Comments on: Low Head and the Gnomes of Norwich http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Paul Linsay http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85799 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:14:29 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85799 #12

The original gnomes

]]> By: Warwick Hughes http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85798 Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:53:22 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85798 As an aside, I have to admit to some guilt regarding this expression, “Gnomes of Norwich”. There was a TV comedy from ? the Thatcher years, The Gnomes of Dulwich (was Dulwich MT’s electorate ?), which I thought had some v good passages but anyway the show flopped in Oz. In a phone chat with JD one day we were sharing a few choice moments from The G of D, which of course he appreciated as a Pom and somehow the expression, G of N emerged. JD had a good laugh and after that he used it whenever.

]]> By: JerryB http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85797 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:21:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85797 John Lang,

The discussion at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
suggests that such adjustments are usually done on a station by station basis, even
if they are calculated by some form of analysis of “nearby” stations.

]]> By: A. Sinan Unur http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85796 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:37:15 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85796 Re: #9

John, could you explain why you think the adjustment should be independent of location?

Sinan

]]> By: John Lang http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85795 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:55:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85795 This is just one site. I’m assuming Jones did not adjust one series at a time but applied systematic adjustments to whole ranges of locations. Does the whole series show this increased variance between Min and Max?

]]> By: DaleC http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85794 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:42:13 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85794 See here for a chart of just the Jones1990 TMAX and TMIN series.

]]> By: Ed Snack http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85793 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:57:28 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85793 Gary, John Daly’s original analysis bears reading, I believe it is still on his old website.

The Low Head record is interesting because when you examine the detailed records, not just the average, it seems that the day temperatures are essentially entirely responsible for the change, and the night temperatures have remained more or less steady. Thus the warming was, to JD anyway, contrary to the theoretical explanation of AGW which would predict that the diurnal anomaly would decrease not increase. He therefore hypothesized that the growth of the shrubbery around the site protected the measurement instruments from the wind, and hence the measurements are not a good measure of the local temperature as the environment has changed significantly. It is worth noting that Plummer appears to agree that the record is not representative.

This is interesting in another way, the Low Head record (presumably unadjusted) was used as a local temperature record in the Huon Pine tree ring data that was used in MBH98 & 99. Yet another potential source of distortion in that paper.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85792 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:04:20 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85792 Gary, I’m doing something different than John Daly. I’m not trying to decide whether there’s a shrubbery effect or not – it is, as you say, science fair stuff. I’m presuming that Torok and Nicholls have already decided that Low Head adjustment was appropriate. If so, then the adjustment should be carried through to the Jones et al 1990 network, which requires amendment at least for this one series. They haven’t done Mannian principal components so the result isn’t going to be dominated by one series – so the question is: given that Jones et al 1990 missed a 1.8 deg C inhomogeneity at Low Head, what other inhomogeneity problems affect the network?

]]> By: David Charlton http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85791 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:58:46 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85791 I can’t resist this; “Low Head and the Gnomes of Norwich” would be a great name for a rock band.

]]> By: Gary http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/27/low-head-and-the-gnomes-of-norwich/#comment-85790 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:20:21 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1489#comment-85790 Google Earth provides a nice satellite view of the narrow Low Head Light peninsula (41 deg,03′,22″S and 146deg,47′,25″E). Although I can’t quite identify the meteorological station’s location, given that the point extends about a mile from the main land, I’m wondering just how much shielding the vegetation actually is causing. It seems a simple thing to take a few measurement at a nearby unshielded spots and determine the difference. This is science fair project stuff: “The Shrubbery Heat Island Effect in Tasmania” that would inform what seems to be only speculation.

]]>