A new paper comparing NCDC rural and urban surface temperature data
This is a doozy of a study – one that is way long overdue. It looks at the raw data for rural weather stations in the U.S. and then the urban raw data. Then it looks at the adjusted data for rural ad for urban and looks at the net adjustments that the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) makes. (This is only a study of U.S. stations, and a small sampling at that – which will need to be replicated, preferably with a much larger sampling of weather stations, and replicated worldwide.)
[Note: the reader should be made aware that the NCDC is one of the three climate databases used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and dovetails closely with the other two, so what they are doing here is likely close to what is being done elsewhere, too.]
Without peeking, which do you think the numbers show?
- Rural data is adjusted upward
- Rural data is adjusted downward
- Rural data is not adjusted at all
- Urban data is adjusted upward
- Urban data is adjusted downward
- Urban data is not adjusted at all
Two of these seem to be taking place. Which ones?
I had heard of the Rio Cuarto craters about 7 years ago, and had seen a copy of the cover of Science magazine with three large craters. Really LONG craters. REALLY LONG craters. One of them was 4.5 kilometers long, about 3 miles long.
Take a look at this:
Pretty cool, huh?
These are craters that seem to have impacted 10,000 years ago. That happens to be right when the end of the Ice Ages was. Since I don’t think the ice age really existed, I think that is wrong, but for different reasons than scientists might contend. They do consider that time to be the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of our current age, the Holcene. I think it is when Atlantis went down for the last time, and I think they read their interpretation into it, while I read mine into it.
But I had not thought of that when I first read about these craters. Now I have to wonder.
I will cover that in another post, one about the Younger-Dryas Impact Event maybe, or just one on Atlantis.
Back to Rio Cuarto, here is a view from inside the one in the left foreground:
The articles – scientific ones and main stream media ones – all talk about there being something like 10-20 craters over a 30km long area, all NNE of the city of Rio Cuarto, about 600km west of Buenos Aires.
In this post I am writing to point out that there are more craters.
A LOT more craters.
Most of them are south-southwest of the city of Rio Cuarto. I suspected there might be more, so I started looking for them on Google Earth. I found them. Here are the Google Earth images (click on them to enlarge them):
I was advised a bit ago that I needed to make great opening paragraphs, something to catch the attention of those who visit here. I assume that means headlines, too. It was good and sound advice. Thanks, Lloyd.
When the message is grim, what constitutes an attention-grabber, though?. . .
I am not into alarmism, so I won’t go around yelling “The Sky Is Falling!” Even if it is, what good would yelling do? Better to just share thoughts and perhaps some of us will find common ground and a way forward. My two sons are having to try to find work in this rotten economy, and so far it is not pretty. I am free-lancing in mechanical engineering, and as closely as engineering is tied to manufacturing, that is not a nice place to be, not early in the year 2010.
And so, without further adieu, on with the post. . .
Posted in 20th Century History, Economics OJT, Not exactly conspiracy stuff..., Politics
Tagged 1950s, 1970s, 1980s, arbitragers, bean counters, economics, jobs, money market managers, stock market, trickle down, unions
Given the comments of climatologist Susan Solomon in this article from last week in The Guardian, Water vapour caused one-third of warming in the 1990s, who said
…the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. “Not to my mind it doesn’t,” she said. “It shows that we shouldn’t over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.”
she and her cronies won’t be changing their conclusions any time soon.
It is downright amazing that she can say with a straight face – after an 11-year slightly declining plateau in global temps – that “we shouldn’t over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.”
Why is that amazing? Because during the 11-year period from 1988-1998 (inclusive), she and her cronies were certainly drawing interpretations – and all one way.
Now THAT is a double standard! Wow. Amazing! (Didn’t I tell you?)
First off, readers might be wondering, what is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? In 100 words or less:
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is an alternating pattern of warm(er) or cold(er) surface water in the northern Pacific. This condition stays in one “phase” (warm or cold) for 1 to 4 decades, then switches over and spends 1 to 4 decades in the opposite phase. Compared to El Niño, it is like a slow boat to China. It affects the climate all across the US and Europe.
And get this: It wasn’t even discovered until 1997, and then not even by a weatherman or climatologist, but by a biologist who discovered it while studying salmon catches.
In an online article I was reading from the spring of 2008, its authors made a seemingly innocuous and uncontestable assertion, one that most people would agree with.
Here is what the authors said:
“The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth’s climate system is increasing. This is due to an energy imbalance – more energy is coming in than is going out (Hansen 2005).”
– John Cross and John Cook “Is The Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?” (2008)
And I was just about to accept it and go on, when I thought – wait a minute! Not necessarily!
Posted in Global Warming NOT, The Future of Science
Tagged AGW, climate, climate change, El Niño, ENSO, global warming, global warming skeptics, La Niña, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO
“In fact,” says Doug Rowland of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, “before the 1990s nobody knew they even existed. And yet they’re the most potent natural particle accelerators on Earth.”
Is Rowland talking about Yeti cyclotrons? Bigfoot in Batavia, where the Fermi Lab is? Maybe conCERNed ghosts in Cern, Switzerland?
Wow, something science didn’t know about! Who’dathunk?
In these days of Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate who’d have thought we’d see an article on Fessin’UpScienceGate? I wonder if Tricky Dickie Nixon knew he was birthing a whole galaxy of gates when he erased those 18-1/2 minutes of criminal Oval Office activities…