Yes, they "adjusted down" the readings of sensors that had issues. They decided by how much they needed adjusting of course. All I know about this is what I learned from the Science Fair, but wouldn't using different types of measuring devices for different samples not be all that credible? I don't think that would win a ribbon at Peterson Elementary.
Yes, they "adjusted down" the readings of sensors that had issues. They decided by how much they needed adjusting of course. All I know about this is what I learned from the Science Fair, but wouldn't using different types of measuring devices for different samples not be all that credible? I don't think that would win a ribbon at Peterson Elementary.
Yeah, I'm not sure how many of these sensors were in question in the first place as it would take a lot of bbq's to affect global data.
quote
More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.
It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.
Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-28-2011).]
one interesting point is the sun is in a slightly low output mode of late long no spot time following a some spots but fewer then avg some newest reports say the peak is near and then even lower for this odd cycle [magnetic major drop]
BUT we are still on the hot side of resent avg temps while down from the resent record year not really droping as much as the solar out put did
so some data proof of increased CO2 effect there now big heat input drop + more CO2 = less of a temp drop then expected
even bigger new question/problem/expense now is
HOW VARIABLE IS OUR STAR ?????
IN OUR VERY RESENT RECORDED HISTORY OUR SUN IS STABLE BUT over long periods the temps on earth swing from ice age to tropical and back and we have no idea whats next with our star hiccup or new downward trend
btw most stars vary some a few a lot [ Cepheid variables ]
and for the godboys and the tinfoil mad hatters NASA/NOAA doesnot play games with numbers sure sometimes they blow something but they catch and correct the error but there is no way to fake worldwide cross checked temp records long term
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 05-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:43 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
and for the godboys and the tinfoil mad hatters and the Al Gore lovers NASA/NOAA doesnot play games with numbers sure sometimes they blow something but they catch and correct the error but there is no way to fake worldwide cross checked temp records long term
I don't think Al Gore's Hockey Stick used NASA/NOAA. He used the Central England temperature series (less reliable and questionable but better than guessing), because Al Gore and the rest of the radiKKKal leftist who follow him never trusted NASA/NOAA. They had this weird assertion that these agencies were controlled by major corporations and Republicans. LOL!
IP: Logged
10:11 PM
May 29th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Speaking of weather. Here is an article sent to me from Newsmax.
quote
Ahmadinejad: Europe Is Stealing Iran’s Rain
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad charged that European countries are using high-tech equipment to deprive his drought-plagued nation of much-needed rain.
“Western countries have designed plans to cause drought in certain areas of the world, including Iran,” Ahmadinejad said in a recent speech inaugurating a dam in the city of Arak.
“According to reports on climate, whose accuracy has been verified, European countries are using special equipment to force clouds to dump” their rain on Europe.
Ahmadinejad also referred to an article by an unnamed “Western politician” that he said predicted “droughts in some regions spanning from Turkey and Iran to east of Asia” for the next 30 years, The Telegraph reported.
Those regions “include countries whose culture and civilization frighten the West,” he added.
Moments after Ahmadinejad spoke, it began to rain.
The Telegraph noted, “Iranian leaders claim on a daily basis that Western countries, led by arch-foe United States, devise ‘plots’ to undermine the Islamic Republic and to impede its economic and scientific development.”
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
there are older ship records but they are spotie real global is modern sat data 1971-2000 is the avg
btw the sats are NASA the NOAA does the post collection work
if you donot trust NASA/NOAA temp data records please be sure your tinfoil hat is on correctly as the man from mars will beam you up otherwise
This is the website of an independent audit being done on all U.S. reporting weather stations. Currently, only about 30% of weather stations are compliant with NOAA criteria. Around 70% do not measure up to the standards that NOAA itself set for those stations. The bottom line is, the temperature data is NOT coming from stations in compliance with the standards for temperature stations, and the data cannot be trusted if the stations are not in compliance. Period.\
I don't think Al Gore's Hockey Stick used NASA/NOAA. He used the Central England temperature series (less reliable and questionable but better than guessing), because Al Gore and the rest of the radiKKKal leftist who follow him never trusted NASA/NOAA. They had this weird assertion that these agencies were controlled by major corporations and Republicans. LOL!
