Even a Sixth Grader Can Do It; Comparing Temperatures between Rural and Urban Station Sites (Glenn Beck, bias)
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.
Well, jeepers, the sixth-grader must be smarter than all of those Ph.Ds, gosh darnit!
Not really, it is merely showing the point that some of these issues are not "so complicated that only a PHD in climate science can understand it".
That is, the issue of bringing up problems with the surface stations and UHI bias.
I remember a while back bringing up this issue with the surface stations. It was with Hansen's work that used them and the response was that the issue was far too complex and the average person or even a mathematician such as McIntyre could not understand such issues.
It was a deflection and what Sarene posted is pointing this out. It is not as "complex" as people think it is. Some of the manipulations are very very basic in their application.
It's a good middle school science project. It's been done before. Big whoop! You are thinking these PhDs don't know the information? Hell, they've been publishing it for decades.
USATODAY.com It has been known for more than 100 years that cities are usually warmer than rural areas. This phenomenon is known as the urban heat island effect. As you can see in the graphic above
Nobody is saying that they didn't know about them, of course the know about them. Hansen's work which was found invalid knew about them, he simply stated he "accounted" for them to which we later found out "how".
Also, maybe you can explain to me for instance how you get any meaningful reading out for instance the USHCN?
"Surfacestations project reaches 82% of the network surveyed. 1003 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage."
The last graphic here is when he only had 78%.
The majority are outside of acceptable CRN.
They have known about this, but they still use the data with the claim that they "account for it".
Yes, they knew... for instance they knew very well.
In the rest of the world, the additions were nearly all GHCN stations. Exceptions were Syria and Taiwan. Perhaps China, though I suspect that more identifications with GHCN versions are possible than I’ve accomplished so far. Given that the additional data for Spain comes from GHCN stations, the question of a confidentiality agreement with Spain becomes moot. Similarly for say South Africa or PNG. There are a few odds and ends that I couldn’t match right away – a few stations in Iran, one in Brazil, a couple in Bolivia. Argentina has a number of additions (nearly all airports).
And do not think these are uncommon. A lot of the data out there seems to show preference for UHI stations leading to the conclusion that AGW seems real to those who live at airports, near heating ducts, burn barrels, and tarmac.
/shrug
Edit:
Oh and do not think this is simply an issue with the US, there are reports of poor stations all over the world. It is that the US is really the only one that has had such a detailed survey completed of them all so far.
I second the motion to create a sticky for this garbage. Obviously people who have never heard of "urban heat islands" and think a 6th grader's science project is ground-breaking, have no business discussing these issues.
Considering that those claiming such never provide anything more than surface summaries of administrative opinoin and a significant amount of fallacious response (in fact, I have yet to see one response from you or others that attempts to discuss the details of the issue past cut and paste appeals to authority), it would be extremely beneficial to sweep it away. I mean, its forced deflection.
If you disagree, you are welcome to respond directly to the information I provided concerning the surface stations above.
Or...
you can dismiss and deflect and call for all those that oppose your opinion to be locked away. /shrug
That particular poster also seems to never have heard of urban heat islands before, and thinks "science" (his term) is garbage.
That's cute. I was mainly referring to the left's habit of picking and choosing the "science" they use to debate global warming.
But I forgot, apparently the "debate" is over because Gore said so. It's pathetic for several reasons. First, because the left is stupid enough to believe that we can have an affect on the global temperature. If you believe that, you're stupid. Second, because their main beef is all the horrible CO2 in the air. You know, the same CO2 that plants breathe, that humans exhale and that's been around for millions of years.
If you believe in the man made global warming hype, you're stupid. I would like to find a more eloquent way to put it, but can't. You're just stupid if you believe it.
Nobody is saying that they didn't know about them, of course the know about them. Hansen's work which was found invalid knew about them, he simply stated he "accounted" for them to which we later found out "how".
Read the OP (below). She seems to have heard of these urban heat islands just yesterday, literally.
Quote:
This is golden.
Did those so-called scientists NOT take this into consideration? Or possibly, more nefariously, they deliberately placed temperature stations in large, urban, HOT areas?
The conclusion based on GISS station data? Rural temperatures have remained stable over the last century AND wouldn't you know it - Urban temperature sites have seen a steady rise in the same time period.
