Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

minitax wrote;

Quote:

I've done this hard work, have you ?

I confess that I have not done the hard work. But, of course, this is a function of social class.

You'll find nowhere temperature records of stations used by the CRU (just a list of stations released only last september after more than 15 years of request and several FOI filings). I've done this hard work, have you ?

blatham wrote:

minitax wrote;

Quote:

I've done this hard work, have you ?

I confess that I have not done the hard work. But, of course, this is a function of social class.

Indeed, there are talkers everywhere, even among Canadian police montée

That is an interesting claim. What does "interrupted" mean in your part of the world. Here is a data set that includes EVERY DAY at Mont Aigoual from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2005. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/teca302.dat I am sure I could find up to the date records if I bothered to look.

Quote:

For the whole Africa, there is no rural site with consistent record longer than 50 years in the GISS database! NOT A SINGLE.

Record longevity does not mean every section of the earth has 150 years of records. The weather site in Los Alamos National Forest, one of 4 that are in the national park, does not have longevity compared to other sites in that area.

hmm.. since you claimed you have never seen the raw data how can you now claim that the adjustments don't work? Global surface temperatures use a formula. Adjustments for local temperatures use a formula. You are claiming the differences in the global formulas show the local adjustment formula doesn't work. That is foolish and even you should be able to see how foolish it is.

The same can be found for just about every CRU weather station around the world. Yeah.. you did the "HARD" work minitax.

This takes a long time to load but it lists all the series of data sets available for Europe and the funny thing is, it INCLUDES Mont Aigoual.
http://eca.knmi.nl/dailydata/datadictionaryall.php

miniTAX wrote:

You'll find nowhere temperature records of stations used by the CRU (just a list of stations released only last september after more than 15 years of request and several FOI filings). I've done this hard work, have you ?

Well, some are printed (e.g. in Jones and Moberg [2003]).
And for more questions: just asked them

CRU has been collecting the same data (as NCDC and also GISS in the USA)
over the last 25 years. We get access to real time data (monthly averages which
come over a WMO system called GTS - the CLIMAT messages). We have an
agreement with the Met Office Hadley Centre. We also have agreements with
a number of other Met Services around the world (and also some individual
scientists) not to pass on the data to third parties, but we are able to make
the gridded products available - the HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 datasets. It is the
gridded products that other scientists want.

We have spent a lot of time over the last 25 years assessing the quality of all
the data - improving some regions/countries when we gain access to improvements.
Although we've made lots of adjustments (which are documented back in the mid-1980s),
it became clear to us that this type of work is best done in the regions/countries
as it these groups that have the full station histories. Not many countries though have
the resources to do this. We still make checks periodically, but all the merging takes
time and resources. The national datasets generally come with national numbers which
we then have to determine are stations we had (so replace) or are new.

What I would do, in response to the comment, is to suggest that the skeptics
derive their own gridded temperature data. They can use the GISS data, and then
assess which stations they want to use etc. They don't want to do this, as it
is lots of hard work, and it is much easier to criticize. I've suggested this to
some of them in the past and many other people have as well. Whatever
the outcome of such an analysis, it would be far more constructive than
the continued criticism, which most people I know (on this issue and
many others like Hockey Sticks etc) just ignore. In short if they think
we're wrong prove it.

parados wrote:

That is an interesting claim. What does "interrupted" mean in your part of the world. Here is a data set that includes EVERY DAY at Mont Aigoual from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2005. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/teca302.dat I am sure I could find up to the date records if I bothered to look.

The ECA database is not used to "make" global temperature. That's NOT used by the 3 global temperature purveyors. You're response is OT because you don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

parados wrote:

For the whole Africa, there is no rural site with consistent record longer than 50 years in the GISS database! NOT A SINGLE.

Record longevity does not mean every section of the earth has 150 years of records. The weather site in Los Alamos National Forest, one of 4 that are in the national park, does not have longevity compared to other sites in that area.

Talk about Los Alamos National Forest and its 4 weather sites if you want, but what's the link to USHCN and global temperature?