The hockey stick graph was based on "temperature proxies", that is, extrapolating temperature from something else. In that case, it was measurement of tree rings. Part of the climategate issue was that they truncated their tree ring series (in the 1960s, I think) and substituted measured temperatures. Why did they do that? Because their tree ring proxies showed a very marked DECLINE in temperatures, suddenly. That's where you hear the "hide the decline" thing from climategate.
IP: Logged
12:21 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yes, they "adjusted down" the readings of sensors that had issues. They decided by how much they needed adjusting of course. All I know about this is what I learned from the Science Fair, but wouldn't using different types of measuring devices for different samples not be all that credible? I don't think that would win a ribbon at Peterson Elementary.
NASA's James Hansen, one of the top "warmists", made "adustments" to historical temperatures. Always downward in the past, and upward in the present. Gee, how interesting.
Oh, freaking great...I FINALLY get the convertible that I have wanted for 20 years to really enjoy the hot summer evenings cruising, and we get global cooling so there ARE no more hot summer evenings, and I gotta go buy a snowmobile. It figures, just freaken figures. Welcome to my luck.
NASA's James Hansen, one of the top "warmists", made "adustments" to historical temperatures. Always downward in the past, and upward in the present. Gee, how interesting.
Thank you Fierobear, as usual. That Wallstreet Journal article is a nice summary of the scam on this side of the Atlantic, not just in England.
The guys at http://www.climatecooling.org/ are trying to set the record straight in the face of what still is a powerful commercial/political lobby to TAKE OUR MONEY. It has always been about TAKING OUR MONEY. Global Warming is and was a method to TAX US and a method to GIVE OUR MONEY TO THE THIRD WORLD. It was also a way for those involved to make personal fortunes.
When we have a record winter in North America, Europe, and Asia, it is not Global Warming. It is just plain COLD.
It is and always has been about the money. Right now I have small investments in 3 companies that market themselves as "green", and am considering opening a wholly-owned venture in the next year or so, again using "green" as a marketing angle---its not about conservation or energy efficiency or the environment or anything else besides reducing costs and marketing. If we/I can spin it so the sheeple swallow into it and buy the products to help combat "global warming", then I will take advantage of it. Take one look around the parking lot, if we really believed it made any difference, the lot would be full of hybrids instead of the SUV's, Pickup trucks and sports cars. Its marketing to sheeple and thats all.
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently accepted for publication a study, citing Watts' Surfacestations.org, which concludes that "In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting." [21][22] In fact, the analysis of unadjusted data from poorly sited stations did reveal a bias, however, it was not the expected bias. The poorly sited stations measured maximum temperatures on average lower than the well sited stations. The authors note:
"Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures."[21] . . Remember that local weather does not equal global climate. But yes believe what you want to believe. Also it's hard keep the deniers arguements on track frequently as some say the Climate is warming but it's the reason that we don't know while others say it's not warming at all. Confusion is the purpose for many.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-29-2011).]
no clues where the two charts came from or what they track but they are different years and are not raw temps but are a difference from a mean [avg]
I do trust sat data over land or ship records and there are a bunch of global avg records land sea north south ect and by instrument old thermometer newer sensor or sat ect or avg weights given each
numbers donot lie but people do
IP: Logged
05:54 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Warmer temps allow farm grounds to produce more crops. Therefore producing more food and possible lower cost on said items. The earths population goes up each day, and the amount of farm land goes down each day. We have a food crisis thats getting even worse, and if we do have potential cooling happen, people will starve and hopefully die. Helping bring the earths population back to reasonable levels. Global warming will allow these people to live and eat up all the food.
So I hope we do sink into an ice age, and all the global warming advocates with their solar powered cars get stuck in the ice and have to walk up hill both ways to work. And they starve.
Nope not at all. When you have a moment I'd like to see where you read/heard it.
Well is has been said on here, on TV, and on the net. I know you have your hook with the big worm on it but I just ate. Google it and you will then maybe know you have been doing some very selective reading on the subject.