Read the OP (below). She seems to have heard of these urban heat islands just yesterday, literally.
The fact that they "might just know about it" is irrelevant, the very point made concerning it is the issue right now.
Sure, some people are just reading about more details of the issue. For the longest time, all that really has been reported is fancy graphs showing upturns and movie cuts of the world ending.
Why does it surprise you that some are starting to find out what is really the issue behind the science here?
Remember... people were told the science was "settled", now they are finding out it is not.
The surface stations and their misuse by the researchers is and should be a reoccurring topic here. It along with many others is the foundation to the problems in this research.
The fact that they "might just know about it" is irrelevant, the very point made concerning it is the issue right now.
Sure, some people are just reading about more details of the issue. For the longest time, all that really has been reported is fancy graphs showing upturns and movie cuts of the world ending.
Why does it surprise you that some are starting to find out what is really the issue behind the science here?
Remember... people were told the science was "settled", now they are finding out it is not.
The surface stations and their misuse by the researchers is and should be a reoccurring topic here. It along with many others is the foundation to the problems in this research.
It doesn't surprise me at all. However, the OP is one of the most prolific posters on this topic. She seems hell-bent to dispell any shred of evidence for any human involvement in GW. I'm just saying, if that's where your level of knowledge is, get informed first.
It doesn't surprise me at all. However, the OP is one of the most prolific posters on this topic. She seems hell-bent to dispell any shred of evidence for any human involvement in GW. I'm just saying, if that's where your level of knowledge is, get informed first.
*chuckle*
I just realized (didn't pay attention to the name), just the video posted, that it is Sarene. Sarene has posted in far more detail concerning the topics than I have seen you Kat. I would be careful about pointing out who is ignorant of the issue.
Sarene's mention of this is simply to again point out the issue that has been known for a while and the comment appears more of a jibe at the researchers due to their manipulations. Knowing the topics to which Sarene has posted on (in her own words), I would say that the context is just that.
By the way, do you care to comment on my post concerning the surface records?
If sanrene or anyone else just found out about urban heat islands yesterday, and has been posting for months about global warming, climate change, etc, what does that say?
I prefer to stick to topics I know something about (unlke many others here on CD), so no, I can't make a comment on your post about surface records until I actually study it.
If sanrene or anyone else just found out about urban heat islands yesterday, and has been posting for months about global warming, climate change, etc, what does that say?
I prefer to stick to topics I know something about (unlke many others here on CD), so no, I can't make a comment on your post about surface records until I actually study it.
See, that I think is an unfounded assumption on your part. Sarene I believe has posted many times concerning station data, UHI warming bias, etc... and has been in many threads to which I posted in detail like I did above concerning them.
As I said, I think you are misinterpreting the intent Sanrene's post. The fact is, the issue with UHI has been known for a while. The joke is that even a 6th grader can properly identify the bias to which they introduce.
So why do the scientists use research that allows for UHI bias (and has been shown in their research to) when a 6th grader can tell as much?
Lets look at what Sanrene actually stated again:
Quote:
This is golden.
Did those so-called scientists NOT take this into consideration? Or possibly, more nefariously, they deliberately placed temperature stations in large, urban, HOT areas?
Again, like I said... its more of a jab at them.
Quote:
The conclusion based on GISS station data? Rural temperatures have remained stable over the last century AND wouldn't you know it - Urban temperature sites have seen a steady rise in the same time period.
Duh!!
A statement of their conclusion and look at the bold, its the telling part.
Anyone who has been reading about UHI knows this is a problem, the issue with them using stations with UHI bias is old news... hence the...
DUH!
Don't mistake peoples flippant responses to mean they have no idea what is going on.
Ive been flippant a few times in these topics responding to people or making comments on issues that I have known about for a while and are extremely simple, but others have been ignorant and deliberately contesting. If you assessed my knowledge on those flippant posts alone, you might come to a similar conclusion as you did with Sanrene, but you would be wrong.
Lastly, I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know enough about the topic, I might refrain from being arrogant about the content in it. It puts you in a bad position as people who do know will tear you apart for it.
Ask questions and be skeptical all you like, but assuming someones knowledge on an issue gets you into trouble. If you are concerned about people mouthing off who do not know anything about the topic, just start asking them detailed questions where they can not simply "link" to answer. That will catch them.
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.