Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

Expand Messages
  • David Wojick
    Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment? David Sent from my IPad ... Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 1, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

      David

      Sent from my IPad

      On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

       

      I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

      Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

      The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

      http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

      Dick

      On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
       

      Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."

      I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

      David

      On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

       

      I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

      Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

      David

      On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

       

      I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
      Watt's paper.

      The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

      If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

      Mel Gerst


    • Dick Kahle
      David, The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question. Dick Watts started out with the objective of seeing if
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 4, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        David,

        The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

        Dick

        Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

        Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

        Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

        The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

        The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

        There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

        Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

        In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

        Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

        In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

        So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.


        On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
         

        Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

        David

        Sent from my IPad

        On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

         

        I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

        Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

        The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

        http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

        Dick

        On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
         

        Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."

        I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

        David

        On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

         

        I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

        Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

        David

        On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

         

        I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
        Watt's paper.

        The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

        If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

        Mel Gerst



      • David Wojick
        Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 4, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

          David

          Sent from my IPad

          On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

           

          David,

          The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

          Dick

          Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

          Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

          Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

          The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

          The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

          There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

          Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

          In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

          Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

          In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

          So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.



          On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
           

          Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

          David

          Sent from my IPad

          On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

           

          I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

          Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

          The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

          http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

          Dick

          On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
           

          Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."

          I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

          David

          On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

           

          I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

          Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

          David

          On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

           

          I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
          Watt's paper.

          The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

          If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

          http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

          Mel Gerst



        • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
          David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven t been moved, the data should
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 4, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

            Bruce

            C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
            Houston, Texas


            From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
            Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
            To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

             

             

            Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

             

            David

            Sent from my IPad


            On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

             

            David,

            The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

            Dick

            Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

            Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

            Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

            The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

            The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

            There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

            Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

            In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

            Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

            In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

            So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

             

            On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

             

            Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

             

            David

            Sent from my IPad


            On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

             

            I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

            Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US . The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

            The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

            http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

            Dick

            On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

             

            Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


            I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

             

            David


            On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

             

            I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

             

            Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

             

            David


            On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

             

            I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
            Watt's paper.

            The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

            If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

            Mel Gerst

             

             

          • David Wojick
            I agree but error is the wrong word. David Sent from my IPad ... I agree but error is the wrong word. David Sent from my IPad On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:35 PM, C.
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree but error is the wrong word.
              David

              Sent from my IPad

              On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:35 PM, "C. Bruce Richardson Jr. " <cbrjr@...> wrote:

               

              David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

              Bruce

              C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
              Houston, Texas


              From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
              Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
              To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

               

               

              Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

               

              David

              Sent from my IPad


              On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

               

              David,

              The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

              Dick

              Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

              Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

              Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

              The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

              The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

              There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

              Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

              In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

              Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

              In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

              So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

               

              On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

               

              Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

               

              David

              Sent from my IPad


              On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

               

              I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

              Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US . The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

              The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

              http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

              http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

              Dick

              On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

               

              Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


              I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

               

              David


              On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

               

              I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

               

              Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

               

              David


              On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

               

              I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
              Watt's paper.

              The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

              If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

              http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

              Mel Gerst

               

               

            • Robert Maginnis
                  The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post. Here’s how “Climate
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                 
                The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post.
                Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought” opens:
                When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
                But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
                My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
                In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
                This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
                I first wrote about this back in January when Hansen posted the draft of his findings, which made use of a detailed climatological analysis (see “Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”).
                Hansen has a good figure to show what’s happening:
                Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.............................more at:
                 
                 
                bob
              • Ian McQueen
                Hmmm, the name is familiar. There is also a James Hansen who is paid by NASA and who seems to spend much of his time revising temperature records to give a
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  
                      Hmmm, the name is familiar. There is also a James Hansen who is paid by NASA and who seems to spend much of his time revising temperature records to give a false indication of rising temperatures at present. That James Hansen, who is not a climatologist, seems willing to ignore natural phenomena like a northward-shifting jet stream, cold and or wet conditions in many parts of the world other than the USA (which is less than 2% of the world's surface area), and who seems to spend much time away from his desk. I wonder if they are the same person.
                   
                          Ian
                   
                  .
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:58 AM
                  Subject: [climatechangedebate] Hansen: Climate change is here, and worse than we thought

                   
                   
                  The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post.
                  Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought” opens:
                  When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
                  But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
                  My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
                  In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
                  This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
                  I first wrote about this back in January when Hansen posted the draft of his findings, which made use of a detailed climatological analysis (see “Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”).
                  Hansen has a good figure to show what’s happening:
                  Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.............................more at:
                   
                   
                  bob

                  No virus found in this message.
                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5179 - Release Date: 08/05/12

                • Dick Kahle
                  Bruce, Watt s study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bruce,

                    Watt's study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.

                    Dick

                    On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:
                     

                    David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                    Bruce

                    C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                    Houston, Texas


                    From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                    Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                    To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                     

                     

                    Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                     

                    David

                    Sent from my IPad


                    On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                     

                    David,

                    The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                    Dick

                    Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                    Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                    Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                    The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                    The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                    There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                    Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                    In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                    Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                    In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                    So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                     

                    On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                     

                    Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                     

                    David

                    Sent from my IPad


                    On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                     

                    I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                    Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                    The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                    http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                    Dick

                    On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                     

                    Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                    I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                     

                    David


                    On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                     

                    I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                     

                    Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                     

                    David


                    On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                     

                    I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                    Watt's paper.

                    The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                    If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                    Mel Gerst

                     

                     


                  • Dick Kahle
                    David, When you said simple error in your response to my explanation, I understood. I don t understand why error is now the wrong word. If homogenization
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David,

                      When you said simple error in your response to my explanation, I understood.

                      I don't understand why error is now the wrong word. If homogenization introduces artificial corrections, isn't that an error, although perhaps not simple?

                      If the time of observation adjustment is incorrect and introduces an artificial trend, isn't that an error?

                      Dick

                      On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:39 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:
                       

                      I agree but error is the wrong word.
                      David

                      Sent from my IPad

                      On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:35 PM, "C. Bruce Richardson Jr. " <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                       

                      David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                      Bruce

                      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                      Houston, Texas


                      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                      Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                       

                       

                      Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                       

                      David

                      Sent from my IPad


                      On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                       

                      David,

                      The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                      Dick

                      Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                      Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                      Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                      The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                      The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                      There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                      Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                      In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                      Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                      In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                      So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                       

                      On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                       

                      Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                       

                      David

                      Sent from my IPad


                      On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                       

                      I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                      Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                      The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                      http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                      Dick

                      On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                       

                      Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                      I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                       

                      David


                      On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                       

                      I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                       

                      Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                       

                      David


                      On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                       

                      I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                      Watt's paper.

                      The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                      If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                      Mel Gerst

                       

                       


                    • Dick Kahle
                      The games that some people play. As you will note, I have given up on polite language in this post since that would be an inadequate response. First, you start
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The games that some people play. As you will note, I have given up on polite language in this post since that would be an inadequate response.

                        First, you start with the coolest 30 year period in the last 60 years as your baseline. As the average homogenized temperatures move to the right, of course the distribution moves to the right. This would happen with any warming including natural warming. Keeping the 1951-1980 baseline in deceiving.

                        Second, a proper analysis would recalculate the distribution for each time period. It does appear that absolute range of the distribution might be wider. But perhaps that is because of the blocking patterns observed this last decade, which respectable scientists will not say is due to global warming.

