Interesting solar radiation data

[skookerasbil]

Most deniers are now only interesting as examples of various personality disorders.

Narcissism -- "I am incapable of error, so if the world disagrees with me, the world is wrong."

Paranoia -- "It's all a plot!"

Histrionic -- "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

Schizotypal -- "I define the laws of the universe!"

Sociopathic -- "Yes, I'm lying to your face, and I don't care if everyone knows it. After all, the ends always justify the means for my own side."

Antisocial -- "I HATE YOU GODDAMNED LIBERALS!"

yikes............coming from a guy who has a dyslexic understanding of "cult".

 

[IanC]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is availabe.

From Wikipedia's BEST article

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Crick and Old Rocks post up long C&Ps with imbedded links because they know few people will read them or follow the links. Hell, they don't read it themselves!

Wrong. I posted a challenge for you to demonstrate where and how they had fucked with their data.

I said Muller changed the priorities of BEST from his first proposal, crick posts up that his funding was unrestricted, to be used any way he thought fit.

Then you should have no problem showing how this change in priorities fucked their results.

I said BEST couldn't pass peer review and get published in a reputable journal, crick's link called the publisher 'predatory open access'.

Then you should have no problem showing why it shouldn't have passed peer review and been published.

I said their calculation for UHI was ridiculous, crick's link is to a paper that shows it is real and large.

Then you should have no problem showing the real value and magnitude of UHI and what its effect on global temperatures has been.

I could go on, but it is fruitless. It is a common theme in climate science to state conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided. Appeal to authority. Few laymen analyze the papers and the scientists who should be ripping them apart are too fearful of their careers and funding to actually do it. I cannot really blame them but the damage being done overall to science is large.

Really? The evidence supporting my position and that of virtually every climate scientist on the planet may be found in the world's published, peer reviewed climate science and in the handy assessment of that science available at www.ipcc.ch. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOURS IAN?

I have given you lots of information on the IPCC position since you arrived as Abraham. The results are always the same. You ignore the problem and attack the integrity of the person pointing out the problem.

BEST has no cooling stations in its database even though Muller admitted 1/3 of long term stations we're cooling before it was released.

UHI has been studied and found to be very large. But somehow it is reduced to essentially nothing by the time it is integrated into temperature adjustments.

You accuse me of saying AGW doesn't exist because I point out problems. I am a lukewarmer who denies CAGW. Big difference.

I also think problems are an opportunity to improve the science. You think they should be ignored. Too bad really.

Ideas have their own intrinsic worth. It does not matter who states them. Feynman's rules apply. If it doesn't agree with experiment (reality) then the hypothesis is wrong. AGW as currently proposed is wrong and needs to be reworked.

 

[Crick]

If you think BEST fucked with their data, show us. All their data and every iota of their processing is available.

From Wikipedia's BEST article

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[7][8][9][10]

Crick and Old Rocks post up long C&Ps with imbedded links because they know few people will read them or follow the links. Hell, they don't read it themselves!

Wrong. I posted a challenge for you to demonstrate where and how they had fucked with their data.

I said Muller changed the priorities of BEST from his first proposal, crick posts up that his funding was unrestricted, to be used any way he thought fit.

Then you should have no problem showing how this change in priorities fucked their results.

I said BEST couldn't pass peer review and get published in a reputable journal, crick's link called the publisher 'predatory open access'.

Then you should have no problem showing why it shouldn't have passed peer review and been published.

I said their calculation for UHI was ridiculous, crick's link is to a paper that shows it is real and large.

Then you should have no problem showing the real value and magnitude of UHI and what its effect on global temperatures has been.

I could go on, but it is fruitless. It is a common theme in climate science to state conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence provided. Appeal to authority. Few laymen analyze the papers and the scientists who should be ripping them apart are too fearful of their careers and funding to actually do it. I cannot really blame them but the damage being done overall to science is large.

Really? The evidence supporting my position and that of virtually every climate scientist on the planet may be found in the world's published, peer reviewed climate science and in the handy assessment of that science available at www.ipcc.ch. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOURS IAN?

I have given you lots of information on the IPCC position since you arrived as Abraham. The results are always the same. You ignore the problem and attack the integrity of the person pointing out the problem.

I have never attacked your integrity.

BEST has no cooling stations in its database even though Muller admitted 1/3 of long term stations we're cooling before it was released.

Let's see some evidence for both parts of that claim.

UHI has been studied and found to be very large.

By who? Anthony Watts?

But somehow it is reduced to essentially nothing by the time it is integrated into temperature adjustments.

BEST's conclusion re UHI match the conclusions of NASA, NOAA and NCDC.

You accuse me of saying AGW doesn't exist because I point out problems. I am a lukewarmer who denies CAGW. Big difference.

I accuse you of making claims that are not true.

I also think problems are an opportunity to improve the science. You think they should be ignored. Too bad really.

Ideas have their own intrinsic worth. It does not matter who states them. Feynman's rules apply. If it doesn't agree with experiment (reality) then the hypothesis is wrong. AGW as currently proposed is wrong and needs to be reworked.

And, yet, thousands of PhD scientists, who have studied these specific issues, who have done research for years, who have published their work in peer reviewed journals, would, virtually to a man, disagree with you wholeheartedly. The evidence DOES support the theory.

Alright,

1) Let's see some proof that BEST's temperature database has no cooling stations.

2) Let's see a quote from Muller stating that 1/3 of his stations showed cooling.

3) Let's see a valid study that shows UHI to cause significant global warming.

 

[IanC]

Please prove me wrong about BEST stations. I have looked in vain for even one, including spots where they should be found. They all show warming after homogenization.

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

There are many studies on UHI showing a large warming. Pick any one of them. But that isn't your question, is it?

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...gglMAM&usg=AFQjCNFMcFYw4uiFmaOLf5h6XexIrAeN_w

Here is an article with a link to a PDF where Spencer discusses UHI and global datasets.

 

[Crick]

I do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and thus cannot read the article at your link.

My question WAS about UHI. Show me a valid study that concludes it has a significant effect on global warming.

I would like to see something that's been peer reviewed. That was why BOTH of us used the term "study". Spencer's article is not a study.

So, again:

1) Let's see some proof that BEST's temperature database has no cooling stations.

2) Let's see a quote from Muller stating that 1/3 of his stations showed cooling. [And this, of course, follows on #1]

3) Let's see a valid study that shows UHI to cause significant global warming.

 

[IanC]

Now you're just being obtuse. Cognitive dissonance kicking in, perhaps?

Muller's WSJ article talks about the cooling stations in the first few paragraphs that you CAN read. We both know he did because you have been pointed to it before. You just choose to ignore it. And then pretend it is a new statement requiring full validation every time it is brought up.

I have done my due diligence in searching for cooling stations in the BEST dataset. There are none that I can find. Even stations that still show cooling in some of the other datasets show warming in BEST after going through the sausage grinder of homogenization. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I would appreciate it actually.

As far as UHI goes... It is real, as you know from many examples presented to you. Eg Barrow Alaska. Or the Japanese study you linked to a while back. I even showed you an analysis of GISS UHI adjustments done showing a net zero result, implausibly.

Investigation into UHI was the reason that the Y2K bug was found. A 0.15C jump across the board in US temps should have set alarm bells off but it was ignored because it was in the right direction. Personally I think it would have been found immediately if it was in the opposite direction, and not by an outsider.

Now you are demanding a global study on UHI effects. Who should do that? Another unpaid amateur volunteer?

There is a disconnect between knowing UHI is real, and the sophistry used to make it disappear in global datasets. More importantly, the effects are strongest going from totally rural to slightly more urban. The first road, the first building, the first factory, the first airplane strip, all have greater effect proportionally than the next. Seen any new development where you live?

People and businesses use energy which produces waste heat. A significant fraction of the UHI.

I think I'll stop there. You've never listened or debated the issues before so I have little expectation now.

Anyone interested in these sort of topics should read the Spencer article. It brings up many diverse questions on climate science and shows the uncertainties involved.

 

[IanC]

Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data

An older Spencer article on UHI in CRUTem.

The newer Spencer article in PDF format is easily found by Googling 'A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data'

 

[SSDD]

Not just Spencer

Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015

The urban heat island effect and city contiguity

Urbanization and heterogeneous surface warming in eastern China

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954―2008)

http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/287cjb.html

 

[IanC]

Not just Spencer

Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015

The urban heat island effect and city contiguity

Urbanization and heterogeneous surface warming in eastern China

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954―2008)

http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/287cjb.html

Hahahaha. Here is a quote from one of your links-

On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37 °C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77 °C.

Hardly an insignificant effect, as we are led to believe by most 'experts'. (BEST actually treats UHI as a cooling factor!)

 

[mamooth]

Not just Spencer

So, SSDD show studies that shows UHI exist, which everyone already knew. That would be why it's always been compensated for.

If the denier conspiracy theory here was true, then urban stations, after adjustments, would have to show a higher warming trend than rural stations.

They don't.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3730.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2

Hence, that conspiracy theory goes boom.

So, why did Spencer get a different result? Because Spencer added his own special fudge factor for population density. He massaged his data in various ways until it gave him the result he wanted. Typical denier fudge.

