Jump to content

Gore at it again


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anthony Watts you have smeared so quickly is the first person to do it.

Your ignorance is obvious.

That's incredible. You have proven your point as well as possible.

That is why you NEED to look it over and read the reactions to it.

Yes it is incredible and James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt have made their responses to it.

I read them and they have not stated any previous Auditing efforts.

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to call it a night.

But in parting I will say that I help run a Climate skeptic forum.This means I read many links and post some of them on the homepage.Some of it has been about the Auditing process.

This is why I know that what Anthony Watts is doing is good since what he is doing is trying to improve the use of the data.Buy first examining the quality of the equipment and the locations they are installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you and teddy have a good sleep.

From surfacestations.org:

Site launched on 06/04/07

Progress as of 07/11/2007

USHCN Sites surveyed so far: 142

USHCN Sites remaining: 1079

No global warming? I'm not convinced.

Edited by Xman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm

Try the above link for the rest of it.What is posted here is an EXCERPT.

In the link are many links shown to be imbedded in this excerpt.

About

What is the purpose of this website?

This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. This realization came about from a discussion of a paper and some new information that occurred on Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog. In particular, a thread regarding the paper:

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.

and a subsequent posting in regards to comments in a thread discussing was a catalyst for the creation of this website.

Why are you doing this? Isn't this the responsibility of our government agency NOAA?

Yes NOAA is responsible for the operation, documentation and upkeep of the USHCN set of weather stations. In fact in 1997 there were concerns expressed by a National Research Council panel about the state of the climate measuring network.

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 thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you and teddy have a good sleep.

From surfacestations.org:

Site launched on 06/04/07

Progress as of 07/11/2007

USHCN Sites surveyed so far: 142

USHCN Sites remaining: 1079

No global warming? I'm not convinced.

That is not the purpose of the Audit.

Watts already knows that we have had a warming trend since the mid 1880's

It is for the purpose of accuracy of the data.

We keep getting strongly contradicting data between Surface temperature data and the Satellite data.

Have you ever wondered why Xman?

My wife is the "teddy" and my two girls have the stuffed ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in parting I will say that I help run a Climate skeptic forum.This means I read many links and post some of them on the homepage.Some of it has been about the Auditing process.

Are you into UFO's too? I bet there's loads of links about dat der 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We keep getting strongly contradicting data between Surface temperature data and the Satellite data.

Citation?

LOL,

You must be new to this topic because this well known.

Just go look up the MSU Satellite temperature data.

Compare with the Surface temperature data you have in one of your links.

They do not line up at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is the "teddy" and my two girls have the stuffed ones.

My...do your girls talk with potty mouth too? For shame. You should know better.

You are welcome to report me to the Moderator if you want.

Ciao!

How polite. You are a gentleman, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We keep getting strongly contradicting data between Surface temperature data and the Satellite data.

Citation?

LOL,

You must be new to this topic because this well known.

Just go look up the MSU Satellite temperature data.

Compare with the Surface temperature data you have in one of your links.

They do not line up at all.

What's up wit dem dang satelmabobers? Maybe, the 2007 report will show it, when it's released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphs below are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Global temperature change, 1861-2000 and 1000-2000

Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere

CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced

The last graph shows why we're doomed.

haha

Oh man, you are in way over your head. (pardon the pun).

this is going to be fun!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is the "teddy" and my two girls have the stuffed ones.

My...do your girls talk with potty mouth too? For shame. You should know better.

haha Xman. You got completely owned here.

pathetic.

If your 'science' was so good surely you could respond without the name calling?

You argument was pathetic and unconvincing.

You should brush up if you want people to take you seriously.

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Does that mean that all projections are not scientific?

No, means that all projections are hypothetical and entirely dependent upon input. That means that there is a great deal of money at stake, and an entire industry built up around GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is the "teddy" and my two girls have the stuffed ones.

My...do your girls talk with potty mouth too? For shame. You should know better.

haha Xman. You got completely owned here.

pathetic.

If your 'science' was so good surely you could respond without the name calling?

You argument was pathetic and unconvincing.

You should brush up if you want people to take you seriously.

Citations? Evidence? Facts? This forum is the worst I have been to so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite bits is when the David Suzuki site talks about how the computer modelling is similar to that used by "big wall street investment firms".

This type of comment not only illustrates how out of touch the left is with mainstream finance, but just sheer ignorance.

Anyone who knows the record of wall street computer forecasting models wouldn't be using them as a credible example of reliable forecasting!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...