/sci/ - Science & Math

Ah Muller and Watts. You've beaten that story to death.

Muller, of course, pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:

Here's a nice quote of his from 2003:

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.

You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed. He showed that clean data (Class 1 and 2 stations, generally with less UHI, instrumental problems or a history of temp stations movement) warm about 50% less than all data (Class 1&2: 0.155 degrees/decade vs. NOAA 0.309 degrees/decade). Pic related.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is why you have such unabated, unsubstantiated and unjustified hatred of Mr. Watts. He destroyed the legitimacy of the "homogenization" adjustments.

>>7653543

>>>Zeke and company rely on general definitions of rural and urban areas instead of looking at the actual conditions (micro-environments) of the temperature stations. The latter is what really counts. If the station is close to an air conditioner belching out hot air, it doesn't matter if the station is supposedly a "rural" station. Accounting for micro-environments is what a "good scientist" would do.
>>So, what makes you think that a weather station that has a bush near it (this is a criterion SurfaceStations and NOAA use for downgrading stations) will record precipitously more warming over several decades than a station without a bush near it? how will that bush make a warming trend appear? be specific now.

>>the siting of a weather station will affect the reliability temperature (T) recorded, but not so much the trend (dT/dt) recorded. >The unspoken and incorrect assumption that this isn't the case is integral to SurfaceStations and their agenda.

> hurr durr, of course not, I just said "SufaceSations and their agenda."
As always, ad hominem is all you've got.

Did you even look at the results of the data I provided from the Surface Stations project?
It tremendously affects the trend; changing it from 0.155 C/decade to 0.248 C/decade; almost doubling it.

It was right before your eyes. Read it. Or do you always just run over to unskepticalpseudo-science for all your pull quotes?

>>7653439
>>7644812
Zeke and company rely on general definitions of rural and urban areas instead of looking at the actual conditions (micro-environments) of the temperature stations. The latter is what really counts. If the station is close to an air conditioner belching out hot air, it doesn't matter if the station is supposedly a "rural" station. Accounting for micro-environments is what a "good scientist" would do. See pic. Notice that the specific UHI, nearly doubles the temperature growth rate. And NOAA data tampering makes it even worse!

>>7417475
Data corrections appear to be inaccurate. For example:
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373,

Lei Zhang, Guo-Yu Ren, Yu-Yu Ren, Ai-Ying Zhang, Zi-Ying Chu, Ya-Qing Zhou

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

The larger effects of relocations, homogenization, and urbanization on Tmin data series than on Tmax data series in a larger extent explain the “asymmetry” in daytime and nighttime SAT trends at Huairou station, and the urban effect is also a major contributor to the DTR decline as implied in the “asymmetry” changes of the annual mean Tmin and Tmax for the homogeneityadjusted data at the station.

See pic for a comparison of "clean temperature data" (fitting NOAA regulations - Class 1/2 temperature sites) and the results of the NOAA adjusting all data. The rate of warming is doubled by adjustments. Yet that disagrees with clean data. Correct adjustments, of course, would show broad agreement with clean data.