Slashdot Mirror

Is the shape important?

Yes.

Is the shape important?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, about that discipline thing... http://www.norcalblogs.com/bullfight/archives/fitness.jpg

The sun's solar minimum is not caused by global warming, nor is the hottest decade on record caused by the sun's solar minimum.

No. The hottest decade on record is caused by putting your thermometers on blacktop, in the exhaust of an air conditioner, and adjusting older temperatures downward.

The sun's solar minimum is not caused by global warming, nor is the hottest decade on record caused by the sun's solar minimum.

No. The hottest decade on record is caused by putting your thermometers on blacktop, in the exhaust of an air conditioner, and adjusting older temperatures downward.

You jest.

Apologies. You're a reasoned voice in the storm, offering useful guidance. I shouldn't bother you.

I did find an interesting link and this is a good place to bookmark it.

Yes, ordinary people should examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I agree.

kinda hard to get a good reading of the temperature, when stations are placed next to parking lots, AC vents and other heat generating sources

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

and what happened to the Ice Age they were trying to scare us with in the 80s?

Grow up.

http://www.physorg.com/news162795064.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html

But since you're convinced Hansen is on the up-and-up (or simply preprogrammed to agree with him because of which political side you're on), I doubt the truth will change your mind.

After all, you're one of the same greenpeace retards who stops us from having a sane Nuclear power policy (and thus forces us to burn coal and oil).

And with a planet billions of years old, how exactly is it that merely 100 years worth of temperature measurements is statistically enough to definitively say that the earth is unnaturally warming? Seriously? And how long have we been monitoring the moon and Mars to ensure that what scientists think they're observing isn't actually a solar event.

Look - pollution is bad. We should take steps to reduce pollution in every form we can. But, I don't blame the public for being skeptical about the Chicken Little arguments about the sky falling, and I don't blame people for taking the position that we could do more harm than good by trying to over-solve a problem we don't really know if we have. And, with disproven stats like 1998 being the hottest year on record, it's hard to know what to trust and who's just pushing their own agenda.

So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.

Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.

Your "facts" rely on accurate measurements.

The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.

(Citation needed). I only ask for a citation because I recall that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that these past few years have been cooler than normal. Come to find out, 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record, 1938 was.

Also note that 1938 and 1998 were both in the 20th century and both years were hotter than these past few years.

Actually, never mind. I did some searching and found out that 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 are all the hottest year on record, depending on what source you use.

And these guys wonder why we don't believe them??

And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

And *what if* a solar flare hit the Earth and knocked out all communications? Quick, let's spend a trillion dollars and ruin the world economy to fix something not proven to be imminent, but do it "just in case" anyway...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a MERRY Christmas... Despite the media hype you've obviously gobbled up as a good sheep, there is not the complete consensus on the issue that pols and the media seem to insist upon...

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

The issues are not quite so clear-cut as you make them seem. Claim after claim of the alarmists has been debunked...

The Hockey Stick Graph

1998 was the hottest year on record. Not in the USA (try 1934

October 2008 was the warmest October on record? Nope!

Are GISS's data out of line with other sources of climate / temperature data?

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

Round and round we go, when the alarmists will stop, nobody knows...

Nobody says that climate change isn't happening. The temperature data is fact. It can't be denied any more than it can denied that the sky is blue.

Oh Really...

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.html

We are currently at a more or less neutral stage; the cooling of the early 20th century offsets the middle-ages warming period.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

NASA disagrees with Wikipedia then. They changed their mind on this and now think that 1934 was the warmest year on record. Something about that NOAA data not necessarily being very accurate... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

This web site shows many flawed weather stations: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

My favorite is the one near a burn barrel: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_4.html

Here's one on the receiving end of the exhaust from several air conditioning units: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_23.html

This one's next to an air conditioning unit, a chimney and a grill: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_12.html

This web site shows many flawed weather stations: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

My favorite is the one near a burn barrel: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_4.html

Here's one on the receiving end of the exhaust from several air conditioning units: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_23.html

This one's next to an air conditioning unit, a chimney and a grill: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_12.html

This web site shows many flawed weather stations: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

My favorite is the one near a burn barrel: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_4.html

Here's one on the receiving end of the exhaust from several air conditioning units: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_23.html

This one's next to an air conditioning unit, a chimney and a grill: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_12.html

This web site shows many flawed weather stations: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

My favorite is the one near a burn barrel: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_4.html

Here's one on the receiving end of the exhaust from several air conditioning units: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_23.html

This one's next to an air conditioning unit, a chimney and a grill: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/06/how_not_t o_measure_temperature_12.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

or

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hans ens_error_matter_gues.html

I used to believe that the global rise in surface temperatures was a settled fact. Since reading about Hansen's error, I have had questions about the data. I've been told that no peer-reviewed science publication seriously questions the data showing a global rise in surface temperatures. This isn't actually true. I found these articles after doing a quick search:

Ren, G. Y., Z. Y. Chu, Z. H. Chen, and Y. Y. Ren (2007), Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05711

Karlén W (2005) Recent Global Warming: An Artifact of a Too-Short Temperature Record? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment: Vol. 34, No. 3 pp. 263-264

Khandekar, M.L., Murty, T. S. and P. Chittibabu (2005). The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science. Pure & Applied Geophysics, Vol. 162 Issue 8/9, p1557-1586, 30p

No scientist "denies" global warming. Rather, what these scientists say is that it must be demonstrated, and the data that we have on surface temperatures does not do that unequivocally.

There are of course contrary views.

The conclusion I draw is that the science is not settled. I regard with suspicion any claim that it is.

All models have flaws of varying sizes, that is why there are so many of them.

I do not doubt the validity of the models given our current level of understanding, the data is what concerns me.

But reproducible scientific analysis can only occur on a string of anecdotal evidence. If you perform a string of bad experiments, you come to erroneous conclusions no matter how long you analyze.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

There's also more interesting links:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Guess why there's a consensus:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Some people do question the data:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

The graph caption in TFA says that it is an example of the Y2K bug in the analysis. It isn't. It's an example of a couple of condensing units moved too close to a weather reporting station. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_l onger_the_hottest_yea.html/

Thanks for the link to the blog article. It's a lot more interesting and substantial than the somewhat embarassing DailyTech article.

A lot of people have been criticizing the DailyTech article for the line "Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media." It should be noted that the original blog entry does not contain this or other indications of paranoia, and attributes the people involved in the discovery.

TFA notes that Anthony Watts has posted about it on his site. You might know Watts as the head of the surfacestations.org project, which contends that the surface warming trend recorded in the U.S. is the result of various data collection problems like the urban heat island effect. But now it looks like that warming trend was overstated--weakening the very purpose of the surfacestations project. Somehow I bet Anthony doesn't see it that way though.

There are some hilarious pictures of where the weather stations are located.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

I'd like to see the corresponding pictures from stations in other locations before I concluded that the weather in the US is different from the rest of the world.

Clearly these stations were set up for for routine weather reporting, not highly speculative climate forecasts decades into the future.

There are so many sites now documentating the flaws in the climte studies.
Take a look here for a start:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bombshell-na sa-revises-recent-us-temperatures-downward-after-y 2k-bug-fix/

The opinion: A link to the blog entry in question would have been quite on topic.

The pun.

Lie, some countries have kept records of climate ever since the invention of the meteorological instruments in the 17th century, today we have over 7000 stations that measure land temperatures,

You mean stations like these http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ ?