More Global Warming Temp. Data Problems

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007.

Page 1 of 2
  1. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Recently Steve McIntyre uncovered a significant problem with NASA's U.S. surface temperature dataset that ultimately resulted in NASA revising downward their average surface temperature value by 0.15C. While this may sound trivial, it is 1/4 of the amount of the total claimed globally averaged surface temperature increase of 0.6C for the 21st Century. See: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868

    Now, it appears that the 0.6C value may be in jeopardy as well. It falls victim to a problem long recognized by global warming "skeptics" and long dismissed by global warming advocates -- localized urban heat.

    A new article in the Journal of Geophysical Research -- Atmospheres concludes that heat resulting from industrialization is indeed causing a strong upward bias in the surface temperature record. In other words, local heat generated by urban/industrial activity is causing much of the observed temperature increases in the global average, not CO2.

    Article author and IPCC reviewer Ross McKitrick notes that "the spatial pattern of warming trends is so tightly correlated with indicators of economic activity that the probability they are unrelated is less than one in 14 trillion...and that the contamination patterns account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980."

    See link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=145245

    For those who believe the IPCC represents the best in climate science, read the article.
     
    #1 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  2. MegansPrius

    MegansPrius GoogleMeister, AKA bongokitty

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    2,437
    27
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    So, this is a re-iteration of the .15C for US (not world) values, already discussed in prior threads.
    The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006

    And McKitrick's biases are best stated in his paper titled:

    Oh, and the new McKitrick piece, as is so often the case with the anti-AGW crowd, is an opinion piece.​

    Nothing much new here.​
     
    #2 MegansPrius, Dec 6, 2007
  3. DaveinOlyWA

    DaveinOlyWA 3rd Time was Solariffic!!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    15,140
    611
    0
    Location:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Vehicle:
    2013 Nissan LEAF
    Model:
    Persona
    how does this "information" (actually most likely BS) explain a MUCH greater increase in temps in the arctic, 90%+ reduction in glaciers, 70% reduction in arctic sea ice, destruction of a 60,000 year old ice shelf in Antarctica? etc etc etc....
     
    #3 DaveinOlyWA, Dec 6, 2007
  4. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Read again -- the McKitrick piece is a new journal article ...

    "In a new article just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research -- Atmospheres, a co-author and I have concluded that the manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the above graph is an exaggeration."

    This is a new article and new data and seriously calls into question the accuracy of the surface temperature record.
     
    #4 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  5. hobbit

    hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    4,089
    469
    0
    Location:
    Bahstahn
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    "Cornball alliance for the stewardship of creation" ??! C'mon.
    .
    _H*
     
    #5 hobbit, Dec 6, 2007
  6. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Dave - you are looking at localized changes. For instance, you failed to mention the remarkably low temperatures that have reigned the Antarctic for roughly the past 30 years and the record high Antarctic ice extent of recent years.

    A selective look at regional data provides a distorted view of global climate.

    Furthermore, localized changes such as those in the arctic are still not fully understood and likely to be largely attributable to changes in AMO/PDO, wind patterns, aerosol brown clouds from China and changes in surface albedo due to accumulation of black soot on snow - as a number of recent journal articles suggest.

    And if you look at globally averaged surface temperatures, sea temperatures, northern hemisphere temperatures, southern hemisphere temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, and tropospheric temperatures -- none of them have budged over the past 5 years. If you don't believe me, look at the NOAA website data and run your own regressions.

    This new analysis from McKitrick will only weaken the case for global warming, relative to the surface temperature data.
     
    #6 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  7. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    3
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Man the peanut gallery, sure doesn't like any information that is contradictory to the fact that GW is really as bad as scientists say. ( Isee the crowd with their sticks and garden tools walking this way, they are coming to beat the sence into us until we submit to their way of thinking).
    God help you if you say its a natural occurance..:rolleyes:

    Nice post Tim!;):)

    Im not going to sit here and say GW is not true, I am going to say that I feel that humanity may not be as large of a contributor as the scientist are saying..
     
    #7 hycamguy07, Dec 6, 2007
  8. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    My thoughts exactly. The predictable ad hominem attack on McKitrick doesn't change the facts.

    Funny how the GW promoters always scream "look at the science" -- until you present them with science that conflicts with their belief set.
     
    #8 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  9. DaveinOlyWA

    DaveinOlyWA 3rd Time was Solariffic!!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    15,140
    611
    0
    Location:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Vehicle:
    2013 Nissan LEAF
    Model:
    Persona
    well gee man... i LIVE LOCALLY, so ya that is what i am looking at. is your arguement that GW is not caused by us or it aint happening?? well i sure hope it is not the latter because i thought we were beyond that...

    i do not side with the people who need MASSIVE verifiable evidence that we are Sh**int in the bed we sleep in... i see it on a daily basis in huge numbers and i dont believe anything or any place or any world can continue to be abused at the level we are now and take it.

    i do believe that GW will be a slingshot effect and by the time your precious temp variations happen to a degree you would be satisfied with, it will be too late. coal trains coming out of Montana needs 5 miles to make an emergency stop...ya... 5 miles... think of how many YEARS it will take the Earth to reverse a course we have been pushing it towards for decades???

    articles like this just lessen the immediate need to address or world's ills. we simply DO NOT NEED THEM IN ANY WAY!! how about some one-sided journalism going the other way for a change??
     
    #9 DaveinOlyWA, Dec 6, 2007
  10. MegansPrius

    MegansPrius GoogleMeister, AKA bongokitty

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    2,437
    27
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Well, frankly, there's no science to look at yet since the only publicly available source is a McKitrick write-up that briefly mentions the new article, in, as I correctly stated, an opinion column.

    The source article,
    McKitrick, R., and P. J. Michaels (2007), Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008465, in press.
    [PDF] (accepted 8 November 2007)
    is not publicly available, so right now the only discussion we can have is of McKitrick's re-write in a newspaper opinion column.

    As McKitrick's co-author on the new piece is Patrick Michaels, with long ties to fossil fuel sources, I don't have high hopes that this new piece will be much more than statistical manipulation of some sort. I will be curious to see what more informed souces like realclimate or Pielke say. Tim, you have brought some skeptics to my attention (like Landsea and Pielke) that I find of genuine interest. I don't consider McKitrick or Michaels to be have anywhere near the same objectivity or motive.
     
    #10 MegansPrius, Dec 6, 2007
  11. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Fair enough Scott - let's give the peer review process some time and see how this article stands up. My sense is it will hold up well as did McKitrick's earlier work with Steve McIntyre. But we shall see.
     
    #11 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  12. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Dave - my point is not to be completely dismissive of CO2 and its effects, but if you are searching for environmental problems in need of a solution, I would argue there are much more pressing issues. This article would seem to support that conclusion.
     
    #12 TimBikes, Dec 6, 2007
  13. madler

    madler Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    289
    13
    0
    Location:
    Pasadena, California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    #13 madler, Dec 6, 2007
  14. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,664
    1,045
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Or cut to the chase and watch for a discussion led by climatologists and atmospheric physicists at
    http://realclimate.org/

    It hasn't started yet but it should not take long.
     
    #14 richard schumacher, Dec 6, 2007
  15. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,083
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Tim, I'll comment after reading the paper. :)
     
    #15 F8L, Dec 7, 2007
  16. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    "RealClimate" is not quite what I had in mind when I said peer review.
     
    #16 TimBikes, Dec 7, 2007
  17. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    #17 TimBikes, Dec 7, 2007
  18. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Fair 'nuf. It's 50 pages of some pretty serious looking stuff, so I'll admit to probably being out of my league in being able to assess it.
     
    #18 TimBikes, Dec 7, 2007
  19. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,083
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I got 10pages in and it's not in my area of knowledge so I'll have to let the experts review it for sure. I will admit to being skeptical because of the authors, well mainly Michael being from the Cato Institute and all. lol I am open to alternative ideas though, that's what science is all about.
     
    #19 F8L, Dec 7, 2007
  20. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Lest we forget. I'm following this with interest but will await a qualified response (it won't be from me).
     
    #20 tripp, Dec 7, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2