Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

42,225 Daily Temperature Readings, and Counting-A Rare 114-Year Record, Kept by Generations, Logs...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 06:22 PM
Original message
42,225 Daily Temperature Readings, and Counting-A Rare 114-Year Record, Kept by Generations, Logs...
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2691

42,225 Daily Temperature Readings, and Counting

A Rare 114-Year Record, Kept by Generations, Logs Changing Climate



posted: 2010-05-06

Every day since Jan. 1, 1896, an observer has hiked up a grey outcrop of rock to a spot at http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/">The Mohonk Preserve, a resort and nature area some 90 miles north of New York City, to record daily temperature and other conditions there. It is the rarest of the rare: a weather station whose thermometer has never missed a day; never been moved; never seen its surroundings change; and which has never been tended by anyone but a short, continuous line of family and friends, using the same methods, for 114 years. On top of that, observers have recorded temperature-related phenomena such as first appearances of spring peepers, migratory birds and blooming of plants. At a time when scientists are wrestling simply to ensure that temperature readings from thousands of weather stations can be accurately compared with one another, Mohonk offers a powerful commentary on warming climate, as well as a compelling multigenerational yarn. The story is told in http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JAMC2221.1">an article by researchers from http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/">Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Mohonk in the current issue of the http://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/apme/49/3">Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

Mohonk was founded in 1869 by the Smileys, a close-knit Quaker family that still runs the 7,200-acre property on a high ridge in the Shawangunk Mountains. When the fledgling United States Weather Bureau (later the National Weather Service) founded an official station there, it supplied thermometers, log sheets and other materials; Albert K. Smiley, one of the twin brothers who founded the place, volunteered to man it. The thermometer (occasionally replaced by a new duplicate over the decades) has always been kept in a box out of direct sun, in the same place, a short walk from the Mohonk hotel; a brass rain gauge at the end of a boat dock is the 1896 original. In 1906, Albert’s half-brother, Daniel, took over the readings. In 1930, Daniel’s sons Bert and Doc followed. In 1937, Bert’s son Daniel Smiley Jr., picked up the job. In addition, Daniel Jr., an old-school amateur naturalist, started recording many other observations, including first spring appearances of birds, animals and plants, on some 15,000 index cards. In 1988, the year before Daniel Jr. passed away, he handed his duties to Paul Huth, a longtime friend and employee. Today Huth or one of his staff still walks up to the box at 4 pm every day. The weather log, for many decades kept on hand-written sheets, lacks only 37 days of precipitation data from 1901, 1908 and 1909, due to a missing data sheet, and a few days when observers apparently didn’t look at the rain gauge. The temperature record is complete.

Enter another father-son team. In 1971, Edward R. Cook, then serving as a military policeman at nearby West Point, became friends with Daniel Smiley Jr. Later, Cook became a tree-ring scientist and climatologist at Lamont, and began studying conifer trees at Mohonk--some of which turned out to be over 400 years old. From these, he extracted a rough record of weather in the Hudson Valley before Europeans settled. Then Edward Cook’s son, Benjamin I. Cook, became a climate modeler at Lamont. It was under Benjamin’s leadership that the Cooks and their colleagues at Mohonk began studying the instrumental readings and other data.

Starting in 1990s, Mohonk staffers spent hundreds of hours digitizing the records so they could be analyzed. “It is incredibly rare to have the level of continuity that we have at Mohonk,” said Benjamin Cook. “Any one record cannot tell you anything definitively about climate globally or even regionally. But looking closely at sites like this can boost our confidence in the general trends that we see elsewhere, and in other records.”

Indeed, the new study finds remarkable correlations with many other widely spread, but less continuous records. At Mohonk, average annual temperatures from 1896-2006 went up 2.63 degrees Fahrenheit. Global measurements in the same time over both land and oceans put the rise at about 1.2 to 1.4 degrees; but land temperatures are rising faster than those over the oceans, and those at Mohonk track the expected land trend closely. As expected also, temperatures are up in all seasons, but increases have been especially evident in summer heat waves, and this has been accelerating in recent years. Prior to 1980, it was rare for the thermometer to surpass about 89 degrees more than 10 days a year; since then, such events have come to Mohonk on at least 10 days a year—and often, on more than 20 days. At the same time, the number of freezing days has been decreasing--about a day less every five years over the long term, but since the 1970s, at the accelerated rate of a day every two years. This also matches wide-scale observations in North America and elsewhere.

