Climategate

[Thorne]

Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?

I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[DuncanONeil]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.

I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[Thorne]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.

As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[DuncanONeil]

At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?

As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[leo9]

Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?

I think we are at cross purposes. You appear to imagine that the ozone level has some relevance to AGW research, and that therefore you are exposing data manipulation on this subject.

The reason people measure ozone levels is that artificially generated ozone is a polutant. It causes sometimes life threatening asthma in susceptible people, and for this reason it is important for those at risk to know when the level is dangerously high. Therefore it is measured at locations where it may become high, because that is where the danger lies.

These measurements are supremely irrelevant to any aspect of global climate research. As Thorne noted, you may perhaps be confused by the tendency of anti-environmentalists to conflate the current concern over CO2 with the 1980s concern over ozone depeletion. The two are entirely separate issues. (Well, almost. A serious increase in ozone depletion might conceivably add to incoming solar radiation enough to have an impact on climate, but the contingency is happily remote, since we seem to have successfully limited the release of ozone depleting pollutants.) In any case, the previous concern was over loss of ozone, so environmental fraudsters would hardly be trying to exagerate the levels, leaving aside that they would be taking measurements several hundred feet too low if that were the object.

All this you could have discovered for yourself with five minutes on Google, so why do we have to keep educating you in the basics?

[DuncanONeil]

I think we are at cross purposes. You appear to imagine that the ozone level has some relevance to AGW research, and that therefore you are exposing data manipulation on this subject.

I do not so think. My point is that the O3 data is itself being manipulated by choosing ONLY positions that WILL result in high O3 levels

The reason people measure ozone levels is that artificially generated ozone is a polutant. It causes sometimes life threatening asthma in susceptible people, and for this reason it is important for those at risk to know when the level is dangerously high. Therefore it is measured at locations where it may become high, because that is where the danger lies.

Measuring O3 at the shore of a Great Lake, and the edge of other bodies of water and places that may produce O3 is not a true valid indicator of the O3 levels throughout the city. The data may be accurate but by definition it is biased.

These measurements are supremely irrelevant to any aspect of global climate research. As Thorne noted, you may perhaps be confused by the tendency of anti-environmentalists to conflate the current concern over CO2 with the 1980s concern over ozone depeletion. The two are entirely separate issues. (Well, almost. A serious increase in ozone depletion might conceivably add to incoming solar radiation enough to have an impact on climate, but the contingency is happily remote, since we seem to have successfully limited the release of ozone depleting pollutants.) In any case, the previous concern was over loss of ozone, so environmental fraudsters would hardly be trying to exagerate the levels, leaving aside that they would be taking measurements several hundred feet too low if that were the object.

I know there is a difference. But as to Global Warming I suggest you check out the new things Phil Jones is saying!

[Thorne]

At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?

I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[DuncanONeil]

That "high concentration" decision is part of the problem. I live in a city where the eastern boundary is a Great Lake. Levels of O3 are higher, at this point I can't quote a source other than a local news station, are higher in the vicinity of bodies of water. The level of concentration is not "in" the water, but in the immediate vicinity of the water. Most all of the recording stations are in such locations. But to presume that such readings have any bearing within the city confines five miles away can not be supported. Heck the ambient temperature does not remain constant over that distance!

I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[DuncanONeil]

Did some looking. much of the generic data on Ozone does not get terribly specific. It may take trying to find the actual data from the actual monitoring units.

I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[leo9]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count

When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.

, and yes I mean O3.

Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?

This issue is closely related to AGW.

The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?

[steelish]

Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire.

On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.

Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.

[leo9]

On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.

Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.

Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

[steelish]

Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

We don't exactly place the detectors at floor level! But if you have vaulted ceilings in the living room, and normal ceiling height in the hallway outside the bedroom...the smoke detector is still placed outside the bedroom regardless of the higher ceilings elsewhere.

[DuncanONeil]

In addition to outside the bedroom we are also instructed to have one on each floor to include the basement!

Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

[DuncanONeil]

See #178!

When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.

Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?
The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?