« Sick of Politics? | Main | It's the hypocrisy, stupid »

Global Warming News So Stupid It's Funny

Man I can't make up material like this....

Study: Nevada has big temperature gains

RENO, Nev. - Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.

The average temperature in Reno from June through August last year was 75.6 degrees, almost 7 degrees above the 30-year average, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported. The gap was the biggest measured nationally. ...

"The scientific evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, and Nevada is feeling the heat more intensely than most of the rest of the U.S," said Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas

90. Freaking. Days.

90 Freaking days of above average temperature readings on a planet 4 billion years old and that is "incontrovertible scientific evidence" of global warming.

90. Freaking. Days.

That's the same mathematically as saying it was warm at 1:32pm on Tuesday.

I was wrong in the title, when a Professor of Geology says something that stupid, it's not funny anymore. It's just plain sad.

Update Hat tIp Drudge (or one of his readers) for NOAA data that smacks the lefy idiots who did this "study" with the fact the 1940's where warmer. -- "Global Colling is here!"

This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why a 90 day data set is absolutely worthless.

vegastemp.gif
Click for full size

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22891.

Comments (150)

He said the evidence of glo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

He said the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, not that summer temperatures in Nevada are all the evidence. Hell, it's not even all the evidence from the study he's referring to. It's just the most dramatic among the states. Let's look at some other parts of the :

The environmental advocacy group analyzed temperature data collected from 255 weather stations across the country to examine warming temperatures during recent years compared with historical trends.

Nationally, the average temperature during the summer of 2006 was at least half a degree above the 30-year average at 82 percent of locations studied.

Wait, I thought it was just 90 days in Nevada! And a bit from NASA you already know:

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that 2006 was the fifth-warmest year in the past century. GISS scientists estimated that the five warmest years on record were, in descending order, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006.

Sure seems warm lately to me.

I can find any set of data ... (Below threshold)
Roy:

I can find any set of data to prove we are either entering an ice age, or going to burn up. It's not science, it's politics. If I can get a piece of the cash going around, I'll prove whatever the hell you want to prove. It's a piece of cake. I'm in for 50/50 to start.

Mantis, how long have tempe... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Mantis, how long have temperature records been kept?

What is the ratio to the length of time we have accurate temperature observations and recordings by real people (not tree rings or ice studies) when compared to the length of time humans have walked the earth?

Given the incredibly short relative time that we've been keeping records, how can you say that this is not simply a natural fluctuation in climate?

Global warming is the new religion of the left. It's that simple.

So now Global warming is b... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

So now Global warming is back. I thought they had chickened out and were calling it climate change. Since when is NV an indicator of the world. The BS artist are jerking themselves off at every thing they can find. Can't find a woman, jerk off, can't find global warming, jerk off and make some BS up. We had a dry spell through the spring, now it's raining every freakin day and night. Should be in the 70-80's but it's in the 60-70's, damn cold at night, in July, in the South. Evidently the next ice age has hit Va.

The idea that the surface t... (Below threshold)

The idea that the surface temperature record has any credibility is quite hilarious. There is almost no controls on the siting and monitoring of surface weather stations to identify which are being compromised by urban heat island effects or even compromised by changes in their surroundings.

Mantis, how long have te... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, how long have temperature records been kept?

Reliable surface temperature records go back about 150 years.

What is the ratio to the length of time we have accurate temperature observations and recordings by real people (not tree rings or ice studies) when compared to the length of time humans have walked the earth?

Depends on how long you think humans have been around. I'd say about 1:1300.

Given the incredibly short relative time that we've been keeping records, how can you say that this is not simply a natural fluctuation in climate?

All the other evidence, which apparently you find unreliable. Not surprisingly, I might add.

Global warming is the new religion of the left. It's that simple.

Whatever.

The Professor of Geology fr... (Below threshold)
Elroy Jetson:

The Professor of Geology from UNLV says that the evidence is compelling.
Schools usually group Earth and Atmospheric sciences together in one dept., but this is still a stretch.
Perhaps they couldn't get a Meteorologist to state that, "The scientific evidence of global warming is incontrovertible."
So, they used a Geologist instead. Interesting.

Sorry Mantis, the inference... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sorry Mantis, the inference was as clear as a bell.

Just reread the first paragraph...

Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.

It is clear that this 90 day dataset is meant to be evidence of global warming.

For those of you who are in... (Below threshold)
SkyWriter:

For those of you who are interested in learning more about climate change, I highly recommend the book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. It presents sound scientific fact and evidence that global climate is a cyclic event and we are in a natural, not man made, period of warming.

For those who love to use NASA data to 'prove' man-made climate change, you might be interested in what else NASA has to say...the temperatures of our sister planets has also been rising. Are humans responsible for that...or could it be due to the fact that the sun does NOT generate a constant output of energy?

Climate studies done in large urban areas are bogus! Why? Basic thermodynamics (more mass to store 'heat' energy) and the fact that measurement sites in far from optimum locations. NASA data on a global scale does not trend along the patterns shown in the large urban area data.

Climate change...aka Global Warming...is nothing more than a political issue as are the vast majority of things thrown in our face on a day-to-day basis. How else do you think those worthless congress critters are going to get re-elected?

It is clear that this 90... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It is clear that this 90 day dataset is meant to be evidence of global warming.

I never said it wasn't. The AP writer starts the article by talking about last years' summer temperatures, which are a few data points among many in a much larger study. Rowland was talking about the study, not just last summer in Nevada. Hell, even that's not clear; he could very well be talking about all evidence of global warming.

My guess, and I know a good deal about this process, is that the AP got a press release about the study from US PIRG, saw that Nevada had especially high temperatures last summer, contacted UNLV for a source, and got Rowland. He may have been talking about global warming generally, or he may have seen the study itself (if the reporter was doing his/her job, they would have made sure he saw the study first, but that doesn't always happen).

I'll be the first to say that journalists don't write about this, and many scientific topics, very well. However you are trying to make it out like Rowland said something he clearly did not say.

Did anyone look at the uspi... (Below threshold)
Skul:

Did anyone look at the uspirg site? I did. Their agenda and political lean are quite clear.
Unreliable, un-scientific hodge-podge of chicken littles. Nuff said.

Got a substantive criticism... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Got a substantive criticism of the study? You can read it here (pdf).

Perhaps you'd also like to take it up with Brenda Ekwurzel, Ph.D., Climate Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Paul R. Epstein, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, who reviewed it.

Well... You have a point, t... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Well... You have a point, to a point, mantis... but not really...

I strongly considered trying to track down the professor and see if he stood behind the quote... HOWEVER...

Look at the next graph which I thought about including but I stopped the excerpt directly above:

"Only a tiny bit of this increase in temperature can be attributed to increased urbanization the so-called urban heat-island effect," Rowland continued. "Global warming is here, and we better get serious about confronting it."

For "pithiness" I left that out but it is pretty damning. (unless the AP is wildly off here) He is clearly talking about this exact study.

As a professor, hell as anyone with a brain, I'd like to think that he would first state that a 90 day dataset is worthless.

Instead the professor says "Global warming is here..."

Anyone who says "Global warming is here" based on a 90 day study, I think we both agree, is a moron.

Unless the AP totally botched this article, that's what he said.

Oh yes mantis, the "Union o... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Oh yes mantis, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" an impartial scientific group to review your findings if ever there was one.

Sorry mantis you just took a 44 magnum and shot yourself in the foot.

Thanks mantis, I had not bo... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Thanks mantis, I had not bothered (although I was tempted) to track down the source of the poppycock. You point me to the "Union of Concerned Scientists "

You know the "Scientific Community" whose current magazine has an expose "EXXON EXPOSED"


http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed.html

"Exposing the dis-information" from Exxon Mobile on global warming.

Please mantis, you quote them as a reliable source??? Quote my dog first. Next you'll quote Mother Earth News.

He is clearly talking ab... (Below threshold)
mantis:

He is clearly talking about this exact study.

That is not clear at all. This,

"Only a tiny bit of this increase in temperature can be attributed to increased urbanization the so-called urban heat-island effect,"

could easily be talking about surface temperature measurements in general, not necessarily this particular study.

As a professor, hell as anyone with a brain, I'd like to think that he would first state that a 90 day dataset is worthless.

That's assuming that the reporter even asked him about it. How an article is put together and how an interview with an expert source goes often do not match up. He very well may have just been asked about surface temperature readings, or that study in general. It seems pretty doubtful that he was even asked about summer temperatures in Nevada specifically.

Anyone who says "Global warming is here" based on a 90 day study, I think we both agree, is a moron.

Yes, but you made up the part where he says that based on a 90-day study. It's a straw man and you know it.

Unless the AP totally botched this article, that's what he said.

Actually, I think you're just reading into it what you want, but the AP could have organized the article differently to get rid of what little ambiguity there may be in those quotes.

Oh yes mantis, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" an impartial scientific group to review your findings if ever there was one.

Well, it's a good thing there were two reviewers, huh?

Sorry mantis you just took a 44 magnum and shot yourself in the foot.

By pointing out to Skul that he could read the study and criticize that, and it's reviewers by extension, instead of idiotic ad hominem (like you're pulling now with the UCS)? Ow, my foot. Oh wait, I missed.

