|
|
Post by Donar on Nov 19, 2020 12:42:28 GMT -5
My colleague homogenized temperature data since 1830, so I could create a quick and dirty barcode plot for Aachen:
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Nov 19, 2020 12:58:46 GMT -5
UHI
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Nov 19, 2020 13:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Nov 20, 2020 14:56:49 GMT -5
Hold on a second…I thought data prior to 1910 was "unreliable"?  So how dafuq do you have the right to use data going back to 1830?! Before the invention of the Stevenson Screen?? So, apparently: if < 1910 shows a warmer past = "unreliable". However, if < 1910 data shows a cooler past instead = "yep 100% reliable". The double-standards are astounding  |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Nov 20, 2020 15:24:35 GMT -5
Hold on a second…I thought data prior to 1910 was "unreliable"? So how dafuq do you have the right to use data going back to 1830?! Before the invention of the Stevenson Screen?? So, apparently: if < 1910 shows a cooling trend = "unreliable". However, if < 1910 data shows a warming trend instead = "yep 100% reliable". The double-standards are astounding Hey, whatever pushes the agenda is useable no matter how questionable it is. Reality doesn't matter anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Nov 20, 2020 19:04:16 GMT -5
Hold on a second…I thought data prior to 1910 was "unreliable"? So how dafuq do you have the right to use data going back to 1830?! Before the invention of the Stevenson Screen?? So, apparently: if < 1910 shows a warmer past = "unreliable". However, if < 1910 data shows a cooler past instead = "yep 100% reliable". The double-standards are astounding Can you provide a source of from an atmospheric scientist saying all weather data prior to 1910 is unreliable? |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Nov 20, 2020 19:44:42 GMT -5
in Aachen? don't know it that well, but doesn't seem like a place that had that much growth in the 80s and 90s |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Nov 20, 2020 19:53:40 GMT -5
in Aachen? don't know it that well, but doesn't seem like a place that had that much growth in the 80s and 90s Yes in Aachen; I mean, it's definitely no Köln but the presence of a city will definitely have a warming effect, especially if their weather station is on a university rooftop.  Anyway, Europe is one big UHI. Sure there are some relatively sizeable rural areas but nothing compared to other places in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Nov 20, 2020 20:15:50 GMT -5
in Aachen? don't know it that well, but doesn't seem like a place that had that much growth in the 80s and 90s Yes in Aachen; I mean, it's definitely no Köln but the presence of a city will definitely have a warming effect, especially if their weather station is on a university rooftop. Anyway, Europe is one big UHI. Sure there are some relatively sizeable rural areas but nothing compared to other places in the world. but the city has been there for a long time. only if the city is getting larger will it have a warming effect. If the UHI has been the same for half a century, won't cause warming trend. UHI doesn't exist outside of built areas; rural Europe should be far enough from cities |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Nov 20, 2020 20:35:35 GMT -5
Yes in Aachen; I mean, it's definitely no Köln but the presence of a city will definitely have a warming effect, especially if their weather station is on a university rooftop. Anyway, Europe is one big UHI. Sure there are some relatively sizeable rural areas but nothing compared to other places in the world. but the city has been there for a long time. only if the city is getting larger will it have a warming effect. If the UHI has been the same for half a century, won't cause warming trend. UHI doesn't exist outside of built areas; rural Europe should be far enough from cities That's a fair point. I suppose it couldn't have grown significantly enough since ~1970 to equate to the bulk of that warming. But how local is UHI? Wouldn't all the surrounding locales (e.g. 200km radius), big and small, contribute to a background level of warming? Köln, Brussels, Essen, etc are all very close. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Nov 20, 2020 23:06:40 GMT -5
Can you provide a source of from an atmospheric scientist saying all weather data prior to 1910 is unreliable? 1910 is touted as the "standardisation date" by the BoM, of which you can easily find on their main site. Despite Stevenson Screens having been installed much, much earlier than 1910 (particularly at the post office stations)—so it's a bit of dishonesty on their part! |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Nov 20, 2020 23:31:30 GMT -5
Now, where—exactly—do you see the fault in this dataset @ Bathurst Gaol? Pay very close attention to the dates preceeding 1910…compared to the dates succeeding it. Notice some of the partiuclarly cool maxes in the 19th Century? How were these even possible with the supposed "sub-standard equipment allowing for excess solar radiation"?? To say nothing of the particularly hot maxes after 1910 (such as 33.2° C in Jan 1919)? Nothing adds up, FFS! Also, keep in mind the 1875–1878 El Nino (#No.1 worst in history, causing severe drought across three continents); as well as the 1895–1903 Federation Drought. These events show up quite plainly in the maxima record.  |
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Nov 21, 2020 0:45:47 GMT -5
Can you provide a source of from an atmospheric scientist saying all weather data prior to 1910 is unreliable? 1910 is touted as the "standardisation date" by the BoM, of which you can easily find on their main site. Despite Stevenson Screens having been installed much, much earlier than 1910 (particularly at the post office stations)—so it's a bit of dishonesty on their part! Okay, but what does the BoM have to do with the weather station in Aachen?
And idk, maybe there's something besides a Stevenson screen they're concerned about. It seems like you're strangely obsessed with that particular thing. I get that it's important for accurate temperature readings, but almost no one else talks about it with such frequency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Nov 21, 2020 4:18:29 GMT -5
Hold on a second…I thought data prior to 1910 was "unreliable"? So how dafuq do you have the right to use data going back to 1830?! Before the invention of the Stevenson Screen?? So, apparently: if < 1910 shows a warmer past = "unreliable". However, if < 1910 data shows a cooler past instead = "yep 100% reliable". The double-standards are astounding
Lol what codswallop is this? Of course data before 1910 is reliable if you know what equipment was used. Screens were used before the Stevenson one.
BoM is not some infallible global authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donar on Nov 21, 2020 6:42:36 GMT -5
but the city has been there for a long time. only if the city is getting larger will it have a warming effect. If the UHI has been the same for half a century, won't cause warming trend. UHI doesn't exist outside of built areas; rural Europe should be far enough from cities That's a fair point. I suppose it couldn't have grown significantly enough since ~1970 to equate to the bulk of that warming. But how local is UHI? Wouldn't all the surrounding locales (e.g. 200km radius), big and small, contribute to a background level of warming? Köln, Brussels, Essen, etc are all very close. The city hasn't grown substantially since the 1970s at least (before that there were other administrative boundaries).
1913: 161k 1971: 177k 1972: 239k 2019: 248k
The general region is a rust belt area with decreasing population (Liege, Heerlen area, Aachen suburbs), though Aachen itself could halt the downfall in recent decades. So the recent warming is very likely not because of an increased UHI and I think Brussels and Cologne are too far away to have any impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by kronan on Nov 21, 2020 9:34:23 GMT -5
feels like global warming has become more obvious in recent years. weather extremes are getting so far out of the ordinary so frequently that you can feel something has changed. take that +35C reading in the netherlands in mid september. or that 42.6C heat record in germany. or that july mean of 22.5C in stockholm.
|
|
|
|
Post by kronan on Nov 21, 2020 9:37:43 GMT -5
even when you look at the global temperature deviations, there's just a few light-or medium blue areas in later years, and very many light-red, medium-red or dark red areas-
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Nov 21, 2020 10:25:14 GMT -5
but the city has been there for a long time. only if the city is getting larger will it have a warming effect. If the UHI has been the same for half a century, won't cause warming trend. UHI doesn't exist outside of built areas; rural Europe should be far enough from cities That's a fair point. I suppose it couldn't have grown significantly enough since ~1970 to equate to the bulk of that warming. But how local is UHI? Wouldn't all the surrounding locales (e.g. 200km radius), big and small, contribute to a background level of warming? Köln, Brussels, Essen, etc are all very close. I could look regional temperature maps, and some meteorologists have published UHI estimations ( calculate a general climate from rural stations and subtract from actual) guess it wouldn't work if even rural areas have some UHI, but should have ways around. But as, donar said, most of the area isn't growing. I feel like some posters who live in areas with rapid population expansion overestimate the effect of UHI on warming; many places haven't grown much in the last 50 years. Donar is much more familiar of the area than me |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Dec 10, 2020 17:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Dec 16, 2020 19:20:49 GMT -5
|
|
