NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 87 of 117 < 1 2 ... 85 86 87 88 89 ... 116 117 >
Topic Options
#1115294 - 17/07/2012 21:13 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Anthony Violi]
GrizzlyBear Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2011
Posts: 2359
Loc: Yetholme [1180m] Central Table...
Anthony, the 1930's was a period of unusually strong westerly winds around the world a little bit like 1980-81 in Australia. This period was characterized by quite hot summers but also much colder winters than today. Its that strong westerly flow that brought the mid west USA drought as winds blew down from the Rockies. A strong westerly flow also has the effect of giving generally warmer weather a lot of the time at the surface in many population centers because there is less cold brought about by stagnant highs. Polar vortex was much stronger in both the NH and SH.

Top
#1115299 - 17/07/2012 21:56 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GrizzlyBear]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
A new post just up on WUWT is commentary on a new paper that deals with the very items that have been debated in a number of the very recent posts on this thread, the alteration and corruption of the past temperature records to achieve supposedly supporting data and science for the agenda claims of a rapidly warming world due to increasing CO2.

The WUWT post; New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization

WUWT quote;
Quote:
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].


Anthony Watts also provides an explanation of "homogenization" as it relates to weather data and from there to climate research.

The abstract ; Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization

The Conclusions;
Quote:
1. Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time
series.

2. Homogenization practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well
justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be
argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic
time series are regarded errors and are adjusted.

3. While homogenization is expected to increase or decrease the existing
multiyear trends in equal proportions, the fact is that in 2/3 of the cases the
trends increased after homogenization.

4. The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures
and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the
last century is smaller than 0.7-0.8°C.

5. A new approach of the homogenization procedure is needed, based on
experiments, metadata and better comprehension of the stochastic
characteristics of hydroclimatic time series.


The pdf of the presentation of the paper to the European Geosciences Union meeting.

Edit; Go to "presentation" at the bottom of this abstract."


Edited by ROM (17/07/2012 21:59)

Top
#1115324 - 18/07/2012 06:08 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


That study above only analyzed 181 stations globally whereas The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study analyzed 39,000 stations globally.

http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

There is no way that a study of only 181 stations can conclude anything of any worth. And the paper has not been peer reviewed either!
_________________________

Top
#1115352 - 18/07/2012 09:32 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Berkeley used the same type of homogenization process that the NCDC uses.

This is supposed to "average out" all the errors/station move problems (as opposed to sticking with the high quality stations only which should be the purpose instead of averaging in the ones with errors and UHI etc) but it is even worse than that. They have gone from averaging out to picking two-thirds of their trend from the poor sites and sites with UHI issues.

So instead of reducing the error in the temperature trend, they are actually making it worse and adding in even more error (positive error of course). They know what they are doing.



Edited by Bill Illis (18/07/2012 09:36)

Top
#1115354 - 18/07/2012 09:41 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: CeeBee


That study above only analyzed 181 stations globally whereas The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study analyzed 39,000 stations globally.

http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

There is no way that a study of only 181 stations can conclude anything of any worth. And the paper has not been peer reviewed either!


Didn't Gavin Schmidt say that he could accurately determine the global temp with only 50?

And besides, as people dig through BEST, then just like with ACORN, data issues are emerging:
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/auditing-the-latest-best-and-ec-data-for-malahat/
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115364 - 18/07/2012 10:10 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

I’ve been waiting for a good opportunity to show this chart.

It is the temperature trend for the US from UAH lower troposphere and from USHCN V2 since 1979.

First thing to note is that they are extremely similar. I don’t know if we would have expected this but it almost looks like the UAH satellite record appears to be accurate enough even on the small scale of the US.

But most importantly, the USHCN V2 trend is 27.0% higher than UAH. It is really supposed to be the other way around according to the theory.

The lower troposphere is supposed to be warming at a faster rate than the surface, particularly in the Tropics where it is supposed be 27.3% higher according to the climate models, but also extending to mid-latitudes like the US.

So, there is something like a 27% to a 50% error in USHCN V2 since 1979 according to the UAH lower troposphere measurements.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4647/usuahvsushcnv2june2012.png



Top
#1115387 - 18/07/2012 13:20 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: ROM
the alteration and corruption of the past temperature records to achieve supposedly supporting data and science for the agenda claims of a rapidly warming world due to increasing CO2.

I would like to present a scenario:

“There is no impartial evidence available in mainstream science about the causes of and trends in temperature records (on any temporal or spatial scale), which presents the facts as they actually are, not according to some preconceived agenda.”

I would now like to see someone present evidence to counter that supposition!


Edited by -Cosmic- (naz) (18/07/2012 13:23)

Top
#1115398 - 18/07/2012 15:31 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Seina]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)

“There is no impartial evidence available in mainstream science about the causes of and trends in temperature records (on any temporal or spatial scale), which presents the facts as they actually are, not according to some preconceived agenda.”

I would now like to see someone present evidence to counter that supposition!

People accept the UAH dataset because it is maintained by one of the world's pre-eminent skeptics.

Funny how that doesn't apply to the BEST data anymore though.

Top
#1115399 - 18/07/2012 15:33 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Berkeley used the same type of homogenization process that the NCDC uses.

And why do you think that is?
Originally Posted By: Arnost

Didn't Gavin Schmidt say that he could accurately determine the global temp with only 50?

He's right, assuming the 50 stations are spatially distributed well enough to be able to provide a reasonable approximation of a continuous variable smoothly integrated over the globe.

Top
#1115449 - 18/07/2012 20:11 Re: Temperature trends [Re: __PG__]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: __PG__

Originally Posted By: Arnost

Didn't Gavin Schmidt say that he could accurately determine the global temp with only 50?

He's right, assuming the 50 stations are spatially distributed well enough to be able to provide a reasonable approximation of a continuous variable smoothly integrated over the globe.


So just to get what you are saying: " There is no way that a study [by a non-climatezientzt] of only 181 stations can conclude anything of any worth." BUT a study by a climatezienizt can use only 50 stations (continuously integrated in a smooth but variable fashion no less!) to get a [reasonably] accurate global temp...

Is that right?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115452 - 18/07/2012 20:45 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Seina]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)

I would like to present a scenario:

“There is no impartial evidence available in mainstream science about the causes of and trends in temperature records (on any temporal or spatial scale), which presents the facts as they actually are, not according to some preconceived agenda.”

I would now like to see someone present evidence to counter that supposition!


If I think where this is meant to lead, i.e. The Post Modernist view of science a la Feyerabend / Lakatos.... You could have started this with a less convoluted statement.

For in Post Modern science, by definition there is no such thing as impartial evidence and everything needs to be considered as fitting one agenda or another... Yes?

So any evidence to counter the original supposition must definitionally be equally biased.

And you in a nutshell have what climatezience has deteriorated to. Some scientists influenced by Post Modern "intelectuals" driving their own agenda such that the science becomes subservient to the greater needs of society (as they define it), versus classical scientists who whilst acknowledging that bias is an issue, strive to remove it as much as possible through application of a strict method.

And this is why there is such an impasse where the two sides just can not communicate. One side tries to engage the other through agenda setting exercises designed to influence the other to "right thinking" - and cannot accept that it fails and so sees conspiracies like big oil etc throwing up counter agendas... Whilst the other side purposefully tries to focus on replicability, transparency and scientific method [and of course sneers at the post modernists as that is considered anathema to real science].

We can explore deeper if you wish?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115499 - 19/07/2012 09:48 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Originally Posted By: Arnost

So just to get what you are saying: " There is no way that a study [by a non-climatezientzt] of only 181 stations can conclude anything of any worth." BUT a study by a climatezienizt can use only 50 stations (continuously integrated in a smooth but variable fashion no less!) to get a [reasonably] accurate global temp...
Is that right?

Have these 181 stations been correctly analysed usng geospatial science and mathematics? Are they uniformly spatially distributed?

I bet I can answer that question myself.

Top
#1115501 - 19/07/2012 09:58 Re: Temperature trends [Re: __PG__]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Geospacial science! AND Mathematics... Wow!

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.


Edited by Arnost (19/07/2012 10:00)
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115534 - 19/07/2012 13:13 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7770
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: Arnost
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)

I would like to present a scenario:

“There is no impartial evidence available in mainstream science about the causes of and trends in temperature records (on any temporal or spatial scale), which presents the facts as they actually are, not according to some preconceived agenda.”

I would now like to see someone present evidence to counter that supposition!


If I think where this is meant to lead, i.e. The Post Modernist view of science a la Feyerabend / Lakatos.... You could have started this with a less convoluted statement.

For in Post Modern science, by definition there is no such thing as impartial evidence and everything needs to be considered as fitting one agenda or another... Yes?

So any evidence to counter the original supposition must definitionally be equally biased.

And you in a nutshell have what climatezience has deteriorated to. Some scientists influenced by Post Modern "intelectuals" driving their own agenda such that the science becomes subservient to the greater needs of society (as they define it), versus classical scientists who whilst acknowledging that bias is an issue, strive to remove it as much as possible through application of a strict method.

And this is why there is such an impasse where the two sides just can not communicate. One side tries to engage the other through agenda setting exercises designed to influence the other to "right thinking" - and cannot accept that it fails and so sees conspiracies like big oil etc throwing up counter agendas... Whilst the other side purposefully tries to focus on replicability, transparency and scientific method [and of course sneers at the post modernists as that is considered anathema to real science].

We can explore deeper if you wish?

The main reason I put “mainstream” in the quote was because I was trying to convey the message that I like to look at these things in a positive (non-agenda-driven) manner, but I could have easily put “fringe science” instead. To me the label doesn’t matter, but the idea of presenting a negation requiring a counter argument from the “other side” of this “polarised debate” idea does, because to me it illustrates the point (or lack thereof) of arguing from a preconceived point of view, even when looking at new evidence. Clear and critical thinking is often required, but that’s half the issue. That’s why I continually emphasise why blurring the distinctions between actual scientific analysis (via the empirical method) and any other discipline not using that process is not a good idea. I acknowledge there may be some overlaps; but there is also such a thing as being reasonable, which more often than not comes back to critical thinking.

Top
#1115540 - 19/07/2012 14:04 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Seina]
_Johnno_ Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/11/2009
Posts: 1745
_________________________
Come and check out my weather page on facebook https://www.facebook.com/JohnsWeatherChannelJwc?ref=hl

Top
#1115552 - 19/07/2012 15:12 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Seina]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)

I would like to present a scenario:

“There is no impartial evidence available in mainstream science about the causes of and trends in temperature records (on any temporal or spatial scale), which presents the facts as they actually are, not according to some preconceived agenda.”

I would now like to see someone present evidence to counter that supposition!


The main reason I put “mainstream” in the quote was because I was trying to convey the message that I like to look at these things in a positive (non-agenda-driven) manner, but I could have easily put “fringe science” instead. To me the label doesn’t matter, but the idea of presenting a negation requiring a counter argument from the “other side” of this “polarised debate” idea does, because to me it illustrates the point (or lack thereof) of arguing from a preconceived point of view, even when looking at new evidence. Clear and critical thinking is often required, but that’s half the issue. That’s why I continually emphasise why blurring the distinctions between actual scientific analysis (via the empirical method) and any other discipline not using that process is not a good idea. I acknowledge there may be some overlaps; but there is also such a thing as being reasonable, which more often than not comes back to critical thinking.


Whilst I deride the Post Modernist influenced science so prevalent today, I will happily acknowledge that personal bias will inevitably play a role in science.

But that is what the scientific method is designed to overcome. When you do science, [not blogs] the outcome is such that it does not matter whether or not you believe in Martians, you are a Martian, are funded by Martians, or whether you need to have interracial relationships with Martians. The science stands on its own.

It is only once that agenda driven politics come to abuse “science” and when scientists are not strong enough to stand against that, that we get to a point where it’s justifiable to doubt “science”.. The consequence is that personal bias is acknowledged to pervade science [Post Modernism] and from there it HAS to matter it a paper is funded by big oil, or the lead author is religious…

Science is turned on its head.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1115557 - 19/07/2012 15:31 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Einstein was a fervent christian religious person, as are and were many other prominent scientist! So I don't get your last point there Arnost!?
If that is the case you had better not listen to many of the posters that post on here I would strongly suggest...so that last point is not valid at all!

By the way I have been off air for some time due to a computer glitch in the WZ forum logging on, but it has been fixed now at last.
So I might say an odd word now and then.

I do not get this warming USA= global warming indiced thing, as local area effects are ocean temp anomoly induced as per current USA surrounding ocean
temps, and global temps have not risen...basic common sense tells one that the USA current warmer than normal temps and drought are little if anything at all to do with global warming! It has all happened before in the USA is 1930s and 1950s for example

cheers


Edited by bd bucketingdown (19/07/2012 15:31)

Top
#1115560 - 19/07/2012 15:46 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Even before the '30's bd

Quote:
From the latest files of the "San Francisco Call" we learn the following news of the great heat experienced in Chicago and other places on 8th August last. In Chicago the heat was intense and almost unbearable.

In Kansas City 102 degs. were registered, the highest point reached for upwards of eight years.

At Alton the mercury ranged from 105 to 112 degs. in the shade.


The North Queensland Register - 30th Sept 1896
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1115574 - 19/07/2012 16:47 Re: Temperature trends [Re: snafu]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Apparently during the current US heat wave Death Valley recorded a 53 C maximum and 41 C minimum which may be a new 24 hour temperature record for anywhere on the globe.

Top
#1115575 - 19/07/2012 16:51 Re: Temperature trends [Re: __PG__]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Australian temp records.

Highest recordered:- 50.7C, 2nd Jan 1960 - Oodnadatta, SA (see note 1 below)

Note 1) *A temp of 53.1C was recorded at Cloncurry, QLD on the 16th Jan 1889 but this is not considered as official; the figure quoted from Birdsville/Oodnadatta is the next highest, so that record is considered as being official*
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
Page 87 of 117 < 1 2 ... 85 86 87 88 89 ... 116 117 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 43 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
caffeinated, Chaser_James, coffeeman, rhyso, Shear-iously
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image