                        As I recall, in the 1930's in the US, there were much wider temperature ranges. We had both some of our hottest summers and some very cold winters. Perhaps the wider distribution is typical of certain parts of the natural climate cycle. Of course if you don't compare to the 1930's, you don't have to deal with this possibility. In fact trying to define temperature extremes as unusual with only a 60 year period is nothing more than a PR game. Statistically, it is laughable.

                        In fact, hasn't the public discourse, even from scientists, largely sunk to the level of a PR game.

                        For example, Watt's does some original work on site quality and trends in raw data. The attack from the AGW people is vicious and deflective. They say you should have made all the adjustments we made, then you would be okay because you would get our results. Watt's real point, how can the adjustments be so different for different quality sites, is largely unanswered. More correctly it is avoided by most.

                        Dick

                        On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                         

                         
                         
                        The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post.
                        Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought” opens:
                        When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
                        But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
                        My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
                        In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
                        This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
                        I first wrote about this back in January when Hansen posted the draft of his findings, which made use of a detailed climatological analysis (see “Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”).
                        Hansen has a good figure to show what’s happening:
                        Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.............................more at:
                         
                         
                        bob


                      • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                        Dick, I didn t intend to suggest that his recent study was on the CRN. The CRN is the highest quality system that we have. There shouldn t be a reason to do
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Dick, I didn’t intend to suggest that his recent study was on the CRN. The CRN is the highest quality system that we have. There shouldn’t be a reason to do any adjustments. But the data isn’t in a form that we can readily use. And it doesn’t go back very far either. Another problem may be that the CRN is providing such a huge amount of data. Watts has been commissioned to compare CRN stations to USHCN stations.



                          USCRN Stations


                          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

                          The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.”


                          Bruce

                          C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                          Houston , Texas

                           


                          From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                          Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:39 AM
                          To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                           

                           

                          Bruce,

                          Watt's study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.

                          Dick

                          On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                           

                          David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                          Bruce

                          C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                          Houston , Texas


                          From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                          Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                          To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                           

                           

                          Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                           

                          David

                          Sent from my IPad


                          On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                           

                          David,

                          The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                          Dick

                          Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                          Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                          Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                          The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                          The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                          There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                          Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                          In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                          Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                          In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                          So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                           

                          On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                           

                          Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                           

                          David

                          Sent from my IPad


                          On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                           

                          I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                          Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US . The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                          The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                          http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                          Dick

                          On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                           

                          Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                          I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                           

                          David


                          On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                           

                          I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                           

                          Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                           

                          David


                          On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                           

                          I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                          Watt's paper.

                          The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                          If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                          http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                          Mel Gerst

                           

                           

                           

                        • Dick Kahle
                          Bruce, Your post was confusing coming on the back of David s. Thanks for the clarification I ve tried getting data from the CRN site and find that I can, but
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bruce,

                            Your post was confusing coming on the back of David's. Thanks for the clarification

                            I've tried getting data from the CRN site and find that I can, but it intuitively obvious.

                            I haven't tried for graphics yet.

                            Dick

                            On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:
                             

                            Dick, I didn’t intend to suggest that his recent study was on the CRN. The CRN is the highest quality system that we have. There shouldn’t be a reason to do any adjustments. But the data isn’t in a form that we can readily use. And it doesn’t go back very far either. Another problem may be that the CRN is providing such a huge amount of data. Watts has been commissioned to compare CRN stations to USHCN stations.



                            USCRN Stations


                            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

                            The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.”


                            Bruce

                            C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                            Houston, Texas

                             


                            From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                            Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:39 AM


                            To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                             

                             

                            Bruce,

                            Watt's study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.

                            Dick

                            On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                             

                            David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                            Bruce

                            C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                            Houston, Texas


                            From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                            Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                            To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                             

                             

                            Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                             

                            David

                            Sent from my IPad


                            On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                             

                            David,

                            The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                            Dick

                            Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                            Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                            Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                            The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                            The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                            There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                            Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                            In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                            Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                            In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                            So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                             

                            On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                             

                            Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                             

                            David

                            Sent from my IPad


                            On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                             

                            I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                            Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                            The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                            http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                            Dick

                            On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                             

                            Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                            I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                             

                            David


                            On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                             

                            I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                             

                            Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                             

                            David


                            On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                             

                            I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                            Watt's paper.

                            The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                            If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                            http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                            Mel Gerst

                             

                             

                             


                          • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                            Bob, I think that James Hansen is prescient only in the sense that Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich are. I m sure that your remember Ehrlich s Population
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Bob, I think that James Hansen is “prescient” only in the sense that Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich are. I’m sure that your remember Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb.”

                              "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

                              Ehrlich was seeking legislative action to combat what he sincerely believed was a looming catastrophe. Fortunately he failed.

                              "Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”

                              Hansen and company have another analysis. They found a “a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.” What a surprise.

                              What’s stunning? We are at the warm end of a long-term warming trend that started before anthropogenic CO2 could have been the cause. A warm summer now is more likely to break a temperature record that was set when it was cooler. Hansen has to know that. He isn’t lying. He is just telling the truth selectively—but not the whole truth.

                              Look at the NOAA data. Draw imaginary horizontal lines from the warm peaks that have occurred since 2001. Even though, according to the NOAA data, it hasn’t warmed since 2001. The records set when it was cooler can be broken even though temperature excursions don’t appear to be significantly greater than those in the past.



                              our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”


                              Maybe so, climate does change. Look at the chart. When was climate not changing? The chart covers over a 110 years. Now if climate should stop changing, that would be an extreme event. A hot summer at the warm end is likely to be warmer than a hot summer in the cool end.

                              Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.............................

                               

                              Yes, “relative to 1951-1980 mean.  Look at the chart again. 1951 thru 1980 was a cool period in the data. So Hansen is telling us that it is warmer now than it was when it was cooler. Yep. I have to agree with Hansen on that point.

                              The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small.”

                               

                              Is climate change like throwing dice? Totally random? I don’t think so. According to the NOAA data there were two warming periods of similar rate and magnitude. The first occurred before there was that huge increase in CO2 to around 0.04% of the atmosphere. Hansen is certain that CO2 was responsible for the second warming period. What caused the first? If that was mostly natural, where did those natural forces go during the second?

                              “In any case, it doesn’t really matter whether I am right or Hansen is as long as everyone is flexible in achieving the most important goal the rising carbon price, since the final deal will no doubt require compromises across the board.”

                               

                              Unbelievable, it doesn’t matter whether Romm or Hansen are right? Apparently Romm thinks that being “flexible” is doing what he wants. And he wants a carbon tax. Why should we do that? Maybe he should be “flexible” and not try to do something that is very likely to damage our economy. It is a tax that virtually every consumer will pay. Why would we assume that the federal profligacy that got us into the current mess would end when presented with a huge new revenue stream?

                              Bruce

                              C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                              Houston , Texas

                               


                              From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                              Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 9:58 AM
                              To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [climatechangedebate] Hansen: Climate change is here, and worse than we thought

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post.

                              Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought” opens:

                              When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

                              But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.

                              My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.

                              In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

                              This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

                              I first wrote about this back in January when Hansen posted the draft of his findings, which made use of a detailed climatological analysis (see “Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”).

                              Hansen has a good figure to show what’s happening:

                              Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.............................more at:

                               

                               

                              bob

                            • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                              Dick, we could download CRN data for a particular location. As I understand it, it has temperatures by the hour. It would be fairly easy to get the max and min
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Dick, we could download CRN data for a particular location. As I understand it, it has temperatures by the hour. It would be fairly easy to get the max and min for a 24 hour period. I’m not sure how we would go about finding the USHCN stations that surround the CRN station. I don’t know how we would get to the adjusted max and min for a particular station. We would need that if we were going to compare. 

                                Bruce

                                C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                Houston, TX 

                                 


                                From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                                Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 2:03 PM
                                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                 

                                 

                                Bruce,

                                Your post was confusing coming on the back of David's. Thanks for the clarification

                                I've tried getting data from the CRN site and find that I can, but it intuitively obvious.

                                I haven't tried for graphics yet.

                                Dick

                                On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Dick, I didn’t intend to suggest that his recent study was on the CRN. The CRN is the highest quality system that we have. There shouldn’t be a reason to do any adjustments. But the data isn’t in a form that we can readily use. And it doesn’t go back very far either. Another problem may be that the CRN is providing such a huge amount of data. Watts has been commissioned to compare CRN stations to USHCN stations.



                                USCRN Stations


                                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

                                The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.”


                                Bruce

                                C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                Houston , Texas

                                 


                                From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                                Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:39 AM


                                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                 

                                 

                                Bruce,

                                Watt's study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.

                                Dick

                                On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                                 

                                David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                                Bruce

                                C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                Houston , Texas


                                From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                                Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                                To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                 

                                 

                                Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                                 

                                David

                                Sent from my IPad


                                On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                                 

                                David,

                                The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                                Dick

                                Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                                Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                                Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                                The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                                The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                                There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                                Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                                In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                                Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                                In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                                So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                                 

                                On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                                 

                                David

                                Sent from my IPad


                                On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                                 

                                I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                                Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US . The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                                The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                                http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                                http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                                Dick

                                On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                                I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                                 

                                David


                                On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                 

                                I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                                 

                                Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                                 

                                David


                                On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                                 

                                I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                                Watt's paper.

                                The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                                If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                                http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                                Mel Gerst

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                 

                              • Dick Kahle
                                Bruce, Here is a data retrieval page for CRN. It will collect all the elements you could possibly need for a month for a single site. Data retrieval has to be
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 5, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bruce,

                                  Here is a data retrieval page for CRN. It will collect all the elements you could possibly need for a month for a single site. Data retrieval has to be done a month at at time. You can select your site and you can limit the search by limiting the elements you select. The format is selected at the bottom.

                                  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/report?report=newelements&por_start_month=01&por_start_day=01&por_start_year=2012&por_start_hour=&por_end_month=&por_end_day=&por_end_year=&por_end_hour=&por_tref=LST&sort_by=slv&comm_only=&flags=0&elements=&element_group_id=&format=web

                                  At this point, I also do not know how to get the USHCN data. It should be available somewhere.

                                  www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open-access-climate-data-policy.pdf

                                  Dick

                                  On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Dick, we could download CRN data for a particular location. As I understand it, it has temperatures by the hour. It would be fairly easy to get the max and min for a 24 hour period. I’m not sure how we would go about finding the USHCN stations that surround the CRN station. I don’t know how we would get to the adjusted max and min for a particular station. We would need that if we were going to compare. 


                                  Bruce

                                  C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                  Houston, TX 

                                   


                                  From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                                  Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 2:03 PM


                                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                   

                                   

                                  Bruce,

                                  Your post was confusing coming on the back of David's. Thanks for the clarification

                                  I've tried getting data from the CRN site and find that I can, but it intuitively obvious.

                                  I haven't tried for graphics yet.

                                  Dick

                                  On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Dick, I didn’t intend to suggest that his recent study was on the CRN. The CRN is the highest quality system that we have. There shouldn’t be a reason to do any adjustments. But the data isn’t in a form that we can readily use. And it doesn’t go back very far either. Another problem may be that the CRN is providing such a huge amount of data. Watts has been commissioned to compare CRN stations to USHCN stations.



                                  USCRN Stations


                                  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/

                                  The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for.”


                                  Bruce

                                  C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                  Houston, Texas

                                   


                                  From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
                                  Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:39 AM


                                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                   

                                   

                                  Bruce,

                                  Watt's study is on the USHCN stations, not the CRN. The CRN network has been installed in this century. All the CRN stations should be classification 1.

                                  Dick

                                  On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  David, a ton of money was spent on the climate reference network (CRN). Since all of the CRN stations are high quality and haven’t been moved, the data should not require any adjustments at all. The system hasn’t been up long enough to figure anomalies. But it would be possible to compare the short-term trends from a CRN station with that of adjusted stations in the vicinity. It seems obvious to me that data from CRN1 & CRN2 stations should not be contaminated (AKA homogenized) with the data from CRN3, CRN4, and CRN5 stations. It seems odd that the data from those bad stations are even considered. What is the point of using the data from bad stations? That’s kind of like taking the word of someone that you know is a compulsive liar.

                                  Bruce

                                  C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                  Houston, Texas


                                  From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:33 PM
                                  To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hasn't Watts taken care of Muller and BEST?

                                   

                                   

                                  Thanks Dick. As I suspected, it is not a simple error, but rather a complex questionable practice. I have never believed in homoginization, on theoretical grounds, so I imagine Watts is correct. But it is not the smoking gun that an error would be.

                                   

                                  David

                                  Sent from my IPad


                                  On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  David,

                                  The response below, also in answer to another string on Watts attempts to address your question.

                                  Dick

                                  Watts started out with the objective of seeing if there was a difference between well-sited stations and stations that are not well-sited. He did find a a significant difference in the raw data. There are five new Leroy classifications for weather sites published in 2010, improving upon his 1999 classification. Basically classes 1 & 2 are considered well-sited (compliant) from a micro siting standpoint, based on proximity to and the size of heat-sinks or sources and other criteria. Classes 3, 4 & 5 are declining qualities of micro-siting (non-compliant). The new Leroy classification is important because the WMO has voted to develop an ISO standard for existing temperature stations based upon the 2010 Leroy classification.

                                  Watt's has collected micro siting data on 1007 of 1221 USHCN sites. About 20% of the US sites that Watt's has data on are considered classes 1 or 2.

                                  Using raw data without adjustments the average decadal rate of increase for Classes 1/2 (compliant) from 1979-2008 is 0.155 C/decade.

                                  The remaining non-compliant sites (Classes 3, 4 & 5) have an average increase for 1979-2008 of 0.248 C/decade.

                                  The average for all the sites, compliant and non-compliant is 0.231 C/decade.

                                  There are legitimate reasons to adjust raw data such as site moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes that could affect maximum or minimum temperatures or other documented anomalies.

                                  Watt's notes that the final adjusted NOAA data for all stations has a trend of 0.309 C/decade.

                                  In theory homogeneity adjustments should eliminate non-climatic effects on temperatures and trends. Some adjustments, such as time of observation bias (TOB) are adjusted using a specific algorithms. Most of the homogeneity adjustments are statistical and many use remote statistically correlated sites. Some previous studies claim that after adjustment there is not a difference in trends between poorly sited temperature instruments and well-sited temperature instruments. Other studies have found that there should be a difference. The difference between the trends in the raw data beg the question of how that difference is legitimately eliminated through a statistical homogeneity adjustment.

                                  Some say the reason for the adjusted NOAA trend being higher is the TOB adjustment. That does not answer the question of why the adjustment to the compliant sites is greater than the adjustment to the non-compliant sites. At first blush this is counter intuitive.

                                  In a paper by Sterou and Koutsoyiannis, the homogenization process for GHCN stations was evaluated. The USHCN is a significant subset in terms of the number of stations in the GHCN network. There study indicated two problems with the homogenization process. The first is that homogenization either increase a positive trend, decrease the rate of a negative trend or took a neutral trend and made it positive for 2/3 of the stations evaluated. An expected result would be that about 1/2 of the stations would have a positive change in the trend and 1/2 would have a negative trend. The second problem was that when S&K used synthetic time series with real discontinuities and with real trends, the homogenization process removed the real trends in addition to modifying the trends for the real discontinuities.

                                  So we have an empirical approach and a statistical approach creating legitimate questions about adjustments to raw temperature data.

                                   

                                  On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Thanks Dick. What is the nature of the alledged erroneous adjustment?

                                   

                                  David

                                  Sent from my IPad


                                  On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  I agree that Watt's needs to temper his conclusions. However, the interesting part is that Watt's paper and another work published this month seem to reach a similar conclusion. The crossover is that both papers say that the process of homogenization tends to increase warming trends from the original records.

                                  Watt's approaches the problem using a new WMO-ISO standard for classifying existing stations quality in evaluating temperature trends versus station quality for the US. The value in looking at the US is that we have the best coverage and generally the best quality stations. If the US has station data problems, what does that indicate for the rest of the world. The paper is pre-publication and he is taking comments.

                                  The other paper by Steirou and Kotsoyiannis points out that using a statistical analysis technique that homogenization creates artificial warming trends in the GHCN data.

                                  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

                                  http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

                                  Dick

                                  On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Watts tends to hyperbolic. Here is his PR: "A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments."


                                  I doubt NOAA will agree, but we can wait and see. Suggests is a better word than demonstrates. I am curious how this new classification works?

                                   

                                  David


                                  On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Wojick <dwojick@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  I personally do not follow Watts all that much. His thing is the accuracy of the US temp record, which does not interest me. I think the global surface statistical models are no good mathematically, so the accuracy of the US data is not all that important. And it is a small part of the BEST effort. 

                                   

                                  Perhaps yousee something I am missing?

                                   

                                  David


                                  On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Melvyn Gerst <mgerst7@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  I can't figure out why "climatechangedebate" is not talking about the
                                  Watt's paper.

                                  The paper seems to be the talk of the world . . . except at CCD.

                                  If I'm incorrect, I do apologize for the rude interruption.

                                  http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/the-big-news-is-out-on-watts-up/

                                  Mel Gerst

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                   


                                • Adrian Godfrey
                                  Huge new revenue stream is the key. That s why the fraud is still continuing. Adrian ... -- Best regards, Adrian mailto:lists@ags.lu
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 6, 2012
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Huge new revenue stream is the key. That's why the fraud is still continuing.

                                    Adrian

                                    Monday, August 6, 2012, 12:36:32 AM, you wrote:

                                    > Bob, I think that James Hansen is "prescient" only in the sense that
                                    > Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich are. I'm sure that your remember Ehrlich's
                                    > "Population Bomb."

                                    > "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds
                                    > of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
                                    > embarked upon now."

                                    > Ehrlich was seeking legislative action to combat what he sincerely believed
                                    > was a looming catastrophe. Fortunately he failed.

                                    > "Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote
                                    > effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home,
                                    > hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if
                                    > voluntary methods fail."

                                    > Hansen and company have another analysis. They found a "a stunning increase
                                    > in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling
                                    > ramifications for not only our future but also for our present." What a
                                    > surprise.

                                    > What's stunning? We are at the warm end of a long-term warming trend that
                                    > started before anthropogenic CO2 could have been the cause. A warm summer
                                    > now is more likely to break a temperature record that was set when it was
                                    > cooler. Hansen has to know that. He isn't lying. He is just telling the
                                    > truth selectively-but not the whole truth.

                                    > Look at the NOAA data. Draw imaginary horizontal lines from the warm peaks
                                    > that have occurred since 2001. Even though, according to the NOAA data, it
                                    > hasn't warmed since 2001. The records set when it was cooler can be broken
                                    > even though temperature excursions don't appear to be significantly greater
                                    > than those in the past.



                                    > "our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past,
                                    > there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."

                                    > Maybe so, climate does change. Look at the chart. When was climate not
                                    > changing? The chart covers over a 110 years. Now if climate should stop
                                    > changing, that would be an extreme event. A hot summer at the warm end is
                                    > likely to be warmer than a hot summer in the cool end.

                                    > <http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hansen.jpg>
                                    > Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August
                                    > temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere
                                    > land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature
                                    > anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution
                                    > ("bell curve", shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical
                                    > (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution
                                    > of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming
                                    > of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one
                                    > side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and
                                    > an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one
                                    > side.............................
                                    >
                                    > Yes, "relative to 1951-1980 mean." Look at the chart again. 1951 thru 1980
                                    > was a cool period in the data. So Hansen is telling us that it is warmer now
                                    > than it was when it was cooler. Yep. I have to agree with Hansen on that
                                    > point.

                                    > "The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule,
                                    > vanishingly small."
                                    >
                                    > Is climate change like throwing dice? Totally random? I don't think so.
                                    > According to the NOAA data there were two warming periods of similar rate
                                    > and magnitude. The first occurred before there was that huge increase in CO2
                                    > to around 0.04% of the atmosphere. Hansen is certain that CO2 was
                                    > responsible for the second warming period. What caused the first? If that
                                    > was mostly natural, where did those natural forces go during the second?

                                    > "In any case, it doesn't really matter whether I am right or Hansen is as
                                    > long as everyone is flexible in achieving the most important goal the rising
                                    > carbon price, since the final deal will no doubt require compromises across
                                    > the board."
                                    >
                                    > Unbelievable, it doesn't matter whether Romm or Hansen are right? Apparently
                                    > Romm thinks that being "flexible" is doing what he wants. And he wants a
                                    > carbon tax. Why should we do that? Maybe he should be "flexible" and not try
                                    > to do something that is very likely to damage our economy. It is a tax that
                                    > virtually every consumer will pay. Why would we assume that the federal
                                    > profligacy that got us into the current mess would end when presented with a
                                    > huge new revenue stream?

                                    > Bruce

                                    > C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                    > Houston, Texas


                                    --
                                    Best regards,
                                    Adrian mailto:lists@...
                                  • Robert Maginnis
                                          Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011 Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 7, 2012
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                       
                                       
                                       

                                      Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                      Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.

                                      Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.

                                      While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.
                                       
                                       20th Century cooling period
                                      During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............
                                       
                                      bob
                                    • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                      Bob: from your link to: http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677 .it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 7, 2012
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        Bob: from your link to:   http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677


                                        “…it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years.”

                                        “It is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982.”

                                        I think that it is reasonable to assume that it is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age (LIA).  I think that it is also reasonable to assume that the last time that Greenland was as warm or warmer than it is now was during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The MWP is generally thought to have made the Norse settlements in Greenland possible. I think that it is reasonable to assume that it was warmer during the MWP—at least in Greenland —because there is still land that the Norse were cultivating remains frozen now. Also there are graves that are still in permafrost. I have never attempted to dig a grave in permafrost but I doubt that the Norse would have been able to do it. I found the image below at: 

                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost


                                        While these two men dig in Alaska to
                                        study
                                        soil, the hard permafrost requires
                                         the use of a jackhammer



                                        There should be aerosol information from the Greenland ice cores. But I haven’t been able to find it so far. I think that you pointed me to an Aerosol data site but I saved it somewhere but so far I cannot find it. He does mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as a possible cause of the cool period. That is a reasonable hypothesis in my opinion. The AMO is, as I understand it, the North Atlantic (NA) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) detrended. I suspect that he was referring to that rather than the AMO. This is what the NA SST looks like.



                                        Below is his Greenland temperature data. The black line is a linear regression from 1900/01 thru 2012/06. Unfortunately, the time spans do not match up. For the period since 1900, there does appear to be a pretty good correlation. Of course, we cannot assume causation because there is a correlation.


                                        “Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline.”

                                        That wouldn’t be a surprise. We are at the warm end of a long-term warming trend.  The temperature base line would fall somewhere between the warm end and the cool end of that 1901-2000 baseline. It would probably be considerably below current temperatures. 

                                        Bruce

                                        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                        Houston , TX




                                        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                                        Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:15 AM
                                        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                        Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                        Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.

                                        Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.

                                        While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.

                                         

                                         20th Century cooling period

                                        During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............

                                         

                                        bob

                                      • Dick Kahle
                                        Bob, It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 7, 2012
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Bob,

                                          It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2 C increase in 80 years based on one year.

                                          It seems many of the other statements are not supported.

                                          For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his own data, why is he putting together this study?

                                          Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.

                                          He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.

                                          Dick

                                          "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............"



                                          On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                           

                                           
                                           
                                           

                                          Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                          Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.

                                          Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.

                                          While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.
                                           
                                           20th Century cooling period
                                          During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............
                                           
                                          bob


                                        • Albert Masetti
                                          Bob, Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Bob,

                                            Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:


                                            - Al

                                            On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Bob,

                                            It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2 C increase in 80 years based on one year.

                                            It seems many of the other statements are not supported.

                                            For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his own data, why is he putting together this study?

                                            Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.

                                            He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.

                                            Dick



                                            "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............"



                                            On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                             

                                             
                                             
                                             

                                            Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                            Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.

                                            Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.

                                            While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.
                                             
                                             20th Century cooling period
                                            During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............
                                             
                                            bob



                                          • Robert Maginnis
                                            Al,   It is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and your story says it has snowed before in SA, even if a rare event.    South African Weather Service
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Al,
                                               
                                              It is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and your story says it has snowed before in SA, even if a rare event. 
                                               
                                              "South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.

                                              In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said."

                                               

                                              Meanwhile:

                                               

                                              Here are some data points released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center:
                                              • It was the seventh warmest July since 1895 in the Northeast. The average temperature was 72.8 degrees, which was 2.9 degrees above normal.
                                              • Each of the 12 states in the region averaged warmer than normal, with departures that ranged from +1.5 degrees in Rhode Island to +4 degrees in Delaware.
                                              • It was the second warmest July since 1895 in Delaware and the third warmest in Maryland.
                                              • All 12 states in the region ranked within the top 24 warmest since record keeping began in 1895.
                                              • With a regional precipitation total of 3.7 inches, the Northeast averaged 87 percent of normal in July. The year-to-date totals averaged 88 percent of normal in the Northeast.
                                              • Three states, Pennsylvania, (107 percent), Rhode Island (116 percent) and West Virginia (125 percent) had totals that were wetter than normal.
                                              • It was the driest January through June since 1895 in Delaware and the fifth driest in Maryland.
                                              This isn’t just unique to the Northeastern region. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the rest of the U.S. also saw its warmest period on record from June of 2011 to June of 2012 — with each of the consecutive months ranking among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time since record keeping began. NOAA estimates that the odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.
                                              Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters put those odds into context: “Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 AD–assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13 months could have occurred without a warming climate.”
                                              Throughout the U.S. in 2012, more than 27,042 high temperature records were broken or tied as of August 5th.
                                              Meanwhile, 64 percent of the U.S. is facing drought conditions.
                                               
                                              bob

                                              --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:

                                              From: Albert Masetti <almasetti@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                              To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                              Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:19 AM

                                               
                                              Bob,

                                              Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:


                                              - Al

                                              On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:
                                               
                                              Bob,

                                              It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2 C increase in 80 years based on one year.

                                              It seems many of the other statements are not supported.

                                              For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his own data, why is he putting together this study?

                                              Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.

                                              He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.

                                              Dick


                                              "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............"



                                              On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               

                                              Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                              Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.
                                              Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.
                                              While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.
                                               
                                               20th Century cooling period
                                              During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............
                                               
                                              bob


                                            • brian_questioning
                                              As long as the Global Warming Summit is only held in the summertime in that part of the world, it can snow all it wants there.
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                As long as the Global Warming Summit is only held in the summertime in that part of the world, it can snow all it wants there.

                                                --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Bob,
                                                >
                                                > Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:
                                                >
                                                > http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_SOUTH_AFRICA_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-07-17-06-15
                                                >
                                                > - Al
                                                >
                                                > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > **
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > Bob,
                                                > >
                                                > > It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the
                                                > > graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by
                                                > > about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2
                                                > > C increase in 80 years based on one year.
                                                > >
                                                > > It seems many of the other statements are not supported.
                                                > >
                                                > > For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's
                                                > > because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in
                                                > > his own data, why is he putting together this study?
                                                > >
                                                > > Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent
                                                > > harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate
                                                > > cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of
                                                > > thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation
                                                > > to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.
                                                > >
                                                > > He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.
                                                > >
                                                > > Dick
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and
                                                > > south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century
                                                > > baseline............"
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > >> **
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >> Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                > >> Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I've managed to
                                                > >> update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction
                                                > >> and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that
                                                > >> recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at
                                                > >> least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C
                                                > >> warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least
                                                > >> 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age,
                                                > >> it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn't been as
                                                > >> warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning
                                                > >> in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing
                                                > >> headlines. I'll be adding 2012 data soon.
                                                > >>
                                                > >> Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.
                                                > >> While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to
                                                > >> the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since
                                                > >> those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the
                                                > >> 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool
                                                > >> period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, *after* the
                                                > >> 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the
                                                > >> recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C *higher in absolute magnitude* than
                                                > >> those in the 20th century.
                                                > >>
                                                > >> *20th Century cooling period*
                                                > >> During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be
                                                > >> attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce
                                                > >> surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global
                                                > >> reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961
                                                > >> and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling
                                                > >> (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and
                                                > >> 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic
                                                > >> eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been
                                                > >> attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger
                                                > >> et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent
                                                > >> harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate
                                                > >> cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence
                                                > >> of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption
                                                > >> since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend
                                                > >> (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global
                                                > >> warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite
                                                > >> various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC,
                                                > >> 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west
                                                > >> and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000
                                                > >> century baseline............
                                                > >> http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677
                                                > >>
                                                > >> bob
                                                > >>
                                                > >>
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                >
                                              • brian_questioning
                                                He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun. It s not a failing. It s intentional. Brian
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  "He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun."

                                                  It's not a failing. It's intentional.

                                                  Brian

                                                  --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Bob,
                                                  >
                                                  > It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the
                                                  > graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by
                                                  > about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2
                                                  > C increase in 80 years based on one year.
                                                  >
                                                  > It seems many of the other statements are not supported.
                                                  >
                                                  > For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's
                                                  > because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in
                                                  > his own data, why is he putting together this study?
                                                  >
                                                  > Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent
                                                  > harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate
                                                  > cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of
                                                  > thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation
                                                  > to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.
                                                  >
                                                  > He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.
                                                  >
                                                  > Dick
                                                  >
                                                  > "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and
                                                  > south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century
                                                  > baseline............"
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > **
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                  > > Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I've managed to update
                                                  > > the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am
                                                  > > struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent
                                                  > > summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172
                                                  > > years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than
                                                  > > in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because
                                                  > > the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further
                                                  > > reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn't been as warm in summer
                                                  > > than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982.
                                                  > > Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I'll
                                                  > > be adding 2012 data soon.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.
                                                  > > While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to
                                                  > > the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since
                                                  > > those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the
                                                  > > 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool
                                                  > > period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, *after* the
                                                  > > 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the
                                                  > > recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C *higher in absolute magnitude* than
                                                  > > those in the 20th century.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > *20th Century cooling period*
                                                  > > During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be
                                                  > > attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce
                                                  > > surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global
                                                  > > reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961
                                                  > > and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling
                                                  > > (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and
                                                  > > 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic
                                                  > > eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been
                                                  > > attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger
                                                  > > et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent
                                                  > > harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate
                                                  > > cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence
                                                  > > of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption
                                                  > > since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend
                                                  > > (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global
                                                  > > warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite
                                                  > > various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC,
                                                  > > 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west
                                                  > > and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000
                                                  > > century baseline............
                                                  > > http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677
                                                  > >
                                                  > > bob
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • brian_questioning
                                                  From the fact that it s colder than normal in SA and hotter than normal in the US seems to support the possibility that the average temperature of the Earth is
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    From the fact that it's colder than normal in SA and hotter than normal in the US seems to support the possibility that the average temperature of the Earth is at some equilbrium, perhaps not as a function of CO2 concentrations but as a function of solar input and latent ocean heat.

                                                    What do the numbers say about the *average* Earth temperatures? What about rainfall? (It has been rainier than normal in the Pacific NW, and last winter has seen record snowfall in Alaska, offsetting the drier than normal climate in the Eastern part of the US.)

                                                    Brian

                                                    --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Al,
                                                    >  
                                                    > It is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and your story says it has snowed before in SA, even if a rare event. 
                                                    >  
                                                    > "South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.
                                                    > In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said."
                                                    >  
                                                    > Meanwhile:
                                                    >  
                                                    > Here are some data points released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center:
                                                    >
                                                    > It was the seventh warmest July since 1895 in the Northeast. The average temperature was 72.8 degrees, which was 2.9 degrees above normal.
                                                    > Each of the 12 states in the region averaged warmer than normal, with departures that ranged from +1.5 degrees in Rhode Island to +4 degrees in Delaware.
                                                    > It was the second warmest July since 1895 in Delaware and the third warmest in Maryland.
                                                    > All 12 states in the region ranked within the top 24 warmest since record keeping began in 1895.
                                                    > With a regional precipitation total of 3.7 inches, the Northeast averaged 87 percent of normal in July. The year-to-date totals averaged 88 percent of normal in the Northeast.
                                                    > Three states, Pennsylvania, (107 percent), Rhode Island (116 percent) and West Virginia (125 percent) had totals that were wetter than normal.
                                                    > It was the driest January through June since 1895 in Delaware and the fifth driest in Maryland.
                                                    > This isn’t just unique to the Northeastern region. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the rest of the U.S. also saw its warmest period on record from June of 2011 to June of 2012 â€" with each of the consecutive months ranking among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time since record keeping began. NOAA estimates that the odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.
                                                    > Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters put those odds into context: “Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 ADâ€"assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13 months could have occurred without a warming climate.”
                                                    > Throughout the U.S. in 2012, more than 27,042 high temperature records were broken or tied as of August 5th.
                                                    > Meanwhile, 64 percent of the U.S. is facing drought conditions.
                                                    > http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/08/655961/hottest-year-on-record-for-the-northeastern-us/
                                                    >  
                                                    > bob
                                                    >
                                                    > --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > From: Albert Masetti <almasetti@...>
                                                    > Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                    > To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:19 AM
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >  
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Bob,
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_SOUTH_AFRICA_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-07-17-06-15
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > - Al
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >  
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Bob,
                                                    >
                                                    > It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2 C increase in 80 years based on one year.
                                                    >
                                                    > It seems many of the other statements are not supported.
                                                    >
                                                    > For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his own data, why is he putting together this study?
                                                    >
                                                    > Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.
                                                    >
                                                    > He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.
                                                    >
                                                    > Dick
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............"
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >  
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >  
                                                    >  
                                                    >  
                                                    > Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                    >
                                                    > Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.
                                                    >
                                                    > Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.
                                                    > While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.
                                                    >  
                                                    >  20th Century cooling period
                                                    > During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a
                                                    > reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............
                                                    > http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677
                                                    >  
                                                    > bob
                                                    >
                                                  • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                                    Bob, that is a weather report. It s interesting but it doesn t tell us much about climate. I can report that the Houston area is not having an usually hot
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                                    View Source
                                                    • 0 Attachment

                                                      Bob, that is a weather report. It’s interesting but it doesn’t tell us much about climate. I can report that the Houston area is not having an usually hot summer. But if I wanted to compare it in the NOAA data to summers in the 1960’s, It would be a lot “hotter” That’s if we consider 0.5 C to be a lot. I have serious doubts about the 0.5 C so I’m only using the NOAA data to illustrate a point.

                                                      I didn’t want to invest the time in plotting the Northeast Regional Climate Center data. I think that their data are  available. I respect them for that. I doubt that it would hold any surprises. Below is the NOAA data plot since 1900. I took the 20th Century average and plotting that. It is the heavy black line.  As it turns out, it is almost a zero anomaly. Looking at the data, that is about what I would have guessed.




                                                      Look at the chart. Most of the warming peaks are above the 20th Century average. Most of the cool dips are below. All of the warm peaks since 1977 are above the 20th century average. Why? We are at the warm end of a long-term warming trend—possibly the same warming that ended the Little Ice Age (LIA). The end of the LIA was a good thing.

                                                      Notice that everything since 2001, including the cool dips, is above the 20th century average. The NOAA data shows a slight cooling trend since 2001 (green plot) and yet we are setting records for warmth. It is easy to set a warm record at the warm end of a long-term warming trend. I suspect that we will see a new NOAA record that adjusts away that cooling trend in the data just as GISS and HadCRUT have done already.

                                                      I had to laugh when I saw the “statistical” analysis. Is weather really is like throwing dice? Is weather really random? Or is it driven by natural forces such as ocean oscillations, air currents, solar, other unknown factors and possibly anthropogenic forces i.e. “loaded” dice? 

                                                      If those particular people at NOAA that estimate “that the odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323” then I think that they are doing propaganda rather than science. Of course, I have thought that the nth warmest in x years people at NOAA were propagandists for a good while--taxpayer funded propagandists. 

                                                      My chart above is a honest chart. I simply plot the data as it is. I don’t change it first and then plot it. Averaging changes the data. Smoothing changes the data. Also, I use gridlines so that we can clearly relate the time to the plot. I scale X axis to be as high a resolution as is practical. Gridlines that are too close together can be a problem too. I don’t object to a reasonable amount of smoothing so long as we can see the underlying data plotted as well and the span and type of smoothing is disclosed. Linear regressions just show what the trend in the data between two points in time is. Arguably, any long-term trend in climate is likely to be composed of multiple shorter-term trends. We can see that below. There has been a long-term warming trend in the NOAA data since 1918 or perhaps 1912. But that trend was composed of two warming periods and two periods of little or no warming. Can you point me to a NOAA chart that shows that? If there is one, I haven’t see it. It is my impression that some of the NOAA people are making a point of not showing that. Probably they don’t want to “confuse” the masses.



                                                      L
                                                      inear regressions are influenced by when you start and stop them. What I did above was try to avoid starting or stopped during an El Nino or a La Nina. I also attempted to start at a neutral point either before an El Nino or after a La Nina. I didn’t want an El Nino in one regression and the La Nina that followed in the following regression.

                                                       

                                                      Bruce

                                                      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

                                                      Houston, Texas

                                                       

                                                       


                                                      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                                                      Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:29 AM
                                                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                                       

                                                       

                                                      Al,

                                                       

                                                      It is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and your story says it has snowed before in SA, even if a rare event. 

                                                       

                                                      "South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.

                                                      In Pretoria , the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said."

                                                       

                                                      Meanwhile:

                                                       

                                                      Here are some data points released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center :

                                                      • It was the seventh warmest July since 1895 in the Northeast. The average temperature was 72.8 degrees, which was 2.9 degrees above normal.
                                                      • Each of the 12 states in the region averaged warmer than normal, with departures that ranged from +1.5 degrees in Rhode Island to +4 degrees in Delaware .
                                                      • It was the second warmest July since 1895 in Delaware and the third warmest in Maryland .
                                                      • All 12 states in the region ranked within the top 24 warmest since record keeping began in 1895.
                                                      • With a regional precipitation total of 3.7 inches, the Northeast averaged 87 percent of normal in July. The year-to-date totals averaged 88 percent of normal in the Northeast.
                                                      • Three states, Pennsylvania , (107 percent), Rhode Island (116 percent) and West Virginia (125 percent) had totals that were wetter than normal.
                                                      • It was the driest January through June since 1895 in Delaware and the fifth driest in Maryland .

                                                      This isn’t just unique to the Northeastern region. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the rest of the U.S. also saw its warmest period on record from June of 2011 to June of 2012 — with each of the consecutive months ranking among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time since record keeping began. NOAA estimates that the odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.

                                                      Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters put those odds into context: “Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 AD–assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13 months could have occurred without a warming climate.”

                                                      Throughout the U.S. in 2012, more than 27,042 high temperature records were broken or tied as of August 5th.

                                                      Meanwhile, 64 percent of the U.S. is facing drought conditions.

                                                       

                                                      bob

                                                      --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:


                                                      From: Albert Masetti <almasetti@...>
                                                      Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:19 AM

                                                       

                                                      Bob,

                                                       

                                                      Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:

                                                       

                                                       

                                                      - Al

                                                      On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...> wrote:

                                                       

                                                      Bob,

                                                      It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2 C increase in 80 years based on one year.

                                                      It seems many of the other statements are not supported.

                                                      For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his own data, why is he putting together this study?

                                                      Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.

                                                      He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.

                                                      Dick



                                                      "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............"


                                                      On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:

                                                       

                                                       

                                                       

                                                       

                                                      Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011

                                                      Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I’ve managed to update the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172 years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn’t been as warm in summer than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982. Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I’ll be adding 2012 data soon.

                                                      Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.

                                                      While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than those in the 20th century.

                                                       

                                                       20th Century cooling period

                                                      During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box, 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994). Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994 warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century baseline............

                                                       

                                                      bob

                                                       

                                                       

                                                    • brian_questioning
                                                      It would be an interesting analysis to ask: what is the probability that a record is broken given the number of years you go back in recordkeeping? A
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Aug 8, 2012
                                                      View Source
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        It would be an interesting analysis to ask: what is the probability that a record is broken given the number of years you go back in recordkeeping? A decreasing probability would show quantitatively that "it is easy to set a warm record at the warm end of a long-term warming trend."