Well is has been said on here, on TV, and on the net. I know you have your hook with the big worm on it but I just ate. Google it and you will then maybe know you have been doing some very selective reading on the subject.
I could care less if you think I'm baiting you however I would point out you are the one that made the statement. I just asked where you heard it.
I like to see if people can back up what they say, true or not. I mean we can all say something that we heard somewhere and throw it out their as truth but can it be verified or even shown as a commonly held belief?
You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:43 PM
May 30th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by ray b: no clues where the two charts came from or what they track
The source is printed right in the charts.
quote
but they are different years and are not raw temps
1. Yes, they are different years. That's part of the point, that James Hansen has been dicking with the figures when they don't come out his way. He even modifies historical temperatures to make them cooler, so it makes it look like the warming is worse.
2. Not raw temps...EXACTLY. It is James Hansen's constant "massaging" of the numbers that is the issue.
quote
but are a difference from a mean [avg]
Yes, exactly. That's how they do it, it's called the "temperature anomaly", which is the difference from some hypothetical mean that they decided is "normal".
IP: Logged
02:39 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Remember that local weather does not equal global climate.
Then how do you decided if "global warming" is happening, if not for trends, if any, in temperature reporting across the country or the world?
quote
Also it's hard keep the deniers arguements on track frequently as some say the Climate is warming but it's the reason that we don't know while others say it's not warming at all. Confusion is the purpose for many.
That's because, despite what you might think, climate skeptics aren't a monolithic bunch. Some say it's not warming, some say man isn't causing it, and so on.
FYI, "denier" is a pejorative, if you care.
IP: Logged
02:44 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Remember that local weather does not equal global climate.
What is the proof that backs up your statement? What is your definition of "local weather" and "global climate"? Those seem like very broad terms to me. Local weather may indeed be the same as global climate depending on where "local" is and what "global climate" is. Your statement isn't accurate.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:10 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It's a fact of biology that humans expel CO2 when they exhale. Since CO2 is a "pollutant" and greenhouse gas, it contributes to global warming. If you want to dispute that, tell me which you doubt - that humans exhale CO2 or that CO2 contributes to global warming.
IP: Logged
12:49 PM
PFF
System Bot
fieroX Member
Posts: 5234 From: wichita, Ks Registered: Oct 2001
What is the proof that backs up your statement? What is your definition of "local weather" and "global climate"? Those seem like very broad terms to me. Local weather may indeed be the same as global climate depending on where "local" is and what "global climate" is. Your statement isn't accurate.
These definitions show the difference between weather and climate. Global climate being different again.
It's a fact of biology that humans expel CO2 when they exhale. Since CO2 is a "pollutant" and greenhouse gas, it contributes to global warming. If you want to dispute that, tell me which you doubt - that humans exhale CO2 or that CO2 contributes to global warming.
You seem confused.
quote
No. Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.
More c02 in the air grows plants larger. Take away c02 and we all die of starvation.
That's true but you might want to look at the reasoning behind climate change and the carbon cycle, especially the part where the "plants" and so on are unable to use all of the C02 being produced.
A good example is how water is important to the human body, what happens if you drink so much water that your body is unable to filter and excrete it all?
Originally posted by fierobear: Then how do you decided if "global warming" is happening, if not for trends, if any, in temperature reporting across the country or the world?
That's exactly what is used but having a hot day or month doesn't prove anything nor does having a cool one like is often suggested.
How do you decide if Climate Change is happening, you seem to say you agree it's happening sometimes but not due to humans yet other times deny anything is happening.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: That's because, despite what you might think, climate skeptics aren't a monolithic bunch. Some say it's not warming, some say man isn't causing it, and so on.
FYI, "denier" is a pejorative, if you care
Some deniers seem to disagree with climate change for all kinds of reasons others seem more reasonable.
How is denier a pejorative? Please explain. If one denies that Climate Change is happening what should they be called?
IP: Logged
04:03 PM
fieroX Member
Posts: 5234 From: wichita, Ks Registered: Oct 2001
