Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[CAP1]

current weather at atlantic city airport.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KACY.html

wildwood automated.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWWD.html

mcguire afb......
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWRI.html

south jersey regional.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KVAY.html

these are all within 55 miles of each other, yet are(in my opinion) significantly varied for such a small area.

[E25280]

What's your evidence for this claim?  It's rather provocative.  You're not merely accusing them of incompetence, so I think you owe us more than the bald claim by itself.

Accusing these jokers of more than incompetence is what started the thread in the first place, remember?  How many links throughout this thread have hashed out the fact they are cherry picking data?  How many times do people have to remind everyone of the "hide the decline" comments and the non-existant hockey stick that was attempted to be passed off as legitamate?

Geesh, short attention spans around here.

I don't have a billion hours to go through a million stories, so here was one little site that looked like they were doing their best at compiling the various data out there.  I have no idea if they are legit, but then, I have no reason to believe any IPCC or CRU site is legit either, so I'll go with it anyway.

Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations. For a map of the locations of the weather stations, see here. Below is a graph showing the total number of weather stations available in each year, plotted alongside the CRU trend.

The CRU measurement of global temperature starts with around 250 stations in 1880. The number of stations rises to a peak of 1700 stations in 1950. The period between 1970 and 2000 sees the number of stations dropping from 1600 to 400. During that same period, the CRU global temperature estimate rises by 0.6°C.

Figure: Locations of All Stations in GCHN Database, as used by CRU and NCDC. The stations are color-coded to indicate the first year in which they provided twelve months of data. Red stations are the oldest and blue stations are the newest. There are 7280 distinct station locations in all. We obtained this figure using a TclTk script Stations.tcl, which operates upon Stations.txt, GYA.txt, and World_Map.gif, all of which you will find in our Climate.zip archive.

But if you look at the figure above, you will see that the distribution of thermometers in the data used by CRU and NCDC is not random. They are clustered together, and these clusters change as time goes by. In 1850, there were far more weather stations in the northern hemisphere than the southern, and we can imagine that there were far more in Europe than there were in Africa.

oops, forgot linky

http://hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/

[E25280]

What's your evidence for this claim?  It's rather provocative.  You're not merely accusing them of incompetence, so I think you owe us more than the bald claim by itself.

Here's another one if you don't like the last one.

Really, this stuff is all over the place.

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/4521.html

For the purposes of this article we looked closely at what has been happening to ground weather stations across the United States record first. What we have found is nothing short of scandalous. From a peak of 1,850 thermometer stations in 1968, there now exists a paltry 136 surviving American stations as of December 2009.

What we have also observed is that there is pattern in what kinds of weather stations are closing and it appears most are in rural areas unaffacted by what scientists call the ‘urban heat island’ effect. In other words, the missing stations tended to be giving ‘colder’ temperature readings. Our findings are very much in accord with those of the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) that recently reviewed IPCC scientists’ reports. The Russian analysis revealed that UN-funded climatologists had been dumping data for an area larger than 40 per cent of Russia. They also noted that almost all were in ‘cooler’ rural areas. IPCC climate reports had proclaimed that the largest rise in global ground temperatures has been occurring in Russia. But according to the numbers now revised by IEA, that is a proven lie. Russia was especially significant for climatoligists as it’s the world’s largest country and accounts for 12.5 per cent of total landmass.

[Anaxogoras]

Let's be clear about whether we're talking about the CRU or NASA's GISS, as batch was referring to the latter, not the former.

I'll give those links and graphs a look.

[MORAY37]

moray, sorry but where did you learn data analysis? Because you put on some wierd arguments.

Stats 101: the more data you sample the less influence errors have.

Vulcan, since the stations aren't standardized with the same exact equipment, with the same maintenance and "zeroing procedure" , you introduce variance into your experiment with the increase in total stations.

[batch]

if you had read my post which outlined stations in use a few days ago you would already have your answer....... but I can tell you again.....

all you need do is pick a state ANY state and I can show you exactly which stations were used in the 2009 GISS report.......

its not that hard since they only used 136 for the entire continent...... but since you enjoyed the banana comparison so much I can give you a couple that Ive already posted.......

MO: over 600 available stations........ 3 yes 3 were used....... St Louis which has their station on the tarmac at the airport (I wonder if its hotter there?).... Springfield (in the heart of a metro area) and Columbia (another metro area)...... these 3 sites are among the warmest in the state........ not 1 single site used north of I-70 (which cuts through the center of MO)

CA:  with over 1000 available stations.... 4 yes 4 were used......San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles, and San Diego........ while I would suggest that you certainly couldnt confuse these 4 places as being urban (doh)........ I would ask how come all 4 sites used are on the beach which doesnt suffer the lower temperatures that inland locations might suffer....... due to ocean proximity (theyre on the coast) they are always warmer than the inland portions of the state........ not a single station used in northern or inland CA....I guess the temperatures in San Francisco average out the same as in the Sierra Nevadas?

