|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 17, 2010 10:35:04 GMT 1
Pretty near the truth - frighteningly. Nothing like the truth I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 12:08:29 GMT 1
Pretty near the truth - frighteningly. So you didn't actrually read the link - didn't really expect you to. You've never made any attempt at informing yourself of the actual facts regarding any of the climate science debates. from the link "Yes, the madmen have applied an artificial “trend” of 1.9 deg.C cooling, to offset most of the warming in the Tokyo record. But they won’t get away with it. We’ve got our eyes on you!" ie - it's a tongue in cheek explanation of how UHI correction actually does work, i.e. it corrects for artificial heat. Tokyo has actually shown a cooling trend after this correctly applied correction. As for Abacus - again, read the link before passing comment such as 'paranoid claptrap' - it's called irony
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Nov 17, 2010 18:15:46 GMT 1
@abacus#13
Yes. UHI causes an overreading of thermometers, which causes an APPARENT increase in average surface temperature ... which leads to the CLAIM of increaing temperatures .. which , becase it is correlated with building activity, is claimed as evidence of AGW.
In a sense, as concrete is a man-made substance, the AGWers are correct. Putting a lot of concrete adjacent to a thermometer will cause it to overread.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 18, 2010 13:59:02 GMT 1
Yes. UHI causes an overreading of thermometers, which causes an APPARENT increase in average surface temperature ... which leads to the CLAIM of increaing temperatures .. which , becase it is correlated with building activity, is claimed as evidence of AGW. In a sense, as concrete is a man-made substance, the AGWers are correct. Putting a lot of concrete adjacent to a thermometer will cause it to overread. So you didn't read the link either, or even the excerpt that I stuck in the above post - repeated here for clarity "applied an artificial “trend” of 1.9 deg.C cooling, to offset most of the warming" i.e. UHI is a well known effect and is adjusted for in the temperature record. However, if anyone ever mentions 'adjustments' the deniers rush out to cry fraud. Science is the loser. The thermometers were placed where they were a while ago, urbanisation crept towards them. Two possible solutions, move them (but lose continuity of recordings) or, using well known and understood laws of physics, adjust for the heat created by the urbanisation by adding a cooling trend (and get cries of fraud by the deniers as they do not understand the adjustment). The latter solution at least gives continuity or recordings and the deniers just have to be endured. No matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them, they'll ignore it as they just can't tolerate the thought that there are people out there much cleverer than them that can understand 'stuff' that seems like a black art to them (i.e. science) 'cos they're too dense.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 18, 2010 14:21:57 GMT 1
how sad, that so many didn't bother to read the link, just assumed they knew what it was, hence came straight out with the blame or the praise..................
We've been over this before. UHI effect is totally bloody obvious, and thinking it is a clincher, the nail in the coffin of AGW, assumes that the relevant scientists are as dense as teak, and didn't think about how they might adjust readings to account for the UHI effect.
Except of course they did. And not all measurements are from urbanised areas, and we have the sea-surface measurements as well, blah blah blah, been here before. It's the usual non-argument from the supposed sceptics -- take something that is so obvious any idiot can get it, and then claim the scientists missed it! It's all a great con or conspiracy, and off we go again.
But a nice example of the lack of having this debate yet again, when posters don't even bother to look at the actual evidence being preseneted, and shoot themselves in the foot as a result.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Nov 18, 2010 21:04:25 GMT 1
@sta
From the emotive tone of your post, I detect that you too are concerned about the legitimacy of these 'adjustments'
From my own POV, looking at the graph on Tamino's blog, it shows a linear correction between 1920 and 2000. Now has Tokyo's development proceeded linearly over this time? At the least I'd expect an acceleration between 1950 and 2000, in line with economic development of Greater Tokyo generally.
So I'm sorry, but handwaving and appeals to authority cannot cover up the fact that these 'adjustments' look fishy. And coupled with the Yamal farce, the Crumail thing, and a few other exposures I'd say climatologists have lost their cred and need to spell-out the 'adjustment' process rather than allow Tamino (a climatologist) to play the fool.
