Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

We not only have issues of what does the data show, how is it interpreted, but we also have issues with the data itself. How can the data be checked and verified by unbiased scientists? In the past, it has been documented that there are weather stations on tops of buildings next to heat vents, and all kinds of data corruption to the gathering of weather information, etc. We also have lots of anomalous stations in the Soviet Union that are suspect. And we are only talking a fraction of one degree that the global warmers are trying to tie their computer models and political policy to.

And now I run across this, where data is apparently being scrubbed from other scientists that want to check the data out. Has this been posted yet?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/01/publicly-available-data-being-purged-at-uks-hadley-climate-center/

"Publicly available data being purged at UK’s Hadley Climate Centre"

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I smell Possum. Are you bleeding?

1 Reply

@parados,

You keep calling me possum..is that a homosexual mating call because I am seeing someone...anyway I have a very low opinion of you. Perhaps you would like to discuss Global Warming ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

10 years is meaningless. You are measuring weather fluctuations. The climate can not be measured over a petty 10 year period.

Weather is measured at points of interest to populations. To help predict weather mainly. It is not global. There are no stations in the middle of the ocean that reliably measure temperature. They are all land based and some areas like the USA have far more than others. Satellite measuring has only been available since 1979. That is 3 ten year periods ago.
Do you know how they find the average daily temperature ? Most weather stations (yes they are called weather stations not climate stations) measure the maximum and minimum temperature. The mid way point is then taken as an average. Lets take an example. The temp recorded is a max of 30 and a min of 15. The average used for Global warming is therefore 22.5 degrees C. But the true average as in the temp on an hourly basis is 20 degrees C. It is recorded 2.5 degrees out. Not to be stopped by faulty data, it is then adjusted. So we have inaccurate data interferred with by human opinion.

How is that science ?

1 Reply

According to the global data sets, the Earth has warmed about 0.3 " 0.4 degrees in the last 30 years. This is less than the measurement error of temperature recording devices.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

You would expect nothing to happen on such a small time scale and that is exactly what happened...nothing...mind you, the Global Warming enthusiasts will say it happened suddenly and is man made.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

According to the global data sets, the Earth has warmed about 0.3 " 0.4 degrees in the last 30 years. This is less than the measurement error of temperature recording devices.

Which is why to find a trend you use multiple readings over a long period of time. It's called statistics Ionus and people that know how it works are more than happy to point out that your argument is meaningless in the science of the matter.

Arguing that some of the stations not included in the calculations no longer exist only shows you aren't willing to discuss the actual data. The fact that a station no longer exists in Butte Montana doesn't mean the stations that still exist and have for 100 years don't have valid data. If you would care to point out the stations that GISS or HADCRUT use that no longer exist then you might have a point. Until you do so, your arguments have no basis on any science.

Arguing that different agencies use different methods to calculate average temperature doesn't mean much when there is no argument made that a method is wrong for some reason. All methods that have published scientifically produce a warming. It would be statistically unlikely that all are wrong in the same direction.

I love that you post garbage Ionus. Why don't you find some peer reviewed science to post? Posting a website from deniers that haven't published or done any science seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?

When someone claims warming can't be shown to exist because the trend is within the error range of thermometers and then on another page they argue that the warming that exists can't be from CO2, I am left to wonder which stance they are taking. Are they arguing warming exists or not?

3 Replies

Since 2007, not a single national or international scientific body of repute has dissented from the view that global warming is essentially man-made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-IPCC_WG1-0

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Weather is measured at points of interest to populations. To help predict weather mainly. It is not global. There are no stations in the middle of the ocean that reliably measure temperature. They are all land based and some areas like the USA have far more than others. Satellite measuring has only been available since 1979. That is 3 ten year periods ago.

Radiosonde readings have been around for longer. You seem to ignore much of science Ionus and hope others will too.

Quote:

Do you know how they find the average daily temperature ? Most weather stations (yes they are called weather stations not climate stations) measure the maximum and minimum temperature. The mid way point is then taken as an average. Lets take an example. The temp recorded is a max of 30 and a min of 15. The average used for Global warming is therefore 22.5 degrees C. But the true average as in the temp on an hourly basis is 20 degrees C. It is recorded 2.5 degrees out.

Can you please post a source that shows that "true average" is only found on an hourly basis in science or in scientific calcluations?

Are you arguing that weather stations have nothing to do with science because you don't like the way they calculate average? If you require hourly readings for an average because it has more readings than max/min then your average is not correct compared to 15 minute readings and even less correct compared to 1 minute readings and even less correct compared to 15 second readings... etc, etc.. Simply saying you don't think they have enough readings to compute an average, doesn't prove anything other than you don't know what you are talking about.

Your argument is silly Ionus because it fails to account for the sheer number of readings that eliminate outliers over a 100 year period.
1. You argue that there is no difference in temperature from 10o years ago to today.
2. You argue that the trend exists only because we measure min/max to compute average temperature.
3. That raises the question of how have days changed in their max/min compared to 100 years ago if measuring the same way causes an increase to appear in the data. Please explain how using max/min caused the increase in the temperature over the time period. Please explain how they don't have enough data for standard statistical analysis.

Quote:

Not to be stopped by faulty data, it is then adjusted. So we have inaccurate data interferred with by human opinion.

The anomalies are calculated based on an average for 30 year time period. DUH.. That requires a calculation.

1. You haven't shown that there is faulty data.
2. You haven't shown how or even if it is adjusted.

Quote:

How is that science ?

Yes, your statement is NOT science. It is nothing but smoke on your part.

1 Reply

The Chamber suddenly changes its tune after a number of high-profile defections because of its climate-science-denial offensive.

BUSINESS -- CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT QUESTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE: 'IS SCIENCE NOT RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW': The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently launched an all-out public relations offensive following a series of high-profile member defections due to the business federation's denial of climate science and its lobbying against energy legislation. Earlier this year, Chamber officials pledged to put climate change science on trial in a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century." Not only is the Chamber spending millions to derail the energy legislation before Congress, but a recently leaked memo also revealed that the Chamber is assisting the oil industry in orchestrating astroturf "EnergyCitizen" rallies. Their PR strategy revolves around claiming that their organization does not deny climate change and is actively involved in working towards a clean energy future. Chamber spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel told the New York Times last month, "We've never questioned the science behind global warming." And earlier this month, Chamber Executive Vice President David Chavern told NPR, "We want a climate change bill." Yet yesterday, Chamber President Tom Donohue let the cat out of the bag, revealing that his organization is still standing in t he way of climate change legislation by denying basic climate science, telling Politico, "Is the science right? Is science not right? I don't know." Of course, Donohue has long been an obstacle in the way of a clean energy future. He sits on the board of a company that ships coal, forced the Chamber into a climate change denial position, runs ads mocking cap and trade, touted books questioning climate change, and promoted a myth of a global "cooling trend." Despite the U.S. Chamber's continued global warming denialism, local Chambers of Commerce have begun to come together to repudiate the national organization's backwards stance on climate change.

-- americanprogressaction.org

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Radiosonde readings have been around for longer.

When you use your imagination, do you see radiosonde devices being released all over the world at once ? How often do you "see"these devices being released ? Do you imagine they record all temperatures all day at a stationary point ? Do Global Warming scientists chose where to release them or does the weather bureau ? Does aviation have any say in where ?

Quote:

Can you please post a source that shows that "true average" is only found on an hourly basis in science or in scientific calcluations?

I was relying on your knowledge. Something that was foolish on my part. If you had any scientific training and werent so very desperate for Global Warming to be true, you would realise that it is rare for an average to be mid way between extremes. To simplify, it is assumed. Should I explain what assumptions are in science or do you want a reference ?

Quote:

Are you arguing that weather stations have nothing to do with science because you don't like the way they calculate average? If you require hourly readings for an average because it has more readings than max/min then your average is not correct compared to 15 minute readings and even less correct compared to 1 minute readings and even less correct compared to 15 second readings... etc, etc..

Well done, parados, you understand that one. I bet it wont be long before you go back to your nasty abusive self though....

Quote:

That requires a calculation.

It is called an adjustment. Do you hope by sounding scientific you will be believed ? A calculation...wow...that must be correct then...

Quote:

1. You argue that there is no difference in temperature from 10o years ago to today.
2. You argue that the trend exists only because we measure min/max to compute average temperature.

An interpretation, parados ? Or a calculation ? Perhaps an adjustment...because I never said that. Perhaps you would like to ask first, although you Global Warming Thuggees arent very fond of that are you ? Are you assuming the onus is on people to prove the negative ? If you had any scientific training you would realise you are embarrasing yourself.

Quote:

Can you please post a source

I thought I did..are you guilty of not reading a post but criticising it from habit ?

Quote:

DUH..

I know people of limited intelligence say DUH a lot, but I didnt think they typed it.

Quote:

Yes, your statement is NOT science.

No, parados, you got another one wrong. I was saying your argument is not science but as usual you have got it backwards. You are fortunate that people are understanding when it comes to people like you. Many would ignore your lack of training, extreme bias and inability to focus, but I wont give up on you.

By the way, do you go under the name of delra on another web site ?

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

...denial of climate science... climate change science on trial.... an obstacle in the way of a clean energy future...

What if we rephrased it...foolish acceptance of climate science...climate science found guilty...a bastion of free speech and liberty...is that more acceptable to you ?

Quote:

He sits on the board of a company that ships coal

There is guilt if ever I saw it. What this means of course, is that any Global Warming Thuggee has automatically disqualified themselves from sitting on the board of a company that produces solar panels. Because they are great people and we should thank God we have them to point out our failings because they are perfect and we are not.

Quote:

runs ads mocking cap and trade

How dare they ! That is undermining the campaign to promote cap and trade. This is not politics, people ! This is religion !!!!

parados said:

Quote:

Posting a website from deniers that haven't published or done any science seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?

I dont know parados, what do you think ??

The main point being made here is that no-one is entitiled to a different opinion.

1 Reply

Check the last 10 years of this graph!
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

not a single national or international scientific body of repute

Are we supposed to be surprised that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 found in favour of itself ? Where is the Intergovernmental Panel on non-Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 ???

Your reference includes Wildlife Veterinarians, Pediatrics, Astronomical Society, but no Proctologists or Phrenologists....maybe they havent been threatened yet, like I have been.

This means you can not disagree. You must believe what you are told. The Nazis didnt like dissenters either...

2 Replies

@parados,

Oh, parados, you only see what you want. if your personality restricts your vision any more, you will be legally blind. Read every word...
Global Warming is based on measurements. These measurements have assumptions built into them, then they are adjusted. Measurements of a reliable nature only go back 30 years. There are some measurements that go back further but they are not world wide and as one goes back in time they are increasingly scattered geographically and are unreliable. These measurements are used to prove that the earth is getting warmer. To prove Global Warming is man made, it is assumed that carbon is reponsible for the temperature increase.

I think it is obvious the planet is getting warmer, but the measuring is unreliable and should not be used to prove Global Warming is man made when the two are seperated by an assumption.

If you dont understand, as always, I will explain more.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Which is why to find a trend you use multiple readings over a long period of time.

If your Aunt Nellie has arthritis then 30 years is a long time. But you have forgotten the debate is about climate change and we do not have sufficient linear data. It's called statistics parados and people that know how it works are more than happy to point out that your argument is meaningless in the science of the matter.

Quote:

The fact that a station no longer exists in Butte Montana doesn't mean the stations that still exist and have for 100 years don't have valid data.

Wow !! A hundred years ! So during that time there has been reliable world data for trend prediction ? No ? Perhaps GISS and HadCRU have been around for 12 thousand years ? Since the last Glacial Advance melted due to Global Warming ? No ? Perhaps a thousand years ? Perhaps only a hundred ?
Less ? Perhaps you should say it again so you are aware of what you said....

Quote:

Which is why to find a trend you use multiple readings over a long period of time.

I love that you post garbage parados. Calling it science when it is full of inadequate data and unstated assumptions and adjustments published by scientists desperate for money seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?

Quote:

When someone claims warming can't be shown to exist because the trend is within the error range of thermometers and then on another page they argue that the warming that exists can't be from CO2, I am left to wonder which stance they are taking. Are they arguing warming exists or not?

I refuse to believe you are that stupid. I know you are clever, parados, depsite evidence to the contrary...a bit like Global Warming Thuggees, I suppose...

1 Reply

@Ionus,

parados said:

Quote:

Posting a website from deniers that haven't published or done any science seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?

I dont know parados, what do you think ??

The main point being made here is that no-one is entitiled to a different opinion.
[/quote]
Opinions aren't science. When you compare science to unscientific opinions and give the same weight to both, you reveal a bias that goes beyond simple ignorance.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Are we supposed to be surprised that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 found in favour of itself ? Where is the Intergovernmental Panel on non-Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 ???

Could you provide evidence that the IPCC is the only international scientific body of repute?

NASA, NOAA are certainly scientific bodies of repute, don't you think?

This it typical BS from you Ionus, you set up false arguments and then pretend you won because you failed to examine anything outside the extremely limited scope you set for yourself.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Oh, parados, you only see what you want. if your personality restricts your vision any more, you will be legally blind. Read every word...
Global Warming is based on measurements. These measurements have assumptions built into them, then they are adjusted. Measurements of a reliable nature only go back 30 years. There are some measurements that go back further but they are not world wide and as one goes back in time they are increasingly scattered geographically and are unreliable. These measurements are used to prove that the earth is getting warmer. To prove Global Warming is man made, it is assumed that carbon is reponsible for the temperature increase.

Could you provide evidence to support your statement?
1. Provide us with the assumption. Then tell us why it is an assumption. Vague answers don't count. You MUST be specific.
2. Provide us with the adjustment. Then tell us why it is inaccurate. Again, vague answers don't count.
3. Show us specifically why you think the measurements are "unrealiable". Show us using the specific stations that HADCRUT and GISS use. A claim without support isn't good enough Ionus.
4. Show us why the measurements show warming and not cooling if they are inaccurate. Show us your measurements and tell us what trend they show.

5. Show us how science is wrong when it shows that CO2 absorbs infrared in a specific spectrum. Failing to do that, you could show us how the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

If your Aunt Nellie has arthritis then 30 years is a long time. But you have forgotten the debate is about climate change and we do not have sufficient linear data. It's called statistics parados and people that know how it works are more than happy to point out that your argument is meaningless in the science of the matter.

Hmmm.. So you think we don't have sufficient linear data? Explain how we don't have that data. Be specific and show where the data doesn't exist in the following..
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Please point out where the authors of the data made mistakes.

Quote:

Wow !! A hundred years ! So during that time there has been reliable world data for trend prediction ?

Since Climate is based on 30 year periods, yes. If you want to redefine climate then provide us with a valid definition that disagrees with the 30 year time frame.

Quote:

I love that you post garbage parados. Calling it science when it is full of inadequate data and unstated assumptions and adjustments published by scientists desperate for money seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?

Please point to the specific data and tell us why it is inadequate. Simply claiming it is inadequate and then making vague statements doesn't prove anything other then you like to make vague statements.
I posted links to the data. Tell us which numbers are wrong and provide evidence to support your claim.

When you can point to specific numbers that are wrong and provide valid evidence of why it is wrong, then we might consider you clever Ionus.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Could you provide evidence that the IPCC is the only international scientific body of repute?

Are you drinking or taking drugs before you post ? What on earth are you on about ?

Quote:

NASA, NOAA are certainly scientific bodies of repute, don't you think?

Would this be the same NASA that kills astronauts because of money considerations ?

Quote:

you set up false arguments and then pretend you won because you failed to examine anything outside the extremely limited scope you set for yourself.

You are learning. This is my criticism of you before you ran away. Or is a limited memory another failing of the Global Warming Thuggees ? And you will never believe what happened... you ignored it.

Your attitude is typical of the Global Warming Thuggees. Focus in on minutae, ignore the big picture and abuse anyone who disagrees. You spend half your words abusing me. Good argument for Global Warming. It must be right because you have a personality disorder that prevents you from remaining calm.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know