Global Warming backdown

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this true ? I hope not.

Of course it's not true...just like much of what waldo offers up, cloaked with American references for fake credibility...how ironic!

I don't see any rules against misrepresenting ones self on the board but it speaks to the credibility of the poster.

This latest slant on my "American-ness" is just another way to try and blunt the withering criticism and sarcasm, as previous efforts have failed miserably. These Canadians do not like it one bit.

[M.Dancer]

Walso is a goof, best read only for the hysterics..

[waldo]

Of course it's not true...just like much of what waldo offers up, cloaked with American references for fake credibility...how ironic!

This latest slant on my "American-ness" is just another way to try and blunt the withering criticism and sarcasm, as previous efforts have failed miserably. These Canadians do not like it one bit.

oooohhhh! I sense an exposed nerve! Buddy... I read it on the internets - are you saying Bubber got it wrong?

you've become a parody of yourself - one that shows up predictably on cue, presuming to dispense your, "withering criticism and sarcasm"? Oh... is that what it is... "withering criticism and sarcasm"?

[waldo]

Walso is a goof, best read only for the hysterics..

ok, ok... the other threads recent exposing your (over)use of boner pills is noted.

[waldo]

I'd appreciate it if you could link me to a study or analysis of the specific reasons for the cutdown in Canadian Weather stations and why I should feel comfortable in how they can extrapollate Eureka's temperatures to cover all the the Canadian Arctic. Canada's a good example - it's big and it's our home town. I'm willing to be swayed if you can find something like that.....or even if you could explain it in your own words. Oh by the way - who is "we" - you said "we've highlighted......". Thanks.

there has been much linked to already Simple - you just choose to ignore it. How about you, for a lark, since you're the one that continues to trot out Watts' fabrications - how about you link to a study or analysis that shows a negative impact on surface temperature reconstructions associated with the so-called surface station dropout. Simply linking to Watts' surfacestations.org site... or to his SPPI non-peer reviewed nonsense - won't count. Stand up for your continued drive to cast doubt and uncertainty on surface temperature records? Show your studies - what's holding you back?

[M.Dancer]

ok, ok... the other threads recent exposing your (over)use of boner pills is noted.

Care to point out those threads you ridiculously insignificant immature troll?

[waldo]

Care to point out those threads you ridiculously insignificant immature troll?

ohhhh, another nerve struck - which dance mode are you about to enter, Dancer?

[M.Dancer]

ohhhh, another nerve struck - which dance mode are you about to enter, Dancer?

Didn't you get banned before for making false accusations against people?

[waldo]

Didn't you get banned before for making false accusations against people?

excellent! Dancer has moved into his marginalization dance mode? Buddy, do you mistake me for another long dispatched MLW poster - are you making a false accusation? But it's clearer now... again, back to the other active running thread that's got you in your drive-by snit... your accusations that women who choose an abortion alternative are exercising their rights to elective (nee, cosmetic) procedures, is... ok - is not false? But someone pointing out a predilection toward boner pill use, is... not ok - is not true?

[Keepitsimple]

there has been much linked to already Simple - you just choose to ignore it. How about you, for a lark, since you're the one that continues to trot out Watts' fabrications - how about you link to a study or analysis that shows a negative impact on surface temperature reconstructions associated with the so-called surface station dropout. Simply linking to Watts' surfacestations.org site... or to his SPPI non-peer reviewed nonsense - won't count. Stand up for your continued drive to cast doubt and uncertainty on surface temperature records? Show your studies - what's holding you back?

I thought you might reply like that . But why is there just one weather station inputting for all of the Canadian Arctic..... and since you have so much faith in how temperatures are extrapollated across hundreds of thousands of square miles with just one weather station in Eureka, perhaps you can share your knowledge with me. The same thing seems to apply to Russia. But Waldo, if it's so straight forward with little chance of error - why don't you explain the concept in your own words - just the fundamentals will do.

[waldo]

I thought you might reply like that .

you simply ignore anything presented to you... and continue to parrot Anthony Watts. I understand your reluctance in providing actual analysis to support your claim that, so called 'surface station dropout' has had a bias on temperature records. Or do you actually have something... anything?

