sunsettommy

Now, that would be unscientific, even stupid. And yet the data from them are the ones Gore,Hansen,Schmidt,Jones,and others like the most.It is the only source of data that even show any kind of warming in recent years that seems to show accelerated warming. The Satellite data does not.Neither the weather balloons and Radio Sonde balloons show it. ONLY the surface weather station data are the ones they like.They ignore the other temperature data sources.Have you noticed that? Thank you for agreeing with skeptics. LOL

You used old debunked links. You lack credibility in using that stupid Hockey Stick. Do you realize that the H. S. paper contradicted DECADES of climate and geological research that determined that MWP and the LIA existed and was global? Do you know that the IPCC took that paper into their 2001 report despite that it was not validated or even been given proper peer review beforehand? Do you realize that when a couple of NON scientists asked for the H.S. paper data.Mann would not provide it for a long time and when he did it was only partial? Do you even know what data Mann and his secretive group was using? Did you know that the hockey stick paper was only for the NORTHERN HEMISHERE? Have you followed a certain website that step by step over 2 years showed why the Hockey Stick paper was bad? The person who blew open the Mann paper is an expert in statistical analysis and was backed up by some of the worlds top statistical experts. If this was all you could provide in those 3 links.You have no credible support that we are near doomsday. Why are you so easily decieved?

The Hockey Stick paper has been discredited and the IPCC does not mention it in their latest 2007 report. It is amazing that you still use it. The SURFACE temperature data from the 1221 weather stations are under a current AUDIT.The early results show a clear warming bias in the data.If you really care to learn about it go look up Anthony Watts website. STRIKE 1 CO2 atmospheric gas has been higher than now just 50 years ago using a different method of measuring. Methane no longer increasing and has not been for a few years. STRIKE 2 This is stupid. You are using a chart of PROJECTED climate reactions a 100 and more years from now! To say we are doomed.This is not science because there is no way to test it and no verification is possible for at least 100 years. The temperature data used in the chart does not as yet exist for most of the projected future warming.The current and past temperature data are being AUDITED and so far found to be biased to the warming.There are many examples of terrible placements of the measuring devices being shown.Anthony Watts has shown a doozy yesterday on his website showing where the senser is located on top of the building surrounded by many heat exhausted air vents. STRIKE 3 You are way behind the curve since all those links you provided has been looked over and found to be wanting.Some of it rebuted long ago. Try reading up on new stuff that will educate you: http://www.surfacestations.org/

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war. What no rebuttal to the posted links author? Hint: It is not Gore.

LOL why not read and find out if it is true? Follow the money you say. Guess what! Most of the money flows into the pockets of those who say man are the main driver of the slow and small warming we see.The skeptics are the ones who get by on small funding. BILLIONS for the alarmists.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Few millions for the skeptics.$$$ LOL Your denial of newsbusters itself is not valid.It is what is posted that must be judged.

Your ignorance of the scientist is sad. He happens to be well grounded on the issue. Try reading what he says instead of making smears against him.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie! Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science. Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty. How does "scientific opinion" be developed? LOL

One small difference... Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services. Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion. But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible. Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans? Even if today we stopped ALL burning of fossil fuels on Earth, it would take a century to stop the changes now coming. We're doomed. Stick that in your economic theories. You a scarecrow? CO2 has a short life time in the atmosphere.It is around 8 years.It cycles rapidly out of the atmosphere back into the ocean,biota and the earth. This is elementary knowledge.

I am a long time skeptic and yet I long ago accepted that we have warming trend the last 100+ years. People like you who say we deny warming are being dishonest.Hardly any skeptic I have come acroos actually say there NO warming at all. It is the idea that the paltry amount of CO2 emissions by us are the main driver of warming.Is what we skeptics do not agree. Next time stop your dishonest use of the phrase "deniers of global warming".It is a smear.

Climate change deniers also invariably ignore the point of such an event as Live Earth--that is, to promote awareness and encourage people to start making steps to change. Instead, they find the most vulnerable candidate for swiftboating they can find--in this case Madonna--because character assassination works best when the facts aren't in your favour. It's a pathetic mode of attack that is sadly killing the conservative movement in the U.S. I hope to see a new, more positive conservativism rise out of Cheney and Rove's dead corpses in 2008. But of course it was a cool idea for all those weathly jet travellors and the massive CO2 producing electrical apparatus needed to power the dumb concept of a live concert. Do you realize the hypocristy in all this? LOL

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid. No is people like you who think consensus is a valid precept to a beliefe as fact. Try the scientific method next time and leave out a long running political tool. Yes there is a slight warming trend from over 100 years ago. Yes there is an increase in atmospheric CO2. However most of the "evidence" for a nearing tipping event are based on UNVERIFIED climate models.Gore and Hansen apparently have lost their way when it comes to the idea that any science research MUST be reproducable and verifiable. Climate Models fails.

LOL, Just report the personal attacks and violations to the Moderators. It is that simple.

There are two ways to do this: 1) Use data from surrounding stations to identify problematic stations. This assumes that the surrounding stations do not have a similar bias. 2) Treat all stations in a certain category (i.e. urban or rural) as less trusted and use the data from the trusted stations to adjust the data from the less trusted stations. This assumes the rural stations have not been compromised. Data from bad stations would not affect the results if the assumptions used to 'remove the artifacts' are basically correct. That is why the people doing the survey need to focus their effort more and demonstrate that the assumptions used to correct the data are not valid. It is not enough to show that many stations are reporting bad data. You have no idea what you are talking about.IF THE INITIAL DATA IS COMPROMISED.THEN ANYTHING DOWN THE ROAD WITH THAT DATA WILL NEVER BE FULLY RECONCILED.Try getting good data from stations that meet the standards instead. CRU has not released the information that would support their claim.THEREFORE YOUR POST GOES FLAT. YOU STILL FAIL TO FACE THE FACT THAT UNTIL ALL THE STATIONS ARE AUDITED.YOU AND GAVIN AND OTHERS WILL NEVER KNOW HOW GOOD THE DATA REALLY ARE. That is what went right over your head. Did you even read this part? 1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….” Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions; (my emphasis) Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407. and Walters, J. T., R. T. McNider, X. Shi, W. B Norris, and J. R. Christy (2007): Positive surface temperature feedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12709, doi:10.1029/2007GL029505 2. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 2: … and thinks that all station data are perfect.” Climate Science Response: It is correct that anamolies are less heterogeneous than absolute temperatures. However, for the anamolies to be used to assess long term temperature trends in tenths of a degree, all significant non-climatic and locally specific microclimate influences must be removed. That this has clearly not been done can be seen in the site photos themselves. There are also several papers that present the issues with the station siting in the peer reviewed literature; (my emphasis) Hale,R. C., K. P. Gallo, T. W. Owen, and T. R. Loveland, 2006 Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Geophysical Research Letters Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited International Journal of Climatology Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press. Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, M. Cai, N. Doesken, S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., in press. The absence of Real Climate commenting on these papers is by itself evidence that this website is not interesting in debating the science issues that we raise in our papers. Further, the statement that “comparisons work because of large distance over which the monthly temperature anomalies correlate” is given to avoid the actual science issue that is being addressed. Warm or cool surface temperatures do correlate regionally. However, this does not mean the long term trends over these regions can be quantified to tenths of a degree per decade. This is a misleading statement by Real Climate as the issue being raised about the surface HCN sites is their capability to monitor multi-decadal near-surface temperature trends given the issue of the poor siting of many of them.

Climate Audit responds to Gavin Schmidt: Gavin Schmidt: station data “not used” in climate models By Steve McIntyre EXCERPT: Gavin Schmidt has told Anthony Watts that the problematic station data are not used in climate models and any suggestion to the contrary is, in realclimate terminology, “just plain wrong”. If station data is not used to validate climate models, then what is? His point seems to be that the climate models use gridded data. But isn’t the gridded data calculated from station data? Well, yes. (And it wasn’t very hard to watch the pea under the thimble here.) So Gavin then argues that the adjustments made in calculating the gridded products have “removed the artefacts” from these poor stations: If you are of the opinion that this station is contaminated, then you have to admit that the process designed to remove artefacts in the GISS or CRU products has in fact done so - At this point, all we know is that the process has smoothed out the artefacts. Whether the artefacts have biased the record is a different question entirely and one that is not answered by Gavin’s rhetoric here. At this point, while we have a list of GISS stations there still is no list of CRU stations or CRU station data. How could one tell right now whether CRU has “removed the artefacts or not”? So on the present record Anthony doesn’t have to admit anything of the sort. OF course, if the data and code is made available and it becomes possible to confirm the truth of Gavin’s claim, this situation may change. But right now, no one can say for sure. Gavin then asserts than any removal of contaminated stations would improve model fit. I’m amazed that he can make this claim without even knowing the impact of such removal. my emphasis http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1781 I am amazed too since he has no idea how many of these stations are contaminated and how biased towards warming they are. The whole reason for the Audit in the first place. <snicker>

Yes. The issue is how they use the data from these stations. My reading of the rebuttle is they don't use this data directly and they have introduced fudge factors to account for the urban heat island effect. These fudge factors were calculated by assuming an urban station should report the same data as a rural station and assuming that any difference is caused by the urban heat island effect. This means their results would not change if this difference was actually caused by urban stations that did not meet standards.If these guys really want to make a point they have to focus on the stations that are classed as 'rural' in the data set. If they can show that a large number of the rural stations have similar problems then they would have evidence that undermines the IPCC models. They don't have any case if all they can show is that the urban stations have problems. They use a gridcell set up.Still based on Weather reporting station data. Their arguments makes no sense since they themselves clearly have no idea how biased INDIVIDUAL stations are.Just how much warming they recieve from a nearby air conditioner exhaust.How much heating from a building it is attached to and so on. Here is the exchange between Gavin Schmidt and Anthony Watts. A note from a NASA Climate Researcher http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/a...limate_res.html Notice how Gavin is not making sense? Gavin,James.Phil and others never did an Audit of the weather stations themselves. So how do they know how accurate they are?

To make it easier since none of you will bother looking it up. Standards for weather stations http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/s...stations_1.html Spend some time looking through it.

I am not Anthony Watts! Hansen knows since he runs one of the centers that manipulate collect the data from many weather reporting stations.The very ones being audited. It is amusing that they are so worried about an effort that has only gotten started and may never be published in science or nature publications.Somehow they know the answer without having much of the Auditing done and therefore no clear picture on how much warming bias there is. Climate Audit I think exposed James Hansens altering data sets.

I am a definite sceptic when it comes to global warming but in this case I have to side with the global warming chicken littles. It is unlikely that errors introduced by poor measurement stations would have significantly altered the over all conclusions. Photographing random stations is an amusing stunt but it won't provide any concrete information that would invalidate the IPCC models.The problem with the IPCC conclusions is they make huge assumptions about the causes of global warming. Did you look at the charts for those AUDITED stations.The Photos tells part of the story. Do you realize that most of the completed Audited weather reporting stations failed to meet the standards? Go look again at the link and read the posted standards of what a valid and properly maintained weather reporting station should be.

Watts Up With That? The Climatic Blog War There is a war of words going on between two scientific blogs over my project at www.surfacestations.org. The RealClimate blog, operated by pro AGW global warming scientists NASA's James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, James Annan and others has posted a six point rebuttal to the effort saying that it is only marginally useful. It's called "No Man is an (Urban Heat) Island". Dr. Roger Pielke, of the University of Colorado, runs a blog called Climate Science which looks at a wide variety of topics on climate change outside of the AGW mainstream, has posted his response to RealClimate's rebuttal in defense of the project saying its good science. The debate is intense, and some normally reserved scientists are letting the fur fly over the issue. There's sensible debate, science at high levels, diatribe, rhetoric, and even a "Tasker" like character who is a scientist for a major university that uses a doppelganger persona to attack ideas rather than risk his own credentials. All because I want to take some pictures of weather stations and put them online in a public database. Go figure. I guess I should be flattered that people are fighting over my idea, but I'd really rather just get on with the project and see what comes out of it. I'm not getting involved in the bickering, I'm just keeping to the work I and the volunteers have started. We are almost up to 100 stations surveyed now. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/ ______________________________________________________________________________ James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, James Annan and others are worried that Anthony Watts AUDITING of the SURFACE weather reporting stations will expose the warming bias.They are in damage control trying to discredit the AUDITING efforts. It is telling that they are against the Audit and trying to make it seem that the expected conclusions will not be relevant. I think these men know that their research are about to be made worthless when the Auditing is completed and published.That I think is the reason for the opposition. Meanwhile go look around at http://www.surfacestations.org/ and look at the photo albums of the various weather reporting station that has been audited.It is revealing how shoddy the quality of the stations are.

If you are still using SURFACE weather reporting stations.You are using biased data. The last month there has been an ONGOING AUDIT of these 1221 weather reporting stations.So far most of the first 63 have been shown that the weather reporting stations do not meet minimum standards for collecting data. The data quality are compromised. This means that they are probably not valid data to base specific conclusions on. Satellite data are much better.They show NO warming since 2003. I have been posting the many revelations of POOR QUALITY SURFACE weather reporting stations at my forum.The data has a significant warming bias built in. If you want to see them.PM me and I will give you the URL.

AEBanner writes in another forum.This is an excerpt. Greenhouse Gas Effect and Carbon Dioxide This is a revised and extended version of my initial post. When in energy balance, the Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere at 235 Watts per square meter (1). Radiation from the greenhouse gases goes in all directions, and so, effectively, half is radiated out into space, and half is returned to the Earth’s surface and so helps to increase the surface temperature up to a value for which the radiated emission is twice that from the greenhouse gases to outer space, having made allowance for the energy which escapes directly through the ghg layers to space. Thus, the Earth’s surface radiates at 390 W.m^-2 Carbon dioxide has an important absorption peak for infrared photons of almost 15 micrometres, but very little of significance at other wavelengths. In order to ensure 100% absorption of photons of this wavelength, the surface must be “covered” by sufficient molecules of CO2. Now, the absorption cross section of a CO2 molecule for a 15 micron photon is about 5×10^-22 m^2 per molecule (2), and so the number of molecules required to cover an area of 1 m^2 is 1.0 / (5×10^-22), ie. 2×10^21 molecules per square metre. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7157&st=30

It is called the logarithmic trend.This is known physics. This was long ago aknowledged by the IPCC. So why continue the farce? The part above which I have bolded is incorrect. The doubling of co2 from 560ppm to 1120ppm would result in the same increase in temperature as the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm. That there is the logarithmic relationship - a constant temperature increase for each doubling of co2. Also their <1C value for the constant is taken from the plain direct forcing from increasing co2 alone and doesn't take into account any feedbacks, which is why it differs from the mainstream range. Still in denial are ya. Try this: Cold Facts on Global Warming http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is continuing to go up, look at the black trendline: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif They have been shown to be unreliable. Surface temperature data has been shown to be compromised. The Satellite data is far more reliable and they show only a tiny warming trend since 1998.The warming trend that is falling far behind the CO2 increase. I have already posted twice in this thread about the weather stations: #77 and # 86. The climatologists have not paid attention to the quality and the care of the many thousands weather stations we have. Maybe you gain a little more depth on the issue and come back here and try to con me that they have that figured out. ( They do not )

From B.Max's second link: emphasis mineI posted Lubos Motl's post about the LOGARITHMIC trend on CO2 absorption a while ago here and in other forums.The reaction has always been shallow and sometimes just personal attacks against Lubos. Now we have the top Administrator making candid remarks and the propagandist such a James Hansen making personal attacks against his own boss! I am still a skeptic because there is no way that all those future projected climate models we keep hearing about can be validated and reproducable.Gosh we have to wait up to 93 years! LOL

Here is the part that I have never seen explained in the reverse. From B.Max's link, It is called the logarithmic trend.This is known physics. This was long ago aknowledged by the IPCC. So why continue the farce?