"Global warming" has been a... (Below threshold)

"Global warming" has been a joke, is a joke, and will always be a joke. I can only imagine how history books of the future look back at this period in humanity... hopefully, a tongue-in-cheek writer will be able to edit that particular tract.

Climates change. It is as simple as that. And assuming we understand why they change, much less taking responsibility for those changes, is hubris of the highest order. It is the current trend, nothing more, and since people are all about funding "research" into it, I do not expect that trend to change any time soon. Of course, considering the fact that "global warming" hypers do their damnest to squelch, silence, and oppress those scientists who would speak out against them, that only serves to further bolster the trend. Science stops being science when it does not allow dissenting research to see the light of day. At that point, it becomes nothing more than faith.

"Global warming" stopped being anything except a liberal/environmentalist drive to secure more control over people when I found out that most of the other planetary bodies in the solar system are experiencing warming trends at the moment as well. Because, you know, the Martians are one of the heaviest polluters out there... damn Marvin and his evil, capitalistic, imperialistic empire!

Lucky for you that you miss... (Below threshold)

Lucky for you that you missed, mantis, since your foot was in your mouth at the time.

I think the simple statement that we are in a period of global warming is incontrovertible. How much and what the primary cause is would be topics of much debate, most of it speculation. None of the computer models based on human-sourced greenhouse gases have yet passed back-testing.

The single most dramatic effect on earth temperatures is solar activity, particularly flares. Logically, before one could state authoritatively that some other source is the primary cause of the current warming (which is occurring at a slower rate than in the first half of the 20th Century, when far fewer fossil fuels were being burned), it would be necessary to eliminate solar activity as the source first.

That is, it would be if you were interested in the truth.

Sorry mantis, you're bankin... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sorry mantis, you're banking on the AP having botched the job.

>Yes, but you made up the part where he says that based on a 90-day study. It's a straw man and you know it.

Bull shit. He was commenting on the study. It's right there in the story. And you know it.

--
>Well, it's a good thing there were two reviewers, huh?

Yeah and the other one was from the "Center for Health and the Global Environment" STRIKE TWO! Yer out!

--

Admit it mantis, this was a left-wing group's "scientific report by fax machine" that the media sucked up and ran with. Complete with an obligatory quote from a GW huckster.

As soon as anyone saw the study was based on 90 days of data the lefties should have been laughed at. Instead it is presented as "incontrovertible scientific evidence" of global warming. YAWN.

It's lefty bull shit political propaganda. It's VERY VERY sad that this is reported as science.

And you know it.

Whether you'll admit to it is a different story.


BTW- Don't you sleep?... (Below threshold)
Paul:

BTW- Don't you sleep?

Paul, do you have a link to... (Below threshold)

Paul, do you have a link to that story?

Never mind, I googled it here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/
climate/2007-07-25-nevada-temp_N.htm

We had an almost identical story in the local rag yesterday (online at least, who actually gets a paper) here:
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070725/NEWS0107/107250039/1004/NEWS

Somebody is pushing this research hard as it appears to be two different research outfits.

Ours by Environment Illinois and Nevada's by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Even better, they both managed to state that the warmer night temperatures don't allow cooling and both reference geologists that study climate. One in Nevada (Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas) and one in Illinois (Wei Luo, a geologist at Northern Illinois University who studies climate).

Wonder if these are press released news or if they were reported off of some template?
DKK

As soon as anyone saw th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

As soon as anyone saw the study was based on 90 days of data the lefties should have been laughed at. Instead it is presented as "incontrovertible scientific evidence" of global warming.

So either you didn't even bother to look at the study, or you know you're full of shit (more likely since the AP piece mentions the timeframe more than once). The study was not based on 90 days of data. It looked at 2000-2006 data as compared to the 30-year average.

Seriously, if you have a problem with the methodology or the data used, fine. Just don't lie about what it is. So far that's all you have, except for ad hominem.

And no, I'm not banking on the AP botching the story; I don't think they botched it.

BTW- Don't you sleep?

Rarely. You?

You know, I remember a time... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

You know, I remember a time when this would have been called a "heat wave" or "dry spell."


Ah for the simpler times, where critical thinking and common sense were prevalent.

In 1000 AD it was so warm t... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

In 1000 AD it was so warm they could grow grain crops in Greenland. We cannot grow grain crops in Greenland today. It is too cold.

Given those two pieces of information how can anyone seriously entertain the belief that this is the "warmest climate ever?"

<a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
JLawson:
Fear of a global 'coldening' | The Daily Telegraph

LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

Not that June should be presented as evidence that global warming isn't happening, or that we're causing it. Relying on such a tiny sample would be unscientific and wrong, even if it involves an entire freakin' continent's weather patterns throughout the course of a whole month, for Christ's sake.

No such foolishness will be indulged in here.

In re the history of our planet - we're like mayflies trying to determine trends from an eyeblink. Hot? Cold? It's relative, and it all depends where you start from. As Mark L posted, there was a time when agriculture was sustainable in Greenland - and then it got too cold. What's the temperature that we're SUPPOSED to be at?
"Climate change gave much of Australia's drought-stricken east coast its warmest May on record, weather experts say.

"Global warming and an absence of significant cold changes had driven temperatures well above the monthly average, said meteorologist Matt Pearce.

According to Mr Pearce, May's temperatures were "yet another sign of the widespread climate change that we are seeing unfold across the globe."

If that's the case, shouldn't June's cold weather - coldest since 1950, remember - be a sign that widespread climate change isn't unfolding across the globe? We're using the same data here; one month's weather. And, in fact, the June sample is Australia-wide while May only highlights the east coast. Fear the dawn of a great "coldening"!

One century, one decade, one year, one month, one week, one day... It's all an eyeblink. Predict accurately the next thousand years, and you might have something.
I am sure you have all hear... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am sure you have all heard of the climatologists that conducted an audit of the data collecting instruments in this country. They found numberous sensors, bulbs and collectors placed in inappropriate areas and not to spec of the design of the equipment. So, really, how accurate and comprehensive can we take on reports that depended on the readings from the inaccurate readings? After learning this, I decided to not depend on these studies at all. ww

This is issue is way too po... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

This is issue is way too politically backed to get any honest information.

And this past year has been... (Below threshold)

And this past year has been far cooler than normal for Oklahoma. Big friggin whoop.

mantis:Sure seems... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

mantis:
Sure seems warm lately to me.

It does that in the northern hemisphere during this time of year. The technical term I use to describe the condition is 'summer'.

I call BS mantis....<... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I call BS mantis....

The study looked at 90 days of data COMPARED TO 30 years of data.

It still is placing significance in 90 days of data on a 4 billion year old rock.

heh- mantis before you cont... (Below threshold)
Paul:

heh- mantis before you continue defending this scientific farce... ya might wanna check my update.

ROFLMAO

mantis: "Sure seems war... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

mantis: "Sure seems warm lately to me."

That statement was at least as scientifically valid, if not more so, than any other I've read from any anthropogenic Global Warming believer.

In that one single sentence Mantis has sumarized the total body of actual scientifically vaild evidence that supports the leftist theory of anthroprogenic global warming.

I haven't read the study bu... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I haven't read the study but have read the AP release. The by looking a the average temp over a 90 day period they're condensing the data (most likely in a effort to smooth it) to one data point. So, if the AP release is accurate, they're using a ONE data point(average temp for ONE 90-day period which was last summer), not 90 data points, from which they're drawing their conclusion.

Anyone recall off-hand what the confidence interval is for one data point ? I'm thinking it's less than 'incontrovertible'.

Nibble, nibble, nibble, nib... (Below threshold)
kim:

Nibble, nibble, nibble, nibble.
====================

Evidence that the global cl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Evidence that the global clime is warming is a separate issue from the cause. Prior to the Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud theory people got away with assuming that if global warming was occurring it had to be driven by greenhouse gas forcing. That assumption is currently invalid.

The scientists currently performing the CLOUD experiments at CERN are not a bunch of backyard hacks that can be readily dismissed. Initial peer reviewed experimental results demonstrates a critical part of the linkage is TRUE, at least in the laboratory. That's as much experimental evidence there is for the competing theory of greenhouse gas forcing (computer models are not experimental evidence as they tend to amplify ignorance). The CLOUD experiments at CERN are designed to measure the cloud forming effect of high energy charged particles (close as we get to cosmic rays) under all applicable atmospheric conditions. It may be years before we have the full results.

In the meantime the Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud theory explains all observable evidence better than the greenhouse gas forcing theory. For example, the Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud theory accounts for the little ice age, the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period. The greenhouse gas forcing theory has to deny these events were global. The Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud theory explains ice core data that shows increases in CO2 FOLLOW warming events. The greenhouse gas forcing theory has to pretend the basic principle of cause and effect is irrelevant.

The Sun's magnetic activity changes in several cycles of different periods, such that the peaks of several of these cycles can occur at the same time or at different times, and thus, produce even longer combined cycles. The cosmic ray influx also changes over time as our Solar system pass through the arms in the galactic spiral. All of these effects combine into a complex pattern that closely matches data from ice and sediment cores.

The reason such compelling evidence is ignored by so many is that environmental extremisms requires a link between human exploitation of the environment and a looming disaster. Without that link the vast majority of people would dismiss the extremist agenda out of hand. Thus, environmental extremists use every means within their power to stifle research into other causes of climate change and discredit what research is being done. Environmental extremists have infiltrated the UN and many liberal leaning governments and have gained great influence on research funding. Career scientists are cowed into line. Independent thinking scientists must keep their research obscure (as to what it supports or refutes) or seek funding from private sources. If any money for independent research is tracked back to a fossil fuel company, the research is claimed to be bought and invalid. President Bush has been one of the greatest obstacles to the extremist's agenda.

Environmental extremisms is a religion and once again a religion is in control of science. Will we be fooled by their junk science into given in to the extremist's agenda?

Hey, Mantis... Nevada isn't... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Hey, Mantis... Nevada isn't the only place that's getting warmer.

Mars is too.

Now, either the Martians are driving SUVs and electing Republicans...

...or global warming has little to do with human activity, and is caused by other forces.

The study looked at 90 d... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The study looked at 90 days of data COMPARED TO 30 years of data.

Why do you continue to make that claim? From the study:

To examine recent temperature patterns in
the United States, we compared temperature
data for the years 2000-2006 from 255
weather stations located in all 50 states and
Washington, DC
with temperatures averaged
over the 30 years spanning 1971-2000.
Overall, we found that temperatures were
above the 30-year average across the country,
indicating pervasive warming.

Data from weather stations in all 50 states over the course of 7 years, as compared to the past 30, not 90 days in one state! You continue to make this claim even though it's plain to anyone who looks that you're full of shit. Let's look at some more from the study, shall we?

The above-average temperatures of 2006 are part of a broader warming trend since 2000. Our analysis of climate data for 2000-2006 showed: • Between 2000 and 2006, the average temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 87% of the locations studied. Average temperatures in Alaska were the most anomalous, with Talkeetna near Denali National Park averaging more than 4°F above the 30-year average. • The average maximum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at more than two-thirds (68%) of the locations studied. Average maximum temperatures in Pueblo and Alamosa, Colorado were 2.6°F above normal. • Overall, temperatures are not dropping at night as much now as they did in the past. Between 2000 and 2006, the average minimum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 80% of the locations studied. Albuquerque, New Mexico and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan reported average minimum temperatures of more than 3°F above normal.

Are you done misrepresenting the data we're talking about yet?

mantis before you continue defending this scientific farce... ya might wanna check my update.

It's a sad state of affairs when you're looking to Drudge for scientific insight. I know you're an engineer, but I'm sure you know enough about statistics to know that graph means nothing. You (and Drudge) want to compare maximum temperature to average temperature, even though you know this is incomparable data. If you were the slightest bit honest you would post the graph of average Las Vegas temperature by decade, not average maximum, from the NOAA. Since these are comparable data, and they don't support your (erroneous) point, you won't.

This is why it is so tiresome to debate with most global warming "skeptics," they so often use dishonest tactics (misrepresenting data and research) and introduce irrelevancies, usually intending to simply confuse the issue, but sometimes due to ignorance. (I put skeptics in quotes as most are anything but; they already have their conclusions, which no amount of evidence will sway).

Well said, Mac. Have you r... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well said, Mac. Have you read what Vaclev Havel wrote about a month ago that the warmers are a greater threat to freedom than man is a threat to the environment?
==================

In that one single sente... (Below threshold)
Paul:

In that one single sentence Mantis has summarized the total body of actual scientifically valid evidence that supports the leftist theory of anthropogenic global warming.

OUCH that was harsh. True, but harsh.

Ok mantis... so the "study"... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Ok mantis... so the "study" was a superset of the information discussed on the AP story....

BFD

See the chart I linked in the update and get over yourself.

Do you, mantis, understand ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Do you, mantis, understand how difficult it is to measure temperature? It's not just looking at the mercury.

Many scientists consider the data you are trying to make sense of, North American surface temperatures, to be hopelessly perverted by the effect of Urban Heat Islands.
=========================

See the chart I linked i... (Below threshold)
mantis:

See the chart I linked in the update and get over yourself.

See the chart I linked and stop being so full of shit.

Here's mantis on Christmas ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's mantis on Christmas Morning: C'mon, everyone, keep looking; there's gotta be a hockey stick in here somewhere. Daddy promised me we'd play.
=========================

Many scientists consider... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Many scientists consider the data you are trying to make sense of, North American surface temperatures, to be hopelessly perverted by the effect of Urban Heat Islands.

Yawn.

Here's a package with a nic... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's a package with a nice bow on it, mantis. Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures appear to have risen in the last half century or so. Southern hemisphere surface temperatures not. Worldwide atmospheric and ocean temperatures have not risen. How is that the effect of a universally distributed trace gas?

Greenhouse gas thinking is primitive. Sure a glass house will get hot in the sun. The earth is more than a glass house.
==============

Have you read what... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:
Have you read what Vaclev Havel wrote about a month ago that the warmers are a greater threat to freedom than man is a threat to the environment?

No, but I should. Thanks for the heads up.

Please don't give me realcl... (Below threshold)
kim:

Please don't give me realclimate, the last defenders of the hockey stick. If you want to be aware of current knowledge, read climateaudit.org.
==============================

I talk to two friends regul... (Below threshold)

I talk to two friends regularly, one from Scotland and one from England who both say it's been unseasonably cool this year. I live in Florida where this year has been unusually cool. In Australia, it's been unusually cool. "Dwayne "the canoe guy"" says it's been cool in Oklahoma. There are many more areas of the planet that have been cooler this year than in previous years. But simply because it's been determined that Reno has been hotter than usual, we are being told that it is more incontrovertable evidence of Global Warming. Nation wide, cities have reported hotter temps, but the article doesn't say that because their agenda is promote evidence of hotter temps.

As Heralder said, this issue is far too politicized to get honest information. One side is so busy trying to discredit the other that they won't work together, as scientists should, to come to a proper conclusion.

"To examine recent temperat... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"To examine recent temperature patterns in the United States, we compared temperature data for the years 2000-2006 from 255 weather stations located in all 50 states and Washington, DC with temperatures averaged over the 30 years spanning 1971-2000."

Are these the same weather stations discussed on this website?

"Preliminary works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Roger Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record. There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement. None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers."

If a significant number of the weather monitoring stations are giving inaccurate information because they are being influenced by factors other than the weather then how accurate can any studies be that are based on those monitors.

Well, we've been warming ev... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, we've been warming ever since the depth of the Little Ice Age, and whether or not we've peaked from that, only time will tell. mantis, and others, try to argue that the North American surface temperatures mimic the hockey stick thereby proving the greenhouse theory. The trouble is, the hockey stick was an artifact, and there is a lot more to climate regulation than trace gases.

Now there is some bait.
==============

And I just love it, mantis,... (Below threshold)
kim:

And I just love it, mantis, when you are so ironic with the word 'skeptic', like at the end of your 10:21 comment. Do it again.
=================================

It is pitiful rhetoric, man... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is pitiful rhetoric, mantis, to express boredom as you uncritically link to a biased site. I only point this out because, of all the mounted trophies on my wall, you've been the most honest.

Oops, catch and release is the order of the day.
========================

-- and by 1974, a ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
-- and by 1974, a federal government report, A United States Climate Program, cited evidence of the gathering storm, including:

"A killing winter freeze, followed by a severe summer heat wave in the United States.

Back when global cooling was the consensus a severe summer heat wave was considered evidence of cooling. The global cooling theory didn't get any traction with environmentalists because it didn't establish a link with human exploitation of the environment.

Moreover, thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come.

Al Gore and his ilk would have us do exactly the wrong thing to mitigate global cooling. We should be increasing CO2 production, not cutting back on it.

Maybe Dr. Kukla is wrong, but that's why we need research into all possible causes of climate change even the ones where humans are just along for the ride.

It is an ancient trick of r... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is an ancient trick of religious frauds to link man's behaviour to the action of the Gods. Don't sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions.
=========================

Yeah, it's hot outside, but... (Below threshold)
TGScott:

Yeah, it's hot outside, but it's summer...duh!!
Last week here in West Tennessee it was a balmy, non-humid 80-ish, which is almost unheard of here in the southeast. This global warming crap is driven by the Kyoto Treaty/Protocol to force us to join other nations in allowing them some sway over how much energy you and I can use whether it be gasoline, electricity, etc. Former President Clinton signed the Treaty, but he never moved to have it ratified by the Senate (a good move); and neither has President Bush because it would tank our economy. We couldn't afford to run our industries and make a living to support our families. Senate passed Resolution 98 saying that it would never allow the passage of any such treaty that would hurt our economy and to which other countries would not be bound. The Kyoto Treaty would not be bound on South America, Mexico, and China, to name a few. Therefore, it's wholly unfair on its surface. It was the brain-fart created by big oil (BP), the now defunct Enron, and a few other big corporations to be able to tax us on top of having us pay premium prices for their products. That's what's meant by the "carbon credits." It was tried in Russia and it bankrupted their industries, so they pulled out. It's an attempt by big companies to line their pockets more by creating an artificial energy shortage. On having us pay for their gas and electricity, they want to charge us and make us have to buy these "credits" as well. Once you use your credits up you have to acquire more from someone who hasn't used up their quota, or something like that. Look up all you can and read about it.

I really do want the hypocrisy brought to the fore because I already have one friends who's angered at me for pointing it out to her. She's still in denial about it and hasn't spoken to me in over a week. That will have to be okay, I guess. Just crucify the messenger.

After a bit of research, ye... (Below threshold)
Eric:

After a bit of research, yes the study in question is using the same weather stations referred to on the surfacestations.org website. In fact I quickly found that one of the examples cited as an odd site is one of the stations used in their study.

I imagine further research would find other stations with questionable reliability are part of their study.


Hey TGS, try Alexander Cock... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey TGS, try Alexander Cockburn in the Nation, recently. h/t mantis.
=========================================

Pretty cool, Eric. Sometim... (Below threshold)
kim:

Pretty cool, Eric. Sometimes I wish I could do research.
=================================

What they forgot to note in... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

What they forgot to note in the study was that their temp. recorder was hung on their window AC unit evaparator.

Here is another <a href="ht... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Here is another one.

Notice it is sitting on top of an asphalt parking lot, and a block from a power plant.

"Greenhouse gas thinking... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Greenhouse gas thinking is primitive. Sure a glass house will get hot in the sun. The earth is more than a glass house."

Interesting point Kim. I've been in dozens of green houses over the years (even built a few myself) and seen hundreds, but never once have I ever even seen one built out of carbon dioxide. They were all made of glass and plastic (plus metal or wood for structure).

The reality is that the atmosphere does not and cannot act like a greenhouse.

Kim, thanks for the link. ... (Below threshold)
TGScott:

Kim, thanks for the link. I printed the article off for my archives. It was very interesting and gave me the names of some other things to read as well. I appreciate it. No, I hate that my friend is so upset about global warming, so I sent her reading materials to hopefully convince her that the sky wasn't falling. I never expected that she wanted to believe it and would give me the cold shoulder over it.

Is it any wonder Las Vegas ... (Below threshold)
iurockhead:

Is it any wonder Las Vegas has gotten hotter? Population has more than doubled since 1990, and increased almost 10-fold since 1964.
http://earthshots.usgs.gov/LasVegas/LasVegas
In addition to the added concrete and streets, there are a lot more people with nice green lawns, raising the local humidity, which keeps night time temperatures higher (as does the concrete), which is where all of the temperature increases there have occured, the overnight lows. Minimal urban heat island effect? Bollocks!

mantis: "they already ha... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

mantis: "they already have their conclusions, which no amount of evidence will sway"

I wonder, Mantis, are you intellectually honest enough to recognize the hypocrisy that statement?

..in that statement.... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

..in that statement.

Gore is the Ken Lay for the... (Below threshold)
Russ:

Gore is the Ken Lay for the Gaia movement. Like Enron for Ecology.

Oops "Nation wide, citie... (Below threshold)

Oops "Nation wide, cities have reported cooler temps, but the article doesn't say that because their agenda is promote evidence of hotter temps."

Mantis, in all seriousness,... (Below threshold)

Mantis, in all seriousness, you need to quit citing to realclimate if you want me to take you seriously. Mann et al have been caught in so many shenanigans with respect to their science that I don't believe anything posted on a website they control.

When they start releasing data and the code they use for their statistical analysis for real peer review, stop stonewalling on that and other details of their purported studies, then they might be actual scientists. Until then, they are not; rather they are just spending public money corruptly.

This plot shows da... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:
This plot shows data from the Climax, Colorado neutron monitor operated by the University of Chicago. The cosmic rays show an inverse relationship to the sunspot cycle because Sun's magnetic field is stronger during sunspot maximum and shields the Earth from cosmic rays.

For those who have accepted the claim that measurement of cosmic rays shows no change since 1954, here's the actual data. However, this measurement shows only cosmic rays within a given energy range. The link gives a good primer in understanding the vast range in those energies. There are two important point to get from all this.

1) A constant intensity at once energy level doesn't preclude changes in intensity at other energy levels.

2) The Sun is known to alter the intensity of cosmic rays.

Mantis, global warming is "... (Below threshold)

Mantis, global warming is "incontrovertible" because liberals use everything as proof that it's happening. Unusually hot weather prove global warming, but so does unusually cold weather. Droughts prove global warming, but so do torrential downpours that cause flooding. High temps in places that normally see cooler weather is proof of global warming, but so is snow falling in places that have not seen snow in decades. Hurricanes increasing in frequency and power is proof, but so is hurricanes decreasing in frequency and power.

To put it in scientific terms, the theory of global warming is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable theories are invalid and bad science.

Hey,you've got to give Mant... (Below threshold)
BBF:

Hey,you've got to give Mantis credit,he's devoted to his RELIGION as much as a Southern Baptist would be.

I would like to come back a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I would like to come back and discuss the legitimate issues that are being raised on this issue, by Mac and Eric for example, but today is a busy day. I can quickly deal with some of the weak-ass arguments ad hominem right now though.

Mantis, in all seriousness, you need to quit citing to realclimate if you want me to take you seriously. Mann et al have been caught in so many shenanigans with respect to their science that I don't believe anything posted on a website they control.

Please provide details of said "shenanigans."

When they start releasing data and the code they use for their statistical analysis for real peer review, stop stonewalling on that and other details of their purported studies, then they might be actual scientists. Until then, they are not; rather they are just spending public money corruptly.

Ah, this bullshit again. It's dealt with extensively here. In case you can't be bothered to read what they have to say and make a substantive rather than ad hom comment (like so many here), here is Mann's data, freely available to all.

It is very frustrating to discuss this matter with so many dishonest or ignorant people muddying the waters. Now matter how many times you swat these bullshit arguments down, they just pop right up again.

And again we have the hypoc... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And again we have the hypocrisy:

"It is very frustrating to discuss this matter with so many dishonest or ignorant people muddying the waters. Now matter how many times you swat these bullshit arguments down, they just pop right up again."

mantis, I don't know you bu... (Below threshold)
TomH:

mantis, I don't know you but I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid. Ever hear of the "Little Climatic Optimum"? Google it.

More of this poppycock from... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

More of this poppycock from those global warming wackos what else will they say 125 Degresees in death valley is proof of GLOBAL WARMING? Hey Al Gore Hey Greenpeace hey all you green freaks ITS SUMMERTIME STUPID

Yes,Mantis,I must admit,you... (Below threshold)
BBF:

Yes,Mantis,I must admit,your argument that it "Sure seems warm lately to me" was powerful stuff,but alas,I'm a non-believer in your Religion.

Mantis, that isn't all of M... (Below threshold)

Mantis, that isn't all of Mann's data, and that isn't the code used in their statistical analysis. The travails of getting information out of Mann et al have been long documented by McIntyre. Its taken years to get just the partial data series they've release.

The discussion of the conduct of Mann is not an ad hominem. It goes to the core of the scientific method - which Mann et al don't practice. If you don't understand this, you simply are not serious.

By the way, for those who e... (Below threshold)

By the way, for those who enjoy irony, Mantis above to prove his claim that McIntyre's criticism's of Mann et al's statistical analysis have been dealt with, links to a article that sneers at McIntyre's background as an economist (ie., ad hominem ) ... and cites to articles written by Tim Lambert, a computer science instructor.

It is to laugh.

It's hard to take you serio... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about, Robin.

Mantis, that isn't all of Mann's data

Yes, it is.

and that isn't the code used in their statistical analysis.

True, the code is not there (the methods and algorithm are though), but it was made available to McIntyre in 2005. Furthermore Wahl and Ammann reproduced the results. Have you seen that? You don't seem to know what's going on elsewhere, so I doubt it.

The discussion of the conduct of Mann is not an ad hominem.

Dismissing a website on no substantive grounds, simply because of Mann's involvement, is ad hominem. You've got nothing to say about the content of their arguments or research, so you dismiss it out of hand. It's also guilt by association considering that there are 10 other scientists who blog there (the post I linked to was written by Rasmus Benestad, not Mann).

It goes to the core of the scientific method - which Mann et al don't practice.

Prove it.

If you don't understand this, you simply are not serious.

Considering you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but continue to do so, I think it's clear which one of us is serious.

By the way, for those wh... (Below threshold)
mantis:

By the way, for those who enjoy irony, Mantis above to prove his claim that McIntyre's criticism's of Mann et al's statistical analysis have been dealt with

I linked to that to point you to where the claim that "Mann won't release his data and code" had been dealt with, though the statistical criticisms are mentioned there too.

links to a article that sneers at McIntyre's background as an economist (ie., ad hominem )

You still don't know what you're talking about. McKitrick is the economist, McIntyre was a mining executive and then an advisor to an oil and gas company. In any case, it's funny that you have nothing to say about the data and code being available, nothing to say about the fact that the minor error MM found was corrected for and did not affect the conclusions, nothing to say about the fact that MM have yet to publish anything else on the topic, but you do object to some link (without even naming which one).

... and cites to articles written by Tim Lambert, a computer science instructor.

Who, I might note, found errors in MM's study, for which the authors published a correction (same as Mann).

It is to laugh.

It is to laugh that you have yet to produce one single substantive criticism of anything. All you have is fallacy and nitpicking about links.

Paul,I notice your... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Paul,

I notice your bullshit graph is still up. Nothing to say?

Mantis, why is Mars also wa... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Mantis, why is Mars also warming?

Martian SUVs?