HA: not sure on the number of available stations..... 3 were used...... the same number used in MO and more than used in alot of other states......... all 3 btw are located at airports....... airports are NEVER cooler than the areas around them

so as I said just pick a state and its easy to show you that GISS has only chosen to use sites that are ALWAYS warmer than the rest of the state........

as far as trends vs actual specific temperatures go........ they dont average in 'trends'......... they take the temperature for these sites and use that as the representative temperature for that area.........I would suspect (this is entirely my opinion) that in areas where the 1200Km radius lines overlap...... they simply use the higher temperature from the 2 stations as representative for the overlap area

[kilo2]

See Rules #2, #4

[MORAY37]

current weather at atlantic city airport.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KACY.html

wildwood automated.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWWD.html

mcguire afb......
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWRI.html

south jersey regional.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KVAY.html

these are all within 55 miles of each other, yet are(in my opinion) significantly varied for such a small area.

And yet, when I looked....

Temp:     34°F  AC
Temp:     34°F  Wildwood
Temp:     33°F  McGuire
Temp:     33°F  Mount Holly    

Big difference.( And Mount Holly actually is 33.72 degrees when I looked into NWS station data.)

[CAP1]

And yet, when I looked....

Temp:     34°F  AC
Temp:     34°F  Wildwood
Temp:     33°F  McGuire
Temp:     33°F  Mount Holly    

Big difference.

at the time i linked them, it was 34, 31, 33, and 36.

humidity was pretty far seperated too, as well as dew point, and baro was almost .9 difference between the highest and lowest


EDIT

which brings another factor into the testing....time of day.

[MORAY37]

This is just going round and around.  It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on.  I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.

There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.

 It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it.  I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....


 Enjoy the remainder of the thread.  I'm out.  When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing.  I'll just end up PNG'd.


I'm out.

[CAP1]

This is just going round and around.  It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on.  I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.

There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.

 It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it.  I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....


 Enjoy the remainder of the thread.  I'm out.  When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing.  I'll just end up PNG'd.

(Image removed from quote.)
I'm out.

just a quick fyi.....fox news has told me nothing. nor any other news source, as i avoid them,.....they all sell doom n gloom, thus are not worht wtching.

[RTHolmes]

I'm out.

Well I'd like to thank you Moray for your contributions to the topic, I think you've shown remarkable patience in taking on the mob and I for one have learnt a great deal more about the subject from your posts. Ive also learnt a bunch of new stuff about statistical analysis (and refreshed alot I'd forgotten.)

[cpxxx]

Enjoy the remainder of the thread.  I'm out.

I'm not surprised. This is not a scientific forum. This is the website of a company that features cartoon airplanes fighting an online virtual game. You must tailor your comments to the population of the forum. You failed to do so. As for you snide comments about Fox News. I don't get Fox News in fact the media of Ireland and UK from which I get much of my news is almost universally pro AGW and readily trot out every scare story they are fed.

Maybe America is different but AGW is the orthodox view almost everywhere else. Skeptics barely get a look in and are often derided as cranks and stooges of big oil.

But cracks are appearing have a look at this article from the Guardian. Yes I know it's anothe link to a news article not a scientific paper. It's worth pointing out that the Guardian is a fluffy left wing paper that is effectively the cheerleader of AGW in the UK. Even the author is a committed to AGW. But this article goes to the heart of the scientific process to which you are obviously devoted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

[Anaxogoras]

Hi cpxx,

I read the Guardian article, and what it says about the human foibles of scientific review is worth taking seriously.  However, I have to point out again that the problems it describes are not new.  Ever since science became a profession and Newton tried to erase Hooke (maybe even before that), some scientists have been eager to destroy their colleagues for their own personal glory.  This is important because we have to reconcile the success of science with the fact that it has rarely been so pure as the public believes it ought to be.  Like you say, this is a forum for a cartoon airplane game, but that doesn't mean the players here are not capable of learning some history of science or understanding charts and graphs.  On the contrary, there are some very bright individuals here whose love of aviation has pushed them to understand the physics of powered flight.  At the very least, it's within the ability of everyone who has a passion for this stuff to also be able to understand the current debate, and to have a little historical background on scientists and the nasty things they've done to each other over the centuries.

[CAP1]

Hi cpxx,

I read the Guardian article, and what it says about the human foibles of scientific review is worth taking seriously.  However, I have to point out again that the problems it describes are not new.  Ever since science became a profession and Newton tried to erase Hooke (maybe even before that), some scientists have been eager to destroy their colleagues for their own personal glory.  This is important because we have to reconcile the success of science with the fact that it has rarely been so pure as the public believes it ought to be.  Like you say, this is a forum for a cartoon airplane game, but that doesn't mean the players here are not capable of learning some history of science or understanding charts and graphs.  On the contrary, there are some very bright individuals here whose love of aviation has pushed them to understand the physics of powered flight.  At the very least, it's within the ability of everyone who has a passion for this stuff to also be able to understand the current debate, and to have a little historical background on scientists and the nasty things they've done to each other over the centuries.

what you say about scientists, is very true. it is also true of pretty much any profession though. it seems to be human nature to try to "destroy"? the other guy, to try to make ones self look good.


 also, moray was/is correct in part, on one of his last statements.

 my mind is made up. but i think he was/is slightly off kilter, as although my mind is made up, this does not mean that it cannot be changed. all that is needed, is rock solid proof......