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.
There is something very interesting in this thread worth noting.
First, dealing with Fall et al 2011, we see comments that Anthony Watts is an idiot, a hack a "meteorologist" etc.
Not qualified to "do science"
We don't see anyone talking about the science conducted. We see no real attempt to deal with the reality that the 48% of stations that are well sited, show no trend, while those that saw encroachment of urban sprawl did show extreme trends.
Nor do we see any justification (scientifically speaking ) for adjusting UP the temperatures in those trendless well sited stations based upon the results of those poorly sited.
on the other hand, Cook et al which is the source of the "97% of scientists" line, has been discussed as to methodology, and it falls short. dozens of scientists categorized as part of the 97% have come forward to say, that their paper included in the study did no such thing. Several of the scientists that were part of the 97% testified before the Senate and stated under oath, that Cook et al misrepresented their paper, AND in fact they are CAGW Skeptics.
So on the Warmists side, you get ad hominem attack with an almost refusal to discuss the science.
On the Skeptics side, you get a direct review of the science and an attempt to engage in a discussion of facts.
Warmists don't engage. They just screech about stupid people and you don't understand science.
The NWS has relocated some weather stations because of the encroachment from development. So let's have a discussion, what was Anthony Watts criteria that backs up his claim that around 800 NWS stations are perturbed. Where is the science behind his investigation, just agreeing with his findings without asking questions is not a scientific approach.
The reasons for the temperature station adjustments are well documented because of updated equipment and relocations.
Why is this still even an issue, is there some doubt that the planet isn't warming?
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-21-2016 at 09:40 AM..
The NWS has relocated some weather stations because of the encroachment from development. So let's have a discussion, what was Anthony Watts criteria that backs up his claim that around 800 NWS stations are perturbed. Where is the science behind his investigation, just agreeing with his findings without asking questions is not a scientific approach.
The reasons for the temperature station adjustments are well documented because of updated equipment and relocations.
Why is this still even an issue, is there some doubt that the planet isn't warming?
have you read the paper? its been a couple of years but I did.
did you see the list of scientists that are listed as participants in the paper?
They reviewed all of the stations. Some were sitting in parkinglots. some were situated at the exhaust of large commercial AC units.
The methodology used has not been questioned. your side are saying Watts isn't qualified. how about you review the paper and show here they were wrong.
have you read the paper? its been a couple of years but I did.
did you see the list of scientists that are listed as participants in the paper?
They reviewed all of the stations. Some were sitting in parkinglots. some were situated at the exhaust of large commercial AC units.
The methodology used has not been questioned. your side are saying Watts isn't qualified. how about you review the paper and show here they were wrong.
This has already been addressed earlier on in this thread, go read #19.
Yes there are sensors in parking lots and near vents, a very small minority, there are also stations in the shadows of buildings. Funny but when the NWSS recalibrates their equipment or moves a location it's a conspiracy and if they maintain the status quo then the readings can't be trusted.
Anthony Watt is a quack, he doesn't even have a college degree yet he portrays himself as a meteorologist, was he even a weatherman.
Here is their basic siting criteria for AWOS:
Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.
More on Anthony Watt:
Quote:
Watts' US surface station temperature trends (revised)
According to the poster, the researchers took the following steps with US temperature records dating between 1979 and 2008. First they removed all weather stations that had been moved or had had a change in time of observation. They classified the remainder using one (not all) of the criteria set out in Leroy (2010), specifically "proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass".
The poster doesn't indicate how many stations were in each class. It did indicate that overall, the 410 weather stations (out of 1218) were "well-distributed", but it doesn't give any other information about the distribution.
The main finding that the researchers are reporting is that weather stations that are not close to heat sources or heat sinks show less of a warming trend than those that are. In the words in the poster.
This has already been addressed earlier on in this thread, go read #19.
Yes there are sensors in parking lots and near vents, a very small minority, there are also stations in the shadows of buildings. Funny but when the NWSS recalibrates their equipment or moves a location it's a conspiracy and if they maintain the status quo then the readings can't be trusted.
Anthony Watt is a quack, he doesn't even have a college degree yet he portrays himself as a meteorologist, was he even a weatherman.
Here is their basic siting criteria for AWOS:
Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.
you cant even pretend to discuss the data without the requisite "watts is a quack" line.
dude YOU are the one that cant be trusted. YOU are the one that simply refuses to deal with facts.
please don't even pretend.
Actually it is you, and other deniers like you and Watts...
2016 sets even more heat records with the hottest month of August ever recorded, topping off the hottest northern summer ever, the Northwest Passage sees yet another ice-free summer, and the Paris Climate Agreement comes one step closer to ratification. It's What's Up in Climate Change!
There is something very interesting in this thread worth noting.
First, dealing with Fall et al 2011, we see comments that Anthony Watts is an idiot, a hack a "meteorologist" etc.
Not qualified to "do science"
We don't see anyone talking about the science conducted. We see no real attempt to deal with the reality that the 48% of stations that are well sited, show no trend, while those that saw encroachment of urban sprawl did show extreme trends.
Nor do we see any justification (scientifically speaking ) for adjusting UP the temperatures in those trendless well sited stations based upon the results of those poorly sited.
on the other hand, Cook et al which is the source of the "97% of scientists" line, has been discussed as to methodology, and it falls short. dozens of scientists categorized as part of the 97% have come forward to say, that their paper included in the study did no such thing. Several of the scientists that were part of the 97% testified before the Senate and stated under oath, that Cook et al misrepresented their paper, AND in fact they are CAGW Skeptics.
So on the Warmists side, you get ad hominem attack with an almost refusal to discuss the science.
On the Skeptics side, you get a direct review of the science and an attempt to engage in a discussion of facts.
Warmists don't engage. They just screech about stupid people and you don't understand science.
Because when we do engage all of the facts, reality, and data is ignored, and some quack is pointed at as a expert.
Seriously, I dont tend to comment on these threads because despite year after year, and month after month of the warmest year or month EVER, deniers are not convinced. Facts and reality mean nothing.
Because when we do engage all of the facts, reality, and data is ignored, and some quack is pointed at as a expert.
Seriously, I dont tend to comment on these threads because despite year after year, and month after month of the warmest year or month EVER, deniers are not convinced. Facts and reality mean nothing.
Kind of like arguing for evolution with a creationist, isn't it.
Our planet's long streak of record-breaking temperatures was stretched even further last month, according to government statistics that show it was the hottest August ever recorded across the globe and the summer of 2016 was the earth's hottest summer on record.
you cant even pretend to discuss the data without the requisite "watts is a quack" line.
dude YOU are the one that cant be trusted. YOU are the one that simply refuses to deal with facts.
please don't even pretend.
How about explaining specifics since you read the article, why are the 400 temperature sensors miss-sighted as Watt's claims, pavement too close.
Did you read the criticism of Watt's article , did you read the email exchange between him and the real scientists and the specific criticism of his "research".
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.
