tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post4817426240628074491..comments2024-03-28T08:19:50.193-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Sea-Tac HeatCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66910776749621377102012-08-29T22:13:34.832-07:002012-08-29T22:13:34.832-07:00Doug Bostrom and Tom Curtis,
Both of you are st...Doug Bostrom and Tom Curtis,<br /> Both of you are strong GW "advocates." I understand that. But you paint people...like Anthony Watts in black and white terms...and you are in error to do so. Some of what he says I disagree with (e.g., the potential future impact of increases in greenhouse gases), but in some areas he is very much correct...like the impact of urbanization and poor sensor siting. I have read his work and it is compelling. I have also looked at the data myself and confirm his concerns.<br /> Folks like yourselves undoubtedly mean well, but your approach to demonizing the "other side" is corrosive to society finding a middle road. You can complain about Watts not having credentials, but surely that extends to you folks as well...cliff<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-9414450395953438242012-08-29T21:53:31.727-07:002012-08-29T21:53:31.727-07:00Having seen examples of Watt's surface station...Having seen examples of Watt's surface station work, I am less than impressed:<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/antarctic-peninsula-was-1-3c-warmer-than-today-11000-years-ago/Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-7664926642266000822012-08-29T15:13:01.396-07:002012-08-29T15:13:01.396-07:00Something I don't understand, Cliff.
You dis...Something I don't understand, Cliff. <br /><br />You dismiss certain climate bloggers and information sites as being of little value as the authors lack credentials, without specifying any actual problems with their conveyance of facts. A mild form of ad hominem attack, if you will; you center your critique on personal attributes without addressing matters of fact. <br /><br />At the same time, you're endorsing Watts' work-- ignoring that it has be shown fallacious-- and you appear to have no problem with Watts' lack of credentials. <br /><br />Your standard of judgment for approval does not obviously appear connected with scientific merit.<br /><br />As I've said elsewhere, I think you're rather naive when it comes to the entire so-called "climate debate." It's hard otherwise to explain your affection for Watts other than you're taking his claims at face value, imagining that he's amenable to persuasion by facts.<br /><br />Do a deep dive into Watts blog, look at what's been written there over the years, then ask yourself again if you're in good company.<br /><br />If nothing else, be sure to check Watts' claims against the literature. Make a serious effort. <br /><br />Please. <br /> dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-42236748876072632412012-08-29T07:09:28.727-07:002012-08-29T07:09:28.727-07:00Steve,
Yes, Watts work is quite compelling and...Steve,<br /> Yes, Watts work is quite compelling and he has made an important contribution with his web site: surfacestations.org. We have problems with urbanization, poor temperature sensor locations, and problematic quality control...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73431676934912915652012-08-29T04:07:01.424-07:002012-08-29T04:07:01.424-07:00"he has revealed how problematic many (most) ..."he has revealed how problematic many (most) of our surface stations are, as well as the poor QC work done by NCDC over the years."<br /><br />Has he really? For sure that's what he claims, but the literature says otherwise. Have a look at it, Menne et al. in particular.<br /><br />Re CRN, I note two stations close enough for the trends to be worth comparing. One has about a five year record and the other a ten year one. You could also have a look at their paired USHCN stations. Plus of course there will be yet other USHCN stations in the region.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-72258786796167607762012-08-27T16:47:50.005-07:002012-08-27T16:47:50.005-07:00Wattsian?
The Climate Reference Network is gen...Wattsian? <br /><br />The Climate Reference Network is generally first class...but unfortunately, there are so few of them and they are limited in time. By the way, I think very highly of Watt's surface station work...he has revealed how problematic many (most) of our surface stations are, as well as the poor QC work done by NCDC over the years. A national embarrassment, really...cliff<br /><br />Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-11473298196294097972012-08-27T16:32:46.275-07:002012-08-27T16:32:46.275-07:00Gosh but isn't this almost Wattsian in tone?
...Gosh but isn't this almost Wattsian in tone?<br /><br />Cliff, yes these things are problems and adjustments may not be perfect, which is why ~20 years ago it was decided to build the Climate Reference Network. Perhaps in your follow-up post you could check on the trend there. Unless the nearest CRN station was one of the very late installs, there should be enough of a record for a meaningful cross-check.<br /> Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-42406420404674497672012-08-26T05:36:01.051-07:002012-08-26T05:36:01.051-07:00IMHO this is a huge issue but challenging to show ...IMHO this is a huge issue but challenging to show and quantify. Notice that on many of the warm days on the 4 week overlay SEA has a higher max but also a lower min than BFI. There are a few exceptions (e.g. 5/6th Aug) which may be down to wind strength or direction. This, I guess, allows many to say that any difference will be negligible. <br />- Verity Jones<br /><br />As these are both airfields the differences are in the bigger area around the sensors; I looked at a set of roof weather stations a while back with differences in the surfaces:<br />http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/thermal-absorption-a-black-and-white-and-green-issue/<br />This was only a quick, crude examination, but readily shows up the issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-9065342728347325522012-08-24T21:09:04.416-07:002012-08-24T21:09:04.416-07:00I can't help but notice the greater difference...I can't help but notice the greater difference between Sea-tac and surrounding areas is seen on the cooler of the 2 days. A two day sample isn't enough to confirm what I'm thinking, but it does compare with what I see from my own station.<br /><br />I live in the middle of an residential area, there was no place that I could put my sensor that abides with every rule of the siting guidlines. I settled for putting it on the roof. It is clear of obstructions, has a cover from the sun, etc. But it is exposes to the heat from I believe a combination of the nearby road and the roof.<br /><br />The roof itself doesn't get too hot, I've gone up there in the middle of a warm day and felt it, but it could be reflected radiation (its a white-grey roof, not black).<br /><br />In any case, I've noticed a trend for my sensor to depart from more official numbers MORE on days that are sunny yet cool rather than the very hot days.<br /><br />On the hot days mine just warms up faster, but still ends up the same.<br /><br />but a day where it is partly cloudy, windy, etc so the expected high is around 70-72 (like we've been recently) its not uncommon for my sensor to pick up to 75-76.<br /><br />Sorry for the long post. Guess I'm just curious if you notice this. If Sea-tac tends to be <i>closer</i> to surrounding temps on the hotter sunny days vs the cooler sunny days.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14468734038469683964noreply@blogger.com