Scroll To Top

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Sequel to: Anthony Watts visits Greenland and finds Airport UHI disease!

Sou | 1:16 AM Go to the first of 25 comments. Add a comment


Update - see below for Anthony Watts' acknowledgement.



Who could forget Anthony Watts finding UHI disease at Maniitsok airport in Greenland?


Greenland sets new record high temperature this year: Confirmed


Here's the sequel. From Jason Semonow, Capital Weather Gang at Washington Post:
Today, John Cappelen, senior climatologist at the Danish Meteorological Society, emailed me to let me know the record high of 25.9 C (78.6 F) set on July 30 at Maniitsoq stands.
“I have now accepted the record at Maniitsoq based on further analysis,” Cappelen said.
At issue was whether the temperature measurement, taken at an airport location, was legitimate. Artificial heat sources at airports can sometimes corrupt temperature readings.
“We were faced with two options,” Coppelen explained. “We could reject the observation, or we could approve it. If we chose to overrule it, it could be based on two things. One was a faulty sensor/station…and that was not the question – the sensor measured exactly as it should. The second was if we had suspected that extreme local conditions played their part. Here the situation is more debatable, because the station is an airport station that is not necessarily completely optimal in relation to international guidelines for climatological data measurements.”
But Coppelen said the mere fact the temperature was recorded at an airport is not a reason for it be thrown out as few existing weather observing stations in Greenland are ideally sited.
“Within the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) prescribed practices, among other things, measurements – as an example – should be taken over a short lawn,” Coppelen said. “This can be done in Denmark almost anywhere, but in Greenland almost no places.”
Coppelen concluded: “The station in Maniitsoq is within the quality frame practicable/possible for this type of meteorological measurements in Greenland, so it is approved. Alternative would be to question many observations and weather records for Greenland…it doesn’t make sense

DMI press release here.

As a reminder, I posted some suggestions for the weather station siting since Anthony Watts complained it was no good, pointing out the other suggestions were even darker, with not a lawn in sight.




Should we anticipate an article by Anthony Watts acknowledging the record temperature set at Maniitsok in Greenland this year?

Update 

Friday 13 Sept 3:39 pm: 
Anthony Watts has posted the fact that a record has been recorded in his latest WUWT Hot Sheet (archived here).  He hasn't updated his original article (archived here). H/t Thomas Murphy.

The original HotWhopper article and the follow up.

25 comments :

  1. Replies
    1. I have to admit, I was wrong. Watts did print an acknowledgement of this -- buried deep in his "Hot Sheet" yesterday.

      Delete
    2. Yes he did. No snide remarks either.

      Delete
  2. "Should we anticipate an article by Anthony Watts acknowledging the record temperature set at Maniitsok in Greenland this year?"

    I suspect Watts will acknowledge the record being set, once he is aware of Cappelen's decision. I don't think he'll agree with the decision or justifications. Whether it's an update to the initial WUWT post or a new post is speculation only, but either approach is legitimate.

    Seemingly, the big driver for not tossing the record is that it could call into question (essentially) all past temperature observations, and there's no value in that, right? I disagree there's no value in questioning past readings but... whatever. Additionally and while I'm sympathetic to Greenland being... Greenland, better siting locations (Sou's previous siting silliness aside) are available. But again... whatever.

    The record stands and Greenland tragically melts only to freeze a few weeks later.

    Equally interesting, though, are the last, two paragraphs of Samenow's article (not present in Sou's quote above), which read:

    "Although the 78.6F reading measured at Maniitsoq is the warmest in the modern record, which began in 1958, historical weather records indicate Greenland has been hotter than that.

    "'23 June 1915 Ivigtut (old spelling) registered a maximum temperature of 30.1 deg C [86F]. It is printed in a [Danish Meteorological Institute] yearbook for 1915 and properly also in other publications,' Coppelen said."

    Sooo, there was "extreme weather" in the 20th Century, as early as 1915, when atmospheric CO2 was present at a paltry 300 ppm? Or perhaps... the 1915 and 2013 temperature readings fall within natural variability, albeit at warm end of the distribution curve?

    Nawww, why reduce the... concern associated with the 2013 record like that, when linking it to CAGW as extreme weather is far more sexy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, remember that if you use the term "CAGW" you lose.

      Always.

      Delete
    2. Not only does TM scupper himself with his crude attempt at framing, he also exiles himself from rational discussion by implicitly denying the data. Trying to pretend that nothing essential has changed between 1915 and 2013 is more than merely daft, it is fundamentally dishonest.

      All this misrepresentation, dishonesty and data denial? Where *will* it lead?

      Delete
    3. "Thomas, remember that if you use the term 'CAGW' you lose... Always."

      Does this... loss [of gravitas] also pertain to John P. Holdren's prolific use of the "catastrophic" adjective in his January 2008 presentation at the 8th Annual John H. Chaffee Memorial Lecture on Science and the Environment - http://ncseonline.org/sites/default/files/Chafee08final.pdf ?

      Using compartmentalization (because Holdren's a "good" guy who wouldn't align man-made global warming with the catastrophic pejorative), you will comfortably dismiss Thomas' use of the term as being the rants of a... denier, while Holdren's use of the same is a-okay. Whatever.

      "All this misrepresentation, dishonesty and data denial? Where *will* it lead?:

      Why, it has already lead to the intentional leaking of sections of the Draft Fifth Assessment Report by the UN IPCC wherein it boldly asserts that humanity is at least 95 percent likely the main cause of warming since the 1950s. I'm a bit surprised you missed that misrepresentation, BBD, given your proclivity towards red herring-like details.

      Delete
    4. Thomas, you can use the word "catastrophic" as much as you like. As can Holdren.

      But when you use CAGW, you lose.

      Always.

      Delete
    5. "But when you use CAGW, you lose... Always."

      As stated previously, whatever.

      Delete
    6. Bradthing get back under your rock.

      Delete
    7. cRR Kampen

      Hello again. "TM" denies being a sock of "Brad Keyes" but like you, I don't really believe him.

      He must deny this, because Sou banned "Brad Keyes" very shortly after he started trying to infest this blog.

      I suspect "TM" will evolve into a problem here because he is indeed "BK", and "BK" is a problem wherever he goes.

      We shall see.

      Delete
    8. Thomas Murphy is not behaving badly like Brad Keyes did, which earned him the ban. As long as that remains the case then Thomas Murphy will be welcome here.

      Delete
    9. "Hello again. 'TM' denies being a sock of 'Brad Keyes' but like you, I don't really believe him."

      Hello, BBD. I am neither Brad Keyes nor a sock puppet of the same. I am Tom Murphy - period. Please note, I've never gone by Thomas, which is why it looks weird when I read it here. Regardless... whether you believe I am Tom Murphy or not is immaterial - certainly to me and I suspect to a number of others.

      I assure you, my intentions by posting are NOT to "infest" HotWhopper. Instead, I intend to add a counterpoint to the wickedly one-sided discussion for most articles. In fact, I believe Sou is implicitly grateful that... cretins such as myself visit the web site when she states:

      "And to... other climate science deniers... shrinking though your numbers be: HotWhopper just wouldn't be the same without you."

      However, what I find most interesting about the accusation and label is how eerily alike they mimic those applied to me by 9/11 Truthers. For reference, I don't believe such an... alignment represents a résumé enhancer.

      Delete
    10. That's... fascinating.

      And *so* like Brad. The resemblance is... unfortunate.

      Delete
    11. Wow, scary similar. Here's a response I posted on January 28, 2008 to an article written by a poster on a progressive web site, regarding a (then) recently-issued book entitled "The Shell Game" and its promoting of the 9/11 attacks as an inside job:

      Poster: "What is YOUR game, Tommy... you seem so curious about other people's intentions.

      "Who do you work for? Why do YOU spend day after day on a PROGRESSIVE site, when obviously you have a distaste for anything progressive.

      "Surely you have a reason, or mission."

      Tom: "My 'mission', if that is what you choose to label it because it fits nicely with your 'cointelpro' label that you folks toss around here like butter squares in a college cafetaria, with regard to 9/11 is to provide balance to the severely (and perhaps fatally-flawed) biased positions espoused by many on the progressive side of politics. What good would I do if I discussed issues solely with people of like mind? Much more is accomplished by discussing the same issues with people of differing thoughts.

      "You, [poster], are one of those people. You reiterate the same script continuously. Yet, the meat on the bones of your script is lean and the logic is questionable - at best."

      Google away if you feel the need to validate that exchange. Otherwise, do a slow blink, take a deep breath, exhale in an extended sigh and say, "And *so* like Brad. The resemblance is... unfortunate."

      Delete
    12. Please guys, there is no more need for speculation of identities.

      HotWhopper doesn't approve of "outing" guests and in this case, Thomas Murphy is who he says he is.

      Delete
    13. Sou

      You cannot "out" a pseudonym!

      You should wonder why a poster here compares another to a "9/11 Truther" though. The core issue here is good faith. I don't need to say more about good faith and who demonstrates a lack of it, surely?

      Delete
    14. To be absolutely clear on this, "Brad Keyes" explicitly stated on several occasions that this was a pseudonym. So rest assured, I am not trying to "out" anyone here in the sense of breaching their anonymity (a banning offence if there ever was one).

      Delete
    15. That's okay, BBD. If 9/11 gets to be a problem I'll add it to the comment policy. Hopefully I won't have to.

      Delete
  3. I'd say Thomas Murphy is overly optimistic about Anthony Watts' acknowledgement.

    It's now about two days since @capitalweather tweeted the news directly to Anthony, and six other people retweeted it so Anthony would have got the message well and truly.

    Anthony watches tweets addressed to him closely. Not only that but he only follows 75 people on Twitter and @capitalweather is one of them. Also I'd expect that he reads Capital Weather Gang's blog since it was their original article that prompted him to write his UHI disease post, so I don't imagine he missed the news.

    Maybe, just like he bombed @capitalweather with tweets, he's waiting for the same in return :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be disappointed with Watts if he does not close the loop on the Greenland temperature record. If you take the time to initially report the issue, admit that it remains an unresolved issue, and then neglect to close the issue once resolved, well... that's unprofessional and reflects an explicit bias in blogging or reporting.

      A "venial sin" as far as climate blogging goes and not mortal but a "sin" nonetheless.

      Delete
  4. In case you missed it... Watts has posted confirmation of the Greenland record in the "The WUWT Hot Sheet" for September 12th, 2013. No doubt, some will criticize the "delay" in its posting, but that would be nit picking given that it took several weeks to resolve whether the record would stand or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Thomas. Maybe he read it here first :)

      Delete
    2. Perhaps he did, which is (in my opinion) only helpful to the exchange of knowledge on climate change :D

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.