Welcome to HotWhopper Chat
Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.
Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Forums
In this Discussion
Where Australia's electricity comes from
This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.
New USGS study shows heat retaining concrete and asphalt have encroached upon US Climate Stations
Anthony Watts one week ago at WUWT: "In this study, they have observed over 32% of the USHCN stations exhibited an increase in impervious surface area of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011."
Actual article's abstract: "Over 32% of the USHCN stations exhibited an increase in [impervious surface area] ISA of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011 for at least 1% of the grid cells within a 100 m radius of the station."
It would be difficult to argue Anthony Watts did not read the abstract carefully enough. He claims he was reviewer of the manuscript.
Actual article's abstract: "Over 32% of the USHCN stations exhibited an increase in [impervious surface area] ISA of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011 for at least 1% of the grid cells within a 100 m radius of the station."
It would be difficult to argue Anthony Watts did not read the abstract carefully enough. He claims he was reviewer of the manuscript.
Tagged:
Tagged:
Comments
For this group of 32% of stations, in the best case only 1% of grid cells (small subareas around the station) would have a 20% increase in paved areas, while Watts claims that the entire area around the station has at least a 20% increase.
Now I don't know, but I would be surprised if the observers and processors of each station's data are aware of those changes and have made appropriate adjustments to their measurements. Although I imagine Anthony would remark that those "manipulations" simply prove his point that its all a hoax.
That is is point? Isn't it? Or does he even have a point these days?
For me it's beyond comprehension that this sort of nonsense continues to gobble up so much bandwidth, especially given incoming extreme weather events that now come with obligatory damage reports - guess we got the Murdochs and Kochs and too many apathetic 'liberals/progressives/rationalists' to thank.
You will have to adjust for these things by comparing the station where the surrounding changed to its neighbours. They should all observe the same climatic changes, if something happened at just one station, that is likely not due to climate change.
So percentage wise, how much of a variation are we talking?
I'll put my beer on minuscule. Do I get to drink my beer
I don't supposed Anthony has addressed the accuracy of Arctic Circle temperature data?