Mantis,you're trying to har... (Below threshold)
BFF:

Mantis,you're trying to hard,makes you look desparate,plus,you seem very angry,sucks when people don't agree with you and the Church of Goreacle,you wackos believe it,so it must be true,and whoever disagrees is dishonest and ignorant,eh,El Capitan.

mantis, the hockey stick is... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis, the hockey stick is an artifact of bad statistics, bad proxies, and rising carbon dioxide. The Bristlecone Pine Series, of much moment, has thickening rings because of the fertilizing effect of rising CO2, not of rising temperature, and on that tautology hangs all the social horror of Kyoto and the Warming Movement. It amazes me that you are not skeptical of the hockey stick. It is the biggest academic fraud of all time. Michael Mann is immortalized as Piltdown Mann.

I can understand your failure to be skeptical about the rest of the science. Even though from my point of view, everything is unsettled, the Greenhouse Theory is not whacked out science. The computer modeling that has provoked the hysteria is whacked out science, though, and it amazes me that you are so credulous about this matter. It is a delusion you have that is a serious as your BDS.

Otherwise, mostly you are OK, and you at least make an effort at honesty.
=================

See Wegman on Mann's statis... (Below threshold)
kim:

See Wegman on Mann's statistics. And on the echo chamber exemplified by RealClimate.org.
=====================

>You (and Drudge) want to c... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>You (and Drudge) want to compare maximum temperature to average temperature, even though you know this is incomparable data.

Good catch (I did not really give it that much thought) but in the end all of the data is bogus and you know it...

Let's look at the population since 1940:

1940 8,422
1950 24,624
1960 64,405
1970 125,787
1980 164,674
1990 258,295
2000 478,434
2006 552,539 (estimate)

Is it any wonder the temperature keeps going up?

Using Vegas as a baseline to prove global warming is about as rigged as the slot machines.

And YOU know that!

And consider this mantis...... (Below threshold)
Paul:

And consider this mantis....

The population went from 8,400 to 480,000 during the time in queston.

THOUSANDS of buildings where built. MILES of pavement poured.

MILLIONS of light bulbs are burning every day. (probably) MILLIONS of slot machines have been running thru the years...

The heat generated by the casinos and hotels is staggering... Yet the average temps only increase by 2.5 degrees. Considering most urban areas with not near the heat load of Vegas have a delta T of 4 or 5 degrees, if anything Vegas is getting naturally cooler.

Sorry dude, this is called science, not religion.

Mantis,Would you a... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Mantis,

Would you agree, in general, that more work needs to be done to resolve some questions?

1) What is the effect of the Sun?
2) How does water vapor and clouds impact the issue?
3) Why, in some studies, does CO2 lag, not preceed planet warming over long periods?
4) Why did we get more warming prior to 1940 than the rest of the 20th century?
5) Why is Mars warming along with Earth?
6) Why have the GW models, Hurricane forecasts, etc. been so darn wrong?
7) Is the ice mass getting bigger or smaller.
8) Is there anyone left who believes in Kyoto?

just one more thing mantis.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

just one more thing mantis....

If you'd like to keep this up, you *might* want to get yer facts below you. (hint, I did)

First of all this is NOT -as the story claims- a "new study" because the same people published the same bogus crap just 9 months ago. They just got some more outliers this summer and ran with them...

Your whole assertion (that I gave you without checking you, silly me) that this was based on years of data is bullshit. This "new study" is indeed based on 90 days of data. 90 days of new outlying data. Big freaking deal.

In short mantis, if you read both studies, you'll see this is alarmist bullshit where they simply look for record highs and treat them as proof of global warming. --Abject bullshit.

Anyone could do the same study looking for new record lows during the winter and produce "incontrovertible scientific evidence" of global cooling.

You should also note that the 2 cities they cite the most, Vegas and Reno, both underwent exponential population booms at the same time the temps rose very modestly. -- Which is to be expected.

If you want to go out on the limb defending these idiots, feel free... But I'll warn you.. after only 45 minutes reading both reports, I have enough for 2 or 3 posts. This whole thing is bullshit.

Sorry to commit blasphemy, but this is science.

You should check out the <a... (Below threshold)
George:

You should check out the Climate Audit website. Steve McIntyre, one of the Canadians who destroyed the study that gave us the infamous hockey stick, continues to double check contemporary studies. His findings? Far too many authors of studies simply refuse to provide -- even when required -- the data sets that were used for their study. It is, more often than not, simply impossible to verify the claims of the studies. There is no meaningful peer review.

Why would they refuse to give this information? McIntyre doesn't know the secret handshake, I guess. Comically, when they do identify the sites of the temperature sensors, some are found to be in parking lots or adjacent to air conditioners.

Link doesn't work for me. ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Link doesn't work for me. Steve's site is Climateaudit.org
===================================

mantis, there is a roadmap ... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis, there is a roadmap on Steve's site. You should be able to find where he documents the intransigence of Mann's crew to release their data.

This is important, mantis. The hockey stick was the key graphic which persuaded the many-headed, in error.
==================================

For Mac and Paul Bunyan esp... (Below threshold)
kim:

For Mac and Paul Bunyan especially:

icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf.

It's an article by Gerlich and Tscheuschner debunking the Greenhouse Theory. h/t Schiller Thurkette.
========================

Mantis #72, "I would lik... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Mantis #72, "I would like to come back and discuss the legitimate issues that are being raised on this issue, by Mac and Eric for example, but today is a busy day."

So when are you going to do that? I would like to know how you intend to defend the study in question when it relies upon weather stations which have been shown to be unreliable because they aren't being maintained properly or are near heat sources.

Look at the report appendix which lists all of the weather stations. The vast majority of those weather stations in their report are located at airports. Airports have large tarmac runways, many jets taking off all day, cars, parking lots, terminals, hangers etc. Are those weather stations in heat islands by their very locations?

If the sensors used to collect the data aren't reliable, how can we accept the report as reliable?

I'll make this very simple:... (Below threshold)
BC:

I'll make this very simple: nowadays, for whatever reason (or lack thereof), science is to conservatives/right wingers what salt is to snails. It's best you guys just take a long detour around it. The current round of global warming and mankind's role in it is serious business with serious, profound consequences, and it's well past being a debatable matter for people well-versed in the current state of research.

If there is a "debate" among scientists involved in climate research, it's what to do about utterly clueless, if not overtly hostile politicians, and the great unwashed hordes of science and logic impaired numbnuts and crackpots getting their "data" from malicious and/or idiotic right-wing, pro-big-business (especially Exxon and Phillip Morris connected) BS sources.

Despite widespread, right-wing, crackpotty assertions to the contrary, solar activity does not explain the current round of global warming and the bulk of the attacks on Mann's "hockey stick" model were never more than more right-wing BS. While there were more legitimate critiques of Mann's modeling, they were all in regards to some technical details and not to the basic overall conclusion.

Not that much, if any, of this will matter to the anti-global warming faithful.

-BC

Have you updated that post ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Have you updated that post lately, BC? That looks like pretty old stuff you link. Besides linking, your comment is unsubstantiated claims and ad hominems.

This is science?
=====================

Kim, that's what BC calls s... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Kim, that's what BC calls science.

He wouldn't know a real scientific report if it fell on his head.

BC, you haven't read what E... (Below threshold)
kim:

BC, you haven't read what Edward Wegman said about the Piltdown Mann's statistics, have you? I warned you yesterday you should read it.

Are you trying to make yourself look bad?
================================

I don't even think BC read ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I don't even think BC read the whole thread or he wouldn't go on with the bullshit about solar activity not explaining the variations. Yes, Earth's temperature does not track the Sun's luminosity, but the effect of the Sun on our temperature is not a simple matter of the amount of energy hitting the atmosphere. BC acts as if he'd never heard of CERN and the cosmic ray studies so eloquently explained by Mac Lorry.

BC, if you're going to be ignorant, at least be ignorant in this century. You are so Twentieth Century.
===============

C-C-G wrote:Kim... (Below threshold)
BC:

C-C-G wrote:

Kim, that's what BC calls science.

He wouldn't know a real scientific report if it fell on his head.

I reckon where you all from, them dar "sighenteefic rahports" get tossed 'bout quite a bit like taters and cats, eh?

-BC

You're kind of Nineteenth C... (Below threshold)
kim:

You're kind of Nineteenth Century with your attempt at dialect.

You got anything besides bullshit?
====================

BC, Why don't you answer th... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BC, Why don't you answer the question I posed to Mantis? How can we accept this study as reliable when it is based on measurements taken by sensors that have questionable reliability?

If a sensor that is there to measure natural temperature is near an artificial heat source, then how is that sensor reliable? The study was based on the data gathered from 255 weather stations. Another study shows that many of the nation's weather monitoring stations have not been well maintained and are now located near artificial heat sources that may skew their measurements.

The study that this post di... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The study that this post discusses only measured 30 years worth of data. Yet goes on to say that 2006 was the 2nd warmest year on record.

If 2006 was the 2nd warmest year, what was the warmest year? 1936. See page 12 of the report.

It's obvious that if BC doe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

It's obvious that if BC doesn't know about the international multi-million Euro CLOUD experiments now taking place at CERN he's out of touch with the current state of science, or he's afraid to look into the matter least it challenge his thinking. He would rather pretend the international team of scientists at CERN are just a bunch of hicks from the back woods.

