Shock News!!!! GISS Is Doing It Wrong!!!! …… Still

So Lat alerts us to three new papers find most of the alleged global warming since 1850 is artificial, with is heralded by The Hockey Stick

But, I like to go to the source. 

Summary: “Urbanization bias” – Papers 1-3

The read is fairly easy going, albeit, very lengthy.  Much of it is very introductory.  So, it may be pretty mundane for us climate warriors.  It’s probably best to start here for many of us.

  1. Urbanization bias I. Is it a negligible problem for global temperature estimates? – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014a
  2. Urbanization bias II. An assessment of the NASA GISS urbanization adjustment method – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014b
  3. Urbanization bias III. Estimating the extent of bias in the Historical Climatology Network datasets – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014c

Take your pick.  For the papers themselves, I chose to look at #2.  Here’s the pdf.  It’s a total of 31 pages.  This is from their conclusions.  Sorry about the formatting, but, to do otherwise, I’d have to individually remove the numbers, and, many of us are used to reading numbered pdf papers anyway.   

5 Conclusions
1734 In this article, the adjustments applied by NASA
1735 GISS to remove urbanization bias from their global
1736 temperature estimates were assessed. We found a
1737 number of serious problems with their adjustments:
1738 The vast majority of their adjustments involved
1739 correcting for \urban cooling”, but urbanization
1740 bias is predominantly a warming bias.
1741 The net effect of their adjustments was unreal1742
statistically low, and tended towards zero for recent
1743 decades, despite this being a period during which
1744 urbanization increased globally.
1745 For a subset of some of the most highly urbanized
1746 stations, their adjustments succeeded in remov1747
ing much of the urban warming for the period
1748 1895-1980. But, for the more recent period, al1749
most no adjustment was applied, even though
1750 urbanization continued to increase.
1751 A number of serious
aws were found in the current
1752 approach:
1753 The use of their \extension rule” to extend the
1754 length of the urban records they could use in
1755 their global temperature estimates is inappropri1756
ate, because they include these extended periods
1757 of the urban records unadjusted.
1758 Their method for identifying stations as urban
1759 assumes that the co-ordinates they have for the
1760 stations are accurate, but quite a few of their
1761 station co-ordinates are inaccurate.
1762 Their method for identifying urban stations is
1763 not sensitive enough.
1764 As we discuss in Paper III, the currently avail1765
able weather station datasets have a severe short1766
age of records for rural stations which are both
1767 long and complete[2]. Their method is unable to
1768 adequately handle such a shortage.

Their method assumes that the only non- 1769
climatic biases which need to be considered are 1770
urbanization biases. As a result, up until Decem- 1771
ber 2011, their adjustments were confounded by 1772
the presence of other non-climatic biases, leading 1773
to spurious and inappropriate adjustments. 1774
In December 2011, they switched to using a 1775
dataset which had already been homogeneity- 1776
adjusted, and so, presumably, this problem has 1777
been reduced. However, as we discuss in Pa- 1778
per III, the homogeneity-adjustments used for 1779
that dataset are inadequate and often lead to the 1780
\blending” of non-climatic biases between sta- 1781
tions, rather than their removal[2]. So, switching 1782
to this dataset has introduced new problems.

I emboldened part of this because this is the problem with many people, including our scientists.  People tend to view things as they experience them.  And, these guys got it exactly right!  Globally, we’re urbanizing.  For Europe, much of it has already been urbanized, as is true for much of the developed world. 

About the only thing I’d add here is that we need to realize the UHI effect is logarithmic.  That is to say a curve for the effect of UHI would look something like this …..

image

And, this is where almost everyone get’s it wrong.  The impact on temps, locally, is most predominately done by the addition of the first human, and decreases in effect per person as the population increases.  That is to say, when you add another person to the one, that additional person has much greater affect on the temps than does adding one to 100,000. 

GISS divides up the stations in a rural vs urban notion.  Well, what’s rural?  GISS uses night lighting to make that determination, today, as noted in the paper.  But, that’s wrong.  Science notes the “observer effect”, which refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.  And so it is with our temperature stations.  Regardless of the type of thermometer we’re using, or the types of communication to the thermometer, we’re absolutely altering the environment in which we’re seeking to measure.  There’s no getting around this, and thus, the adjustments. 

Are the adjustments wrong?  Of course they are.  GISS has only two categories?  Even if they had their calculations right, which they don’t, then they’d still be mostly wrong because of the logarithmic nature of the UHI. 

The temperature record, which gives us a global average temperature is nothing but an illogical contravention of a bunch of fanatical lunatics who have no understanding of math or science. 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Shock News!!!! GISS Is Doing It Wrong!!!! …… Still

  1. Anything is possible says:

    These guys appear to be pretty prolific :

    http://globalwarmingsolved.com/

    Not content with analysing the global temperature records, they have also written similar papers on Arctic Ice, Hurricanes, Station siting, Sea levels, Global warming “consensus”, the IPCC, Global temperature changes of the last millennium and the Physics of the Earth’s atmosphere (the last one is a “must read”).

    While what I have read is very well-written and clearly explained, the skeptic in me is thinking this all looks too good to be true, if you get my drift

    • suyts says:

      I do get your drift. OTOH, much of what they’ve written, from what I’ve seen, is mostly building upon foundations laid by many ….. which is how it’s suppose to work.

    • DirkH says:

      Very nice.
      “However, our analysis of the experimental data shows that atmospheric temperatures are determined by gas laws, which are independent of the infrared activity of the gases. So, if greenhouse gases do cause a “greenhouse effect”, then it is probably negligible. ”
      http://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics

  2. Mark Luhman says:

    I had it pointed out to me that here in the southwest the Indians would put line in the bottom of their pots to allow them to heat up quicker. My question to so called climate scientist it what does a city do. A city normal takes a flat surface and rough it up, even if you replace grass trees and bare ground with asphalt and concrete you also rough up the surface and increase the surface area and limit natural radiation to less than 180 degrees, Who do our intellectual morons have such difficult tile understand this, Maybe it because the may be educated yet morons. Oh I forgot moron is not PC correct!

  3. philjourdan says:

    It is rapidly becoming a world that is freezing to death from AGW. The new scientist will now explain how heat exhaustion can be confused with hypothermia.

  4. Latitude says:

    ..and the take home

    ” The authors also examined one of the computer programs designed to remove the “urban heat island” [UHI] bias in global temperature datasets and found errors in the program which actually increased the artificial urban heat bias”

    which we already knew they were doing

  5. Lars P. says:

    I learned in one of the WUWT threads that the urbanisation problem is not the only one simple logarithmic function as I thought before, but could be multiplied with 2 or 3 depending how many times the station has been moved.

    Let me explain, historically the station was close to the town. As the town increased, the station was covered by the UHI zone – we have an increase of temp. Once the station is affected by the urban heat it is moved a bit further, outside of the city’s UHI influence.
    Now again one starts from a lower temp as the station is outside the UHI.

    The town increases further – and gradually the station is again covered by the UHI zone with increasing temp.
    Nice isn’t it? We have already used 2 times the same UHI to increase measured temp.
    If the station is moved a second time, we start a third time with lower temp and we get a third time the same UHI island to cover the station with the city growing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s