Iceagenow Blog Complains that Record Lows Are Being Ignored

[Jonger]

Jonger1150, on 5 July 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

In that time span I would have actually expected a bigger increase in minimums, bias aside, this coincides with UHI perfectly. Michigan's 100 year temp incease is around 0.4F.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

An almost 2°F jump in the average minimum temperature in a decade is not small (1990-99: 36.5° vs. 2000-10: 38.4° at MSP).

2 degrees would be huge if there was no such thing as UHI. If you can show me a rural station showing a 2 degree jump I will agree that us a big jump. Human structures can only make the temps rise locally, never fall... So logically some of that 2 degrees aren't clean results.Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[Jonger]

link to this data? everything is supposed to be properly credited on this board.

I agree it should be linked, but is there really a rule for that?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[The_Global_Warmer]

2 degrees would be huge if there was no such thing as UHI. If you can show me a rural station showing a 2 degree jump I will agree that us a big jump. Human structures can only make the temps rise locally, never fall... So logically some of that 2 degrees aren't clean results.Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

You Sure about this?

and second, what is a clean result? If humans build structures trapping heat and lowering albedo, then it's now apart of the natural landscape.

does that not count now?

[Jonger]

You Sure about this?

and second, what is a clean result? If humans build structures trapping heat and lowering albedo, then it's now apart of the natural landscape.

does that not count now?

25+ miles from a city and in greenspace. Using urban/suburban weather station data is about as accurate is trying to do a strep test from a reused swab.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[ben4vols]

so link us up with a direct link to the GISS data on that site.

here is another

another

another

another

[donsutherland1]

2 degrees would be huge if there was no such thing as UHI. If you can show me a rural station showing a 2 degree jump I will agree that us a big jump. Human structures can only make the temps rise locally, never fall... So logically some of that 2 degrees aren't clean results.Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

Upon further examination, there might be something specific with respect to the MSP station. Given the slowdown in population growth (a reasonably good proxy for the evolution of UHI), it is not likely that UHI explains the dramatic leap. Some more localized factor is likely responsible.

In terms of going outside the urban MSP area, NCEP re-analysis data shows a general +0.3°C to +0.5°C (+0.5°F to +0.9°F) increase in temperatures across southern Minnesota in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period. Some more rural stations in that region reflect that outcome e.g., Farmington had a +0.5°F increase in its average low temperature in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period.

[Jonger]

Upon further examination, there might be something specific with respect to the MSP station. Given the slowdown in population growth (a reasonably good proxy for the evolution of UHI), it is not likely that UHI explains the dramatic leap. Some more localized factor is likely responsible.

In terms of going outside the urban MSP area, NCEP re-analysis data shows a general +0.3°C to +0.5°C (+0.5°F to +0.9°F) increase in temperatures across southern Minnesota in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period. Some more rural stations in that region reflect that outcome e.g., Farmington had a +0.5°F increase in its average low temperature in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period.

That coincides much closer to Michigan rural stations.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[Jonger]

you seriously missed the discussion we had about this paper?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

If a station has the exact same conditions, we accept the results... This has been proven to be a factor in real world testing, why dismiss it based on a paper that might be biased?

[donsutherland1]

...here is another...

The posted graphs do not, in any way, mean that one cannot rely on the GISS data. The paper I linked explained the process and methodology for making revisions. The revisions likely resulted in a better product than the earlier version.

Certainly, I've come across no credible literature that suggests that the GISS dataset can no longer be relied upon. Instead, the BEST Project found that it reasonably represents the temperature record.

If you have a journal article or paper that suggests otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it. I don't believe one shoul automatically throw out data because it fails to confirm one's hypothesis. There has to be a compelling reason for such a drastic measure.

Finally, if GISS were so bad, why does the NCDC dataset provide a temperature record that is remarkably similar to the GISS dataset?

[Jonger]

Upon further examination, there might be something specific with respect to the MSP station. Given the slowdown in population growth (a reasonably good proxy for the evolution of UHI), it is not likely that UHI explains the dramatic leap. Some more localized factor is likely responsible.

In terms of going outside the urban MSP area, NCEP re-analysis data shows a general +0.3°C to +0.5°C (+0.5°F to +0.9°F) increase in temperatures across southern Minnesota in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period. Some more rural stations in that region reflect that outcome e.g., Farmington had a +0.5°F increase in its average low temperature in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period.

In wxtrix world... You are a denialist agent of Anthony watts for bringing this up.

I have always respected your opinions, they seem legit and unbiased. We still see the increase, and that is factual.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[ben4vols]

are you deliberately obtuse? explain the denialist point you were trying to make by linking to the real data and explaining it. an animation from one of the dumbest deniers out here isn't evidence for your point.

can you ever make a point without resorting to scans of 80 year old newspaper stories or images from denier sites?

I've already made my point. You asked for GISS linked data and I gave it to you with plenty more to hammer home my point. You and your buddy Alek wanted to do a quick drive by trolling because i used a graph from Goddard's site...that is also on the NASA site.

By the way, have you found the other $992 million in funding by oil companies or is your purpose here to spread rumors and deception?

[The_Global_Warmer]

So where is the published data that says Hansen or others have intentionally manipulated Giss.

Benvols says he posted it and has tons more to hammer home is point.

I have scrolled up and down this thread and see nothing?

what am I missing?

[beneficii]

1. Earth will not turn into Venus with a runaway greenhouse, but if we burn all fossil fuels, it will still be completely inhospitable to humans and most higher forms of life. Burning all FFs and CH4 hydrates would give most of the planet (even over the oceans) average annual temperatures above 40C.

[ORH_wxman]

Upon further examination, there might be something specific with respect to the MSP station. Given the slowdown in population growth (a reasonably good proxy for the evolution of UHI), it is not likely that UHI explains the dramatic leap. Some more localized factor is likely responsible.

In terms of going outside the urban MSP area, NCEP re-analysis data shows a general +0.3°C to +0.5°C (+0.5°F to +0.9°F) increase in temperatures across southern Minnesota in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period. Some more rural stations in that region reflect that outcome e.g., Farmington had a +0.5°F increase in its average low temperature in the 2000-09 period vs. the 1990-99 period.

I think a lot of the major city airports that were initially built more outside of town have suffered from more urbanization than other stations. The airports lose their more rural setting and the low temperatures tend to change the most. It is seen at Dulles airport too when you review their low temperatures compared to the 1990s and esp the 1980s (and previous).

The airport growth itself can have a large effect too. If additional construction of runways and other features that would inhibit radiational cooling are implemented, then this would be reflected in the temperature record. There was an ongoing examination of the Seattle-Tacoma airport temperatures (I believe the NWS was looking at this) after they put a new runway in a few years ago. The temperatures immediately responded. I'm not sure if they have concluded anything yet from it, but they noticed a change pretty quickly.

In addition, minimum temperatures seem to be most sensitive to any land changes that might affect wind flow. Its really hard to quantify all of it in terms of how much is the surrounding environment affecting the minimum temps versus how much of it is the actual backround warming. I think its an interesting study.

Around here, I looked at the min temp change from the 1990-2000 period versus the 2001-2011 period and found that BDL had a change of +0.3F, ORH had a change of +0.9F, and BOS had a change of 0.3F. Out of the 3, BDL is the most rural and BOS is the most urban, but ORH might have had the most land change between the 3 near the airport, mostly in the past 5 years. Its hard to say for sure. I also suspect BOS being right in the harbor also muted their ability to see a larger change.

[ben4vols]

So where is the published data that says Hansen or others have intentionally manipulated Giss.

Benvols says he posted it and has tons more to hammer home is point.

I have scrolled up and down this thread and see nothing?

what am I missing?

Nice misdirection.

[ben4vols]

you provided an animation with zero discussion and context. furthermore, you did it solely to take Don's serious, fact-based thread off track.

The animation proves a very valid and pertinent point, along with just about every other 'Arctic' station in the giss version 2 database.

[donsutherland1]

The animation proves a very valid and pertinent point, along with just about every other 'Arctic' station in the giss version 2 database.

The animation only shows that a revision occurred. It says nothing about the quality of the revision.

The Hansen paper explains the process and methodology employed. The BEST Project examined the various datasets, including GISS, and found GISS provided a good representation of temperatures. Hence, the literature does not indicate that the revisions degraded the dataset.

[donsutherland1]

I agree Will. I also share your opinion that perhaps the marine environment around Logan Int'l. Airport likely tempered the extent of observed warming there.

[ORH_wxman]

I agree Will. I also share your opinion that perhaps the marine environment around Logan Int'l. Airport likely tempered the extent of observed warming there.

I also found that the premise that the minimum temperatures are the most affected is correct too, at least around here it has been. I'll have to break it down into seasons and see what that might do. My first incliniation is that summer minimum temps have warmed the most here only because winters have actually recently been pretty cold since 2001 compared to 1990-2000, but summers have been warmer for sure.

