Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted July 31, 2012 Interesting article - turns out NOAA (the American weather people) have been taking figures from their newer, more accurate (and colder) weather stations and tweaking the figures up to match the warmer, less accurate stations. This has an impact on the global temperature records and surprise, surprise, when the adjustment is made the world appears to have warmed a lot less..... Lead bit of article follows: "If new techniques endorsed by the World Meteorological Organisation are applied to official figures, over half of the global warming reported by US land-based thermometers between 1979 and 2008 simply disappears, researchers have found. The new study used the same raw temperature measurements as US government federal scientific agencies, but the team deployed a revised metric that was better at taking into account the quality of the weather stations that housed the thermometers. Previous studies have used a cruder metric to gauge station quality, which has to be taken into account so as to allow for the effect of asphalt, urban development and other local factors on the readings at any given thermometer. The new station-quality metric improves on older methods, not merely relying on distance but also the density of heat sinks and sources near the thermometers. When the more sophisticated classification system is used, some dramatic results are seen. The new study reveals that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) discarded the temperature trend from the higher quality weather stations in favour of a warming temperature trend from low quality weather stations. But the most extraordinary aspect is that this improved metric for categorising weather station quality has been endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization since 2010. It was proposed by Michel Leroy of Météo-France, the French state weather service, who devised its cruder predecessor in 1999. Yet it has been left to a group largely outside the climate establishment to first do the field work and then the maths, and apply the new metric to the data. The official agencies and climate academics have been able (some would say, required) to use the latest WMO-endorsed categorisation method for 18 months, but have failed to do so." Read more here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/30/watts_et_al_temperature_bombshell/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Shadow 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2012 I suppose a lot of people feel the increase of temperatures over time(which they attribute to global warming) due mainly to the increased urbanisation and population density. Buildings built nowadays tend to reflect heat so as to lower costs for air conditioning (which is also a major heat source). With increased development areas wind speeds drop (due to buildings creating air resistance) and the heat at ground level is unable to dissipate as quickly as it would in an open, unhindered space. I think its being a bit cheeky to dismiss global warming as a fact. But though it may not be as bad as some quarters may have you believe, the actions taken to mitigate its increase do have other benefits as well. Living in a third world city, you do notice a significant increase in air quality compared to the 1990's due to tougher emission laws. Cars today weigh heavier than blue whales yet consume less fuel than before (and as a result, produce less greenhouse gasses). That's assuming the report above is an accurate reflection though.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted August 1, 2012 I suppose a lot of people feel the increase of temperatures over time(which they attribute to global warming) due mainly to the increased urbanisation and population density. Well there are WMO guidelines for what is acceptable for weather stations. It is interesting if you look at the following link, you will find that (completely independently of the "tweaking" described in the report, there are also anomalies with the siting of a number of weather stations - e.g. some weather stations which feed into the official "global" temperature calculation which, for example have air conditioning vents blowing straight onto them (!) http://www.surfacest...g/odd_sites.htm is a site that is analysing the quality of the sites in US against WMO guidelines. The thing with the report is outlining how NOAA have tweaked the figures to give an overall warming outlook - why? Worse, rather than taking the older, less accurate stations (which are less affected by urban heat island effects) and adjusted them to meet the newer, more accurate, stations (which are less affected), they have done it the other way around. i.e. degraded the more accurate stations' results. This just does not make sense. I think its being a bit cheeky to dismiss global warming as a fact. Not cheeky at all. There has been no global warming since 1998. This is an established scientific fact. Furthermore every day more and more information comes out that 1) demonstrates our climate is very complex (and the models don't work) and 2) that there is not consensus. Why do I care? Well, I hate bad science and there has been plenty of this going around - cherry picking results to give a particular outcome, peer review processes which are biased, temperature figures which have been tweaked. the actions taken to mitigate its increase do have other benefits as well. Living in a third world city, you do notice a significant increase in air quality compared to the 1990's due to tougher emission laws. Cars today weigh heavier than blue whales yet consume less fuel than before (and as a result, produce less greenhouse gasses). On this we agree - its no bad thing that we are being more efficient and polluting less, but I'd rather it was approached directly around those issues directly than creating a myth which is used by politicians for various purposes...... like raising taxes or making spectacularly bad decisions about energy policy, etc. That's assuming the report above is an accurate reflection though.... The authors are credible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Shadow 0 Report post Posted August 2, 2012 Wow. Its just that I find it hard to grasp that so many weather stations go out of their way to produce bad data. Are those stations built by organisations that have a vested interest in cooking up false data? I suppose, like many, I never really gave a thought about the factors and conditions of the data collection centers. I just assumed that they were set up according to established criteria for temperature collection. Wouldn't be the first time people were hoodwinked by bad science. Its good that you and the authors point out one glaring fact. When it comes to science, opinions should always be formed with the benefit of peer review and looking at data from sources following criterion that is unbiased (the removal of factors and variables that can affect data directly or indirectly), as well as to draw the conclusions based on that and to not let other people or groups do that for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted August 2, 2012 Its just that I find it hard to grasp that so many weather stations go out of their way to produce bad data. Are those stations built by organisations that have a vested interest in cooking up false data? Yep it is a bit shocking. I think in part its not deliberate, many of these stations use old equipment bought with limited budgets and probably when they were first started they were compliant with the less rigorous standards then. But over time, building and modern life has encroached on them and many have not been updated. Its really a legacy of neglect. The danger is that science now works to higher degrees of accuracy and without looking at the quality of where the data has come from, it is easy to interpret some of the inherent inaccuracies as trends. However there are some less scupulous people who still know this and use the data to suit their own personal agendas/beliefs. The tweaking of figures though is more deliberate and I can't see any justification for making the best, most accurate data worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2012 The problem is British and American people being so keen on weather. No other people on planet have weather TV channels, etc., etc., etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted August 23, 2012 Well that's 'cos we get a lot of it. I've been to Spain and its: Monday: Sun Tuesday: Sun . . . Sunday: Sun UK has more tornadoes per square mile than any other country in the world (OK they are not up to the "twister F5" status....) And the temperature can go from -10 to +35 degrees. (and that's just in one day!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2012 (and that's just in one day!) That's true, weather can change a lot in UK during the day while it's probably less changeable in Spain but northwest of Spain is a bit like UK, east is normaly sunny with some heavy rain short periods of time every 7 years, south is normaly hot and west is Portugal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 3, 2012 A history of failed predictions of doom http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/apocalypse-not.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted September 4, 2012 Interesting article... New Paper: The Phase Relation Between Atmospheric CO2 And Global Temperature An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2.“ The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-co2-and-global-temperature/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted September 4, 2012 Ouch.... just discovered that in Venezuela they only pay $0.09 per gallon for fuel http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide62 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 8, 2012 Yep. The climate downpour is losing strength... to no surprise whatsoever. Gotta wonder if we will get a break this time around or will move on directly to the next crisis. After all, the next massive end-of-the-world catastrophe is just around the corner waiting to be screamed... as always. I wonder if it will also be announced via Nobel prize. That was amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