[M.Dancer]

excellent! Dancer has moved into his marginalization dance mode? Buddy, do you mistake me for another long dispatched MLW poster - are you making a false accusation? But it's clearer now... again, back to the other active running thread that's got you in your drive-by snit... your accusations that women who choose an abortion alternative are exercising their rights to elective (nee, cosmetic) procedures, is... ok - is not false? But someone pointing out a predilection toward boner pill use, is... not ok - is not true?

hey not bad, that was almost half witty ...which I imagine is quite a reach for you..

[waldo]

hey not bad, that was almost half witty ...which I imagine is quite a reach for you..

oh no, certainly not... I in no way presume to, or actually, intrude upon your half-wit domain. Now - was your drive-by worth the effort to impress upon your territorial domain claim?

[M.Dancer]

oh no, certainly not... I in no way presume to, or actually, intrude upon your half-wit domain.

Oh good, keep being a quarter wit then, wouldn't want you to strain a muscle and pop a vein.

[M.Dancer]

- why don't you explain the concept in your own words - just the fundamentals will do.

Don't worry, he won't....that would tax his limited abilities far too much.

[bush_cheney2004]

oooohhhh! I sense an exposed nerve! Buddy... I read it on the internets - are you saying Bubber got it wrong?

What have you or "Bubber" ever gotten right? If you're going to make me Rashida from Regina, at least give me big tits for Weber! LOL!

you've become a parody of yourself - one that shows up predictably on cue, presuming to dispense your, "withering criticism and sarcasm"? Oh... is that what it is... "withering criticism and sarcasm"?

It's gone way beyond that....so much so...members like you hear my Yankee footsteps even before you type the next round of nonsense that, ironically, is very often dependent on Yankee sources and references.

I am enjoying myself as one of the big brained Talosians, just toying with your petty concerns.

Edited May 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I am enjoying myself as one of the big brained Talosians, just toying with your petty concerns.

excellent... yes Rhasida, google is my friend! In your biggest, brainiest Talosian bravado, your MLW "Talosian zoo", is your study arena to ensure that Canadians are, in fact, the suitable successor to the fall of your (American) empire. It would appear that even after your 15K+ posts, you have been unable to make your call... perhaps... your self-described big brain - isn't! Perhaps this is why you have been dispatched by the real Talosian brainiacs, to the relative obscurity of MLW

[Keepitsimple]

you simply ignore anything presented to you... and continue to parrot Anthony Watts. I understand your reluctance in providing actual analysis to support your claim that, so called 'surface station dropout' has had a bias on temperature records. Or do you actually have something... anything?

Waldo, Waldo.....I don't want you to cut and paste.....I'm just asking you to explain the concept in your own words - certainly that's not too much to ask for.....c'mon Waldo, show me that you actually have some substance backing your zeolotry.

.......and since you have so much faith in how temperatures are extrapollated across hundreds of thousands of square miles with just one weather station in Eureka, perhaps you can share your knowledge with me. The same thing seems to apply to Russia. But Waldo, if it's so straight forward with little chance of error - why don't you explain the concept in your own words - just the fundamentals will do.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Waldo, Waldo.....I don't want you to cut and paste.....I'm just asking you to explain the concept in your own words - certainly that's not too much to ask for.....c'mon Waldo, show me that you actually have some substance backing your zeolotry.

are you going to play junkyard dog once again Simple? You're so, uhhh... "passionate" about your claim that the temperature record is "corrupted/biased"... surely you should be able to step up and support your Anthony Watts parrot show... as I said, show your analysis that presumes to claim that so called 'surface station dropout' has had a corrupting/biasing effect on temperature records. Do you actually have something... anything? Otherwise, there's really nothing to respond to - hey? You can continue to bark madly in the dark night Simple - or you could actually support your claim with a reputable analysis reference. Do you actually have something... anything?

[Keepitsimple]

are you going to play junkyard dog once again Simple? You're so, uhhh... "passionate" about your claim that the temperature record is "corrupted/biased"... surely you should be able to step up and support your Anthony Watts parrot show... as I said, show your analysis that presumes to claim that so called 'surface station dropout' has had a corrupting/biasing effect on temperature records. Do you actually have something... anything? Otherwise, there's really nothing to respond to - hey? You can continue to bark madly in the dark night Simple - or you could actually support your claim with a reputable analysis reference. Do you actually have something... anything?

I think my question was "simple" enough. How can one have confidence in the measurement of Global Temperatures with just one weather station for all of the high arctic. That, in itself, will not generate the "peer-reviewed" study (only by alarmists) that you require. It's just a common sense question - how does anybody "adjust" for hundreds of thousands of square miles by using one weather station? Should be straight forward for a big brain like yours.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

I think my question was "simple" enough. How can one have confidence in the measurement of Global Temperatures with just one weather station for all of the high arctic. That, in itself, will not generate the "peer-reviewed" study (only by alarmists) that you require. It's just a common sense question - how does anybody "adjust" for hundreds of thousands of square miles by using one weather station? Should be straight forward for a big brain like yours.

still nothing from you, hey Simple? Surely... you should be able to support your claims toward surface temperature corruption/positive bias? What are you waiting for?

just because you read something (from Watts/D'Aleo) about a single station... do you believe it... do you accept it - outright? Why, of course you do! As an aside, are your concerns for the "high arctic" temperature recordings based solely on Canada? Do you negate the significant number of Russian stations - certainly more than Canada has ever initiated/maintained. Nothing quite like your denier blinders and absolute reverent devotion to your go-to TV weatherman, Anthony Watts - hey?

perhaps we can have some fun here Simple... play with the following linked website - a cursory review will easily bring forward today's defaulted data from many/most of the highlighted Nunavut stations. For those that don't, simply, play with the dates and you'll typically see the data fall away around 1992 - the so-called "big station dropout" period. Oh my, Simple... look at all that current days data from all those different Nunavut stations! Of course, you could actually provide some real citation support (the missing analysis, Watts/D'Aleo never did) for your concerns over temperature corruption/positive bias within the GHCN record... in particular your registered concerns for, as you say, "the high Arctic". You could actually show something that speaks to temperature anomaly differences between "pre and post station dropout"... you could do that. Equally, you could presume to counter the many recent examples of analysis that show an actual negative bias within the temperature record... that's right, a negative cooling bias in the temperature record due to the reduction in high-latitude grid availability... you could do that. You could do all of that, if you had the wherewithal to do anything other than parrot debunked TV weatherman.

here's that interactive data extraction capability... stations available from a pull-down select or via the linked map itself - enjoy!

(special notes for Simple ton: perhaps take up your concerns with the Canadian government over which stations were dropped from GHCN... that decision had/has nothing to do with NOAA - that's a decision that reflects upon the Canadian government. Additionally, note the "technical difficulty" caveat reference made on that linked interactive data extraction web site ("Climate Data Online")... "that there are some delays in the release of data to Climate Data Online. We are working to rectify the problem and ask for your patience during this time of technical difficulty." Simple ton... they even list a contact email to allow you to vent your parroted concerns - [email protected])

and finally, particularly around your standard "Concern Troll" acceptance to warming having occurred... if you have no confidence in the surface temperature record, what do you base your acceptance of warming around - simply satellite derivations - hey?

[Keepitsimple]

play with the following linked website - a cursory review will easily bring forward today's defaulted data from many/most of the highlighted Nunavut stations. For those that don't, simply, play with the dates and you'll typically see the data fall away around 1992 - the so-called "big station dropout" period. Oh my, Simple... look at all that current days data from all those different Nunavut stations!

So.....are you claiming that all of those Nunavut stations are being included in the various Global Temperature datasets.....and that it's not just Eureka - is that what you are saying?

