| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2010 09:10:01 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Eliminating ALL weather station data would still result in the same conclusion. |
Originally posted by David Ey:
No it wouldn't. Thousands of inputs taken at the wrong places would affect the results greatly. Everybody know dat. |
Eliminating all weather station data means ZERO inputs. The consensus of well over 90% of the people who actually study climate that there's an unusual warming trend influenced by man does not rest solely upon weather station data. In 2010, the fact of climate change is no longer in dispute outside of crackpots, vested interests and the hopelessly ignorant. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:12:42 PM · #452 |
| well yeah, I overlooked your ALL |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:33:41 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ignorance accounts for GW denial. |
Name calling. Nice! I guess you win the argument then. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:47:22 PM · #454 |
//www.surfacestations.org/
Weather stations in the US
61% sucks
8% sucks really hard
21% only moderately suck
10% are actually pretty good
But I'm sure Dr Phil has a trick to hide this. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 10:47:11 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...I'm sure Dr Phil has a trick to hide this. |
See aforementioned hopeless ignorance. When a demonstrable lack of knowledge is painfully obvious, the term "ignorant" is an appropriate description. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 11:38:54 PM · #456 |
| Morons with excuses... Name calling is fun, nice to see SC is okay with it. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 07:29:18 AM · #457 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Eliminating ALL weather station data would still result in the same conclusion. |
Originally posted by David Ey:
No it wouldn't. Thousands of inputs taken at the wrong places would affect the results greatly. Everybody know dat. |
Eliminating all weather station data means ZERO inputs. The consensus of well over 90% of the people who actually study climate that there's an unusual warming trend influenced by man does not rest solely upon weather station data. In 2010, the fact of climate change is no longer in dispute outside of crackpots, vested interests and the hopelessly ignorant. |
Eliminating all weather station data would not result in the same conclusion (that there is no statistical warming). If we eliminated all the weather station data, there would be statistical cooling. Why would you believe other sources of weather data are immune to corruption. I question NASA. Have you noticed that all funding to NASA has been cut EXCEPT for studying climate. If they concluded there is no warming, they would lose that funding as well. Either they show warming or they are gone, hardly a basis for trust in scientific outcome. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 09:28:40 AM · #458 |
cloudsme, I have to shake my head in wonder when people try to use the "follow the money" argument against scientists or NASA in particular. If you really think this is about money, how can you ignore those who will greatly benefit if people continue to believe global warming isn't real? As Scalvert has indicated a number of times, who do you think is funding all the data you believe?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2010 10:15:45 AM · #459 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Eliminating all weather station data would not result in the same conclusion (that there is no statistical warming). If we eliminated all the weather station data, there would be statistical cooling. |
Weather stations do not account for ice cores, the reduced mass of glaciers and sea ice, rising sea levels, uncharacteristic animal migrations, satellite observations, ocean sediments, corals and trees, oxygen isotope ratios, boreholes, agreement with theoretical models, etc. If you eliminated all weather station measurements, the result would still be an indisputable consensus of rising CO2 and climate warming.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I question NASA. Have you noticed that all funding to NASA has been cut EXCEPT for studying climate. If they concluded there is no warming, they would lose that funding as well. Either they show warming or they are gone, hardly a basis for trust in scientific outcome. |
Tell me you're joking. Nobody could possibly be this deluded when NASA's budget is public information just a few keystrokes away. The earth science division of NASA accounts for a mere 7.5% of their 2010 budget (and climate research is only a portion of that). Most of NASA's divisions have seen budget increases, and earth science accounts for 4.6% of this rise. The only major cuts have come from the Cross-Agency area (cutting bureaucracy). |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 10:31:16 AM · #460 |
Originally posted by citymars:
cloudsme, I have to shake my head in wonder when people try to use the "follow the money" argument against scientists or NASA in particular. If you really think this is about money, how can you ignore those who will greatly benefit if people continue to believe global warming isn't real? As Scalvert has indicated a number of times, who do you think is funding all the data you believe? |
Indeed. You've got tens of thousands of scientists across many diverse fields and countries that have reached an overwhelming consensus over the course of a century that climate change is real and influenced by man. On the opposing side, there's oil-sponsored PR efforts, unqualified opinions and sensationalist tabloid bloggers manufacturing easily debunked claims. In terms of credibility, it's no contest. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 12:02:35 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In terms of credibility, it's no contest. |
Bull$#it. Based on the emails I read from these hacks, they would not last a day in my industry, or any real world industry. In the real world, conspiring to silence your critics and hiding data does not pass for science. Nor does using gauges that you know are flawed, but apply factors that you create to end up with the results that you predicted in the first place. Unlike the real world these hacks have no consequence for being wrong, and they know it.
You'd have to be ignorant to trust their conclusions after reading their emails.
PS please quit linking to your bias alarmist web sites. Anyone that says the debate is over or the science is settled is clueless. Even your beloved hero Dr Phil can only say there is "evidence". i could post a lot of links from bias sites saying your biased sits are full of crap, but I'm smart enough to know that is a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2010 12:13:12 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Weather stations do not account for ice cores, the reduced mass of glaciers and sea ice, rising sea levels, uncharacteristic animal migrations, satellite observations, ocean sediments, corals and trees, oxygen isotope ratios, boreholes, agreement with theoretical models, etc. If you eliminated all weather station measurements, the result would still be an indisputable consensus of rising CO2 and climate warming. |
Is weather station data the primary source of the spike up on the hockey stick chart?
Honest question, I don't know the answer. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 01:41:03 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Is weather station data the primary source of the spike up on the hockey stick chart? |
No. It's a source, but the spike would still exist even if weather station data were excluded. First of all, there is no single "hockey stick chart," nor is it even the result of a single analysis. The term "hockey stick" is a reference to the shape of the pattern that emerges when temperature changes over the past 1000 years in the northern hemisphere (not global) are graphed in reconstructions and climate models— as shown in over a dozen separate studies and models with varying sources. While the instrumental temperature record of roughly the past 150 years is obviously the most direct way to measure recent temperatures, the results closely match both modeled predictions and numerous proxy sources (a very strong indicator of accuracy). Moreover, the temperature data includes both sea and air measurements that are obviously not subject to urbanization, and urban measurements are frequently cooler than those in rural areas anyway (not warmer, as you would expect if influenced by artificial heat sources).
Originally posted by LoudDog:
PS please quit linking to your bias alarmist web sites. |
Oh, the irony. I'm linking to the actual sources (in many cases to direct explanations from the people in question). Realclimate.org is hosted by climatologists, and they're not just making assertions— they list the sources and explain the process so you could find out the truth for yourself if you actually cared to do so.
Message edited by author 2010-02-18 13:49:51. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 02:54:59 PM · #464 |
Thanks for the answer, I was referring to Mann’s chart that is typically called the hockey stick chart. The one that hides the medieval warming period. Nice to see that you admit that the data closely matches their predictions once they adjust it, ironic, huh? Maybe their adjustment was right, but it would be a more convincing argument if their gauges worked properly. Or if they only used the ones that do work properly. Thanks to that site I posted they now have that info, I'd hope they'd use it.
And, I highly doubt those 90% of weather stations next to heat sources show as being cooler then the 10% of the stations that are not. If they add a factor to increase the readings because they think the city readings are false lows, that explains a lot!
Question: when you say the urban readings are lower then rural, are you only talking the high for the day? I’d think the daily average and daily low would easily be warmer in urban areas. The high, maybe, maybe not.
Regarding posting links, I don’t care if they are scientists or garabage men. If their webpage says the science is settled and the debate is over (alarmists or skeptics), it is a biased source and I don’t pay much mind to it. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 03:45:29 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I was referring to Mann’s chart that is typically called the hockey stick chart. |
The "hockey stick" anomaly is not based solely upon Mann's work, and the medieval warming period is not hidden. Without that period, the chart wouldn't be shaped like a hockey stick!
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Nice to see that you admit that the data closely matches their predictions once they adjust it, ironic, huh? |
Data is not adjusted to fit predictions. That's just plain ignorance. Also, climate models do not assimilate surface data, nor are they created from it.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt those 90% of weather stations next to heat sources show as being cooler then the 10% of the stations that are not. If they add a factor to increase the readings because they think the city readings are false lows, that explains a lot! |
You just don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. The difference between long term rural measurements and the full set of station temperature trends is only a few hundredths of one degree per century (0.05 to be exact). Big whoop-de-do. "Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions. The absence of such an effect is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record."
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If their webpage says the science is settled and the debate is over (alarmists or skeptics), it is a biased source and I don’t pay much mind to it. |
An encyclopedia says the earth is not flat, that it orbits the sun, and that the debate is over. That doesn't make it biased, just true. Your utter refusal to read anything from the people who actually study climate explains quite a lot about your assumptions on the matter. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 03:56:20 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by citymars:
cloudsme, I have to shake my head in wonder when people try to use the "follow the money" argument against scientists or NASA in particular. If you really think this is about money, how can you ignore those who will greatly benefit if people continue to believe global warming isn't real? As Scalvert has indicated a number of times, who do you think is funding all the data you believe? |
I was saddened as well to find out that people are motivated by money, especially to find out that scientists are. But the truth is, they are not immune to the influences of money. I'm sure they have found NASA scientists that will see the green rewards. The honest scientists have been left out in the cold (pun intended). That is what the emails where about. Global warming is a money grab. What do you think carbon credits are? Why do you think this issue is so hotly contested? The carbon industries have every right to defend themselves from the thieves that want to steal their treasure. So do I. If you think this isn't about money, power, and control of others; you will find out the hard way that many scientists don't share your ideals. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 04:02:12 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=LoudDog]Is weather station data the primary source of the spike up on the hockey stick chart? |
and urban measurements are frequently cooler than those in rural areas anyway (not warmer, as you would expect if influenced by artificial heat sources).
That's just not true! (Unless you are comparing urban areas of Alaska to rural areas of Hawaii.) |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 04:22:28 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I was referring to Mann’s chart that is typically called the hockey stick chart. |
The "hockey stick" anomaly is not based solely upon Mann's work, and the medieval warming period is not hidden. Without that period, the chart wouldn't be shaped like a hockey stick! |
Okay genious. Do a google search on hockey stick chart. Most of the results are Mann’s chart. Maybe you don’t call his chart the “hockey stick chart” but apparently most of the internet does. I guess they are all ignorant and you are the smart one?
And look at the chart closer while you do the google search, the MWP is that flat section on the left side.
//images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=hockey+stick+chart&gbv=1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Nice to see that you admit that the data closely matches their predictions once they adjust it, ironic, huh? |
Data is not adjusted to fit predictions. That's just plain ignorance. Also, climate models do not assimilate surface data, nor are they created from it. |
People who don’t read and selectively quote are ignorant. You missed the part where I said maybe they were right. You should be careful when calling people ignorant.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I highly doubt those 90% of weather stations next to heat sources show as being cooler then the 10% of the stations that are not. If they add a factor to increase the readings because they think the city readings are false lows, that explains a lot! |
You just don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. The difference between long term rural measurements and the full set of station temperature trends is only a few hundredths of one degree per century (0.05 to be exact). Big whoop-de-do. "Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions. The absence of such an effect is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record." |
You’re right, I didn’t know about this, that’s why I asked you the question in the post genius. Us ignorant folk need help sometimes.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If their webpage says the science is settled and the debate is over (alarmists or skeptics), it is a biased source and I don’t pay much mind to it. |
An encyclopedia says the earth is not flat, that it orbits the sun, and that the debate is over. That doesn't make it biased, just true. Your utter refusal to read anything from the people who actually study climate explains quite a lot about your assumptions on the matter. |
It’s been proven beyond a doubt the earth is not flat and revolves around the sun. Dr Phil, one of the alarmists leaders can only say there is evidence. I think it’s pretty ignorant and premature to make a conclusion when your leading scientist is just saying there is evidence. That’s just my opinion though. And for the record, I do read them, I just don’t blindly believe them like you do.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2010 04:41:37 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Do a google search on hockey stick chart. Most of the results are Mann’s chart. Maybe you don’t call his chart the “hockey stick chart” but apparently most of the internet does. And look at the chart closer while you do the google search, the MWP is that flat section on the left side. |
"MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context. Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis. However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction."
The Medieval Warm Period was a REGIONAL event (basically Europe). It wouldn't be as pronounced in an analysis of the entire northern hemisphere for the same reason a blizzard in Baltimore doesn't mean Vancouver is buried under snow.
I prefer "literate" to genius, but appreciate the compliment anyway. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 05:09:18 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=LoudDog]
The Medieval Warm Period was a REGIONAL event (basically Europe). It wouldn't be as pronounced in an analysis of the entire northern hemisphere for the same reason a blizzard in Baltimore doesn't mean Vancouver is buried under snow.
|
The Medieval Warm Period was likely global.
//www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
|
|
|
|
02/18/2010 06:06:07 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The Medieval Warm Period was likely global. |
The claim you linked relies on a number of myths and mischaracterizations (most of them already covered here) to reach a totally inaccurate conclusion. Hardly surprising given the source— it's an oil-sponsored "think tank" paid to produce junk science propaganda. Doug Hoffman is an engineer, not a climatologist, and there's a freakin' crude oil stock ticker on their home page! How blatantly biased can you get?!? |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 07:02:16 PM · #472 |
| I am joining sides with Shannon and adding my own scientific evidence. It's over. Shannon and I will be at the Eco-Pub drinking solar-brewed pints together. |
|
|
|
02/18/2010 07:54:45 PM · #473 |
Uh, oh... you left out a couple of apostrophes. This can only mean that the data is flawed, and the entire work must be disregarded. *sigh* Pass the peanuts, please. |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 12:52:18 PM · #474 |
opinion and fact
More to banter about... |
|
|
|
03/02/2010 01:48:15 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Flash:
More to banter about... |
That Fox article is beyond ridicule. What the IPCC actually said:
"Increasing temperatures tend to increase evaporation which leads to more precipitation. As average global temperatures have risen, average global precipitation has also increased. It has become significantly wetter in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia, but drier in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. There has been an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events over many areas during the past century, as well as an increase since the 1970s in the prevalence of droughts—especially in the tropics and subtropics. In the Northern Hemisphere's mid- and high latitudes, the precipitation trends are consistent with climate model simulations that predict an increase in precipitation due to human-induced warming."
The Post's article is a study in misdirection and misinformation. They didn't even contradict Gore!! He says that the heavy snowfalls of the past month are consistent with predictions of extreme weather in some regions. The article attempts to counter with [bogus] claims of observations from 2009 and earlier. Were those within the past month? Nope. This part- "there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years" is an outright lie (see above observations, and remember the massive floods of 1993, the historic blizzards of 1977 and 1996, etc.). The water vapor argument has been discredited so many times it's just laughable to even bring it up anymore. The tropics getting cooler is neither inconvenient nor inconsistent— no model predicts warming everywhere (another discredited myth). And then there's the biggie: the article tries to discredit Gore by claiming lower levels of water vapor in the stratosphere, but weather occurs in the troposphere.
The worst thing about the climate skeptic PR campaign is not even that people are stupid enough to believe it, but that the whole purpose is to interfere with efforts to prevent the severe hardships that our children and grandchildren will face. That's just plain evil. IMO, these pseudoscience scam artists and mercenary bloggers that feed ignorance should be met with massive lawsuits for crimes against humanity.
Message edited by author 2010-03-02 14:02:47. |
|
