Denver mayor says global warming evid...

Denver mayor says global warming evidence is 'shocking'

There are 29 comments on the 9NEWS story from Dec 9, 2009, titled Denver mayor says global warming evidence is 'shocking'. In it, 9NEWS reports that:

Global warming skeptics out there, take note: Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is looking to change your mind.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 9NEWS.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Pryor

Denver, CO

#28 Dec 15, 2009
-Since land only occupies 30% of the earth’s surface, the network of white boxes can only measure temperature on land, not the 70% of the planet represented by the oceans. Islands can give some indication of oceanic temperature, but in many cases these are widely scattered and usually located in the largest town on such islands (e.g., Papeete, the capital of Tahiti, shows a post-war warming, but adjacent islands, such as Rapa, do not, so Papeete’s record must be regarded as contaminated by urbanisation).

-Even within the land areas, vast areas of desert, tundra and mountains have also not been monitored. Thus we have a problem of `geographical spread’ where one region, such as central England, has been subject to overkill from hundreds of boxes, whereas a vast area like central Australia would be lucky to have just one.

-In the face of this unevenness of data, the procedure has been to divide the world into grid squares and to estimate the historical temperatures of each square by averaging the temperatures of all the sites within that square (eg. Jones, J.Clim. v.7, p.1794, 1994). Global temperature is then determined from averaging all the grid squares. Where a grid square only has one site, that site’s temperature becomes the temperature applicable for that entire square.

-In some cases, there are no sites within a grid square (e.g.. parts of Australia, vast areas of ocean etc.), in which case the temperature for such a square must be estimated from the temperatures recorded in the nearest neighbouring squares.

-In Australia, the whole of central Australia (almost one third of the continent), is represented by the instrumental record at Alice Springs, an urban site.
Pryor

Denver, CO

#29 Dec 15, 2009
-Consider cleanliness as an example. The boxes are painted white for a good reason, which is to reflect sunlight so that the box itself does not heat up and give false readings. this means that the box needs an occasional paint job and to be regularly cleaned to maintain the proper degree of whiteness. If this is not done, the box gets progressively dirtier over time. A dirtier box is a warmer box. Lack of simple cleaning and painting will cause the measured temperatures to show a warming creep over time, a creep which might get some impressionable scientist a thousand miles away, looking only at the numbers recorded from such a box, to get all excited about a climatic warming at the site.

-Then there’s the louvers. These allow the instruments inside the box to be properly ventilated while being shielded from direct radiation from outside. But such louvers are traps for blown dust and dirt, while spiders find them ideal for cobwebs. The louvers should be cleared regularly to maintain proper air flow to the instruments inside. If this is not done, the box will lose ventilation efficiency and the interior will get warmer over time. Again we have a box-induced warming creep, giving a distant scientist the impression of climatic warming.

-Having said all that, how well do poorer countries maintain their boxes? Can they afford the paint, the cleaning etc.? Do they even care? USA stations certainly do and so too does Europe and Australia, but that’s barely 6% of the planet. For example, a country like Russia which hardly ever pays its officials these days and cannot afford to render spent nuclear submarines safe, would hardly be expected to put a priority on maintenance of weather boxes. The ragged state of many records from 3rd world countries suggest not only bad maintenance, but also bad personnel training, if any, and a generally low priority on data collection.

No amount of elaborate computing and statistical massaging at CRU or the NOAA can turn bad data into good. If the starting data is bad, all subsequent analyses will inherit those faults.

-Where there are boxes, even `greenfields’ ones, we also have people. People typically change the micro-environment to suit their own preferences, such as growing bushes, trees, erecting a shed maybe, or turning a bare piece of ground into a vegetable patch. Most such changes occur over time, such as tree or bush growth, and have two effects. One of them is to reduce the visible skyline of the box (a problem highlighted by radiation expert Doug Hoyt), which reduces the ability of the box to radiate its heat to space, but instead is subject to increased infra-red radiation from the growing obstructions. The shrinking skyline introduces yet another warming creep into the measured temperatures.
Pryor

Denver, CO

#30 Dec 15, 2009
-The other effect of the shrinking skyline is that the obstructions themselves act as a wind break. This was most evident at Low Head Lighthouse in Tasmania (photo) where a box mounted on a headland in a perfect spot, exposed to the prevailing north-westerly wind, ended up in a mini sun trap caused by nearby bushes growing high enough to screen off the wind. The result was a rocketing daytime temperature, a warming not reflected in neighbouring sites. This effect again imposes a warming creep, even in `greenfields’ sites such as Low Head Lighthouse.

-To counterbalance such a wide array of warming creep error factors, there are precious few instances where a cooling creep might occur, so the argument that the errors would somehow cancel themselves out over thousands of records simply does not apply here. The vast majority of such errors are warming ones, and as such they tend to be cumulative over the thousands of records, giving the impression of a climatic warming where none may actually exist.

-The current standard practice is to record the daily maximum and minimum temperatures at each site and to average these out over a month and a year to give a mean temperature. The mean temperature for each grid square is then obtained by averaging all the mean temperatures from the individual sites within the grid square (if there are any).

-But it was not always so. Prior to adoption of these standards, it was common for data to be collected in a variety of ways, such as measuring the temperature every 6 hours, or twice a day at fixed times, or at other times convenient to the people collecting the data who often had better things to do.

-In many cases, particularly at isolated sites, there have even been cases where the people at the site neglected to record the temperature on many occasions but filled in fictitious temperatures in their log books in order not to lose the small stipend they receive for such work. Or the cases of seaside tourist resorts where a tourist operator (who also happened to be the town weather recorder), bumped up the temperature a few degrees in the hope of getting more visitors from the city. Such stories abound in the corridors of weather bureaus, but scientists naively imagine that the people collecting the data are as scrupulous about it as they are.
Pryor

Denver, CO

#31 Dec 15, 2009
-Falsification of data of all kinds for economic reasons became a way of life in Soviet Russia, so temperature data would have been no exception. One could imagine what a local soviet official in some faraway Siberian village would do during the bad old days of Communist central planning, when he knows that his village’s fuel supply is allocated according to how cold his community is? Of course he will record lower temperatures in his log than his instruments show in order to justify an increased fuel allocation. With the demise of communism, such a life-or-death motive would no longer exist and temperatures would then be recorded correctly. This would give the impression of a post-communist warming - which is exactly what has happened at many Siberian sites, a warming which is not evident outside Russia at similar latitudes such as Alaska and Finland. But the scientists who analyse such data are oblivious to how it was collected. To them, only the numbers themselves matter, regardless of how they were collected, or what political factors may have influenced the collection process.
-Dr Hugh Ellsaesser of Lawrence Livermore has even suggested that the sharp warming of the 1920s may have been partly caused by changes in the measurement procedures from that of fixed times to one of maximums and minimums only. If thousands of sites world-wide all change their procedures over a period of only a few years, a distinct up or down jump will show up in the long-term aggregate data. There is such a sharp jump during the 1920s at the same time when procedures were changed to the present system, and it was a warming jump of about a quarter of a degree.
-Claims today that we are +0.5 deg.C warmer than 100 years ago include that 1920s upward jump, a `warming’ which is in all probability a largely artificial one coincident with the procedural changes.
-In the case of ships, the instruments are generally maintained properly and the micro-environment is not subject to much change. However, the ship is constantly travelling so that a temperature taken during the day in one location may be 200 nautical miles from the next temperature taken during the night.
Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not record weather data on the way. Attempting to compile a `global mean temperature’ from such fragmentary, disorganised, and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.
-The unreliability of mercury-in-glass thermometers. particularly before 1945.
In the early days, mercury-in-glass thermometers were universally used in meteorology. The British ones, which covered the EMPIRE would have been the most widely distributed, and thus figure most frequently in the old records. They would have been made by Negretti and Zambra, London, and most of them would have been calibrated only in 1°F.
It was insufficiently appreciated at the time that glass is an unstable material which gradually shrinks, thus causing an increase in thermometer readings. Current Standards insist that such thermometers have to be re-calibrated at regular intervals.
-The greatest increase in surface temperature this century (what's left of it) took place between 1910 and 1945, a period when it would be very difficult for many Met station personnel to return their thermometers for re-calibration to London, even if this was required, because of the world wars and economic collapse. An error of as large as 0.4°C (0.7°F) is quite likely from this cause alone.
Pryor

Denver, CO

#32 Dec 15, 2009
-The only way surface data can be used with any confidence is to exclude all town/city and airport data - no exceptions. Only rural sites should be used, and by `rural’ is meant strictly `greenfields’ sites where there is no urbanisation of any kind near the instrument.
This would reduce the available stations to only a tiny fraction of those presently used.
Once `greenfields’ sites have been identified, the station history of each site needs to be examined thoroughly, including old photographs, details of site moves, records of maintenance, procedural changes and a thorough on-site inspection of the micro-environment. Only then can meaningful corrections to data be contemplated. Any such corrections should be independently reviewed by inter-disciplinary scientists, not the questionable `peer review' by fellow specialiasts as used at present. In-house review by fellow `peers' is hardly likely to convince a skeptical public.
Once the sites have been quality tested in this way, it is highly likely that the result would be little or no global warming this century, particularly as the USA itself shows no warming after high-quality control being applied to its surface data.

“Don't like the rules?...Leave”

Since: Mar 07

Denver, but on pause...

#33 Dec 15, 2009
Al Gore now has to eat crow...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inc...

Guess we now know where the "falling sky" will land...LMAO!!!
pinebeetle

Denver, CO

#34 Dec 15, 2009
Hussie wrote:
Al Gore now has to eat crow...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inc...
Guess we now know where the "falling sky" will land...LMAO!!!
He's a sad little man. Too bad all liberals are made of the same stuff.
Mea

New Zealand

#35 Dec 15, 2009
pinebeetle wrote:
<quoted text>He's a sad little man. Too bad all liberals are made of the same stuff.
He probably got a shitty taste in snuff too,,,,whatta you think hubba?
Lone Wolf

Vinaros, Spain

#36 Dec 15, 2009
this idot needs to be voted out like carl levin....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denmark Travel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News St. Augustine streets a 'wonderful chaos' as ho... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Chaosmartin 1
News Danes, Swedes impose new border checks in fresh... (Jan '16) Jan '16 tomin cali 1
News The Gay U.S. Ambassador Who Moonlights as a TV ... (Dec '15) Dec '15 Mitt s Dog Crate ... 3
News Click to read:Little Mermaid Taking Trip to China (Mar '10) Apr '15 Long Darby 5
News Denmark's first 'real' mosque opens, bankrolled... (Jun '14) Jun '14 Old Pom 15
News Greenland's Prime Minister Looks on Global... (May '14) May '14 see Antarctica Ba... 1
News Fodor's: Where To Go In Europe This Spring (Mar '14) Mar '14 Go Blue Forever 1
More from around the web