• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unprecedented Warming ?? Maybe, Maybe Not

Gill

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A new paper in Energy and Environment by Pat Frank casts doubt on the accuracy of the global surface temperature data network. The integrity and accuracy of surface temperature stations has never been fully taken into account in papers discussing climate change.

Anthony Watts was the first to look at the potential problem when he looked at the possible influence of the change from white wash to paint on cotton shelter stations. His work evolved into a full documentation of all of the USHCN climate stations in the U.S. to determine if they met NOAA siting standards. 69% of the stations have a poor siting rating based on NOAA's own requirements.

Steve McIntyre then looked into changes in the measurement of sea temperatures. He found discrepancies in the change from measuring sea temperature by the use of canvas buckets to measurement by sensors in engine cooling systems.

Frank's paper establishes the uncertainty or noise in the temperature data. He determined that there is a 0.46 degrees C uncertainty in the data. Following is a graph of the temperature record with Frank's uncertainty shown in gray.

image5.jpg


Frank determines:

The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the
trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically
indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion
that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since
1880.
Click to expand...

In other words, the amount of reported temperature increase is within the margin of error.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Frank/uncertainty_in global_average_temperature_2010.pdf

The other issue is the number of temperature stations. Thousands of stations have been abandoned since 1990. As the number of stations declines, the reported global temperature has risen.

Is there a connection???

nvst.jpg
 
Hey, it's talking point #53, dropped stations introducing a warming bias!

The dropped stations actually show more warming than the ones that were kept. Dropping them actually introduced a cooling bias. (although not much of one)
 
Deuce said:
Hey, it's talking point #53, dropped stations introducing a warming bias!

The dropped stations actually show more warming than the ones that were kept. Dropping them actually introduced a cooling bias. (although not much of one)
Click to expand...

A. I see you didn't even bother to address the main point of this thread. Good job!!

B. Where did I claim that the massive drop in stations had anything to do with the "reported" rise in temps. I simply said "Is there a connection??"

C. I'm assuming you have some type of proof of your claim regarding the stations ??? As you and your ilk often require, a peer reviewed paper by a noted climatologist in a recognized journal would be nice.

You do know that the vast majority of dropped stations were in the old Soviet Union don't you ???
 
Gill said:
A. I see you didn't even bother to address the main point of this thread. Good job!!

B. Where did I claim that the massive drop in stations had anything to do with the "reported" rise in temps. I simply said "Is there a connection??"

C. I'm assuming you have some type of proof of your claim regarding the stations ??? As you and your ilk often require, a peer reviewed paper by a noted climatologist in a recognized journal would be nice.

You do know that the vast majority of dropped stations were in the old Soviet Union don't you ???
Click to expand...

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect
Global Update | Open Mind
The Blackboard » A simple model for spatially-weighted temp analysis

Multiple independent groups looked at this claim. Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't make the claim, you were just asking questions.

As for Anthony Watts, his accusations about the climate network have been similarly disproven:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
The NOAA took only the sites that Watts himself listed as good, and reran the data with just those stations and found an identical temperature trend. (in fact, once again the "poor" stations introduce a very small cooling bias instead of a warming bias!)

The surface temperature record matches the satellite records and various temperature proxies. Calculating statistical uncertainties is way above my math skills.
 
Deuce said:
Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect
Global Update | Open Mind
The Blackboard » A simple model for spatially-weighted temp analysis

Multiple independent groups looked at this claim. Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't make the claim, you were just asking questions.

As for Anthony Watts, his accusations about the climate network have been similarly disproven:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
The NOAA took only the sites that Watts himself listed as good, and reran the data with just those stations and found an identical temperature trend. (in fact, once again the "poor" stations introduce a very small cooling bias instead of a warming bias!)

The surface temperature record matches the satellite records and various temperature proxies. Calculating statistical uncertainties is way above my math skills.
Click to expand...

Blogs ???? Next time I want to dispute one of your many inaccuracies, I'll simply quote a blog posting. When I do, I don't expect a peep about it. :roll:
 
As to your claim regarding Watt's project, the NCDC study was based on data that had not been checked for quality control and when only 43% of the stations had been inspected.