 

[SSDD]

If the denier conspiracy theory here was true, then urban stations, after adjustments, would have to show a higher warming trend than rural stations.

That would be true only if the adjustments that are being done were valid...they aren't. Fraudulent data manipulation marches on and the useful idiots of the world continue to try to defend the indefensible...

 

[IanC]

In the search for the missing tropical hotspot Santer decided to ignore actual weather balloon and satellite data and used wind shear as a proxy for temperature, and claimed he found it. After that weather balloon data we're 'reanalyzed' to the point where they were unrecognizable to the previous set.

UHI at specific locations has been studied and found to be large. Eg Barrow Alaska has about 3C UHI and a long temperature record. That 3C is in the record yet there is nowhere near 3C in UHI adjustments.

The most popular way to make UHI disappear is to use homogenized (massively adjusted) data on calm or windy days, and look for differences. They say they didn't find much.

Another way is to compare rural to urban trends. There is not much difference, and it goes in the wrong direction for the Skeptical case.

So what gives? UHI is nearly logrithmic. Going from zero to a thousand people makes a bigger difference than going from a thousand to ten thousand, or a quarter million to half a million, or one million to two million. Yet the UHI continues to go up. There is UHI in every area that is developing, or even areas that have the same population but increasing energy use or land change.

 

[SSDD]

In the search for the missing tropical hotspot Santer decided to ignore actual weather balloon and satellite data and used wind shear as a proxy for temperature, and claimed he found it. After that weather balloon data we're 'reanalyzed' to the point where they were unrecognizable to the previous set.

UHI at specific locations has been studied and found to be large. Eg Barrow Alaska has about 3C UHI and a long temperature record. That 3C is in the record yet there is nowhere near 3C in UHI adjustments.

The most popular way to make UHI disappear is to use homogenized (massively adjusted) data on calm or windy days, and look for differences. They say they didn't find much.

Another way is to compare rural to urban trends. There is not much difference, and it goes in the wrong direction for the Skeptical case.

So what gives? UHI is nearly logrithmic. Going from zero to a thousand people makes a bigger difference than going from a thousand to ten thousand, or a quarter million to half a million, or one million to two million. Yet the UHI continues to go up. There is UHI in every area that is developing, or even areas that have the same population but increasing energy use or land change.

Couple that with the wholesale elimination of rural temperature stations and you have the cause of the warming trend..which has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.

 

[Crick]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

 

[IanC]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

I don't believe there has been a significant change in whateverit is that has been loosely defined as a tropical hotspot. That lack of change is strong evidence against the water vapour feedback which is the only reason for catastrophic predictions. ~1C per doubling of CO2 doesn't do it without the supposed tripling by water.

 

[IanC]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

Why don't you talk about the TH? Let's hear what you have to say.

 

[mamooth]

The UHI myth was conclusively busted back in 2010. After those evil adjustments, the "bad" stations in the USA showed _less_ warming than the "good" stations.

That leaves deniers with a problem. Their conspiracy cult says adjustments are awful, but the adjustments have caused the official record to show less warming. So how do they respond? The same way they always respond to data. They simply pretend the evidence doesn't exist, and then repeat the same conspiracy nonsense again, even though they know it's been debunked.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
---
Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
---

 

[mamooth]

UHI at specific locations has been studied and found to be large. Eg Barrow Alaska has about 3C UHI and a long temperature record. That 3C is in the record yet there is nowhere near 3C in UHI adjustments.

Sure, the city of Barrow has a UHI. Nobody ever argued that. However, Ian's conspiracy theory fails to mention is that the NWS station for Barrow isn't in Barrow. It's 5 miles outside of town. It sees no UHI effect. This study demonstrated that the temperature measured at the NWS station was exactly the same as rural temperatures.

The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska - Hinkel - 2003 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
---
The seven coldest sites (also contiguous) are located in the south central region of the study area, away from the effects of the ocean and urbanized area. The average temperature was −25.3°C, or about 2.2°C colder than the urban sites. The average air temperature normal (1971 – 2000), as measured at the NWS Service site in Barrow, is −25.3°C for this 4 month period. The winter of 2002, therefore, appears to have been a typical thermal year.
---

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

What hot spot? There is none to date.

 

[SSDD]

Ian, what do you believe causes the tropical hotspot?

What hot spot? There is none to date.

Ian believes that they have been looking for the tropospheric hot spot in the wrong place... Rather than finding the hot spot at 6 to 14 km in altitude as the greenhouse theory predicts...Ian thinks the hot spot is actually mere millimeters off the ground.