UHI? What UHI?

[westwall]

does anyone really believe it is neutral, or worse, causes cooling? preposterous!

Argument from incredulity fallacy. It's no longer a matter of whether you'll use fallacies, just a matter of which one it will be.

the UHI effect is real. often many degrees Celcius. it happens over long time spans usually, so it is not 'caught' by homogenization techniques. GISS is the only temp database that specifically adjusts for UHI and the net adjustment is 0C. nada, zilch. is that realistically possible? BEST actually claims that UHI is negative and therefore has to increase recent temps to make up for it. really?

So you don't understand the basics, the differences between using anomalies and absolute temperatures.

Scientists don't have that problem, and your failure to understand doesn't reflect badly on them.

Instead of hurling insults how about you present some factual evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interview with Richard Muller

What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

(First few seconds of recording are missing. Muller says: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions.)

They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data.

There were issues about station quality – Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.

There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that – and that was important.

Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations, we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations. We got the same answer.

Finally, the existing conclusions were based on extremely complex global climate models. And these, you could never track down how many adjustable parameters they had, you could never track down how many hidden assumptions there were. In our approach, we used a very simple approach.

Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript - Carbon Brief

A real scientist looked into that, and how did that work out for you? You fellows just can't stop lying about this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interview with Richard Muller

What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

(First few seconds of recording are missing. Muller says: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions.)

They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data.

There were issues about station quality – Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.

There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that – and that was important.

Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations, we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations. We got the same answer.

Finally, the existing conclusions were based on extremely complex global climate models. And these, you could never track down how many adjustable parameters they had, you could never track down how many hidden assumptions there were. In our approach, we used a very simple approach.

Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript - Carbon Brief

A real scientist looked into that, and how did that work out for you? You fellows just can't stop lying about this.

You missed Muller being shredded by his peers and others because UHI is FACT and has been demonstrated by empirical evidence.

I didn't think you would be truthful about this. I was right. Keep on posting up your debunked garbage son..

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/bl...best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/

 

[waltky]

Would ya believe that lush, green Pacific northwest state of Oregon...

... has a desert?

 

[Old Rocks]

Interview with Richard Muller

What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

(First few seconds of recording are missing. Muller says: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions.)

They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data.

There were issues about station quality – Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.

There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that – and that was important.

Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations, we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations. We got the same answer.

Finally, the existing conclusions were based on extremely complex global climate models. And these, you could never track down how many adjustable parameters they had, you could never track down how many hidden assumptions there were. In our approach, we used a very simple approach.

Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript - Carbon Brief

A real scientist looked into that, and how did that work out for you? You fellows just can't stop lying about this.

You missed Muller being shredded by his peers and others because UHI is FACT and has been demonstrated by empirical evidence.

I didn't think you would be truthful about this. I was right. Keep on posting up your debunked garbage son..

Blockbuster: Anthony Watts skewers Muller, BEST, and the surface record all in one paper « JoNova

A blog. You want someone with a serious interest in this to take the time to read an article, link to papers in Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysics, Geology, or some of the other serious scientific journals, not right wing nut drivel blogs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Would ya believe that lush, green Pacific northwest state of Oregon...

... has a desert?

Not only a desert, but a high desert. And forests of Ponderosa pine, as well as an area that is like the Alps in the Northeast corner of the state. Not only that, we have the only two cities in the US that have live volcanoes within the city limits, Portland and Bend. And the wonderfully fertile Willamette Valley, with some of the most beautiful vineyards in the world. As well as scenic seashore, and vast forests of Douglas Fir and Hemlock.

 

[IanC]

does anyone really believe it is neutral, or worse, causes cooling? preposterous!

Argument from incredulity fallacy. It's no longer a matter of whether you'll use fallacies, just a matter of which one it will be.

the UHI effect is real. often many degrees Celcius. it happens over long time spans usually, so it is not 'caught' by homogenization techniques. GISS is the only temp database that specifically adjusts for UHI and the net adjustment is 0C. nada, zilch. is that realistically possible? BEST actually claims that UHI is negative and therefore has to increase recent temps to make up for it. really?

So you don't understand the basics, the differences between using anomalies and absolute temperatures.

Scientists don't have that problem, and your failure to understand doesn't reflect badly on them.

Using anomalies is a tool to make comparisons easier between time frames. It is not a magic trick to make temp increases disappear.

Let's take Barrow Alaska as an example. Measurements were taken and it was found that UHI was 2C in 200x. Over the time frame of the first building to the present, an additional 2C was added to the trend over and above the 'real' trend that was caused by natural factors and CO2. That 2C must be removed to calculate the 'real' trend. No amount of averaging will make the 2C vanish. You have to warm the past, cool the present, or some combination of the two to remove the artificial increase of 2C.

Not only has the past not been warmed, it has been cooled. Not only has the present not been cooled, it has been warmed. The temperature trend for Barrow is a farce. In all likelihood most or all Arctic stations are a farce. In past threads I have shown that Icelandic stations in particular have had massive adjustments that cool the past, opposite of what UHI corrections would be.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks and others keep saying that station quality etc doesn't make a difference in trend. It does.

Whenever specific stations or areas are examined, most of the warming is due to the adjustments being made. Actually it is the adjustments being made to the past adjustments. There are lots of legitimate adjustments that have to be made, it is the continuous new adjustments, always in the same upward direction, that have led to these claims of warmest evahhhh. Satellite data do not show it, only the continuously revamped surface data which has little resemblance to the actual numbers written down over the last hundred years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interview with Richard Muller

What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

(First few seconds of recording are missing. Muller says: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions.)

They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data.

There were issues about station quality – Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.

There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that – and that was important.

Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations, we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations. We got the same answer.

Finally, the existing conclusions were based on extremely complex global climate models. And these, you could never track down how many adjustable parameters they had, you could never track down how many hidden assumptions there were. In our approach, we used a very simple approach.

Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript - Carbon Brief

A real scientist looked into that, and how did that work out for you? You fellows just can't stop lying about this.

You missed Muller being shredded by his peers and others because UHI is FACT and has been demonstrated by empirical evidence.

I didn't think you would be truthful about this. I was right. Keep on posting up your debunked garbage son..

Blockbuster: Anthony Watts skewers Muller, BEST, and the surface record all in one paper « JoNova

A blog. You want someone with a serious interest in this to take the time to read an article, link to papers in Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysics, Geology, or some of the other serious scientific journals, not right wing nut drivel blogs.

Coming from a moron who believe's Skeptical Science or Hotwhopper blogs... that's kind of funny! Then you fail to address the observed empirical evidence that was provided.. That too is funny.. Is all you got adhom's and name calling?

 

[waltky]

Old Rocks wrote: Not only a desert, but a high desert. And forests of Ponderosa pine, as well as an area that is like the Alps in the Northeast corner of the state. Not only that, we have the only two cities in the US that have live volcanoes within the city limits, Portland and Bend. And the wonderfully fertile Willamette Valley, with some of the most beautiful vineyards in the world. As well as scenic seashore, and vast forests of Douglas Fir and Hemlock.

We got mtns. but not like the Alps here in Ky....

... but dat's okay - it don't stop Granny from dressin' possum up...

... in leiderhossen an' wooden shoes from time to time.

 

[mamooth]

Let's take Barrow Alaska as an example.

I think the example is that after Homewood's Paraguay scam left him completely humiliated, he switched to the arctic and hoped everyone would forget.

However, you can only cry wolf so many times before everyone just ignores you. Thus, everyone ignores Homewood's conspiracies now.

Measurements were taken and it was found that UHI was 2C in 200x. Over the time frame of the first building to the present, an additional 2C was added to the trend over and above the 'real' trend that was caused by natural factors and CO2. That 2C must be removed to calculate the 'real' trend. No amount of averaging will make the 2C vanish. You have to warm the past, cool the present, or some combination of the two to remove the artificial increase of 2C.

That's funny. The data is right here ...

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/4/42570026000.gif

... and it clearly shows raw data temps in Barrow have been adjusted _downwards_, to correct for the UHI.

Oops. So much for that conspiracy.

Not only has the past not been warmed, it has been cooled. Not only has the present not been cooled, it has been warmed. The temperature trend for Barrow is a farce. In all likelihood most or all Arctic stations are a farce. In past threads I have shown that Icelandic stations in particular have had massive adjustments that cool the past, opposite of what UHI corrections would be.

Given that the Barrow data I linked to flatly contradicts Homewood's bullshit, are you ready to leave the CultofHomewood now, or have I only made your devotion stronger?