                                                        --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "C. Bruce Richardson Jr. " <cbrjr@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Bob, that is a weather report. It's interesting but it doesn't tell us much
                                                        > about climate. I can report that the Houston area is not having an usually
                                                        > hot summer. But if I wanted to compare it in the NOAA data to summers in the
                                                        > 1960's, It would be a lot "hotter" That's if we consider 0.5 C to be a lot.
                                                        > I have serious doubts about the 0.5 C so I'm only using the NOAA data to
                                                        > illustrate a point.
                                                        >
                                                        > I didn't want to invest the time in plotting the Northeast Regional Climate
                                                        > Center data. I think that their data are available. I respect them for
                                                        > that. I doubt that it would hold any surprises. Below is the NOAA data plot
                                                        > since 1900. I took the 20th Century average and plotting that. It is the
                                                        > heavy black line. As it turns out, it is almost a zero anomaly. Looking at
                                                        > the data, that is about what I would have guessed.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Look at the chart. Most of the warming peaks are above the 20th Century
                                                        > average. Most of the cool dips are below. All of the warm peaks since 1977
                                                        > are above the 20th century average. Why? We are at the warm end of a
                                                        > long-term warming trend-possibly the same warming that ended the Little Ice
                                                        > Age (LIA). The end of the LIA was a good thing.
                                                        >
                                                        > Notice that everything since 2001, including the cool dips, is above the
                                                        > 20th century average. The NOAA data shows a slight cooling trend since 2001
                                                        > (green plot) and yet we are setting records for warmth. It is easy to set a
                                                        > warm record at the warm end of a long-term warming trend. I suspect that we
                                                        > will see a new NOAA record that adjusts away that cooling trend in the data
                                                        > just as GISS and HadCRUT have done already.
                                                        >
                                                        > I had to laugh when I saw the "statistical" analysis. Is weather really is
                                                        > like throwing dice? Is weather really random? Or is it driven by natural
                                                        > forces such as ocean oscillations, air currents, solar, other unknown
                                                        > factors and possibly anthropogenic forces i.e. "loaded" dice?
                                                        >
                                                        > If those particular people at NOAA that estimate "that the odds of this
                                                        > occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323" then I think that they are doing
                                                        > propaganda rather than science. Of course, I have thought that the nth
                                                        > warmest in x years people at NOAA were propagandists for a good
                                                        > while--taxpayer funded propagandists.
                                                        >
                                                        > My chart above is a honest chart. I simply plot the data as it is. I don't
                                                        > change it first and then plot it. Averaging changes the data. Smoothing
                                                        > changes the data. Also, I use gridlines so that we can clearly relate the
                                                        > time to the plot. I scale X axis to be as high a resolution as is practical.
                                                        > Gridlines that are too close together can be a problem too. I don't object
                                                        > to a reasonable amount of smoothing so long as we can see the underlying
                                                        > data plotted as well and the span and type of smoothing is disclosed. Linear
                                                        > regressions just show what the trend in the data between two points in time
                                                        > is. Arguably, any long-term trend in climate is likely to be composed of
                                                        > multiple shorter-term trends. We can see that below. There has been a
                                                        > long-term warming trend in the NOAA data since 1918 or perhaps 1912. But
                                                        > that trend was composed of two warming periods and two periods of little or
                                                        > no warming. Can you point me to a NOAA chart that shows that? If there is
                                                        > one, I haven't see it. It is my impression that some of the NOAA people are
                                                        > making a point of not showing that. Probably they don't want to "confuse"
                                                        > the masses.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Linear regressions are influenced by when you start and stop them. What I
                                                        > did above was try to avoid starting or stopped during an El Nino or a La
                                                        > Nina. I also attempted to start at a neutral point either before an El Nino
                                                        > or after a La Nina. I didn't want an El Nino in one regression and the La
                                                        > Nina that followed in the following regression.
                                                        >
                                                        > Bruce
                                                        >
                                                        > C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
                                                        > Houston, Texas
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > _____
                                                        >
                                                        > From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                        > [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Maginnis
                                                        > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:29 AM
                                                        > To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                        > Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air
                                                        > temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Al,
                                                        >
                                                        > It is winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and your story says it has snowed
                                                        > before in SA, even if a rare event.
                                                        >
                                                        > "South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on
                                                        > only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June
                                                        > 2007.
                                                        > In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit
                                                        > by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall
                                                        > there since 1968, the weather service said."
                                                        >
                                                        > Meanwhile:
                                                        >
                                                        > Here are some data points released
                                                        > <http://www.newswise.com/articles/forged-for-infamy-2012-the-hottest-year-on
                                                        > -record-for-northeast> by the Northeast Regional Climate Center:
                                                        > * It was the seventh warmest July since 1895 in the Northeast. The
                                                        > average temperature was 72.8 degrees, which was 2.9 degrees above normal.
                                                        > * Each of the 12 states in the region averaged warmer than normal,
                                                        > with departures that ranged from +1.5 degrees in Rhode Island to +4 degrees
                                                        > in Delaware.
                                                        > * It was the second warmest July since 1895 in Delaware and the third
                                                        > warmest in Maryland.
                                                        > * All 12 states in the region ranked within the top 24 warmest since
                                                        > record keeping began in 1895.
                                                        > * With a regional precipitation total of 3.7 inches, the Northeast
                                                        > averaged 87 percent of normal in July. The year-to-date totals averaged 88
                                                        > percent of normal in the Northeast.
                                                        > * Three states, Pennsylvania, (107 percent), Rhode Island (116
                                                        > percent) and West Virginia (125 percent) had totals that were wetter than
                                                        > normal.
                                                        > * It was the driest January through June since 1895 in Delaware and
                                                        > the fifth driest in Maryland.
                                                        > This isn't just unique to the Northeastern region. According to the National
                                                        > Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the rest of the U.S. also saw its
                                                        > warmest period on record
                                                        > <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/09/513425/us-sees-hottest-12-month
                                                        > s-and-hottest-half-year-on-record-noaa-calls-record-heat-a-one-in-16-million
                                                        > -event/> from June of 2011 to June of 2012 - with each of the consecutive
                                                        > months ranking among the warmest third of their historical distribution for
                                                        > the first time since record keeping began. NOAA estimates that the odds of
                                                        > this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.
                                                        > Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters put
                                                        > <http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2149>
                                                        > those odds into context: "Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period
                                                        > so warm between now and 124,652 AD-assuming the climate is staying the same
                                                        > as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and
                                                        > it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13
                                                        > months could have occurred without a warming climate."
                                                        > Throughout the U.S. in 2012, more than 27,042 high temperature records were
                                                        > broken or tied
                                                        > <http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-record-highs-during-2012-so-far-tha
                                                        > n-all-of-2011-14768/> as of August 5th.
                                                        > Meanwhile, 64 percent of the U.S. <http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/> is
                                                        > facing drought conditions.
                                                        > http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/08/655961/hottest-year-on-record-fo
                                                        > r-the-northeastern-us/
                                                        >
                                                        > bob
                                                        >
                                                        > --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > From: Albert Masetti <almasetti@...>
                                                        > Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Greenland ice sheet summer surface air
                                                        > temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                        > To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
                                                        > Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:19 AM
                                                        >
                                                        > Bob,
                                                        >
                                                        > Well, South Africa just had snow ... so it must be global cooling:
                                                        >
                                                        > http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_SOUTH_AFRICA_SNOW?SITE=AP
                                                        > <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_SOUTH_AFRICA_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION
                                                        > =HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-07-17-06-15>
                                                        > &SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-07-17-06-15
                                                        >
                                                        > - Al
                                                        > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Dick Kahle <dkahle@...
                                                        > <http://us.mc1805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dkahle@...> > wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Bob,
                                                        >
                                                        > It would appear the last year (apparently 2011although the count on the
                                                        > graph is hard to follow) is higher than three previous highest years by
                                                        > about 0.2 C, the earliest of those three years about 1931. Thus maybe a 0.2
                                                        > C increase in 80 years based on one year.
                                                        >
                                                        > It seems many of the other statements are not supported.
                                                        >
                                                        > For example, he discounts the sudden rise in temperature in the 1920's
                                                        > because he can't explain the cooling before it. If he doesn't believe in his
                                                        > own data, why is he putting together this study?
                                                        >
                                                        > Dr. Box says, "Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent
                                                        > harmonic oscillation or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate
                                                        > cooling." The AMO and the NAO are verified through both paleo records of
                                                        > thousands of year and actually climate models can reproduce the oscillation
                                                        > to some degree. So I really don't know what his statement means.
                                                        >
                                                        > He fails to discuss the potential role of the sun.
                                                        >
                                                        > Dick
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > "Year 2010 annual surface air temperature observations around west and south
                                                        > Greenland exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century
                                                        > baseline............"
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...
                                                        > <http://us.mc1805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bobmagi@...> > wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
                                                        >
                                                        > Developing a new manuscript (Box et al. submitted), I've managed to update
                                                        > the Box et al. (2009) near-surface air temperature reconstruction and am
                                                        > struck after incorporating 4 more years, it seems little doubt that recent
                                                        > summer air temperatures for Greenland ice are the highest in at least 172
                                                        > years. Summer temperatures in the late 2000s are roughly 0.5 C warmer than
                                                        > in the 1930s and even warmer than at any time since at least 1840s. Because
                                                        > the reconstruction captures the end of the Little Ice Age, it is further
                                                        > reasonable to think that Greenland probably hasn't been as warm in summer
                                                        > than since the time the Norse colonized Greenland beginning in 982.
                                                        > Implications for the recent warmth are of course grabbing headlines. I'll be
                                                        > adding 2012 data soon.
                                                        >
                                                        > Temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 average.
                                                        > While earlier studies (e.g. Chylek et al. 2006) ascribe significance to the
                                                        > fact that 1920s temperature increases were greater in magnitude since those
                                                        > after the early 1990s, this point lacks relevance because 1.) the 1920s
                                                        > trend was measured from the depth of an (unexplained) decadal cool period
                                                        > while the recent trend, i.e., measured beginning in 1994, after the
                                                        > 1991-1993 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic cooling and especially because 2.) the
                                                        > recent summer temperatures are ~0.5 C higher in absolute magnitude than
                                                        > those in the 20th century.
                                                        >
                                                        > 20th Century cooling period
                                                        > During the ~63 year period (1930 to 1992) cooling prevailed that can be
                                                        > attributed partially to an increases in atmospheric aerosols that reduce
                                                        > surface insolation. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there a global
                                                        > reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961
                                                        > and 1990. West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced cooling
                                                        > (Rozanov et al. 2002, Box et al. 2009). Cold episodes in 1983-84 and 1991-92
                                                        > enhance this cooling trend and are caused by major volcanic eruptions (Box,
                                                        > 2002; Box et al. 2009). The cooling phase has also been attributed to the
                                                        > Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g. Schesinger et al. 1994).
                                                        > Though, it remains unclear whether AMO is a recurrent harmonic oscillation
                                                        > or just a hiatus of warming caused by sulphate cooling. The post-1994
                                                        > warming, is attributable to: 1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling
                                                        > because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since at Mount Pintubo
                                                        > in 1991; 2) a reversal of the global dimming trend (Wild et al. 2009); and
                                                        > 3) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG) owing to a
                                                        > dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite various anthropogenic
                                                        > cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). Year 2010
                                                        > annual surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland
                                                        > exceeding 3 standard deviations from the 1901-2000 century
                                                        > baseline............
                                                        > http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677
                                                        >
                                                        > bob
                                                        >
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.