Economist.com: NOW that Russia has turned the heating back on, central Europe can start planning its celebrations for the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of communism. Moscow’s shadow remains long, but the region has cause for joy. Hungary is a democracy, a member of the European Union, NATO and the Schengen Zone, which allows visa free travel across the continent.
I live in Hungary, and whenever I travel to Austria I marvel at the open border. It seems incredible that just two decades ago, Hungarians could not travel, speak, or even meet freely, for fear of the secret police, imprisonment or worse. Part of me even misses the frisson of cold stares from the border guards, brusque orders to open the car boot and the delicious relief when the ink-stamp came down on passport paper and the red-striped barrier was finally lifted (although it was rather less fun for citizens of communist countries).
Monday, January 26, 2009
Anthony Watts provides a comprehensive update on the...
surfacestations.org project. For those who don't know, the purpose of the project is to survey the condition of the surface weather stations that collect raw data which eventually gets adjusted and fed into various global warming computer models. The survey process includes photographing the stations, taking various measurements, and pinpointing their exact location. The results for each station surveyed so far are documented at surfacestations.org.
With 67% of the 1221 United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) stations surveyed, here's how the stations rate (using the the Climate Reference Network's objective Rating Guide):
* 11% have and expected error of >= 5 degrees C because their temperature sensor is located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
* 58% have and expected error of >= 2 degrees C because they are located within 10 meters of an artificial heat source.
So, almost 70% of the stations surveyed to date are rated as overstating the temperature by 2 degrees C or more. Note that this expected error is greater than than the entire increase in average global temperatures over the last century!
To be fair, the stations surveyed to date have been the more centrally located ones. As more rural stations are added, they will presumably be less likely to be located near artificial heat sources, and this will bring the above percentages down some. But if this is true, then one must adjust the raw data provided by these stations to account for the effect of urban sprawl over the last century: Presumably, a far greater percentage of stations today are located near artificial heat sources than a century ago. A century ago, the lot where my house sits was located in the middle of rural farmland. Today, it's smack dab in the middle of suburbia.
With 67% of the 1221 United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) stations surveyed, here's how the stations rate (using the the Climate Reference Network's objective Rating Guide):
* 11% have and expected error of >= 5 degrees C because their temperature sensor is located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
* 58% have and expected error of >= 2 degrees C because they are located within 10 meters of an artificial heat source.
So, almost 70% of the stations surveyed to date are rated as overstating the temperature by 2 degrees C or more. Note that this expected error is greater than than the entire increase in average global temperatures over the last century!
To be fair, the stations surveyed to date have been the more centrally located ones. As more rural stations are added, they will presumably be less likely to be located near artificial heat sources, and this will bring the above percentages down some. But if this is true, then one must adjust the raw data provided by these stations to account for the effect of urban sprawl over the last century: Presumably, a far greater percentage of stations today are located near artificial heat sources than a century ago. A century ago, the lot where my house sits was located in the middle of rural farmland. Today, it's smack dab in the middle of suburbia.
Philadelphia Circa 1790
Steven Goddard: From Charles Pierce’s records, the average January temperature in Philadelphia from 1790-1819 was 31.2F. According to USHCN records from 2000-2006 (the last year available from USHCN) and Weather Underground records from 2007-2009, the average January temperature in Philadelphia for the last ten years has been 29.8 degrees, or 1.4 degrees cooler than the period 1790-1819. January, 2009 has been colder than any January during the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Monroe. January 2003 and 2004 were both considerably colder than any January during the terms of the first five presidents of the US.
Climate Skeptic on the Recent and Much Publicized Tree Study:
Again, I need to see the actual study, but this would not be the first time a climate study said “well, we investigated every cause we could think of, and none of them seemed to fit, so it must be global warming.” It’s a weird way to conduct science, assuming Co2 and warming are the default cause for every complex natural process. No direct causal relationship is needed with warming, all that is required is to eliminate any other possible causes. This means that the less well we understand any complex system, the more likely we are to determine changes in the system are somehow anthropogenic.
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
UPDATE: Climate Skeptic has now read the study and has a few more thoughts. Here's the gist of it:
Anyway, the finding of large and spatially diverse increases in mortality of trees is an important finding, and one for which the authors should feel proud to identify. The second part of the study, the hypothesized causes of this mortality, is far far weaker than the first, though this is not atypical of academic studies. Remember, in the press summaries, the authors claimed that global warming had to be the cause because they had eliminated everything else it could possibly be. So here is what their Science article mentions that they considered and rejected as possible causes:
Changes in forest density and fire exclusion policies
Old trees falling and crushing new trees
Ozone levels (they claim they look at “pollution” but ozone is the only chemical discussed)
Activity of fungal pathogen, Cronartium ribicola, in certain pines
Forest fragmentation
Wow, well that certainly seems comprehensive. Can’t think of a single other thing that could be causing it.
I'm pretty sure those last two comments were meant to be sarcastic.
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
UPDATE: Climate Skeptic has now read the study and has a few more thoughts. Here's the gist of it:
Anyway, the finding of large and spatially diverse increases in mortality of trees is an important finding, and one for which the authors should feel proud to identify. The second part of the study, the hypothesized causes of this mortality, is far far weaker than the first, though this is not atypical of academic studies. Remember, in the press summaries, the authors claimed that global warming had to be the cause because they had eliminated everything else it could possibly be. So here is what their Science article mentions that they considered and rejected as possible causes:
Changes in forest density and fire exclusion policies
Old trees falling and crushing new trees
Ozone levels (they claim they look at “pollution” but ozone is the only chemical discussed)
Activity of fungal pathogen, Cronartium ribicola, in certain pines
Forest fragmentation
Wow, well that certainly seems comprehensive. Can’t think of a single other thing that could be causing it.
I'm pretty sure those last two comments were meant to be sarcastic.
More Evidence of Negative Feedback if Global Temperatures Warm
ScienceDaily: Soils that experience seasonal freeze-thaw cycles currently cover c. 55 million km2. This equates to more than half of the total land area of the northern hemisphere. Forecasts such as the IPCC-Report 2007 anticipate that due to global warming the soil temperature there in the future will fluctuate more frequently around the freezing point. The change between freeze-thaw cycles is considered to be one of the major factors for the release of nitrogen into the soil and consequently for an increase in microbial activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)