As for Russia - since you asked.....here's a translation from a Russian paper:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

Link: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Edited May 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

So.....are you claiming that all of those Nunavut stations are being included in the various Global Temperature datasets.....and that it's not just Eureka - is that what you are saying?

whaaa! Here Simple... it's just an easy cut & paste now... ya got nuthin! Big surprise

still nothing from you, hey Simple? Surely... you should be able to support your claims toward surface temperature corruption/positive bias? What are you waiting for?

of course, you could actually provide some real citation support (the missing analysis, Watts/D'Aleo never did) for your concerns over temperature corruption/positive bias within the GHCN record... in particular your registered concerns for, as you say, "the high Arctic". You could actually show something that speaks to temperature anomaly differences between "pre and post station dropout"... you could do that. Equally, you could presume to counter the many recent examples of analysis that show an actual negative bias within the temperature record... that's right, a negative cooling bias in the temperature record due to the reduction in high-latitude grid availability... you could do that. You could do all of that, if you had the wherewithal to do anything other than parrot debunked TV weatherman.

and finally, particularly around your standard "Concern Troll" acceptance to warming having occurred... if you have no confidence in the surface temperature record, what do you base your acceptance of warming around - simply satellite derivations - hey?

the most telling part is you don't even recognize what's being discussed... here Simple, choke on this graphic that clearly shows no significant difference between pre & post "station dropout" within the 50-60 latitude band... of course, a reference to temperature anomaly is certainly going to stretch your minuscule understandings given your absolute reverent devotion to all that is fabricated by your TV weatherman, Anthony Watts.

it's quite telling that you have nothing to offer... other than your blunderbuss!

As for Russia - since you asked.....here's a translation from a Russian paper:

Link: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

oh yes! The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)... we've addressed this once already in another MLW thread... in response to another Shady practices post! - here. You really should learn to use MLW search. Here... let me take the liberty in reposting:

oh snap! Pleeaassseeee - not another Shady "bombshell"... particularly one that's size 4 text bolded... that's

HUGE!

when this little gem gets dumped, timed to the arrival of world leaders at Copenhagen, skeptical spidey senses are alerted. We see bold pronouncements across the deniersphere that "the Russians confirm". However, these confirming Russians are associated with a Russian economic/politico 'think tank', the "Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)" - something akin to the Heartland Institute or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The director of IEA,

Andrei Nikoleyvich Illarionov

, is a

senior fellow

at the

Cato Institute

, who's on record with such telling statements like: "

No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change

"... like... "

Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz"

.

so what we have are economists, agenda driven economists, doing analysis of climate change data... and timing the release of that analysis for maximum (presumed) impact at Copenhagen - an analysis that would presume to show a meaningful temperature difference relative to a reduced selection of reporting stations (

121 of 476 available stations

)... a difference the preceding graphic shows would appear to be isolated to the 19th century. Preliminary response from RC highlights no discerning difference in temperature over the most recent 50 years, coupled with a statement that,

(even accepting to the unknown analyis methodology used by the Russian IEA (

agenda driven economists

))

, their analysis shows basically the same 20th century temperature trend that the CRU data shows. RC speculates that the rationale behind choosing a reduced set of stations, might relate to instrument/metadata changes the Russian IEA (

agenda driven economists

) would have no familiarity with. But why should something like that stop economists from doing analysis of data they have no familiarity with - duh!

coincidentally, RC presented today,

an independent assessment done on the CRU data

- one that compared CRU CRUTEM3v data to raw data from World Monthly Surface Station Climatology... with comparison results that showed warming with trends that are statistically identical between the CRU data and the raw data (>99% confidence); i.e. there are no problems with the CRU data.

yabut, Shady... given your bombshell, would you like this CRU data scrapped? Although, I'm sure you must know that, of the major independent temperature datasets out there, the CRU data shows the (relative) least warming as compared to others. Should we get rid of that one Shady... the one that shows the least warming, relatively speaking?

as I said, Simple... it's quite telling that you have nothing to offer... other than your blunderbuss!

[Pliny]

it's quite telling that you have nothing to offer... other than your blunderbuss!

as I said, Simple... it's quite telling that you have nothing to offer... other than your blunderbuss!

Keep convincing yourself, Waldo. Keep up the mantra. One day your prayers may be answered.

[waldo]

belated alert! - Pliny drive-by thread bump!