| Archive for Earth Sciences Forum This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!! |
| Kristen |
"Follies in Measuring Global Warming", a preview**Moderator comment: this thread is split off from this thread**While I have been on vacation a bunch of volunteers have been doing data collection for me on the temperature stations and how everyone from James Hansen to the IPCC analyzes the data. I’m planning to extend my story “Follies in Measuring Global Warming” into a full series since there are so many pictures of laughable temperature station sites (none of the temperature stations in New England are in compliance with National Weather Service guidelines). I will also talk about the adjustments that the “worlds leading climate scientists” have made to the data (look for the Karl 2-step). This will include some information about temperature stations at the colleges in New England such as the one at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: 
I’ll discuss issues such as “rural stations” such as this site at Woodland, Maine that are used to adjust nearby “urban stations”: 
I’ll also discuss James Hansen’s “no lights” stations that are used for the same purpose such as this one in Acadia National Park, Maine: 
I’ll ask questions about the competence of the scientists who install and study temperature stations like this one that we found in Eastport, Maine where the thermometer is a few feet downwind from the AC unit: 
I’ll also ask questions about why NCDC temperature stations measure different temperatures than high quality NCDC reference stations. For example, this station in Durham New Hampshire was observed to be 1.25 degrees warmer in the summer only. Care to take a wild guess why? 
I’ll even discuss the need for “filnet”; a computer program used to create temperature readings that were not reported to NWS. Some in the climate community looked at this picture and speculated about why someone may have “forgotten” to make their reports to the NWS (look at the plants growing in the background): 
After I’m done with all that, using observed data, I intend to demonstrate that any global warming that may have happened, is consistent with natural variance. Follies in Measuring Global Warming", a preview Follies in Measuring Global Warming", II Follies in Measuring Global Warming", III Post upload moderator assisted |
||||
| scpg02 |
dude, I know I'm forgetting something. 
|
||||
| Andre |
Thanks, Kristen.
it occurs to me that monitoring temperature at a certain site is always shaped by the environment. obvious variables are natural elements, vegetation, water surfaces, dry or wet soil, apart from the human modifications. As long as those factors remain constant, then it would not be a problem when the aim is to register long term trends. However if you do modify those, cutting forests, put down buildings, replace old airco's with much more power, then your trends will get spurious. Not if you don't change anything. |
||||
| scpg02 |
hey what happened to her post laughing at me? | ||||
| Andre |
Victim of an unfortunate moderator move, I'm afraid.  my apologies.
|
||||
| scpg02 |
Aww, no apologies needed just wondered where it went. It's all good. |
||||
| Kristen |
The thread was almost re-named Follies in Posting 
|
||||