Comments on: An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Microyank http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6346 Microyank Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:30:12 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6346 <p>I worked at NOAA while much of this work was being done....done through different administrations, some of which downplayed climate change (Reagan, Bush), some of which were sympathetic to the research (Clinton). There was certainly no political agenda by the scientists working on these data, just a desire to try to improve data sets which had many problems and some very poor historical information on instrument sitings etc. There was no "agenda" for proving global climate change....at least not any more than that shared by scientists on the anti-climate change side of the fence.</p> I worked at NOAA while much of this work was being done….done through different administrations, some of which downplayed climate change (Reagan, Bush), some of which were sympathetic to the research (Clinton). There was certainly no political agenda by the scientists working on these data, just a desire to try to improve data sets which had many problems and some very poor historical information on instrument sitings etc. There was no “agenda” for proving global climate change….at least not any more than that shared by scientists on the anti-climate change side of the fence.

]]> By: Microyank http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6345 Microyank Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:29:25 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6345 <p>I worked at NOAA while much of this work was being done....done through different administrations, some of which downplayed climate change (Reagan, Bush), some of which were sympathetic to the research (Clinton). There was certainly no political agenda by the scientists working on these data, just a desire to try to improve data sets which had many problems and some very poor historical information on instrument sitings etc. There was no "agenda" for proving global climate change....at least not any more than that shared by scientists on the anti-climate change side of the fence.</p> I worked at NOAA while much of this work was being done….done through different administrations, some of which downplayed climate change (Reagan, Bush), some of which were sympathetic to the research (Clinton). There was certainly no political agenda by the scientists working on these data, just a desire to try to improve data sets which had many problems and some very poor historical information on instrument sitings etc. There was no “agenda” for proving global climate change….at least not any more than that shared by scientists on the anti-climate change side of the fence.

]]> By: jerry http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6344 jerry Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:00:06 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6344 <p>i would like to have the application of nooa data to either environmental monitoring or global warming.</p> i would like to have the application of nooa data to either environmental monitoring or global warming.

]]> By: Avfuktare Vind http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6343 Avfuktare Vind Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:27:38 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6343 <p>As shown recently the true error bound of ground based readings is probably exceeding 2°C. Much better to focus on UAH/RSS data from MSU/AMSU (satellites).</p> As shown recently the true error bound of ground based readings is probably exceeding 2°C. Much better to focus on UAH/RSS data from MSU/AMSU (satellites).

]]> By: Nick http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6342 Nick Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:09:50 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6342 <p>Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C <br /> Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C <br /> Total Reported Warming: 0.6C </p> <p>----------------</p> <p>Where do these figures come from? The graph above shows the adjustment as 0.5 F not C?</p> <p>Do you have a total reported warming reference for the US, preferably from NOAA</p> Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C
Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C
Total Reported Warming: 0.6C

—————-

Where do these figures come from? The graph above shows the adjustment as 0.5 F not C?

Do you have a total reported warming reference for the US, preferably from NOAA

]]> By: DWPittelli http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6341 DWPittelli Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:27:36 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6341 <p>It is unfortunate (and a bit odd) that the NOAA decided to use Fahrenheit for this information and that you did not catch it before "publishing" here. But that still leaves about half of the temperature increase from adjustment factors, something still worth pointing out.</p> <p>Exactly how much of an adjustment makes sense for Time-of-day factors is a complex issue, which will vary from site to site as well as season and specific times, and I have no position on the numbers used on that. But the UHI adjustment does seem suspiciously low to me.</p> It is unfortunate (and a bit odd) that the NOAA decided to use Fahrenheit for this information and that you did not catch it before “publishing” here. But that still leaves about half of the temperature increase from adjustment factors, something still worth pointing out.

Exactly how much of an adjustment makes sense for Time-of-day factors is a complex issue, which will vary from site to site as well as season and specific times, and I have no position on the numbers used on that. But the UHI adjustment does seem suspiciously low to me.

]]> By: DWPittelli http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6340 DWPittelli Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:23:36 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6340 <p>The Time of Observation Bias (TOB) is not a mere matter of a month "picking up a few extra hours from the next month and losing a few hours to the previous month."</p> <p>Suppose you check and reset your min/max thermometers every day just after the high, say 4:00 PM. On a cold day, a day after a hot day, your high temp reading is apt to come from the previous day at 4:01 PM. That previous day's hot high is effectively double-counted. With 4:00 PM readings this will not happen with a low.</p> <p>If instead, you check and reset your min/max thermometers every day near the low, say 6:00 AM, you will never double-count a high high; instead, on a warm night/morning, but a day after a cold morning, you will double-count the previous day's cold low from 6:01 AM.</p> <p>In sum, your daily average temperatures (average of high and low) will be lower if you read each morning than if you read each afternoon.<br /> </p> The Time of Observation Bias (TOB) is not a mere matter of a month “picking up a few extra hours from the next month and losing a few hours to the previous month.”

Suppose you check and reset your min/max thermometers every day just after the high, say 4:00 PM. On a cold day, a day after a hot day, your high temp reading is apt to come from the previous day at 4:01 PM. That previous day’s hot high is effectively double-counted. With 4:00 PM readings this will not happen with a low.

If instead, you check and reset your min/max thermometers every day near the low, say 6:00 AM, you will never double-count a high high; instead, on a warm night/morning, but a day after a cold morning, you will double-count the previous day’s cold low from 6:01 AM.

In sum, your daily average temperatures (average of high and low) will be lower if you read each morning than if you read each afternoon.

]]> By: Scott http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6339 Scott Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:54:23 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6339 <p>Hi Coyote, your postings have been very informative to me. Combining this post on the fudge factors and the STUPIDly placed climate stations, I put it into worded form and mailed it to the local papers. </p> <p>No one else seems concerned about global warming here in Malaysia - all we get is the occasional direct-from-Associated-Press report, and always unquestioningly believing.</p> <p>Anyways, credit and kudos to you!</p> <p>http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/the-sun-fuzzzy-facts-on-the-climate/</p> Hi Coyote, your postings have been very informative to me. Combining this post on the fudge factors and the STUPIDly placed climate stations, I put it into worded form and mailed it to the local papers.

No one else seems concerned about global warming here in Malaysia – all we get is the occasional direct-from-Associated-Press report, and always unquestioningly believing.

Anyways, credit and kudos to you!

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/the-sun-fuzzzy-facts-on-the-climate/

]]> By: Tarun K Juyal http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6338 Tarun K Juyal Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:56:42 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6338 <p>I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon <b><a href="http://www.lifeofearth.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">effects and causes of Global Warming</a></b>. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. </p> I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

]]> By: T J Sawyer http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-6337 T J Sawyer Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:39:10 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/an-interesting.html#comment-6337 <p>Commenters above are correct, Coyote, the text on the NOAA site says "Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960's to the 1990's."</p> <p>That is .3F not .3C</p> Commenters above are correct, Coyote, the text on the NOAA site says “Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960′s to the 1990′s.”

That is .3F not .3C

]]>