[LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The meaning of

[Richard Chirgwin]

Tom,

[snip]
> But Climate Scientists don't differentiate between rural or urban - they
> merely aggregate all the temperatures and say "there's the global
> aggregate temperature.
>
> Basically, the reason for my disdain for the entire Climate Change data
> model is based on the UHI [urban heat island] effect correlation with
> pop growth, it's not a science it's a statistician's worst night mare...
Incorrect. The BOM has published papers discussing the quantum of urban 
heat islands, and discussing the relationship between population and 
localised temperatures. I doubt that someone who's smart enough to say 
"x degrees per y million people" is too stupid to apply that to their data.

Here's the BOM data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=1

If the BOM corrects for the heat island effect, they're accused of not 
releasing the raw data. If they don't correct, you're saying they're not 
"differentiating between urban and rural". I'm too old to be caught by 
that kind of "gotcha both ways".

RC

On 29/06/12 12:38 PM, TKoltai wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Elliston [mailto:bje at air.net.au]
>> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 11:33 AM
>> To: TKoltai
>> Cc: 'Gordon Keith'; link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The
>> meaning of
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:15:34AM +1000, TKoltai wrote:
>>
>>> The proof of climate change is not Science either. There is nothing
>>> scientific about taking temperatures in urban areas and
>> then say - gee
>>> lookie lookie, there is a temperature rise across the planet. Of
>>> course there's a temperature rise in the urban centres, it's called
>>> population growth.
>> Are you saying that this is the only source of temperature
>> data being used, Tom?
>>
>> Ben
>>
> No Ben, the worlds temperature gauges started out in little villages,
> which grew into big cities.
>
> Not all of them became Urban Heat hotspots, some, a very small
> percentage stayed little villages.
>
> But Climate Scientists don't differentiate between rural or urban - they
> merely aggregate all the temperatures and say "there's the global
> aggregate temperature.
>
> Basically, the reason for my disdain for the entire Climate Change data
> model is based on the UHI [urban heat island] effect correlation with
> pop growth, it's not a science it's a statistician's worst night mare...
>
> ... Which thermometers are in C and which in F.
> Which ones have one type of protective anti snow housing and which have
> another.
> Which ones are located too close to the ground and measure reflective
> heat...
> Which ones are mounted within heat footprints of high tension wires (and
> other industrial heat creating equipment).
> Which ones are accurate to point 01 decimal place and which only read
> the full degree of temperature.
>
> Climatologists will respond with - But we smoothed the data making
> allowances for all those errors....
> My answer to them is - OK, then give us the data so we can compare it
> with the old data-sets.
> Apparently, their refusal to publish their data is because we are not
> "qualified"...
>
> I personally have [outside of data restricted for reasons of national
> security] never seen empirical claims being made from non-available
> correlative data. That's how science works... You do the observations,
> publish your findings and make the data-sets available for examination.
> However, if you round all temperatures down before a certain date and
> round all temperatures up after that date, then.... Well, possibly the
> data can no longer be considered valid.
>
> The reality is that if we really wanted to measure climate change, we
> need to have the same thermometers in a grid pattern across the entire
> world. (So which country will get the contract ???)
>
> Whilst scientists initially started the whole thing out of genuine
> belief, [Revelle] the exercise now has turned into justify at all costs
> for a while longer because we are heavily exposed financially to "green
> investments" in red China... exercise.
>
> The initial alarmist 4-7 degrees per century has turned into a real 0.6
> degrees per century.
>
> Ben, I actually sold my house in Darwin because Climate scientists told
> us that the temperature would rise by 2 to 3 degrees in the next decade.
>
> I came back to live in Sydney because Darwin was going to become too hot
> to be comfortable...
>
> Am I angry ? Nope, because I sold my house not wanting to lose it's
> value once the temperatures went up - which is actually quite deceptive
> practice, if one thinks about it... So it serves me right. But what
> other similar stories are there ?
>
> In Closing ...for those linkers that bemoan my presence in the south...
> Now you know who to blame [the climatologists]...
>
> TomK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>