For those interested here's a chart showing an interestingly correlation between the length of the sunspot cycle, CO2, and temperature.

I don't understand the shap... (Below threshold)
kim:

I don't understand the shape of the sunspot cycle length curve. Shouldn't it be more modulated?
=================

It's the length of the suns... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

It's the length of the sunspot cycle, not the cycle itself. I captured this chart from some article, but lost that link, so I can't tell you much more about it.

I see mantis disappeared.</... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I see mantis disappeared.

Gawd....Let me try... (Below threshold)
BC:

Gawd....

Let me try to make this even clearer: solar me no solar -- you guys don't have a clue about global warming and its causes. Let me do an ultra quick little run down:

Solar activity

Has been dismissed nth times over, with this being one of the later studies.

"Euro CLOUD"

I think I covered this rather nicely in an earlier Usenet discussion.

There is also this

Who da Man -- Mann or Wegman?

More hockey stickery

Now go back playing with your Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity action figures.

-BC

BC has been playing in the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

BC has been playing in the garten. They should have waited for Svensmark's comment about cosmic rays, and you can't cite Mann's site as an arbiter of the Wegman-Mann fight.

Gawd.
=============

Also didn't Mac already cov... (Below threshold)
kim:

Also didn't Mac already cover this phony solar study you just cited? Maybe that was another thread. It does not take into account the complexities of the Svensmark et al hypothesis being studied at CERN. Notice way at the bottom they say that Svensmark couldn't be reached for comment. They know what he has to say is critical, and I suspect the writer even realized it would contradict. Why else sneak it in at the end?
=================================

Too busy. Will return. Aw... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Too busy. Will return. Aware of ephemeral nature of comment threads. Work work work.

BC, since you're apparently... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

BC, since you're apparently covering for Mantis, why don't you answer the question about why Mars is warming up?

Martian SUVs?

Martians electing eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans?

Or could it possibly be that Mars is warming up because of something not human-controlled... like the sun entering a warmer period in its cycle?

As for science, I happen to run a forum where all sorts of science is discussed. And before you ask, I'd not post the URL here among you trolls for all the tea in China. If you want to call that evidence of a lie, so be it.

C-C-G wrote:BC,... (Below threshold)
BC:

C-C-G wrote:

BC, since you're apparently covering for Mantis, why don't you answer the question about why Mars is warming up?

Martian SUVs?

Martians electing eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans?

For one thing, there are any number of things that can affect planetary climate, from tectonic activity to asteroid strikes to solar periods and so on. No one is saying that these are not factors in past, present, and/or future climate changes. The question at hand is what is the primary cause of this particular round of global warming. And the only reasonable answer that best fits all the available data is human activity. Nothing else comes close.

Now as far as Mars goes, it's the same sort of research -- what best fits the data, and while Earth has something Mars doesn't have, human activity, it does have something Earth doesn't -- massive, planetary-scale dust storms.

Could this affect the climate on Mars? Yes. Is this applicable to Earth? No. Alien is what alien does. Mars may be the most Earth-like of the other planets in our system, but it still has its own rules.

Stick that in your forum.

-BC

And the only reaso... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
And the only reasonable answer that best fits all the available data is human activity. Nothing else comes close.

Then why is Mars warming four times faster during the same time period, O great scientist? There are no humans on Mars, you know.

Oh, and if dust storms are the cause, then we humans may be helping. We pave parts of the planet, trapping the dirt and dust beneath asphalt.

I know, that's contrary to the Gospel according to Algore, so I'll be roundly denounced for it.

BC, Why don't you answer th... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BC, Why don't you answer the question I posed to Mantis? How can we accept this study as reliable when it is based on measurements taken by sensors that have questionable reliability?

If a sensor that is there to measure natural temperature is near an artificial heat source, then how is that sensor reliable? The study was based on the data gathered from 255 weather stations. Another study shows that many of the nation's weather monitoring stations have not been well maintained and are now located near artificial heat sources that may skew their measurements.

fair enough, it happens. <b... (Below threshold)
Paul:

fair enough, it happens.
(but it's mighty convenient timing ;-)

There it is, BC; you say "A... (Below threshold)
kim:

There it is, BC; you say "And the only reasonable answer that best fits all the available data is human activity".

Obviously, in that, 'reasonable', 'best', and 'available data' are value judgements you are making. Others see different data, reason differently, and may think your 'best' is not their 'best'.

You've not dealt with CERN or Svensmark.
=================================

That's twice now, Paul. He... (Below threshold)
kim:

That's twice now, Paul. He'll come around; he is capable of thorough honesty.

I had something funny happen yesterday, quite disorienting. Following Kevin's following bD's advice to post gurl pix I ended up in July of '06, without knowing it. So, I posted about the drought and the weeds and the flowers and the vegetables, but the comment was inexplicably held. Whew!

But I still haven't gotten around to your Katrina masterpiece. Why would the Mississippi outlet stay at the Easternmost edge of its delta?
==============================

It's kinda like man trying ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's kinda like man trying to change the climate.
=============================

>But I still haven't gotten... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>But I still haven't gotten around to your Katrina masterpiece.

which one? ;-)


>Why would the Mississippi outlet stay at the Easternmost edge of its delta?

I'm not sure I understand the question.. But the MRGO is man made and as a complete mess.

Sans the MRGO, probably the faulty floodwalls would have lived thru Katrina... They would have just fallen later, (see the post on the Katrina video congress didn't want us to see) but there would have been very little flooding from Katrina.

The MRGO's days are numbered. It might take 5 years but it is Dead Canal Walking.

Isn't the natural drainage ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Isn't the natural drainage through central Louisiana, now, more to the middle of the classic delta?
==================

C-C-G wrote:The... (Below threshold)
BC:

C-C-G wrote:

Then why is Mars warming four times faster during the same time period, O great scientist? There are no humans on Mars, you know.

Oh, and if dust storms are the cause, then we humans may be helping. We pave parts of the planet, trapping the dirt and dust beneath asphalt.

Now you're not even trying. The beginning of that first link that goes:
An enormous dust storm exploded on Mars three weeks ago, shrouding the planet in haze and raising the temperature of its atmosphere a whopping 30 degrees C.

In case you don't know, "30 degrees C" is 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Mars is not Earth, and neither is a Jupiter or Pluto. Their climate issues and causes are not ours. What might be causing those massive Martian dust storms is of some interest, but their possible consequences don't bode well for far future human colonies without some serious human activity, like deliberately deflecting a few large icy asteroids into it.

Eric wrote:

BC, Why don't you answer the question I posed to Mantis? How can we accept this study as reliable when it is based on measurements taken by sensors that have questionable reliability?

You like the others still aren't getting it -- to be blunt, you simply don't understand how scientific research works. Fundamental to all data gathering are the variables affecting it. Even stuff like faulty weather station sensors can be useful once you know how and under what circumstances they are faulty, which would then allow you to insert some sort of normalization factor. Suppose you discovered that your old scale you had been using for years to monitor your weight was off by -7 lbs -- does that make the scale worthless? You factor in +7 lbs, and you've basically recalibrated it. If had been keeping a daily or weekly record of your weight based on the scale, then you would again add 7 to whatever you had written. The real question would be whether the scale was off by 7 lbs since you bought it, or did it just start to go off gradually. But even then, if you keep using your old scale and periodically compare its results to accurately calibrated one, you should then see if there is a pattern to your old scale being off.

The same applies to those supposedly faulty weather stations -- it's just a matter of figuring out about how much they had been off, and then just factoring them in. Also, those weather stations are just a small fraction of all the ways scientists have been measuring the climate, and one trick real scientists like to do is see if the conclusion/results of one experiment can be achieved/verifies with another. You ever watch CSI? Those little tricks are old school stuff for scientific researchers. I suggest you look at the history of asteroid impact theory from the moment Luis Alvarez and his son Walter Alvarez came across some unusual amounts of iridium, a very rate element, in some clay in Italy. From the basic question of why was there so much iridium came the rather dramatic conclusion it was from a giant, dinosaur extincting asteroid strike. Most other scientists were pretty damn skeptical at the beginning, but more tests, more experiments and it became that the only scenario that really fit was an asteroid impact.

Kim wrote:

There it is, BC; you say "And the only reasonable answer that best fits all the available data is human activity".

Obviously, in that, 'reasonable', 'best', and 'available data' are value judgments you are making. Others see different data, reason differently, and may think your 'best' is not their 'best'.

You've not dealt with CERN or Svensmark.

No. You apparently missed the tail end of that "quote" from me that goes, "And the only reasonable answer that best fits all the available data is human activity. Nothing else comes close." And nothing does. Period. And I already dealt with CERN and Svensmark a few postings back upthread, which in turn were a rehash of an older Usenet posting of mine (BTW, in case you haven't guessed, Google Groups is still messed up, and I suspect permanently given how long issues like missing/long delayed posts have been unresolved. Don't worry, I'm not going to stick around here.)

In some respects, the idea for human-caused global warming was initially regarded by many scientist much like Alvarez's asteroid-impact theory, but further experiment after further experiment kept pointing more and more to human activity being the primal cause, with the end result is that there really is at this moment a very strong consensus in the scientific community (as opposed to the pseudo-scientific community) that global warming is for real and caused be us humans.

From some Usenet debates/flamewars I've been in, there seems to be a sense among the global warming confused that the Earth is just too big for us to effect. The thing is, while the earth physically is too big for us, at the moment that is, to so much damage to in terms of blowing it up or even just cracking its crust, that's not the part of the Earth that concerns us. Our true "Earth" is really just the almost vanishingly thin coating of water and air that coats the planet. That blue, white, brown and green you see from space is like the thinnest of paint coatings imaginable, and we're like bacteria living in it.

In response to some dude on Usenet who tried to use the "Earth is too big" argument, I did another calc (sorry), and while it's a little bit more involved that my other calcs, it's even more illustrative. I think, but you be the judge.

-BC

BC, you are ignorantly wron... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BC, you are ignorantly wrong in your arguments.

1) You ASSUME that the problems with the weather stations have been identified and addressed. From where do you get that assumption? I'll tell you, you are pulling it from your ass. Read the following:

In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: "Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press", online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to their meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

So the fact is that the weather stations around the country have not been adequately surveyed, they have not been recalibrated, and no "Normalization Factor" has been performed on the data. Your assumption is simply not accurate.

2) You go on to say that there are other sources and methods used to measure the climate. I agree, I am not refuting that. However, I was limiting my comments to the study that started this post. I suggest you read that study, because it was based SOLELY on the data gathered from the surface weather stations. The problem is that, there is a reason to believe that some of the weather stations are not reporting accurate data. UNTIL, an adequate survey is performed on the stations and any problems addressed we cannot take any report that is based on the data gathered by them as wholly accurate.

So please let ME be blunt, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

BC's comments about the rel... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

BC's comments about the reliability of Mann's conclusions is just nonsense, even the attempts to verify the unrepeatable Mann et al by W&A admitted that the study was almost entirely affected by a single proxy, that of the bristlecone pines, and its known in the botany field that bristlecone pine rings are proxies for precipitation, not temperature.

The hockey stick is bogus.

The main critics of Mann et al, McKitrick and McIntyre are not "right wing" in ideology by the way, but cheap ad hominem seems BC's main weapon. That's to be expected since its Mann's too.

Eric wrote: ... (Below threshold)
BC:

Eric wrote:


BC, you are ignorantly wrong in your arguments.

Hmmmm....someone's asking for a spanking....

1) You ASSUME that the problems with the weather stations have been identified and addressed. From where do you get that assumption? I'll tell you, you are pulling it from your ass. Read the following:

In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: "Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press", online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was

Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to their meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

So the fact is that the weather stations around the country have not been adequately surveyed, they have not been recalibrated, and no "Normalization Factor" has been performed on the data. Your assumption is simply not accurate.

Gawd.... You're still not getting it -- you're just pulling out random snippits of stuff out of context without the slightest clue about what they mean. And in this case, it means squat in terms of climate science. And surfacestations.org isn't even a legitimate scientific or government site -- it's a site for user input, specifically photos of the weather stations.

And there's this bit from it:
Q: Why are you doing this? Isn't all the data discontinuity and urban biases accounted for by all the adjustments made to the climate data sets as described in the USHCN home page?

A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies.

Isn't what I sort of said in terms of normalization? What surfacestations.org is trying to do is help refine the normalization by showing better the context of the weather station location.

But researchers tend to determine their own normalization -- you've heard of ice core sampling to determine the nature of ancient climates? You think you just bore out a section of glacial ice and there's a handy readout telling you age and atmospheric composition? No you have to do science, which by your comments, you obviously don't have friggin clue about.

As I write this, I have a sense of deja vu, and I suppose, after a little Googling, it's because of this.

Sorry.

SPQR wrote:

BC's comments about the reliability of Mann's conclusions is just nonsense, even the attempts to verify the unrepeatable Mann et al by W&A admitted that the study was almost entirely affected by a single proxy, that of the bristlecone pines, and its known in the botany field that bristlecone pine rings are proxies for precipitation, not temperature.

The hockey stick is bogus.

So speaks another member of "Crackpot Science R Us".

Where the f*ck do you guys get this crackpot nonsense? Seriously. Here's a little chart showing how Mann's Hockey Stick compares to others. And here's a bunch more.

Give it up guys -- stick to topics more your speed: sports, burping, butt scratching, and such.

-BC

BC, I think you are out of ... (Below threshold)
kim:

BC, I think you are out of date on the USHCN controversy. The stations are a mess.

You haven't understood Wegman's objections to Mann's statistics.

Also:

icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
============================

Mac, CB hasn't dealt with S... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mac, CB hasn't dealt with Svensmark, as he claims, has he?
====================================

Oh, CB, you are hilarious. ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, CB, you are hilarious. Do you call that UseNet post a critique of Svensmark?

You are just abusive and stupid. mantis does much better. He's at least wondering about the hockey stick.
===========================

SPQR, my understanding is t... (Below threshold)
kim:

SPQR, my understanding is that the pertinent Bristlecones had wider rings because of increased fertilization rather than precipitation, but you bring up a problem. Among the tree ringers' mistaken assumptions was to take tree rings as a temperature proxy, but much more besides temperature effect the width of tree rings. The hockey stick was bad science, probably inadvertent at first, but evil after the criticisms started in. Mann and others are academic criminals.

BC is just indoctrinated.
======================

Kim wrote:BC, I... (Below threshold)
BC:

Kim wrote:

BC, I think you are out of date on the USHCN controversy. The stations are a mess.

You haven't understood Wegman's objections to Mann's statistics.

Noooo....the station "situation" the way you guys are trying to present is irrelevant. The "controversy" here is yet again just some more right-wing nonsense. Didn't you see those nice pretty charts I linked to showing Mann's "hockey stick" graph with those from other analyses? They show the same friggin thing! In the final analysis, Wegman's criticisms were worthless, as well as McIntyre and McKitrick's. A good summary about all this can be found here, with this key excerpt:

1. The scientific evidence of significant human influence on climate is strong and would in no way be weakened if there were no Mann hockey stick.

2. The scientific debate over the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been gradually evolving for at least 20 years. The results of the Mann hockey stick simply reflect the gradual development of thought on the issue over time.

3. The impact of the McIntyre and McKitrick critique on the original Mann paper, after being scrutinized by the National Academy of Science, the Wegman panel and a number of meticulous individual research groups, is essentially nil with regard to the conclusions of the Mann paper and the 2001 IPCC assessment.

A more detailed report from the National Academies Press can be found here.

The bottom line is that Mann and his collegues has been proven right on his principle conclusions and his critics like Wegman utterly irrelevant.

Can I make this any more clearer?

And what's so wrong about my Usenet post about Svensmark? You rather I had reposted the entire thing here for the mouse-click challenged? Or is it you didn't like the links to Realscience.org?

How 'bout if I just provide this rather comprehensive link on the matter.

There is no doubt that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, which in turn would affect the weather. And long cyclical changes in cosmic radiation levels would cause long some sort of climate changes. But the issue at hand is what is the primary cause of this current round of global warming, and the evidence has been overwhelmingly pointing to human activity, and all new data has been reinforcing it.

It may sound insulting, but you guys simply don't understand this stuff. Suppose you put a car in storage for a really long time -- what happens? The tires will deflate for one thing. Would this apply to you finding all your tires flat on your car after having just parked it overnight in a public garage? Whether you realize it or not, you're trying to make such connections in your confused notions about global warming. Lots of things can affect tire pressure and lots of things can affect the climate. You have to look at circumstances, physical evidence, time frames, and so on. As with a jigsaw puzzle, you have all these pieces of information on the table and however they fit together is how they fit together, and whatever picture comes out of it is what it is.

-BC

BC,I'm sorry but you... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BC,
I'm sorry but your arguments about the weather stations are unconvincing.

The point of surfacestations.org is to show that various weather stations are being improperly influenced by external heat sources that have NOT been factored into.

Here is from your argument:
"Q: Why are you doing this? Isn't all the data discontinuity and urban biases accounted for by all the adjustments made to the climate data sets as described in the USHCN home page?"

"A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies."

Read the bolded part. They have not accounted for microsite influences near the thermometer. What that means is, that if somebody burns trash next to the thermometer it will influence the readings of the thermometer. But since nobody knows that trash is being burned beside the sensor nobody knows that the sensor is being biased, therefore that factor has not been adjusted.

One of the people who first identified the problem is Dr. Roger Pielke
he is not a Global Warming denier and he is a climatologist. He began to research the state of the country's weather stations and concluded:

"The objective of this research is to determine whether poorly sited long-term surface temperature monitoring sites have been adjusted in order to provide spatially representative independent data for use in regional and global surface temperature analyses. We present detailed analyses that demonstrate the lack of independence of the poorly sited data when they are adjusted using the homogenization procedures employed in past studies, as well as discuss the uncertainties associated with undocumented station moves. We use simulation and mathematics to determine the effect of trend on station adjustments and the associated effect of trend in the reference series on the trend of the adjusted station. We also compare data before and after adjustment to the reanalysis data, and we discuss the effect of land use changes on the uncertainty of measurement.

A major conclusion of our analysis is that there are large uncertainties associated with the surface temperature trends from the poorly sited stations. Moreover, rather than providing additional independent information, the use of the data from poorly sited stations provides a false sense of confidence in the robustness of the surface temperature trend assessments."

This paper shows why the websites that are discussing the siting of the surface temperature trend measurements are so important (Climate Audit and www.surfacestations.org). The poorly sited locations add no significant value in the quantitification of multi-decadal near-surface air temperature trends.

The existing weather stations have not been thoroughly audited so any normalization factors you talk about can't be performed. How do you know how much to recalibrate the scale if you don't know that the scale is off? Furthermore, it is not a simple fixed value as in your bathroom scale example.

Different weather stations that have been independently audited have found variable influences. For example, how do you adjust for somebody randomly forgetting to turn the light off inside the sensor box? An incandecent bulb generates heat, doesn't it?

How do you factor for some schlub burning trash near the sensor every now and then?

How do you factor in that somebody has placed and A/C vent right next to the sensor if you don't know the A/C has been installed?

I repeat I keep referring to the study that first prompted this post. It relies SOLELY on the data gathered from the surface weather stations.

Take a look at <a href="... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Take a look at this weather station. Look at the state of disrepair the station is in. The paint is peeling, it is falling over and there is a large A/C heat exchanger feet from the sensor. Do you honestly believe that all of the external influences on it have been normalized? The answer is no. Look at the associated chart. It shows a huge jump in temperature readings starting in 1999. Coincidenatlly, the A/C unit in the picture was placed there in 1999.

Why are you accepting with blind faith that the data from those weather stations is accurate? What is wrong with having some skepticism about them? Just look at this picture. You don't have to change your mind about global warming, but open your eyes to the possibility that there is a problem here.

To Eric:See if <a ... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Eric:

See if this and/or this helps put things into perspective.

-BC

Grrrr....this is the second... (Below threshold)
BC:

Grrrr....this is the second time in the row a link tests OK when composing, but then doesn't work after posting. Anyway, this is the second link.

-BC

Sorry, BC, the Piltdown Man... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sorry, BC, the Piltdown Mann is history and even you can't rehabilitate him. What does the latest IPCC report say of the hockey stick.

Preliminary results from CERN are that the cosmic ray effect is ten times as important in climate as the Greenhouse effect.

And what about Gerlich and Tscheuschner?
========================

Your 'rather comprehensive ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Your 'rather comprehensive link' to Nexus 6 was hardly that. Are you joking, now?
====================================

Sorry, BC, the Pil... (Below threshold)
BC:

Sorry, BC, the Piltdown Mann is history and even you can't rehabilitate him. What does the latest IPCC report say of the hockey stick.

You mean this?

There's some pretty hockey sticky stuff on page 3.

Preliminary results from CERN are that the cosmic ray effect is ten times as important in climate as the Greenhouse effect.

Ya think?

And what about Gerlich and Tscheuschner?

What about them? They appear to be crackpots.

-BC

Have you read the comments ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Have you read the comments on your link? Mr. Atmoz, N Johnson appears to be confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps along with the IPCC.

climateaudit.org is making fun of Atmoz, and surreptitiously discussing G&T because Steve doesn't want to talk about it yet. The physicists seem to be impressed with it.

I don't think you've understood Svensmark and the CERN cosmic ray studies. You keep linking to things which don't debunk it.

Hockey Stick is hooie. What has happened with temperature since 1998?
========================

And what about that 'compre... (Below threshold)
kim:

And what about that 'comprehensive link', Nexus 6?

You pretend to respond, then link to what doesn't do what you think it does.

And Wegman's critique of Mann's statistics is not irrelevant. I can hardly believe you actually write stuff like that.
==================================

I just love your 'crackpot'... (Below threshold)
kim:

I just love your 'crackpot' link. The poor kid's being eaten alive, and was when you linked. I don't think you read the comments, and it is unbelievable you consider Johnson's discussion dispositive.

This just helps illustrate the shallowness of your rhetoric.
===================================

Ur a phony, aren't you? Ju... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ur a phony, aren't you? Justify that link to Atmoz.
===============================

I mean, you characterize th... (Below threshold)
kim:

I mean, you characterize the G&T study as 'crackpot' then link, as if authoritatively, to a site where a young graduate student nitpicks, unnecessarily it turns out, one tiny point in the study, then displays his ignorance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Did you not read what you linked, or did you think a sneer and a phony link would be convincing.

This seems to be a trend. You airily link to something which doesn't really support your point or refute mine.

What does the IPCC say of Mann's hockey stick? Don't give me graphs that look like his. What do they say about him, upon whom they depended so heavily for the previous report?
====================

The more I check your links... (Below threshold)
kim:

The more I check your links, the more fraudulent you seem. Those graphs on page 3 of the recent Summary IPCC are not temperature graphs.

So how do they support Mann? Simply because of the shape? Are you really that stupid?

How can you seem to be so alert, but deduce like that? Are you just a sophist interested in the shape of the debate. Really, you acted as if you'd refuted me by linking to those graphs.
=========================

Kim Wrote:The m... (Below threshold)
BC:

Kim Wrote:

The more I check your links, the more fraudulent you seem. Those graphs on page 3 of the recent Summary IPCC are not temperature graphs.

Need I point out which one of us has been linking to bona fide scientific/government sites and which one has been just tossing out names and nonsense? You asked about the IPCC and the hockey stick so I gave you an IPCC link with a hockey stick -- have you noticed that I tend to be literal? While it's true that was a CO2 graph on page 3, it was a nice hockey stick, no? The temperature stuff is on pages 11 and 14, but they didn't use a long time scale to get a good hockey stick graph. But the temperature rise is pretty marked and matches the graphs by Mann and others. And you keep "overlooking" that there are others.

So how do they support Mann? Simply because of the shape? Are you really that stupid?

Hmmmm.... I do believe it's called the "hockey stick" in the first place because of its, well, shape.

How can you seem to be so alert, but deduce like that? Are you just a sophist interested in the shape of the debate. Really, you acted as if you'd refuted me by linking to those graphs.

I think I refuted you 10x over. Or is that 20x over.... You right wingers keep trolling the web for anything that seemingly casts doubt on human-caused global warming, but you have no idea what's for real or not, so you end up tossing out random names and "theories" -- much like you going "And what about Gerlich and Tscheuschner?" as if that's somehow a legitimate question. Their paper is nonsensical and is not a published, scientific paper. It appears in basically a science blog of sorts called arXiv that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Which makes that sort of paper pretty much worthless in the face of the now vast number of much more serious peer-reviewed published studies confirming or at least supporting human caused global warming.

I hope this clarifies, but I'm somewhat doubtful for some reason....

-BC

You tried to argue that a C... (Below threshold)
kim:

You tried to argue that a CO2 graph, because it has a hockey stick shape, supports Mann. Trying to wiggle out of it by showing later temperature graphs doesn't cut it. And your excuse for your behaviour is a joke.

This is typical. I allege something; you try to refute it by a link to a site which doesn't refute it. You may think your 'expert looking' linking is more scientific than my bald assertions, but it isn't so when your links don't refute. Basically, we then have my unrefuted argument.

You've not addressed the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark and you have not supported Mann's hockey stick.

And now you slam the Gerlich and Tscheuschner article without having read it. Apparently all you've read about it is at the Atmoz site and you didn't read very carefully there, did you?

To a scientist, you are digging a hole. I see you are not a scientist, because you are not really responding to my points, just dodging around sophistically.
======================================

You dribble of into argumen... (Below threshold)
kim:

You dribble of into argument to authority at the end. You know G&T don't say anything about man causing temperature rise, or do you? You now sneer at that paper simply because it is not peer reviewed, yet. Think of all the physicists going through that little gem, now.
===============================

You ironically remake a poi... (Below threshold)
kim:

You ironically remake a point I have already made. Mann's Bristlecone series shows a hockey stick, and he thought it was a temperature proxy when in fact it is a Carbon Dioxide proxy. So maybe you have something there with your page 3 hockey stick. It illustrates the tautology and the logical fallacy. I wonder if someone did that on purpose.

Thanks, though I'm sure you didn't mean to give me that.
==================================

The paper shows, BC, that t... (Below threshold)
kim:

The paper shows, BC, that the Greenhouse constructed and inhabited by the IPCC is not a physical construct. They may be destroying the theoretical basis for the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
==============================

Your blog is fine. I just w... (Below threshold)

Your blog is fine. I just want to comment on the design. It’s too loud. It’s doing way too much and it takes away from what you’ve got to say –which I think is really important. I don’t know if you didn’t think that your words could hold everyone’s attention, but you were wrong.

All right. Global warming i... (Below threshold)

All right. Global warming is a bunch of bull.
Those scientists, geologists, whatever, don't know what they're saying.
And guess what?
Even if that sonofagun is right, and we should all be flipping out right now, temperatures and CO2 levels wouldn't go much higher than they were in the age of the idiot dinosaurs. And they THRIVED.
Really, humans should be more adaptable. If we were, then we could survive that. Who knows what's next, really? Probably not that, because it's worst case scenario, but if that did happen then the toughest of the tough would make it. We need some population thinning, no use arguing against that.
Also, think of the economic losses that our country would suffer if we made a visible effort to stop more dramatic temperatures.
Humans can survive vast temperature changes. We're not fish here, people. 130 F is pushing it, and so is -150 F. Think. That's 280 degrees difference. We are hardy creatures and have nothing to worry about.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy