"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 7 Dec 2009 11:51 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:19:14 -0400, Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. I >live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of >a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher >temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the >coast. I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and >why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an >altitude correction is the only one that is needed. San Francisco and Oakland have very different climates. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Richard on 7 Dec 2009 14:02 On Dec 8, 5:19 am, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:47:30 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> > wrote: > > > > >On Dec 7, 12:04 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Richard wrote: > > >> >If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea > >> >level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up > >> >the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming. > > >> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites > >> a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who > >> did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period > >> where observations were available from both sites to validate the > >> adjustment factor used? > > >The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the > >adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when > >there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude. > > >As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and > >relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not > >vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base > >atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level). > > That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. I > live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of > a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher > temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the > coast. I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and > why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an > altitude correction is the only one that is needed. You could read the link that HeyBub supplied: http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ > >You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in > >temperature differences. > > >As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in > >the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature) > >caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened > >out. > > >What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw > >unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims. > >
From: Clark F Morris on 7 Dec 2009 15:22 On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:02:07 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Dec 8, 5:19�am, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:47:30 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Dec 7, 12:04�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Dec 1, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Richard wrote: >> >> >> >If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea >> >> >level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up >> >> >the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming. >> >> >> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites >> >> a constant? �If not is the variation taken into account by those who >> >> did the adjustment? �Indeed is there a long enough overlap period >> >> where observations were available from both sites to validate the >> >> adjustment factor used? >> >> >The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the >> >adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when >> >there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude. >> >> >As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and >> >relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not >> >vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base >> >atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level). >> >> That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. �I >> live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of >> a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher >> temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the >> coast. �I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and >> why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an >> altitude correction is the only one that is needed. > >You could read the link that HeyBub supplied: > >http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ The graphs look like the adjustment is OK in this case although there is some difference in the variability. I don't claim to be a climate expert. It will be interesting to follow the responses to the Wall Street Journal article that I posted a link to. > > >> >You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in >> >temperature differences. >> >> >As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in >> >the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature) >> >caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened >> >out. >> >> >What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw >> >unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims. >> >>
From: HeyBub on 8 Dec 2009 15:31 Pete Dashwood wrote: > > A clear and simple explanation. > > Thanks Richard. >> If adiabatic pressure were the only variable between the two locations, there might be some accuracy in the adjustment. But that's not the only difference. It's not like they put the temperature guage on the top of a twenty story building and adjusted for 200 feet - they changed the location of the instrument cluster. Much more than elevation could be involved: Relative humidity, average wind speed, surrounding area heat sinks or radiation proclivity, reflected sunlight, blah-blah-blah. They moved the station.
From: Richard on 8 Dec 2009 16:11
On Dec 9, 9:31 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: > > > A clear and simple explanation. > > > Thanks Richard. > > If adiabatic pressure were the only variable between the two locations, > there might be some accuracy in the adjustment. But that's not the only > difference. It's not like they put the temperature guage on the top of a > twenty story building and adjusted for 200 feet - they changed the location > of the instrument cluster. They moved the station up the hill. The clueless skeptics attempted to use the raw figures _with_no_adjustment_at_all_ which is clearly wrong. Even you finally understand that adjustment is needed for altitude. > Much more than elevation could be involved: > Relative humidity, average wind speed, surrounding area heat sinks or > radiation proclivity, reflected sunlight, blah-blah-blah. > As all those will change from time to time, day to day and season to season for _ONE_ location then what point are you trying to make ? Stations are deliberately positioned to reduce all those effects, in fact it was probably because the city was growing in the 1920s with reclamation and new buildings that decided them to move it to a place where the effects would not increase. The data was put together as _averages_. On average all those will balance out. The airport station, which is just 5 km away and at about sea level, was compared to the readings for several decades from the 1950s on and found to have a consistent difference attributable to the altitude. These locations are all in the _same_ weather patterns. Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has not already been thought of and dealt with decades ago. |