The Mohonk records do not match wider trends in one area. The start of the growing season—the date on which freezing temperatures end—has been advancing steadily in many places, but not here. Instead, the total number of yearly above-freezing days is increasing because more unusually warm days are puncturing the winter. As described in an earlier http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/116326600/PDFSTART">study in the International Journal of Climatology, also by the Cooks and Mohonk staff, the effect has been a sort of an intermittent false spring that may expose some early-flowering plants to frost damage. The earliest flowering native plants like hepatica, bloodroot and red-berried elder are likely to be most affected, said Benjamin Cook. He said it is still too early to tell the ecological effects of such disruptions, but added: “The data from Mohonk will be invaluable for expanding our knowledge of how ecosystems respond to climate change.” Temperature data after 2006 has not yet been analyzed, but Mohonk maintains an up-to-date http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?weatherarchive">online archive of the weather data accessible to the public.

The new study comes at a time when some skeptics have questioned the accuracy of long-term weather records, on the basis that many stations have been moved or that surroundings have changed, occasionally putting instruments nearer to buildings, parking lots or other possible heat sources that could skew readings upward. However, recent studies including http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf">one by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found that such year-to-year inconsistencies cut both ways, and that instruments near developed spots actually more often read too cool rather than too hot. Researchers say every effort has been made to adjust for errors, and that errors one way or the other at individual stations basically cancel each other out, leaving the averages correct.

“Pictures, anecdotes, and cursory glances of poorly sited or maintained sites and weather stations may suggest problems, but until the data is analyzed it is impossible to conclude that the record is compromised by cold or warm biases,” said Cook. “The advantage to Mohonk is that we can revisit the record in detail, with minimal corrections. This helps confirm the large-scale trends, and it helps us identify stations with errors that need to be corrected.”

As for the long history behind the studies, he said: “We and the Smileys all just happened to be in the right place, at the right time.”

The other authors of the study are Kevin J. Anchukaitis, also of Lamont; and Paul C. Huth, John E. Thompson and Shanan F. Smiley, of the Mohonk Preserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting study. I used to rock climb there. Locally it's called the Gunks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. LOVE that area! I know the rock climbers love it. I go there every fall to see the changing colors
Edited on Fri May-07-10 08:21 PM by BrklynLiberal
of the foliage, and as I hike around, and climb up to Skytop tower for lunch, I hear the clink,clink,clink of the climbers' carabiners overhead.

Love the restaurants in New Paltz


http://www.billandcori.com/gunks/climb.htm

http://sectionhiker.com/a-history-of-the-gunks-carriageways/

http://www.extremeangles.com/gunks.htm

http://trailtramps.blogspot.com/2008/08/blog-post_1989.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great story. Recommended.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Wow. The motherlode.
A continuous, accurate, consistent and thorough record that spans over a century's worth of observations. Scientists DREAM of such perfect data to analyze in a long-term study.

And yet, here it is - in a small, out-of-the-way place, kept by a small group of persistent observers.

I applaud them, and may they continue for another century. Now, more than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm afraid not
Anthony Watts wrote an article on this about a year ago.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-84-pristine-mohonk-lake-ushcn-station-revisited/

Although they have a continuous record the site is not unchanged over time and is currently a class 4 according to the Climate Reference Network's own standards which is considered unacceptable by CRN.

Class 4 (error ≥ 2ºC) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

The quote above is from page 14 of the Climate Reference Network Site Information Handbook.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

The reasons for this are:

The CRS is 5.8 meters from a building.
Any obstacle must be located at a distance of at least 4 times the height of the obstacle.
The CRS has brush around it
The CRS has has a large tree stump directly adjacent to it. Obviously at one time, there was a significantly large tree there that was cut down.
There is also a large tree limb missing from a nearby tree.

At one point the CRS thermometers recorded temperatures in the shade of these tree canopies but the amount of shade changed over time and seasonally. That is why the Stevenson Screens are supposed to be in full sunlight. Watts also questions the nearby building.

Was it there 114 years ago when the CRS was first installed?
If so was the nearby chimney there?
When was the central air conditioning and heating added?
Were the nearby walkways always there and when were they asphalted?

Here are the Site surveyor notes:

All measurements made on site. CRS 5.8 m. from building to South, 0.2 m. from very
large stump (see photo) to West, 2.1 m from large tree to South, 11 m. from black
paved path to West, c. 28 m. from black road to North.
CRS situated on gravel base (with some dead vegetation). Oleander bushes prevalent
in area (see photos). CRS on sloping ground, non-regulation log base, only 29 in. above
surface (measured mid-slope).
Hotel staff courteous, cooperative, helpful; allowed photography in restricted areas. One
hotel worker (aside from Mr. Huth) said if there ever was any electronic device on site, it
was not there any more.

This is actually a good example of the problems with the long term record.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's too bad
I never realized there was so many factors that could affect readings.

And it sounds like you've given this much thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I read a lot on both sides of the issue
Whether or not you think that man is causing the earth to significantly warm (I'm skeptical) I think it's important to listen to both view points.

Watts' audit of the US surface stations uncovered serious questions about the quality of the data. The fact that it is largely being ignored by the science community is sad. Sadder still is that rather then argue with his findings they would rather insult skeptics with absurd claims that they are shills of the oil companies who spend huge amounts of money trying to buy science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. What a crock of BS
Watts' audit of the US surface stations uncovered serious questions about the quality of the data.

False. Data imperfections have been long known within the scientific community. Thus, the 'adjustments' built into temperature products.

The fact that it is largely being ignored by the science community is sad.

False. The data imperfections have been dealt with appropriately. There is plenty of actual science that shows Watts "concerns" are nothing more than denier propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Your statements are absurd
What you call imperfections were certainly ignored by the scientific community. If you are talking about adjustments for the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) that doesn't begin to approach the issue. An adjustment for UHI has to be done on a site by site basis with local conditions known and monitored. No effort was made to know what the actual local conditions were. About the best that was done was to look at changes in population numbers in the surrounding area and to use those figures to adjust the temperatures to what NOAA "expected" them to be.

Changes in population are fine and dandy but having an air conditioner installed within spitting distance of a MMTS or Stevenson screen isn't going to be picked up by a census population figure. Neither is a satellite image of nighttime lighting going to spot it.

For Gods sake, they put the surface station for Yosemite Park in a junkyard! Just how stupid do you have to be to think that putting this thing in a junkyard is a good idea? Wouldn't it have been easier just to put it somewhere else in the 1,200 square mile park?

Instead they "adjust" the data to "correct" it. The CIA "adjusted" the data to "correct" it prior to invading Iraq. How did that work out?

You second statement that "plenty of actual science that shows Watts "concerns" are nothing more than denier propaganda" is equally absurd. You can call it propaganda all you want but the bottom line is that he showed that 90% of the USHCH network sucks. That is not propaganda but fact.

If you don't know what a station looked like years ago how can you claim that it was acceptable back then when 90% of the current stations are not acceptable? Watts didn't create the criteria. He used NOAA's own standards and the fact that NOAA failed miserably to comply with it's own standards means to trust them on anything else is crazy yet that is exactly what is being done by you and the scientific community. Exactly what has Watts done to qualify as propaganda besides providing inconvenient information?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. You claim to be so educated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I don't claim to be "so educated"
I'm a retired banker. I started school as a physics major but I couldn't handle differential equations. It was my first (of many) major failings in my life and something I truly regret. Twins are another regret but I won't get into that.

What I claim is that I read allot on the subject, look at the actual data and read the full articles rather then the just the headlines. That's why I know that 90% of the articles that talk about a rapidly melting Antarctic really talk about a short term loss of ice only in West Antarctica.

I've also learned that when a headline says that sea level is going to rise by X feet by 2050 the actual figure claimed by the scientist is "between X/5 feet - X feet" and that the current rise of sea level is closer to to X/5 then X feet.

I am also aware that although the current rate sea level rise is called unprecedented it is actually about half of what it has averaged over the last 20,000 years.

If there is anything I am educated in it is data quality and the data quality of the surface data is a disaster whether it is USHCN, CRU or tree ring data. I'm not sure about ice core data. I generally trust It on CO2 but not temperature not that temperature is that critical anyway since it is strictly measuring a local and not global temperature.




Feel free to calls Watts' work propaganda but you slur doesn't diminish it's importance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. No my slur doesn't diminish its importance because it had none to start with.
My calling it propaganda only describes the tripe that it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yeah, I believe Anthony Watts over folks from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Did you read his concerns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. OK, don't you think it's a bit odd
Edited on Sat May-08-10 08:06 PM by OKIsItJustMe
That a year after a TV "meteorologist" publishes his expose, the American Meteorological Society would publish this paper in their journal?

http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jam/

Shoddy science you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't see your point regarding the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
The way I see it the question here is not if man made global warming is happening but:

Is the 114 year The Mohonk Preserve station truly unchanged?

Are the concerns brought up by Watts and the supporting evidence provided make a valid case for questioning the claim that the weather station has "never seen its surroundings change".

Accepting Watts' information regarding Mohonk Preserve doesn't mean accepting that the current global warming is not caused by man it is simply agreeing that his work is useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The OP is a press release regarding a paper in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Edited on Sun May-09-10 12:30 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Watts "published" his piece on his personal web site in March of 2009.

In March of 2010, the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (a peer reviewed journal of the http://www.ametsoc.org/aboutams/index.html">American Meteorological Society) published the paper referred to in the original posting, which had originally been submitted in March of 2009, just prior to Watts' piece.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JAMC2221.1
...

Received: March 12, 2009; Accepted: October 8, 2009

...


If Watts' objections were taken seriously in his field (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials_held">ostensibly meteorology) do you believe this paper would have been accepted and published? Or do you believe the reviewers were simply unaware of Watts' work?

FWIW: In July of 2009, NOAA released "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf">Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable"
...

Q. What can we say about poor station exposure and its impact on national temperature trends?

A. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.

Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.


...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. The fact that the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
posted a paper disagreeing with Watts is not surprising. Journals frequently publish papers that disagree with each other.

Regarding the NOAA "Talking Points" I've been over this before:

The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.

I agree 100% that the quality of the Surfacestations.org audit varies but as NOAA says it is the best they have. That's sad. Apparently nobody ever bothered to check the quality of the sites. That is unacceptable. I am curious however about the statement the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. What do they think? The next time they visit a site that is in the middle of a parking lot, on top of a roof, next to an air conditioner or in the middle of a sewage treatment plant the offending parking lot, roof, air conditioner or sewage plant will have mysteriously disappeared? Not that they have shown any interest in auditing these sites themselves. Doesn't that bother you?

the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends

Watts' audit was to check the current quality of the stations not the quality of the stations 10, 20 or 60 years ago. He found that 90% of the stations are currently out of compliance. Nobody knows if the 10% in currently in compliance were in compliance in the past and that is the point. That makes the data untrustworthy. If 90% is crap today, to assume without evidence that the remaining 10% has always been of good quality is absurd.

Keep in mind that this post is about a site that is supposedly special because it is unchanged for 114 years but is not included in the NOAA subset because it is not currently in compliance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. What is Watt's point though?
Edited on Mon May-10-10 10:41 AM by Nederland
Yes, I agree that Watts has shown that there is a problem with surface temperature stations. However, NOAA claims that they understand the problems and have compensated for them. Now, the question is, what reason do I have to believe that they have compensated for the problems with the stations correctly? The answer is simple: the surface record and the satellite record line up rather well, and nobody has demonstrated that the satellite record is wrong.

So if the satellite record and the surface record both show warming, and nobody has proven that the satellite record is wrong, what exactly is the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The satellite record and the surface record both show warming
but they show different rates of warming. Few knowledgeable "skeptics" question that the planet has warmed. To repeat myself, what we do question is for how long? how much and why.

