it is hard or impossible to deny, regardless of how one might pick and chose what they will argue with.
as for james hansen, i personally can understand how difficult his work and role are, while i know that much of it is very solid work that is consistent with many other very excellent scientists' work. most people could not even DO the work he does, let alone do it without the occasional error, oversight, whatever it is construed as. his work, overall, is very worthy of our attention and respect, in my view.
i think it's good to scrutinize, while with the conglomeration of evidence that's readily available out here, the case of anthropogenic climate change is pretty well settled beyond a reasonable doubt. it can now be more a matter of how significant will it get, how much do we contribute specifically, what can we do to curb our impact, and how should we adapt.
i'm glad you're thinking about these things, and provoking thought and questions. and i don't "brush your views and links aside as insignificant". yes, it is important to contemplate the surface station record, while considering that - whether you trust it or not (and of course your questions are valid) - it is well corroborated by other lines of evidence and various ways of getting at it's "representative global mean".
overall, global warming IS unequivocal, and our influence on it is hard or impossible to deny, regardless of how one might pick and chose what they will argue with.
i think it's good to scrutinize, while with the conglomeration of evidence that's readily available out here, the case of anthropogenic climate change is pretty well settled beyond a reasonable doubt. it can now be more a matter of how significant will it get, how much do we contribute specifically, what can we do to curb our impact, and how should we adapt.
Since it is "well corroborated by other lines of evidence ", then you should have no problems providing me with the methods they use to gain this knowledge?
Its ok, I've actually have been doing a lot of reading on these issues. What you are referring to is basically manually inputed guesses. How does one know the difference in effect of a certain model of station next to an AC vent of a certain size compared to another different model station in the middle of a parking lot next to a pickup truck?
GISS has the data in differences, but not the conditions themselves and what factors are contributing. The AC output might have a much larger effect than the pickup truck or the other way around.
It wasn't until this site that they started documenting All influences. For instance, look at the following:
Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
Click pictures for complete site surveys of these stations Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
[SIZE=1]This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.[/SIZE]
Notice the graphs. Both locations are fairly close, Id say roughly about 20-30 miles apart and both are roughly in the same location types.
Notice Orland and its station surroundings. Now look at Marysville. Notice the graphs. See a problem? Ok, so how do they know the levels of effect each contamination is having? Keep in mind that there are still major arguments about the influence of heat indexing and if it has any effect at all. There is currently a study being done on that very issue.
The point is, they don't know. They have no idea what is causing the effect and how much each issue might be affecting things. Doing an estimation when you do not have the actual data (surveying each site and doing proper measurements and analysis) is like throwing the dice. Seriously, its a HUGE guess.
So please, I would be VERY interested in seeing this "well corroborated by other lines of evidence" on how they are able to turn a guess into something remotely near an actual fact.
Since it is "well corroborated by other lines of evidence ", then you should have no problems providing me with the methods they use to gain this knowledge?
Its ok, I've actually have been doing a lot of reading on these issues. What you are referring to is basically manually inputed guesses. How does one know the difference in effect of a certain model of station next to an AC vent of a certain size compared to another different model station in the middle of a parking lot next to a pickup truck?
GISS has the data in differences, but not the conditions themselves and what factors are contributing. The AC output might have a much larger effect than the pickup truck or the other way around.
It wasn't until this site that they started documenting All influences. For instance, look at the following:
Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
Click pictures for complete site surveys of these stations Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
[SIZE=1]This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.[/SIZE]
Notice the graphs. Both locations are fairly close, Id say roughly about 20-30 miles apart and both are roughly in the same location types.
Notice Orland and its station surroundings. Now look at Marysville. Notice the graphs. See a problem? Ok, so how do they know the levels of effect each contamination is having? Keep in mind that there are still major arguments about the influence of heat indexing and if it has any effect at all. There is currently a study being done on that very issue.
The point is, they don't know. They have no idea what is causing the effect and how much each issue might be affecting things. Doing an estimation when you do not have the actual data (surveying each site and doing proper measurements and analysis) is like throwing the dice. Seriously, its a HUGE guess.
So please, I would be VERY interested in seeing this "well corroborated by other lines of evidence" on how they are able to turn a guess into something remotely near an actual fact.
you seem to be looking at some particular issues with particular stations, and particular issues with particular approaches. when those approaches are modified, similar, even nearly identical, results are arrived at.
for "corroborating evidence", look back through this thread and the links provided therein.
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.
