Re: [asa] Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' per Newsweek Editor

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 15 2007 - 12:08:04 EDT

The issue of urban heat islands (UHI) seems to still be a myth amongst
global warming deniers.

 A good starting point is "EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE
CAUSED BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS" BY THOMAS C. PETERSON
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY AUGUST 2006 p 1073

The USHCN network collects the raw data which is then corrected for
various biases. This quality control process explains why data at the
GISTEMP site changes over time..

<quote>Because weather data have a myriad of different uses, the
results of an analysis related to one particular use cannot justify
station siting practices that do not meet national and international
standards. Data that do not meet quality standards necessary for
particular analyses have caused numerous scientists at the National
Climatic Data Center and elsewhere around the world to spend years,
and indeed decades, developing techniques to improve the fidelity of
in situ data for their particular applications. This analysis takes
the opportunity afforded by the work of Davey and Pielke to evaluate
not only the effects of poor station siting, but also the homogeneity
adjustment techniques painstakingly developed over many years at the
National Climatic Data Center. The results indicate that the work was
not done in vain: the homogeneity adjustments did an excellent job of
accounting for time-dependent biases at the stations examined and the
homogeneity-adjusted data do not indicate any time-dependent bias
caused by current poor station siting.
</quote>

Then there is the paper

"Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the
Contiguous United States: No Difference Found" by THOMAS C. PETERSON
published in vol 16(18) sept 15 2003 of the Journal of Climate which
found that

<quote>
All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ
temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the
data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult
and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by
differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation,
instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were
applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly
homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously
evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to
date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban
and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared
using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom,
no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in
annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and
local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island.
Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than
rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to
be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.
</quote>

As far as the IPCC is concerned, they indeed consider the UHI issue of
minor concern, not because they say so but because this is what the
data are showing:

See http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221

<quote>
Note that changes in borehole temperatures (Section 2.3.2), the
recession of the glaciers (Section 2.2.5.4), and changes in marine
temperature (Section 2.2.2.2), which are not subject to urbanisation,
agree well with the instrumental estimates of surface warming over the
last century. </quote>

Cool stuff, pardon the pun

Sad that global warming deniers also seem to fail to do their homework
when it comes to other issues such as DDT or environment.

Poor St Augustine

On 8/13/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just showed how these 'findings' are highly contrived especially since
> these data points are corrected for.
>
> Sigh... So much flawed understanding and little effort to learn.
>
> On 8/13/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > At 01:15 PM 8/13/2007, PvM wrote:
> >
> >
> > Faulty sources? ....Finding fault with some of these data sources ignores
> > the process that is used to correct these data for biases and trends not
> > related to climate.
> >
> > @ Ahhhhhhh - exactly what IS that "process" they use to "correct the data
> > they ignore" and the faulty data they choose to include? Do they do it
> > monthly when the AlGoreRhythms are made available to them? Hahahahahaha ~
> > Janice
> >
> > Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations
> > on land..... [snip] Pictured here:
> > http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
> > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
> >
> > More inconvenient truths:
> >
> > "...but I just learned the other day that the Urban Heat Island Effect
> > (which I had always naively assumed was taken into account) is not even
> > factored into any of these data sets. I was blown away by that. The IPCC
> > considers it to be a non-factor. ..." 16 posted on 08/13/2007
> >
> > ...recent findings that 1934 is the hottest year in the last 107 years...
> >
> > And think how much more thermal mass we had sitting around in 1998 vs 1934
> > in the form of highways, parking lots, bldgs... When I lived in the SW, I
> > learned that a good rule of thumb in gauging summer temps is that it was
> > approx. 5 degrees hotter in town than it was out in the country because of
> > all the accumulated heat from structures, pavement, etc. Plus the heat from
> > a lot more internal combustion engines.
> >
> > And, then there are all the a/c condensing units displacing indoor heat to
> > the exterior. When you're dealing in the minutia of tenths & hundredths of a
> > degree, this stuff adds up & makes a difference. And, still, 1934 was
> > hotter. A LOT hotter, I suspect. 15 posted on 08/13/2007
> >
> > In California, the warming rate is much increased by UHIs and land use
> > measurements. In fact, it may be doubled according to a study by Patzert and
> > LaDochy.
> >
> > "The scientists found great variations in temperature patterns throughout
> > the state. Average temperatures increased significantly in nearly 54 percent
> > of the stations studied, with human-produced changes in land use seen as the
> > most likely cause. The largest temperature increases were seen in the
> > state's urban areas, led by Southern California and the San Francisco Bay
> > area, particularly for minimum temperatures. Minimum temperatures at some
> > agricultural sites showed increases comparable to some urban areas. Rural,
> > non-agricultural regions warmed the least. The Central Valley warmed
> > slowest, while coastal areas warmed faster, and the southeast desert warmed
> > fastest.
> >
> > The only area to cool was a narrow band of the state's mainly rural
> > northeast interior. While few stations overall showed decreases in average
> > and minimum temperatures, 13 percent of the stations for which sufficient
> > maximum temperature data were available showed a significant drop in average
> > maximum temperatures, including some urban sites."
> >
> > From
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070330221144.htm
> >
> > Until GISS corrects for these non-climatic effects in California and other
> > states, the temperature increase in the US will continue to be
> > overestimated.
> >
> > Posted by: Douglas Hoyt | August 9, 2007 01:27 PM
> >
> > Here is my real world example of the Global Warming effects on Policy. The
> > State of California just passed legislation based on the Global Warming
> > hysteria that has forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of
> > kwh in "usage tiers". Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts
> > in the state legislature determined would reduce Global Warming, results in
> > a penalty rate being charged to the customer.
> >
> > My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I
> > consumed electricity into the penalty range of the "usage tier" they call
> > "energy hogs".
> > My electric bill went from $200 to $600 even though most days were in
> > excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F. I live near Palm
> > Springs, Kalifornia.
> > I want a refund! This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are
> > using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the
> > planet with fraudulent research by NASA and others.
> >
> > My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase
> > because of bogus science. This is a real world example of consensus science
> > run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the
> > other businesses in this state. This is Pure insanity. How do I as a
> > homeowner pass the cost along? We all are going to the City Council Meeting
> > next Tuesday and are going to protest the new electric rates. I am going to
> > bring in the new data from NASA to debunk their arguments about Global
> > Warming.
> >
> > You all should be outraged that public policy is based on junk science. You
> > are going to be paying too. Like they say, California is usually the leader
> > in liberal policies. If California passes something, so goes the nation.
> >
> > Posted by: ScottyDog | August 11, 2007 12:46 PM
> >
> > MORE:
> > http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 15 12:08:44 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 15 2007 - 12:08:45 EDT