I doubt you have checked the list of stations used to establish climatology global temperature.

parados wrote:

hmm.. since you claimed you have never seen the raw data how can you now claim that the adjustments don't work? Global surface temperatures use a formula. Adjustments for local temperatures use a formula. You are claiming the differences in the global formulas show the local adjustment formula doesn't work. That is foolish and even you should be able to see how foolish it is.

Global temperatures are derived from grids which are derived from stations' raw data.

Grids from the GISS are different grids from the CRU so the obvious conclusion is that adjustement process is made with wild asuptions. Even temperatures for the 250 km grid from GISS is diffrent from that of the 1200 km grid. If you don't know what the discussion is about, ask question but don't project your own ignorance to others.
But well, I presume answering you is just a waste of time.

parados wrote:

The same can be found for just about every CRU weather station around the world. Yeah.. you did the "HARD" work minitax.

This takes a long time to load but it lists all the series of data sets available for Europe and the funny thing is, it INCLUDES Mont Aigoual.
http://eca.knmi.nl/dailydata/datadictionaryall.php

The CRU does NOT publish the data of the stations it uses for its global temperature compilation, neither raw or collated, contrary the GISS or the NOAA. How should I explain it to you man ???

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

parados wrote:

Now that you have the answers to your questions Fox, I assume you will no longer need to ask the questions.

Temperature taking has NEVER been done in "wild shrubbery".

Well good. I'm glad we cleared that up. It was therefore clever of me when I didn't suggest that it was. I did make the point that the temperature in wild shrubbery well away from developed areas would likely be cooler than the temperature in the developed areas. And that was pertinent to the point I was making for those paying attention,.

Would that be just like you never suggested that temperatures were being taken in subdivisions or urban areas?

Quote:

No, I believe I commented on where Weatherunderground weather stations were found. I don't believe I commented on where those used to calculate global warming are located. However the question I raised, and the issue cited by some of the sources I subsequently located and posted, is what, if any, effect changes around instrumentation might affect conclusions drawn from the information gathered from those instruments.

Do you have a problem with the question?

Quote:

Quote:

Temperature taking has always been done where people can acutally go and record the temperature. It has ALWAYS been near buildings if not on buildings.

Quote:

I see. Do you have anything to support that opinion which would of course discredit the article about the weather station at Bandelier NM that I posted?

Considering the type of system that is in Bandelier, I would love to see the readings you think were taken from 1860 to 1980 at that site. The article you posted is bull ****. Please provide us with evidence that this site is used in showing temperature increases from 1860 to today. The historical readings were taken near buildings because PEOPLE had to take those readings. With new technology, they have been able to include more areas but they can only be used as checks on the other stations since they have no long term readings. Read the NOAA site which states the sites used are chosen for RECORD LONGEVITY amongst other reasons.

Quote:

I am sure you are adequately informed on the subject so as to be qualified to declare the articles I posted to be bullshit, even though you provided nothing to support your opinion. I don't have any 'evidence' that the instrument found in Bandelier is used to calculate global warming at all. Do you? I thought the observation to be interesting, however.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The majority of the temperature recording sites are NOT in cities.
Urban recording sites are usually located at airports. Airports have large grassy areas that are NOT paved.

Again, do you have something I could use for reference? (I post at other sites where this is being discussed.) Most airports have also explanded and both ground and air traffic has increased substantially over the last several decades. Do you have any information on whether this would affect the nearby temperatures, say on those large grassy areas?

Gee. So you don't trust NOAA? You prefer to get your information from uninformed bloggers?

Quote:

I do not prefer to get my information from uninformed bloggers. I trust that you are getting your information from reliable scientific sources. Would you please point me to those sources?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Those sites that ARE in urban areas are adjusted based on nearby rural readings.

So again when I read that they only use the actual measurements and do not 'estimate' for the nearby station that is down, they are just talking through their hats? How is it that you have come to know about all this. I'll admit I'm just learning.

You didn't read the NOAA site. did you? I think it is obvious you aren't interested in learning the facts based on your responses so far. If you think they are talking through their hats then kindly point out the errors in the mathematics they use to adjust. Certainly if they were "talking through their hats" someone should have found the errors since 1987, don't you think? Do you prefer science or people talking out of their ass like the sites you cited?

I definitely prefer accurate information as opposed to people talking out of their asses. The NOAA site does not advise where the measuring instruments are placed, how long those instruments have been in place, or what means is used to gather the information from them. So if you could provide another site with this information, please, I would be very grateful.

I am curious how you think they figure global temperature if they don't use the raw data which can be found in the ECA database. Are you claiming they make up the numbers they use in their formulas?

Could you explain to me how that is done? I must be stupid because I think a temperature reading is a temperature reading.

Scientific papers that should be consulted for complete details and referenced if any of the datasets are used

Desperate times, desperate scientists
Fed up with politicians and the media, scientists are pleading to the world to wake up to the imminent threats of global warming.

By Joseph Romm

Dec. 12, 2007 | How dire is the climate situation? Consider what Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations' prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said last month: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." Pachauri has the distinction, or misfortune, of being both an engineer and an economist, two professions not known for overheated rhetoric.

In fact, far from being an alarmist, Pachauri was specifically chosen as IPCC chair in 2002 after the Bush administration waged a successful campaign to have him replace the outspoken Dr. Robert Watson, who was opposed by fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil. So why is a normally low-key scientist getting more desperate in his efforts to spur the planet to action?

Part of the answer is the most recent IPCC assessment report. For the first time in six years, more than 2,000 of the world's top scientists reviewed and synthesized all of the scientific knowledge about global warming. The Fourth Assessment Report makes clear that the accelerating emissions of human-generated heat-trapping gases has brought the planet close to crossing a threshold that will lead to irreversible catastrophe. Yet like Cassandra's warning about the Trojan horse, the IPCC report has fallen on deaf ears, especially those of conservative politicians, even as its findings are the most grave to date.

Here is the list of CRU stations..
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt
used for creating the grids in CRUTEM3 and hadCRUT3
Wow.. all the stations actually keep data for the World Meteorlogical Organization. Everybody wave at miniTax.

In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.

Ignoring that Blatham posted a Salon.org piece after excoriating me for my choice of sources, I did find this little tidbit in Dr. Pachuri's bio:

Quote:

In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.

Now how is it that somebody so intimately associated with the petroleum industry is so extolled as a person of principle and virtue while anybody on the other side, even reputable climatologists/educators who are indirectly associated with the petroleum industry, are to be disqualified as any kind of authority?

Foxfyre wrote:

Ignoring that Blatham posted a Salon.org piece after excoriating me for my choice of sources, I did find this little tidbit in Dr. Pachuri's bio:

Quote:

In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.

Now how is it that somebody so intimately associated with the petroleum industry is so extolled as a person of principle and virtue while anybody on the other side, even reputable climatologists/educators who are indirectly associated with the petroleum industry, are to be disqualified as any kind of authority?

Hey; I haven't read from you in ages; nice to see you back.

Ignoring that Blatham posted a Salon.org piece after excoriating me for my choice of sources, I did find this little tidbit in Dr. Pachuri's bio:

Quote:

In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.

Now how is it that somebody so intimately associated with the petroleum industry is so extolled as a person of principle and virtue while anybody on the other side, even reputable climatologists/educators who are indirectly associated with the petroleum industry, are to be disqualified as any kind of authority?

Scenario two: a scientist who has worked within or received funding from large tobacco corporations speaks and writes UNFAVORABLY about tobacco.

Here is the list of CRU stations..
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt
used for creating the grids in CRUTEM3 and hadCRUT3
Wow.. all the stations actually keep data for the World Meteorlogical Organization. Everybody wave at miniTax.

Wow.. after exploring just a little further I found this..

Quote:

Scientific papers that should be consulted for complete details and referenced if any of the datasets are used

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#sciref

OMG.. and to think the CRU doesn't publish how they figure their grids.
They only reference the papers that DO publish how they figure their grids.

SUPRISE.. those papers are available online AND give the formulas used..
Oh, but its such "HARD WORK" to actually read those papers.

Everyone wave back to miniTax who is frantically waving at us.

Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.