Air conditioners, temperature sensors, and AGW deniers

[shadowmaster]

- T

Actually Tiggy, the reason that Glenn puts you on ignore is because your posts are even pissier than his. If you could settle for being just obnoxious, he would probably speak to you just like any other creep.

[Tiggy]

Actually Tiggy, the reason that Glenn puts you on ignore is because your posts are even pissier than his. If you could settle for being just obnoxious, he would probably speak to you just like any other creep.

Actually SM, it doesn't bother me even a teeny weeny bit for an "evil scientist conspiracy" denialist crackpot like Morton to pretend to ignore me.

I'm quite happy exposing his dishonest quote-mining and cherry picking of data whether he's too gutless to deal with the actual scientific evidence or not.

- T

[shadowmaster]

Actually SM, it doesn't bother me even a teeny weeny bit for an "evil scientist conspiracy" denialist crackpot like Morton to pretend to ignore me.

I'm quite happy exposing his dishonest quote-mining and cherry picking of data whether he's too gutless to deal with the actual scientific evidence or not.

- T

Which is what?

[Tiggy]

Which is what?

The scientific papers taken directly from the primary scientific literature I keep posting. Papers that I always provide links to so folks can read for themselves about the actual research and results first hand. That means examining all the data, not individually cherry-picked graphs or outliers that tin-foil hat Morton draws up and posts from his home computer. The ones he then claims show something completely opposite of what the authors of the paper concluded. The ones he always 'forgets' to provide reference for as to make it as difficult as possible to track down the real results.

- T

[shadowmaster]

The scientific papers taken directly from the primary scientific literature I keep posting. Papers that I always provide links to so folks can read for themselves about the actual research and results first hand. That means examining all the data, not individually cherry-picked graphs or outliers that tin-foil hat Morton draws up and posts from his home computer. The ones he then claims show something completely opposite of what the authors of the paper concluded. The ones he always 'forgets' to provide reference for as to make it as difficult as possible to track down the real results.

- T

I see no examples here, just insults.
Could you cite just one or two papers as an example?

[Tiggy]

I see no examples here, just insults.
Could you cite just one or two papers as an example?

Sure.

Just last week Morton cherry picked a single scatter graph from a 2003 paper on the urban heat island (UHI) effect in Houston. He then claimed the graph showed the UHI was so variable that it couldn't be accounted for by climatologists.

I dug up the actual paper and guess what? The paper was an accurate evaluation of the UHI, and the authors went out of their way to say the scatter graph of night time temperature variations (which is what Morton cherry picked) was not statistically significant in the overall UHI results.

link here

I also found a later paper describing the multiple ways UHI effects are accounted for in modern climate models here, but Morton refused to comment on that one.

The guy does dishonest cherry picking like this all the time while still claiming all climatologists are liar and frauds. That's why I get do disgusted with him.

- T

[Littlejoe]

Where is the long term graph of Class one and Class two data only?

Thanks,
LJ

[Tiggy]

Where is the long term graph of Class one and Class two data only?

Thanks,
LJ

Sorry LJ, your question doesn't make any sense. Did you read the actual paper? It's here.

This particular study of Houston was not a long term one. It was looking at the differences in UHI caused temperature readings at two different times separated by a 12 year span. Interval one readings were taken in 1985-87. Interval two were taken in 1999-2001. All that is explained in the paper.

There do exist long term (regular sampling for >5 years) studies of UHI effects at certain locations, i.e.

Assessing the long-term urban heat island in San Antonio, Texas based on moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer/Aqua data

Determinants of changes in the regional urban heat island in metropolitan Phoenix (Arizona, USA) between 1990 and 2004

... but the Houston paper being discussed wasn't one of them. Which makes it all the more strange that Morton would claim this one particular graph from this one narrowly focused paper somehow discredits all the other UHI studies ever done. Well, given Morton's penchant for cherry-picking and his rather tenuous connection to reality, not so strange.

- T

[Littlejoe]

Sorry LJ, your question doesn't make any sense. Did you read the actual paper? It's here.

Yes I read the entire paper yesterday.

This particular study of Houston was not a long term one. It was looking at the differences in UHI caused temperature readings at two different times separated by a 12 year span. Interval one readings were taken in 1985-87. Interval two were taken in 1999-2001. All that is explained in the paper.

I know what the paper is about, but I was asking in response to your OP.

There do exist long term (regular sampling for >5 years) studies of UHI effects at certain locations, i.e.

Assessing the long-term urban heat island in San Antonio, Texas based on moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer/Aqua data

Determinants of changes in the regional urban heat island in metropolitan Phoenix (Arizona, USA) between 1990 and 2004

... but the Houston paper being discussed wasn't one of them. Which makes it all the more strange that Morton would claim this one particular graph from this one narrowly focused paper somehow discredits all the other UHI studies ever done. Well, given Morton's penchant for cherry-picking and his rather tenuous connection to reality, not so strange.

- T

Your OP says:

Our resident anti-science AGW denying wingnut has become enamored with posting photos of temper sensors close to heat sources, and challenging anyone to explain them.

OK here goes. The US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), maintained by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) uses a series of 1221 sensors at various places around the country to chart the average US temperature over the last century.

The USHCN knows that not all sensors are placed optimally, some have been encroached by urban growth, so they grade the censors based on their proximity to heat sources:

• Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.
• Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.
• Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
• Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
• Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Temperature measurements are subjected to strict quality controls

and

When computing the average US temperature over the century, their relative error bars of all the sensors are factored in and weighed when the final results are tabulated. In other words, poorly located sensors are identified and accounted for in the error range.

So, hence my question. Your OP opens the door. If you and the AGW scientist admit that urban encroachment has afffected some sensors, and they have to be accounted for, why can't we look at the raw data of unaffected by encroachment sensors and see how much change there is in those? It would be interesting to see how much difference there is in class one and two sites. The UHI study you are referencing has a 0.82 K (1.47 F) rise with the 30% increase in Houston size.

If you would prefer me ask this question in the other thread, then let me know.

LJ

[Tiggy]

Yes I read the entire paper yesterday.

I know what the paper is about, but I was asking in response to your OP.

Your OP says:
and

So, hence my question. Your OP opens the door. If you and the AGW scientist admit that urban encroachment has afffected some sensors, and they have to be accounted for, why can't we look at the raw data of unaffected by encroachment sensors and see how much change there is in those? It would be interesting to see how much difference there is in class one and two sites. The UHI study you are referencing has a 0.82 K (1.47 F) rise with the 30% increase in Houston size.

If you would prefer me ask this question in the other thread, then let me know.

LJ

Ah, I see. You were asking about class 1 / class 2 sensors from the OP, not the interval 1 / interval 2 data from the UHI paper. My bad.

Analysis of just the Class 1 and Class2 sensor data has been done. Much of it was already presented in the Global Warming thread, especially excellent detailed analysis by TWebber Sylas here, here and here.

As my own test of whether the adjustments distort results or not, I have earlier in these threads done a complete calculation of my own, from the all the USHCN weather stations that are singled out as class 1 or 2 by the unofficial amateur observers at surfacestations, of an anomaly time series for the continental USA. There were 23 such stations only. The result turned out to be a close match to what is obtained from all 1221 USHCN stations. Hence, if someone personally distrusts the stations that are not class 1 or 2, and is interested simply in the anomaly for the whole continental USA, then they may simply ignore other stations. The USA anomaly will be pretty much unchanged; and will remain within the error bars already given. This is a good indication that the various corrections applied are giving a realistic result. The resolution of the result however, as a grid, is significantly degraded with only 23 stations being used.

Note that even back then Morton was still presenting the same cherry-picked graph from the Houston UHI paper as evidence of the 'corruption' of ground based temperature sensors, neglecting the fact that those readings were actually obtained from satellite based remote sensing. Morton never lets inconvenient facts get in the way of a good bluster.

Bottom line is - the measured heat rise across the globe is real, is accurate to within the published error bars, and has not been skewed to read too hot by a small number of poorly located sensors.

- T

[Tiggy]

I see no examples here, just insults.
Could you cite just one or two papers as an example?

Here SM, here's another golden example of Morton being a willfully dishonest schmuck.

Morton posted some temperature data from two towns and claimed the temperature difference between the two was evidence of major errors in temperature measurements due to external influences (AC, heaters, etc.) Only problem is Morton drew up the graph on his home computer and deliberately mislabeled the scale by an order of magnitude to give a false impression of a major error.

Morton's latest dishonesty

That's why I hold the low opinion of him I do.

- T

[Tiggy]

I retract the above claim. Turns out Morton drew up a graph on his home computer of the temperature extremes, not the standard used mean values.

- T

[Tiggy]

Since Glenn 'tin foil hat' Morton has returned to his cowardly ways and begun posting his childish air conditioner pictures again, I figured it's time to bump this thread.

Morton's childish air conditioner claims have been debunked six ways from Sunday, but he still keeps blustering them.

This thread cover all the evidence for the documented global warming of the last 50+ years , especially the evidence Morton is too cowardly to allow in 'his' threads. Please read it from the beginning and feel free to ask questions. Unlike cowardly Morton, I won't ban dissenting views from this thread.

- T

[Tiggy]

Since Glenn 'tin foil hat' Morton has returned to his cowardly ways and begun posting his childish air conditioner pictures again, I figured it's time to bump this thread.

Morton's childish air conditioner claims have been debunked six ways from Sunday, but he still keeps blustering them.

This thread cover all the evidence for the documented global warming of the last 50+ years , especially the evidence Morton is too cowardly to allow in 'his' threads. Please read it from the beginning and feel free to ask questions. Unlike cowardly Morton, I won't ban dissenting views from this thread.

- T

Bumped again for Glenn Morton, who makes a a big stink about dealing with the data.

What he really means is he wants you to deal with only the data he's cherry picked. Dealing with ALL the data is not something he's honest enough to do.

- T

[Tiggy]

Bumped for that rough tough Texas he-man Glenn "Glenda" Morton, who is still blustering that no one will answer him after cowardly banning those who have answered.

However, would you care to answer the question none of you have the guts to answer. Is putting a thermometer next to an air conditioner a great place to measure temperatures to be used in climate studies?

Thanks for showing everyone what a gutless coward you are.

- T