|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 3, 2010 16:45:28 GMT 1
Heartland Institute Lecture: Comparison of the Russian data and global data (both from the HadCrut3 database) of Phil Jones.
Presentation by Andrei Illarionov, Ph.D., President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow.
Should we trust these numbers or should we check them first?
Part 1
Part 2
I commend these two short videos to you explaining the provenance of Phil Jones’ CRU data for Russia and ending with this question:
Since Phil Jones has apparently accurately measured the UHI for Russia's oldest weather stations at approx 0.5 degreeC over the last century how much of the purported centennial increase in Dr Phil's GLOBAL temperature of 0.7 degreeC is also down to UHI and how much is REAL?
Watch and enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 3, 2010 16:54:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by rockyjock on Oct 3, 2010 23:08:28 GMT 1
Over on Bishophill we have the Government's official response to the Science and Technology committee's report on the investigations into CRU. It says the reports investigated Jones's science (they didn't) and that all is well.
Nothing more to say. Forget the pesky Russian stations and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 3, 2010 23:21:27 GMT 1
...how much of the purported hundred year increase in GLOBAL temperature for the entire world of 0.7 degreeC is also down to UHI and how much is REAL? It is ALL real - the UHI effect has been allowed for by the scientists. www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm"The UHI should match where most people live. However, if you look at the 2006 global temperature anomaly, you find that the greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages were across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred." |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 4, 2010 4:24:28 GMT 1
'Figure 1. Annual average temperature anomalies. Jones et al (dotted green and brown) is a dataset of 42 rural and 42 urban sites. Li et al (solid green and brown) is an adjusted dataset of 42 rural and 40 urban sites. Li (blue) is a non-adjusted set of 728 stations, urban and rural. CRUTEM3v (red) is a land-only data set (Brohan et al., 2006). This plot uses the 1954–83 base period.'
Fom the point of view of a non-scientific carrot muncher such as me, this all looks very 'sus'. However, be that as it may, it does seem that logical that an urban area like London will be warmer than the surrounding rural area. I thought we'd all done with extrapolations of tree rings, old sea weed recordings and any other 'odd ball' standards. I know 42 is 'the answer to everything' but it's hardly a representative number for the world, is it? 'Adjusted dataset' is another suspect bit of jargon, for what? I also realise what will be said next, "You don't understand the maths, or have the education, to be able to evaluate these figures". Well to anyone tempted to say that, they are probably right, but remember, that's probably the greater majority of people. If that is so then You [climate scientists] had better find a different way of convincing and already skeptical public [of those who actually care tuppence anyway] that all this effort is worth a fig. These figures are reminiscent of government 'inflation figures', another joke, 'inflation has gone down, or stayed steady over the last quarter' then read the small print only to find that electronic goods are included, but carrots, taters and butter, or whatever, are dis-regarded by the number crunchers.
Still not heard, except in vague, hand swishing terms, about how the 'cure' is to be effected. Well how about 'a great depression' that will stop a lot of it. No one producing goods and services 'cos no-ones got any money. P's posts about 10:10, anyone see the site. Take a look at a 'low carbon Sunday lunch' - what planet are they on? They might get cheap veg from 'up the smoke' but in the non-UHI areas, nah. Notice, they're all swigging wine [what's the carbon trail for that?] great if the travel infrastructure is there [eg. underground] but the rest of us would run the risk of being breathalysed and the excuse that it was part of the 'low carbon Sunday lunch' will be viewed like inflation figures.
Carry on Sar'nt-major!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 10:37:32 GMT 1
Eamonn
IF the UHI effect had been properly "adjusted for", as you claim, the resulting overall temperature would be much less than that recorded for urban centres since the vast majority of surface stations are actually located in urban areas. Instead, the very few rural surface stations have obviously been adjusted UPWARDS.
This has clearly been demonstrated for the Russian surface stations . The assumption is that Dr Phil used exactly the same methodology to arrive at the global figure.
I have always believed that the purported rise in the gmt was in fact UHI being passed off as CO2-induced radiative warming. This excellent video which has deconstructed Dr Phil's Russian data demonstrates it perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 10:47:02 GMT 1
Eamonn, this presentation of UHI effect may be more on your level.
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 11:54:56 GMT 1
the very few rural surface stations have obviously been adjusted UPWARDS. What a ridiculous claim! Why would anyone adjust for UHI where there isn't any? You obviously think the scientists are stupid. And why the obsession with land stations? There are also satellite measurements, and sea temperatures are also increasing. No UHI effect in the oceans! If you disagree then show us some contrarian graphs with the 'correct' data, and which do not show warming. |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 4, 2010 12:43:12 GMT 1
'No UHI effect in the oceans!'
Perhaps not in the oceans [miniscule], but The English Channel, almost busiest in the world. There must be some sort of heat effect there.
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 12:55:45 GMT 1
There must be some sort of heat effect there. If you think so, then i suggest you do some sums to estimate the size of the effect then come back to us - and please show your working! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 13:38:21 GMT 1
"Why would anyone adjust for UHI where there isn't any?"
VERY good question, Eamonn. Why don't you ask Dr Phil? His Russian data clearly show rural stations HAVE been adjusted upward because taken alone the rural stations show NO CHANGE over the century.
Admit it! You didn't even watch the videos I posted did you?
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 13:58:51 GMT 1
Why don't you ask Dr Phil? Why don't you? Your prejudice is showing again. And it is not true that the rural stations show no change over the century - your second video shows that. i suggest you watch it again at 5:18. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 13:59:56 GMT 1
As for there being no UHI evident in the ocean data, don't be so sure, Eamonn! GISS, at least, gives inordinate extra weighting to the land temperatures in its "adjusted" combined land and sea temperature database. In fact over the century the land is given ever greater weighting. Why should that be, Eamonn? Please explain. You seem to take everything that comes from the IPCC favoured sons on trust. What a prime target for gulling you are! Have a look at this investigation by Frank Lansner of GISS's (read Hansen's) messing around with the land/sea weightings here  wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/ |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 14:07:47 GMT 1
As for there being no UHI evident in the ocean data, don't be so sure, Eamonn! So where are the urban heat islands in the oceans? And to repeat my question, where is the CORRECT data which shows that there is no Anthropogenic warming? You seem to prefer moving the goalposts, obfuscation and muddying of the waters instead of the solid evidence. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 14:51:15 GMT 1
Returning to the OP, in which Andrei Illarionov, Ph.D., President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow, discusses Dr Phil's data for Russia and then asks an awkward question about the extent of UHI incorporated in the global mean temperature calculations.
Dr Phil states Russia has warmed 1.29 degreesC over the last century and that the global mean temperature has warmed 0.74 degreesC over the last century.
Eamonn seems to have overlooked the comparative Russian temperature data from the period 1921-45 and 1961-1990 (3 minutes into the 2nd video). This shows that stations with less than 10,000 inhabitants underwent an absolute decline in temperature between those periods whilst those with larger populations showed an increase.
True, Russian stations' measured temperatures comparing 1897-1905 as against 1997-2006 have shown an overall increase over time but the point is that the 10 largest Russian urban centres have increased by more than half a degree Celsius more than the 10 most rural ones over the last century!
An Urban Heat Island effect of 0.5degreesC for Russia over the last century was clearly demonstrated from Dr Phil’s own HadCrut3 data.
The speaker merely asks how much of Dr Phil’s estimate of the GLOBAL mean temperature is also down to UHI? A very good question, which Eamonn, apparently, does not wish to address.
He expects us to take on trust, rather than checking. Very typical!
|
|