Unless someone can make a cast-iron case for the need for these 'adjustments' ... and to take us through the physics, and also give evidence of the calibration of these adjustment factors, then they may, just may, start to regain some cred. So, STA, how about it?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 19, 2010 0:25:17 GMT 1
how sad, that so many didn't bother to read the link, just assumed they knew what it was, hence came straight out with the blame or the praise.................. We've been over this before. UHI effect is totally bloody obvious, and thinking it is a clincher, the nail in the coffin of AGW, assumes that the relevant scientists are as dense as teak, and didn't think about how they might adjust readings to account for the UHI effect. Except of course they did. And not all measurements are from urbanised areas, and we have the sea-surface measurements as well, blah blah blah, been here before. It's the usual non-argument from the supposed sceptics -- take something that is so obvious any idiot can get it, and then claim the scientists missed it! It's all a great con or conspiracy, and off we go again. But a nice example of the lack of having this debate yet again, when posters don't even bother to look at the actual evidence being preseneted, and shoot themselves in the foot as a result. They've admitted it. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 19, 2010 10:01:28 GMT 1
Pretty near the truth - frighteningly. So you didn't actrually read the link - didn't really expect you to. You've never made any attempt at informing yourself of the actual facts regarding any of the climate science debates. "Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. While the "heat island" warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 19, 2010 12:13:25 GMT 1
Abacus - if you read the link that I posted, it explains how the Urban Heat Island effect is well known by scientists and is corrected for in the data when this is used to assess whether there has been a change in temperature or not. I wouldn't use wiki as a source of information for the facts about climate change as it is frequently fought over by folks in both sides of the climate change debate. Go to the science papers directly or the recognised science blogs where people who understand the science are able to explain the issues to those interested in the truth and not propaganda (such as can be found on wattsrightwiththat). Some good examples are: scienceofdoom.com/about/www.skepticalscience.com/www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/This last is "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. " rsmith7 could make good use of these sites if he wishes to argue from an informed perspective too.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 21, 2010 16:27:27 GMT 1
Abacus - if you read the link that I posted, it explains how the Urban Heat Island effect is well known by scientists and is corrected for in the data when this is used to assess whether there has been a change in temperature or not. I wouldn't use wiki as a source of information for the facts about climate change as it is frequently fought over by folks in both sides of the climate change debate. Go to the science papers directly or the recognised science blogs where people who understand the science are able to explain the issues to those interested in the truth and not propaganda (such as can be found on wattsrightwiththat). Some good examples are: scienceofdoom.com/about/www.skepticalscience.com/www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/This last is "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. " rsmith7 could make good use of these sites if he wishes to argue from an informed perspective too. Ha ha ha ha haaa! Realclimate - the home of the hockey team charlatans. Utterly discredited shower of scum bags. You activists are too much!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 6, 2011 19:27:54 GMT 1
By Chris Horner at The American Spectator This gem from Spain — Madrid’s mayor proclaimed massive air pollution reductions except, ah, “The state prosecutor’s office found that in 2009 the Madrid municipality had quietly moved nearly half its pollution sensors from traffic-clogged streets in the city centre to parks and gardens”– reminds us of the cheapest way to cool the planet: Reopen the Canadian and Siberian temperature stations closed ca. 1990, prompting ‘the hottest decade on record’. Thanks again to WUWT where Philip Foster noted "...the EU is operating more and more like the old Soviet Union: thus to meet centralised ‘quotas’ of whatever kind local commissars (in this case mayors) merely cook the books." Yes, sadly, Sod's Law - if it CAN happen it WILL happen.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 6, 2011 19:42:18 GMT 1
What is the source of this data? 16000 stations in Spain in the seventies and only 6000 lately and that massive leap in readings? What are your sources? Just looked at the WUWT page about Spain. Marchesarosa you do your self no favours by posting this rubbish, go back to WUWT that and read it again!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 6, 2011 19:57:16 GMT 1
I think it's probably the evolution of the GHCN station network for producing the global average temperature, Helen. I'm surprised you didn't recognise it. It's a very well known graphic aka "The Great Dying of the Thermometers". How can anyone who considered herself competent to comment on AGW possibly be ignorant of this blatant data manipulation by GHCN? Here's an easy introduction to the matter for you. joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 6, 2011 19:59:20 GMT 1
Sorry marchesarosa, what is the Great Dying of the thermometer?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 6, 2011 20:01:07 GMT 1
|
|