The maximum temperature changes I found in that same time period was -0.1F at BOS, 0.0F at ORH, and BDL +0.2F. Of course these numbers are not in line for the NCDC normals changes for those wondering...because those are comparing '71-'00 to '81-'00...so the 1970s are removed and replaced with the 2000s, the difference between those two decades is where the temperature change happens.

[Jonger]

Ben4vols, those pics are showing up on my screen... Getting errors.

[ben4vols]

Ben4vols, those pics are showing up on my screen... Getting errors.

You can get them here...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/

[ben4vols]

The animation only shows that a revision occurred. It says nothing about the quality of the revision.

The Hansen paper explains the process and methodology employed. The BEST Project examined the various datasets, including GISS, and found GISS provided a good representation of temperatures. Hence, the literature does not indicate that the revisions degraded the dataset.

The only way one can show significant Arctic warming is to manipulate the data. That doesn't seem fishy does it?

[FloridaJohn]

The only way one can show significant Arctic warming is to manipulate the data. That doesn't seem fishy does it?

No.

[TerryM]

The only way one can show significant Arctic warming is to manipulate the data. That doesn't seem fishy does it?

One way to "show significant Arctic warming", is to observe the ice (or rather the lack thereof).

When 4,000 yr old fast ice melts out a reasonable person would conclude that significant warming was taking place.

Terry

[beneficii]

The only way one can show significant Arctic warming is to manipulate the data. That doesn't seem fishy does it?

What were the reasons given in the report for revising it?

[donsutherland1]

The only way one can show significant Arctic warming is to manipulate the data. That doesn't seem fishy does it?

Declining Arctic sea ice, melting permafrost, shifting flora, etc., are all consistent with a signifcant warming of the Arctic. Hence, there's nothing "fishy" about a temperature record that shows pronounced Arctic warming, especially in recent years.

[ORH_wxman]

What were the reasons given in the report for revising it?

Most reasons for changing data have to do with the time of obs bias...which just happens to be a cooling adjustment when corrected for past data. The revisions that can probably most be questioned are the ones accounting for station relocation, "Estimated" temp data, or UHI as they are less straight forward and more subjective. But the time of obs bias does create a realistic cooling of the past.

[ben4vols]

Declining Arctic sea ice, melting permafrost, shifting flora, etc., are all consistent with a signifcant warming of the Arctic. Hence, there's nothing "fishy" about a temperature record that shows pronounced Arctic warming, especially in recent years.

I don't doubt the Arctic has significantly warmed "in recent years"....however, I dont think it has significantly warmed over the last 70 years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't doubt the Arctic has significantly warmed "in recent years"....however, I dont think it has significantly warmed over the last 70 years.

And you think GISS is corrupted because of the reasons the other posters provided in this thread?

it is fascinating how cool period from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s was only cooler than the previous years in the late 1930 to mid to late 1940s.

So the warm period before the "cool" period not only wasn't that much warmer, it was very short and only a little bit warmer than the cool period to follow.

Then another warmer period....now temps have stopped going up, but they have not gone down. The heat has to be maintained at this level or the temps would fall.

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I am in a camp that is intellectually curious enough to welcome some contrarian viewpoints on global warming, and there is disconcerting evidence of unethical behavior on the part of climate scientists in an effort to shut down debate. I want genuine debate.

However, as much as I want to learn about PDO cycles and decadal shifts, I had to stop following Joe Bastardi on Twitter because I simply couldn't stomach the sheer intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking pockets of cold and shrieking conspiracy that the media was ignoring it. He carried on like that all winter while the entire lower 48 just roasted. Having stopped following him, I can't imagine the windmill-tilting going on right now while the country blazes. They scream data, data, data! yet cherry pick it to death and provide it out of context. A particular favorite of mine are temperature graphs with no data labels on the X time scale access (look! it's cooling).

While I still do read Bastardi's tweets, I have to say that I've lost a lot of confidence in him as a forecaster after the fiasco of last winter, and now this summer. Recall that in March, he kept going on about how this summer would be cool/below normal in the east and pointed to the Japanese model to support his claim. This summer has absolutely no chance of averaging out below normal. His forecast last winter was a disaster. Personally, I think he's grasping at straws trying to cherry pick, as you say, to prove his hypothesis that the earth is cooling. I don't see next winter being like 1976-77, that's for sure. JB used to be a great forecaster - in fact, it was through watching his videos that I learned a lot about the weather. 2002-2003, as well as the January 2007 flip to cold were his crowning glories, but lately he's gone downhill and has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.