Comments on: Urban Biases on Surface Temperature Records

By: julieg

julieg — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:31:02 +0000

Congratulations Peter and Dad.

I only wish that I had any mathematical ability at all as I would love to try something similar in my area (Sydney, Australia).

By: w. m. schaffer

w. m. schaffer — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:35:35 +0000

@Ecology Student – Good for you. For the past several years, we’ve been doing an AGW debate in my honors section of introductory biology. Sometimes the consensi win; sometimes, the skeptics win. But everyone, myself included, learns a lot. And it reinforces two of the things I try to emphasize.

1. Science evolves. Every paper that’s ever been published is wrong. The only things in question are how wrong and how long it takes for the errors to be detected.

2. When ideology gets mixed in, both the errors and the time to detect them are invariably magnified.

Best wishes.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:50:05 +0000

One point which might be made is that there’s a major advantage to using raw data and paired urban/rural stations. Much of the problem with the adjustments is that they’re not generally detailed or justified. But if you take raw data and pair it, it’s unlikely that even if there is legitimate correction like TOBS, the difference between the paired stations would not cancel this out. (sure an individual pair might have the urban station change first, but eventually the rural station would change too. So at worst you’d have a concave or convex portion but the overall results wouldn’t be affected. Seeing as large a difference between urban and rural stations as is shown here, even though the rural stations would probably have had some urbanization, means we’re looking at the minimum UHI, not the maximum.

If I were a warmer, I’d probably try claiming cherry picking of the pairs. But I say fine, find all the pairs you can and lets look at what the raw data says. IMO this is a much more honest way of looking at/for UHI than looking at satellite night photos or low speed winds.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:30:08 +0000

@Chris Hull – thanks. I was rather proud of its power and brevity, only matched by its brazen inanity.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:28:42 +0000

I apologize for not using the Sarcasm tag in my previous post.

I was in no way being serious, and am a little disappointed that no AGW supporters picked up the bait.

By: orthodoc

orthodoc — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:32:47 +0000

This is terrific work. Peter and his dad should be proud.

Richard, there is a very small trend upward (check the regression line’s slope on the slides) but this would not be surprising, since the earth did warm slightly over the time frame, and the r-squared values reflect that.

By: orthodoc

orthodoc — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:32:47 +0000

This is terrific work. Peter and his dad should be proud.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:34:14 +0000

_global_ warming IS real and settled science … but only available in _few_ places

By: MikeC

MikeC — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:53:53 +0000

Hi Peters dad, Its great to see ya getting your kid into something educational. The data you used, “after combining at the same location” is still unadjusted data. All they have done here is combine data from different sources, whether its a station that has moved several miles over the years or using data from different stations in the same immediate area (i believe the rule is 5 miles).
You want to use the data that is after homoginization. This is the final data after Hansen applies his night lights (urbanization) adjustment. You will notice that the numbers tighten up a bit. If you go further into the science you will notice that the whole area of climate monitoring is poorly researched and that many of the adjustments that need to be made are not. Additionally, the statistical methods they use to adjust temperatures, particularly those based on the data from surrounding stations, is not sensative enough.

By: Sedona Mike

Sedona Mike — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:57:52 +0000

Where do you start. Raw data is raw data. Massaging it to get a result that you like is hardly scientific. There has to be a little logic here, like use the brain god gave you when looking at all of this. I live in Sedona, AZ, and spend time in the Phoenix area. When it gets to 115 in the day, and does not get below 90 at night, but in the desert, just out of town, where it is 10 degrees or more cooler, you have to wonder why. For the same reason that computer processors have massive heat sinks on them with fans, that is where the heat is stored. Phoenix and all cities to various degrees are heat sinks. The buildings, concrete, asphalt and lack of ways to dissipate the heat of the SUN create temperatures that are higher. Any anyone who thinks that cities are the cause of global warming (the earth has not warmed in 10 years but has gotten cooler) needs to get in an airplane and look down. You can by the way, as I did the time to do the calculation, put the entire planet’s population, assuming a family of 5, in 950 square foot houses, and still have room for shops, roads and schools etc., in the state of TEXAS, and use the rest of the earth to grow food and provide natural resources. For 200 years the Vikings raised crops in Greenland, the glaciers that are receding in Europe are uncovering past civilizations. The ice on the polar caps is not melting, and you to can monitor it! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html Core drilling in the Amazon, where areas have been untouched for millions of years have shown that the earth goes through 36,000 year cycles, where the oceans rise and fall 360 feet. So 18,000 years, up 180’, 18,000 years, down 1`80 feet. And we think WE can do something about that? We are in the upswing now. So if you have property that is less than 180 above sea level, better put up a dike because 18,000 years from now you will be under water. In all these alarmists predictions, why is the sun ignored? It is the source of ALL our energy. Does anyone find that strange? Are all these people wrong? http://www.petitionproject.org/ . OK, I could go on, and discuss the political and financial interests that are pushing this, but there is not enough space here. You must LOOK at WHO is funding the alarmists. Will they have a job if they have findings AGAINST global warming? Have you looked at scientists who have LOST their funding and are now stating that they “created” findings in order to keep their funding coming in? It is very unfortunate that science can now be bought. More CO2 means more fuels for plants. If the planet gets a little warmer, is that a bad thing? Every time you exhale you create CO2, and it is a poison gas? Without CO2, the planet is dead. And water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so do we ban clouds also? The earth is 4 BILLION years old, and we think we have the ability to affect it? Who do we think we are? With 100 or so years of data? As compared to 4 Billion? Where is THAT logic coming from? One volcano eruption puts as much CO2 in the air that human activity does in a YEAR. We are a part of the planet. DO we want clean air, clean water, and a cleaner environment? Sure, no one argues with that. But attacking a building block of the planet? I’m sorry Al Gore, but hopefully you cannot make another $100 million on our backs by destroying our economy. His latest book cover, 4 hurricanes in parts of the world where they are impossible, Florida all but gone, and Cuba gone (which would take a sea level rise of 6,578 feet). Denver – kiss your butt goodbye. Do research yourself, but LOOK AT THE MONEY TRAIL AND THE POLITICS.