Hardly a refutation of the entire surface station project.

Still no comment on the subject of this thread ??? What's wrong, nothing on it at Real Climate yet or any of the other alarmists blogs you like to quote as scientific fact ??

I post peer reviewed papers by scientists and you post anonymous blog postings. Sad.
 
Gill said:
Blogs ???? Next time I want to dispute one of your many inaccuracies, I'll simply quote a blog posting. When I do, I don't expect a peep about it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Watts is a blogger.

edit: And you had no real evidence that the dropped stations introduce a bias in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Watts is a blogger.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting that the subject of this thread is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal, but you'd like to ignore that "inconvenient" fact wouldn't you?
 
Gill said:
You keep forgetting that the subject of this thread is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal, but you'd like to ignore that "inconvenient" fact wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

The blogs I posted were not responding to the paper you posted. They were responding to your claim about dropped stations. Pay attention.
 
Deuce said:
The blogs I posted were not responding to the paper you posted. They were responding to your claim about dropped stations. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Discuss the main topic of the thread.... if you can.

Until you come with some SCIENTIFIC confirmation of your claims regarding the dropped stations, that topic is closed.
 
Deuce said:
edit: And you had no real evidence that the dropped stations introduce a bias in the first place.
Click to expand...

Great !!! I suggest you contact NOAA and NCDC and tell them their guidelines for data recording stations are irrelevant and they are free to put them in every parking lot they can find next to heated air exhausts.

After all, it doesn't really matter does it ??
 
Gill said:
Great !!! I suggest you contact NOAA and NCDC and tell them their guidelines for data recording stations are irrelevant and they are free to put them in every parking lot they can find next to heated air exhausts.

After all, it doesn't really matter does it ??
Click to expand...

Yes, it matters, but apparently your only source for the idea that there is a bias is a blog, and blogs don't count.
The NOAA reviewed the implications of Watts' accusations and found the impact to be negligible. That's not from a blog. The parking lots aren't making a noticeable impact on the temperature record.

On the dropped stations, yes, that topic is closed. Not because I didn't give you a scientific source, but rather because you never did in the first place.

On the uncertainty, I do not have the statistical background to evaluate that paper and I haven't seen a direct response to it. (probably because it's fairly new) In any case, a comparison to satellite and proxy temperature records does provide evidence that the temperature record is pretty reliable. Unless of course a similar uncertainty can be found there.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, it matters, but apparently your only source for the idea that there is a bias is a blog, and blogs don't count.
The NOAA reviewed the implications of Watts' accusations and found the impact to be negligible. That's not from a blog. The parking lots aren't making a noticeable impact on the temperature record.

On the dropped stations, yes, that topic is closed. Not because I didn't give you a scientific source, but rather because you never did in the first place.

On the uncertainty, I do not have the statistical background to evaluate that paper and I haven't seen a direct response to it. (probably because it's fairly new) In any case, a comparison to satellite and proxy temperature records does provide evidence that the temperature record is pretty reliable. Unless of course a similar uncertainty can be found there.
Click to expand...

No, my source for the data is a peer reviewed paper clearly showing that the noise from the use of different instrument types and measurement methods exceeds the reported temperature change. In other words, there could easily be NO global rise in temperature over the past 100 years.
 
Gill said:
No, my source for the data is a peer reviewed paper clearly showing that the noise from the use of different instrument types and measurement methods exceeds the reported temperature change. In other words, there could easily be NO global rise in temperature over the past 100 years.
Click to expand...

Which is a separate topic from the dropped stations or the microsite influences.
 
Gill said:
A. I see you didn't even bother to address the main point of this thread. Good job!!

B. Where did I claim that the massive drop in stations had anything to do with the "reported" rise in temps. I simply said "Is there a connection??"

C. I'm assuming you have some type of proof of your claim regarding the stations ??? As you and your ilk often require, a peer reviewed paper by a noted climatologist in a recognized journal would be nice.

You do know that the vast majority of dropped stations were in the old Soviet Union don't you ???
Click to expand...

I must concur. After reading what he said I was scratching my head. I didnt know if I missed anything.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
I must concur. After reading what he said I was scratching my head. I didnt know if I missed anything.
Click to expand...

It's called changing the subject or muddying the water so that his inability to respond to the subject would hopefully go unnoticed. I'm sure he'll spend all night digging through alarmist web blogs looking for someone that disputes the paper or author.
 
Whovian said:
Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



sounds like a lot more than 'a blogger'.
Click to expand...

Ohh, so now we get to evaluate the credentials of bloggers? Weird how the ones I posted were just dismissed out of hand...

Gill said:
It's called changing the subject or muddying the water so that his inability to respond to the subject would hopefully go unnoticed. I'm sure he'll spend all night digging through alarmist web blogs looking for someone that disputes the paper or author.
Click to expand...

I spent all of five minutes finding those. After all, it wasn't the focus of the thread. (you do seem to keep talking about it though)

I already told you straight up that I don't have much on the "main" subject. So... going unnoticed might be tough. Of course, if there was just one subject you wanted to discuss, why did you bring up three in the OP?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I spent all of five minutes finding those. After all, it wasn't the focus of the thread. (you do seem to keep talking about it though)

I already told you straight up that I don't have much on the "main" subject. So... going unnoticed might be tough. Of course, if there was just one subject you wanted to discuss, why did you bring up three in the OP?
Click to expand...

No, actually I keep responding to your inane off-topic comments.

If you don't know anything about the subject of the thread, stay the hell out of it. Or, you could actually educate yourself on the subject for once.
 
Forget it gill. Peer review papers only count when they reafirm dogma donjaknow. No, there isn't much you can do with "true believers" these days. Sheesh, and american liberals/leftists/assorted europeans complain about christians.


source
By William Dove | February 1, 2011 10:34 PM GMT

Last night BBC Four aired a documentary which took a look at climate change sceptics and in particular one of the movement's most prominent poster boys, Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley.

Global warmingAl GoreReligionClimate ChangeDisastersThe programme, like climate science itself, attracted controversy before it even came on air. James Delingpole, a vocal climate change sceptic who appears in the documentary, yesterday called the programme "another hatchet job" on his Telegraph blog.

The presenter of the programme, Rupert Murray, concluded by saying that despite the arguments of the sceptics he did not want to take the risk that they were wrong. He was, he said, willing to give up some of his freedom if it helped to stop climate change.

This was a rather startling thing to say, especially as his own programme did not conclude that the warmists are right and the sceptics wrong. In fact he appeared to be saying he would give up his freedom just in case the warmists are right.

There was worse still in the programme, with one scientist effectively saying that democracy might need to be suspended in order for governments to successfully prevent a climate catastrophe.......

.......The great problem with climate change is that it no longer seems like a scientific theory, but more like a 21st century version of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, complete with evangelists, tithes, indulgences and bizarre superstitions.

Just as in medieval times when the people were expected to (and often did) believe everything they were told by the priest, now we see that it is the scientist whose word is gospel. Even today panellists on programmes such as BBC Question Time who question climate change can be booed and jeered at by people who read scientific papers on the issue even less than illiterate medieval peasants read the Bible, at the time still un-translated from the Latin................

.....................Many of these evangelists attempt, not to explain the science, but to scare the population into believing, through dire warnings that we face some kind climatic Judgement Day. Indeed if they are to be believed then we are already seeing signs of judgement because of the sin of burning fossil fuels...................

..........Many of these evangelists attempt, not to explain the science, but to scare the population into believing, through dire warnings that we face some kind climatic Judgement Day. Indeed if they are to be believed then we are already seeing signs of judgement because of the sin of burning fossil fuels..............

..................However rather than admit that there might be a flaw in the theory, warmists simply rebranded "global warming" into "climate change", so that cold weather as well as hot can be taken as evidence of our upcoming destruction. Given this one wonders what kind of weather it would take to indicate that global warming is not a problem.........
Click to expand...
 
One cannot deny that Gil has ripped poor Deuce up int his thread. Deuce came in with the usual shtick of warmer talking points and was unable to counter the Op and was instead forced to try and make mountains out of a mole hill over a non-issue.

Gil 1
Deuce 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom