Hi Juduth Curry, I was informed that the RUTI project was discussed to some degree here in this blog.
Some argue that RUTI cant be replicated.
This is nonsence.
The stations used bu RUTI are there for all to see, just like Hadcrut etc.
Then some argues that “because they dont know what RUTI criterias are for chosing stations is not defined by a general sharp definition, we cant use RUTI.”
What are Hadcruts criterias for chosing 87 temperature stations in USA with an average of 1,3 mio peoble? What are Hadcruts clear definition for choosing only 10 stations officially rural in the USA when many hundreds are available?
First of all:
If all unadjusted temperature data was fully available, it would be much more relevant to “demand” one general rule of how to choose data valid worldwide. Such a demand shows that even sceptics sadly has no idea what we are up against (!)
Reality is that we have SCARCE, CHERRY PICKED, CUT DOWN pile of sometimes adjusted “unadjusted” data, so the magic we simply have to do, is to explore each area of the globe manually (!!) find out what is going. There is NO simple definition when facing a corrupted dataset.
How one has to play “Sherloc Holmes” to recover dayta is very clearly shown here where I restore the real NW Europe temperature trend from data supposed to hide it:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php
In many areas, the situation is better than in Europe, for example Zambia data is more complete than German data sets…
Some here argue that “RUTI cant be replicated.”
This is nonsence.
The stations used bu RUTI are there for all to see, just like Hadcrut etc.
Then some argues that “because they dont know what RUTI criterias are for chosing stations is not defined by a general sharp definition, we cant use RUTI.”
What are Hadcruts criterias for chosing 87 temperature stations in USA with an average of 1,3 mio peoble? What are Hadcruts clear definition for choosing only 10 stations officially rural in the USA when many hundreds are available?
The great advantage of RUTI is that the proceedings area for area are there for all to see and judge for them selves. This makes RUTI the obvious choice compared with any other ground based temperature source.
And by the way its rather wrong there is no explanation of how RUTI evaluate Rural stations, its because they haven’t checked it out.
UHI.
In RUTI the UHI approach is explained in the general introduction:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php
Here a part of the introduction:
“RUTI is not all rural nor all unadjusted. However, RUTI is a temperature index aiming to use still more rural data (less use of city and airport data), still more unadjusted data when available and reasonable.”
…
“Thus, the main criteria to evaluate if a temperature station is rural or not is to check out the position using google maps. It is the relative growth of a city that determines the UHI pollution for a temperature stations, not the absolute size of a city. Therefore for RUTI use, stations that are located outside urban area or at least do not show a temperature trend significantly different than the near by rural stations are preferred.
In many areas, rural data are scarce and to some degree we have to use some (sub-) Urban data.”
And Judith, RUTI shows area for area what stations are used and why. This is a golden deluxe transparency compared to the conventional data sources.
EX: Here I show Turkish data, I show that the whole area of Turkey has systematically been corrupted since only a few large cities have data public available and thus I dismiss the whole country and I have explained why:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/turkey.php
EX: For Italy, not that many data series are available, but I show which stations are used, and that these data series mutually support each other:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/central-mediterranean.php
K.R. Frank Lansner
PS: If you would like, I can make a presentation of RUTI on your site.