Here is the point:
The surface data is suspect. That doesn't mean that the earth isn't warming. It means that we don't know how much it has warmed or even if it has warmed over the last 120 years. Personally I think that it has warmed but we don't really know. The satellite data shows warming but it only goes back 31 years and 31 years may not be significant.

As to your question regarding; "do I have to believe that they have compensated for the problems with the stations correctly?"

No you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Wrong
Edited on Mon May-10-10 02:34 PM by Nederland
The satellite record and the surface record both show warming but they show different rates of warming.

No they don't:



The only way you can say that the two show different rates of warming is if you cherry pick endpoints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Lets Cherry pick endpoints by picking the first and last full years 1979 & 2009.
I only have UAH, RSS GISS & HadCRUT3 readily available. If you have sources for the NCDC please let me know and I'll update this.

UAH
1979 -0.073
2009 0.260
Difference +0.333

RSS
1979 -0.098
2009 0.245
Difference +0.343

UAH & RSS Average +0.338

GISS
1979 0.13
2009 0.69
Difference +0.56

HadCRUT3
1979 0.056
2009 0.442
Difference +0.386

GISS & HadCRUT3 Average +0.473


The satellite (UAH & RSS) has gone up 71% as much as GISS & HadCRUT3. I call that "different rates of warming".

Sources:

UAH http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

RSS ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt

GISS 1979 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1979&year2=1979&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

GISS 2009 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

HadCRUT3 http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. So no, you don't know what a trend is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. And you think that's a fair way of analyzing the data?
...by cherry picking endpoints? Please. I could just as easily pick a start date of 1986 and and end date of 2009 and show that the surface trend was lower than the satellite trend. Just look at the graph friend. The two sources may not exactly match, but they clearly follow the same trend. The idea that one is accurate and the other inaccurate simple doesn't make any sense.

FYI, the graph comes from Climate4You, a skeptical website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. But I didn't
I picked the first and last full years that data was available. What dates do you think I should have used?

In an earlier post I said "The satellite record and the surface record both show warming but they show different rates of warming. Few knowledgeable "skeptics" question that the planet has warmed. To repeat myself, what we do question is for how long? how much and why."


In response to the statement "The only way you can say that the two show different rates of warming is if you cherry pick endpoints." I used 4 of the 5 data sets for the longest time frame possible and showed a 29% difference. I think I supported my earlier statement. I'll let you decide if a 29% difference is significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Like Viking12 said, you don't know what a trend is.
Edited on Tue May-11-10 09:48 AM by Nederland
I would agree that a 29% difference is significant, but the fact is 29% is not the number. Not even close.

You ask what dates I think you should use. The very question betrays an ignorance of how things should be done. The fact is, you don't pick any dates. You use all the numbers and do a linear regression. That way you aren't faced with having to make some arbitrary choice of what dates to use. There are lots of different ways to calculate a linear regression, and a good summary is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression_model

Yes there are lots of different ways to do a linear regression, and when you use one method over another is sometimes debatable, but the fact is that in this case, with this data, it doesn't matter. The simple fact is the satellite data points and the surface data points match up pretty well. Again, just look at the graph. You are trying to deny what is plainly obvious: the two data sets obviously track the same underlying property.

Since you are a skeptic, I'll again use Climate4You as a source to show you that how well things really line up. Here are the various trend lines for the different temperature records:





Granted, there is a significant difference between the data sets when you consider a really short period like 5 years, but do you see how close the trends are once you get above 20 years? The trend for the 30 year period we've been discussing is almost exactly the same across all the data sets. They all show an increase of around 1.6C per decade.

Again, there is no significant difference between the satellite record and the surface record, making Watt's observations moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. These are trends...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. horseshit - deniers like anthony watts are assholes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What an intelligent well thought out post
Your mother would be very proud of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. My mom taught me to swear - and she says climate deniers are assholes too
actually, she said climate deniers were "fucking assholes who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground"

quote

unquote

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. My mom taught me not to swear once by using a bar of soap in my mouth
I guess that they had different values and different ideas of proper civility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yup - anthony watts is still a denier asshole
yup!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC