ARCHIV


Reference links :

whatisclimate.com

www.bernaerts-sealaw.com

www.arctic-warming.com

www.1ocean-1climate.com

www.seaclimate.com

Zurück

Hawaii Gisstemp – Scrap or Bingo?
A chance to show the impact 
of naval activities?

Posted: 08 September 2010

 The sea area off Pearl Harbor was presumably the most frequented for a brief period of time, which started with World War II in 1939 and ended in the 1960s, while a nearby weather station recorded a decrease of air temperatures by an extraordinary magnitude, which could be due to malfunctioning equipment, or due to an external force. The former needs to be proofed, but if that was not the case, the latter should not be overlooked, as one would miss a Bingo.

The question is, whether one of the two GISS stations close to the sea channel to Pearl Harbor, on the western side Obs Observatory, and on the eastern side the Air Port, has at least at on time in the 1940s been faulty or poorly placed. Indeed, the average temperature fell at Obs by extraordinary 2°C within the short period from 1945 to 1949, and from thereon needed almost one decade to recover to the pre World War II level of about 24°C. In stark contrast the  corresponding data at the Honolulu Air Port (HNL) which remained in a narrow band of 1°C throughout the 1940s and 1950s, although the stations are less than four miles apart.

The most competent Giss-data analyst, Anthony Watts, raised the matter (WUWT, 28.02.10 & WUTW, 16.06.2009    ,  WUWT, 19.06.2009 ) with concern to the reliability of the HNL data. Maybe that that was the reason for another keen investigator concerning the reliability of temperature data, Steve McIntyre, who took on historical sea-surface data (SST) with web postings on 30th August , and 1st September 2010 , saying at one point that it “it would be nice to consult the land record on the island to see if it can assist,” while concluding his posting with the sentence: “Maybe, like Mann’s birstlecones, Honolulu airport is a “sweet spot” for detecting climate change”. 

The following comments  ( HERE) shall raise interest in reason of Obs data record in the 1940s, hoping that the text together with the figures provide a reasonable sufficient picture why the matter should investigated and Obs data either scrapped, or, in case naval activities made an impact, such a result welcomed a great contribution to understand the climatic change issue better. 

·  ·  ArndB,Posted Sep 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM | 

#“Honolulu airport is a “sweet spot” for detecting climate change”

The matter would become really interesting if the airport is compared with the nearby „Honolulu Obs Oahu“ station , see WUWT/ 19Jun22009: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/more-on-noaas-fubar-honolulu-record-highs-asos-debacle-plus-finding-a-long-lost-giss-station/ ),
___which is close to the entrance of Pearl Harbour,
___is very close to a sea area, where presumably enormous naval activities during and after WWII took place, that can have changed the ‘sea-surface structure’ in more than one way, e.g. the sea of Obs is fairly deep, with much colder water just below the sea surface, or: the day time warming of the sea surface was quickly replace by colder (not sun warmed) water.
___the extraordinary drop from 1945 to 1949, coincides with size of the US Navy at Honolulu.
___It would be to easy to assume a malfunction of the measurements, although not totally impossible, but that would objectively mean that the people running the Obs must have been completely ignorant and incompetent not to recognising it.
___If Obs temperature have been taken correctly (and that seems to be the case as the station was presumably never moved, but only the institutions running Obs changed a few times), and also the airport measurements, than it should be possible to identify a reason for the difference,
___which would be particularly helpful in the climatic change debate, and even more,
___if naval activities caused the air temperature to drop dramatically „Honolulu Obs Oahu“ from 1945 to 1949.


Jeff Alberts ,
Posted Sep 2, 2010 at 8:29 PM | 

Even if it were true, it would only be a “sweet spot” for that location, and irrelevant for anywhere else.


ArndB
,Posted Sep 3, 2010 at 12:14 AM | 

It would bring naval activities and many other activities in the marine environment more in focus with regard of their possible impact on climate change, e.g., what did naval activities contributed during WWII?: http://climate-ocean.com/ ; See here a recent paper about the Western Pacific 1942-1945: http://www.what-is-climate.com/

 Brian H, Posted Sep 5, 2010 at 1:42 AM |
I thought he was being ironic, almost mocking. Airports have lots of special characteristics, and it would depend greatly on WHERE in the grounds the station was located.


ArndB, Posted Sep 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM | 

„Sweet spot“ was presumably meant ironic, but together with nearby OBS the matter gets serious, that is the reason why WUWT mentioned the discrepancy repeatedly. But on preliminary consideration of OBS Oahu station measurements during and after WWII, see here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/honolulu-observatory-giss-station-plot.gif?w=510&h=393 it seems a bit to simple to assume faulty equipment without proof, for which the graphic provides no indication.
Due to the huge presence and activities of the US Navy close to OBS during the 1940s and 1950s it is presumably one of the rare opportunities to investigate an human impact with clear parameter, and it could serve as a unique chance to get GW advocates sweating.