Quote :

"CERN recently blamed the sun. i tend to agree with them"

I'll be quick:

A. You watch Fox News don't you?

B. No they didn't.

C. Blamed the sun for what? AGW skeptics don't believe there is anything happening at all.

8/31/2011 6:34:53 PM

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how emitting a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere doesn't increase temperature.

8/31/2011 6:58:57 PM

Which one are we talking about?

8/31/2011 7:05:14 PM

Quote :

"then why not contact the fucking National Weather Service office and see what the deal is? Besides, the numbers are ridiculously small in comparison to the whole and have little bearing on the overall trends of the vast majority of monitoring stations."

I don't know why the NWS doesn't do anything about it, but up to 80% (rough approximation) of the stations surveyed in the US aren't correct and don't even meet the NWS's station placement standards. A study of this was done by volunteers (http://www.surfacestations.org/) and over 1000 of the 1221 stations have been inspected and photographed.

Also, if a temperature gauge is recording an improper reading due to incorrect placement or location it is inclined to read too high. It's only likely to read too low if the gauge itself is malfunctioning.

8/31/2011 7:57:13 PM

Let's say I grant that. Does it matter? They're tracking change over time and unless you're suggesting that every bad site got worse (hotter due to poor placement) along the same distribution of time I'm not sure how this disproves that the country is getting hotter over time.

Also there's this:

Quote :

"Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis. Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its Page 3 of 4 annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends. "

Granted it's not as up to date as surfacestations.org but the numbers haven't significantly changed.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

But of course, that's what they would say, right?

Also, what in the fuck does the LHC have to do with Global Warming?

[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2011 8:15:14 PM

^^ And there's the site.... I've read it. If I could make the giant rolly eyes, I would. This isn't some kind of giant conspiracy perpetrated by the NWS. That site is horribly biased, volunteers or not. It's been completely discredited in this discussion before. It's weird how this whole mess is cyclical. I expect this kind of garbage from aaronburro and hooksaw (the original poster of it), but you're smarter than this.

[Edited on August 31, 2011 at 8:26 PM. Reason : *sigh*]

8/31/2011 8:26:00 PM

Quote :

"The problem is even if I were to grant every single claim that you've given in this thread, the case for AGW remains. The totality of evidence for AGW is not Mann's study."

You are correct, but if you granted all of our claims, then you would have to agree that clouds and solar cycles need to be taken into account. You would have to agree that UHI is a major contributor to the observed warming. You'd also have to agree that there has been some creative adjusting to the temperature record. Much of that, alone, leaves AGW, at best, unproven.

Quote :

"I feel like there is a lot of appeal to a strawman authority"

Citing a consensus is the definition of an appeal to authority.

Quote :

"But he's going to make different decisions than other people who publish papers,"

You mean like Keith Briffa, who did the exact same thing as he did and made a study that focused heavily on a small set of proxies and then chopped off data from his model to "hide the decline"?

Quote :

"and no matter how prominent he is, he is only one voice out of many"

Not entirely true at all. He was a lead author / reviewer of at least one section of the IPCC's TAR in 2001. That's far more than just some random guy out in the woods beatin his pecker.

Quote :

"A researcher should handle the data sets in whatever way accomplishes the best science"

Damn straight. And giving data sets that happen to fit your hypothesis 395 times the weight as data sets that don't is NOT "good science," no matter how you slice it.

Quote :

"the same exact bullshit graphs and universally debunked arguments"

McIntyre and McKitrick have yet to be "debunked". In fact, three separate studies/reports upheld the main points of their study.

Quote :

"I'd be careful throwing around the word "majority" unless you'd like to provide more than that tired old site that shows a handful of poorly placed and largely irreverent stations."

If by "handful", you mean "a vast majority", then sure.

Quote :

"It's only likely to read too low if the gauge itself is malfunctioning."

Not entirely true.

Quote :

"Let's say I grant that. Does it matter?"

Absolutely. If the previous conditions at the site didn't have the now-corrupting influence, then it most certainly matters. If you have heat sources encroaching over time on a station, then it most certainly is going to change the trend. yes, if nothing changed at that site from 1970 to now, then it doesn't matter, but that scenario is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Quote :

"That site is horribly biased"

What, exactly, is biased about taking fucking pictures and then using the NWS's own fucking criteria to judge stations?

Quote :

"Also, what in the fuck does the LHC have to do with Global Warming?"

They recently did some experiments involving cloud formation and cosmic rays and found some kind of link, or so they say.

as for your analysis, disco, if the "good" stations are still corrupted by UHI, then the fact that they "match" everything else is irrelevant. Moreover, this is another example of "so what if there's garbage in, the answer is still 'right'". That simply doesn't fly in science. If the station placement doesn't matter, then why even issue guidelines for it? Doesn't make much sense. Moreover, this sentence is key:

Quote :

"Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same "

AKA, they dicked with the numbers, which means there is no real comparing. They've already dicked with it, so of course it "fits".

8/31/2011 11:24:50 PM

I'd like for burro and his ilk to take a trip around to places like KDRU, KJNX, KIGX, KBUY, KHNZ, KGSO, KCLT and report back about how awfully they are placed. Until then, shut the fuck up about weather stations and your shitty ass, agendaed website. Better yet, man the hell up and take your neck bearded, mouth-breathing ass down to the NWS on Centennial and exasperatedly show them your "proof" as to how they are somehow a part of this vast "global warming" hoax.

9/1/2011 12:30:11 AM

Quote :

"You mean like Keith Briffa, who did the exact same thing as he did and made a study that focused heavily on a small set of proxies and then chopped off data from his model to "hide the decline"?"

You know that the majority of climate science today is concerned with predicting future warming based on assumptions about our behavior.

Unlike other AWG believers here, I don't strongly care what the temperature record shows or doesn't show. Since the average temperature metric is only even claimed to have risen by a degree C at most, a natural variation could have canceled that in another world. We don't know, I had no expectation that records 1950-2010 would show verifiable warming. Now, I tend to believe the evidence does show this, but again... I don't care.

And surely, you don't dispute that humans will continue to produce more CO2. The only groups that go around publicly shouting that we can be off fossil fuels (AND nuclear ) by 2050 are groups like Greenpeace. Recent headlines saying that the IPCC said renewables can do this were wrong:

http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/62987/ipcc-renewables-report-hijacked-press-release

The IPCC never had any misconceptions that we could replace the majority of fossil fuels with renewables (and it's only barely the majority in this rosy scenario). That was 1 out of 164 scenarios they looked at with the caveat "if you had the political will to do this", which we don't.

I believe that you agree with the input to climate models at least - which is that we keep burning fossil fuels, and heck, we probably start burning them even faster. I'm just amazed at this continuous fixation with some 0.8 degree measurement by both sides.

When global warming actually screws up the climate you're gona know it.

9/1/2011 1:05:33 AM

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 1:58 AM. Reason : 53]

9/1/2011 1:55:21 AM

Quote :

"Absolutely. If the previous conditions at the site didn't have the now-corrupting influence, then it most certainly matters. If you have heat sources encroaching over time on a station, then it most certainly is going to change the trend. yes, if nothing changed at that site from 1970 to now, then it doesn't matter, but that scenario is highly unlikely, if not impossible."

Is it your contention then that every single station had heat sources encroaching over time at the same rate not related to natural environment heating?

The ones meeting the standards cited all suggest rising temperatures. Ignoring the thousands deemed "incorrect", what does this mean? Now, take into account the inaccurate ones that all trend up in a similar fashion. Did the inaccurate locations just happen to have artificial heating in the relative temporal pattern as the correct ones did due to natural environment heating? That's fucking amazing!

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2011 2:14:10 AM

HockeyRoman, how is that site and study biased? They evaluated weather station sites based on the NWS's own criteria and documented them with photos. I'd understand it to be biased if they faked photos and lied about the locations but I don't see how that is the case?

What do you guys think about this study regarding controlling soot? It seems like a much easier fix than reducing CO2.

Quote :

"Cutting soot emissions: Fastest, most economical way to slow global warming DENVER, Aug. 31, 2011 — A new study of dust-like particles of soot in the air — now emerging as the second most important — but previously overlooked — factor in global warming provides fresh evidence that reducing soot emissions from diesel engines and other sources could slow melting of sea ice in the Arctic faster and more economically than any other quick fix, a scientist reported here today."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/soot-easier-to-control-than-co2-may-help-arctic-ice/#more-46463

9/1/2011 10:05:17 AM

Saving the planet is hard, so we shouldn't even try

9/1/2011 11:25:40 AM

lol, you go right ahead and spend your trillions to possibly lower the avg air temp by 0.5°C

9/1/2011 2:00:00 PM

There's a difference between acknowledging AGW and wanting to spend trillions on it.

I do think people have affected the climate... but then again we shouldn't drive our economy into the ground to fix it either.

9/1/2011 2:27:37 PM

TWW is smarter than CERN.

9/1/2011 3:03:23 PM

Let's see what the lead researcher of the CERN experiment you're all blowing your loads over says about it's implications on the climate change debate,

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Quote :

""At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says."

But hey, Fox News ran a headline that said "NEW RESEARCH SETTLES THE CLIMATE DEBATE" so it must be true.

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM. Reason : :]

9/1/2011 4:05:42 PM

If you were to read this thread, you would think that the case for global warming was based totally on surface station data.

9/1/2011 4:22:49 PM

Quote :

"I do think people have affected the climate... but then again we shouldn't drive our economy into the ground to fix it either."

I don't know, would it be worse to drive it into the ground by limiting emissions or drive it into the ground by watching millions of immigrants from the global south leaving areas of India and Africa in unprecedented numbers (even by today's standards) for the global north?

9/1/2011 4:51:46 PM

Quote :

"If you were to read this thread, you would think that the case for global warming was based totally on surface station data."

lol, so true.

9/1/2011 4:58:16 PM

US surface station data, no less.

9/1/2011 6:07:10 PM

News channels and various websites use temp/dew point and other surface weather data from airports in their presentations. They must be in on the hoax as well...

9/1/2011 6:42:29 PM

^ are they using these to evidence the fact that global warming is happening?

9/2/2011 8:45:52 AM

^^^^I hope nobody thinks that's what I was implying

Airports are used a lot for measurements, but if you think about it they're a pretty poor representation of the surrounding areas. Of course there's no doubt they're maintained to a high standard (for obvious reasons).

9/2/2011 9:04:14 AM

I fail to see how being representative of the surrounding environment matters when you're measuring relative change over time.

9/2/2011 9:26:54 AM

my statement was a standalone one. I wasn't.

[Edited on September 2, 2011 at 9:46 AM. Reason : of course nevermind that airports expand and add huge runways and buildings, all which hold in heat.]

9/2/2011 9:45:41 AM

Let me know when KRDU reads consistently higher than KIGX (Chapel Hill). Until then, the notion of expanding airports holds no merit.

9/2/2011 11:12:19 AM

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/editor-of-journal-behind-controversial-climate-paper-resigns.ars

Quote :

"Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms—and chosen to resign. The paper in question, by noted contrarian Roy Spencer, uses an extremely simple model in an attempt to separate the factors that force the climate from those that act as feedback to changes in the climate. A number of climate scientists, however, wrote about how the model had been simplified to the point of being useless (one of the more detailed examples comes from BYU geochemist Barry Bickmore). These criticisms, however, haven't generally made it into the peer reviewed literature, the lone exception cited in the resignation being a paper that's not a direct critique of Spencer's work. Those same criticisms were reiterated once Spencer published his most recent paper. "

9/2/2011 1:43:50 PM

^ More on that:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

9/6/2011 12:57:43 PM

Ah, so the editor was pressured to resign.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/

Analysis that shows neither Spencer or Trenberth's studies found much correlation.

9/6/2011 3:49:02 PM

Oops! You missed the edits at the bottom of the Forbes post:

Quote :

"I guess you didn’t bother to READ Wagner’s editorial about why he is resigning. If you had, you couldn’t claim that anyone “bullied” him. His comments are blistering about the failure of the peer-review process, about the authors failure to properly consider contradictory evidence, and about the false media reports (some pushed by the authors) about what the paper said. Wagner is obviously a man of conscience. Pretty desperate to attack the messenger."

Feel free to read the whole thing. I'm sure WATTS UP WITH THAT has cracked the code within it, but he pretty clearly outlines why he left and if you can find any bullying in there, then you're trying too hard:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf



But kudos again to Roy Spencer, the only climatologist actively doing serious work that is in his prime that holds so steadfastly to this:


I love this guy. I first heard him on Coast to Coast AM, my favorite pseudo-science and alien chat program. He was on after a woman who had been abducted 7 times.

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM. Reason : x]

9/6/2011 4:48:51 PM

Quote :

"I'd like for burro and his ilk to take a trip around to places like KDRU, KJNX, KIGX, KBUY, KHNZ, KGSO, KCLT and report back about how awfully they are placed. Until then, shut the fuck up about weather stations and your shitty ass, agendaed website."

what? I need to go to TV stations now?

Quote :

"You know that the majority of climate science today is concerned with predicting future warming based on assumptions about our behavior. "

and a perfect way to show those possible futures is by... hiding the fact that your model doesn't fucking work with observed data? waaahh?

Quote :

"I'm just amazed at this continuous fixation with some 0.8 degree measurement by both sides."

why? when the specific change we are talking about is on that order of magnitude? Look, if the change was 100s of degrees and we were bitching about a thermometer being off a half a degree, you'd have a point. but when the purported change is half a degree and the margin of error is half a degree? that's a significant point, man.

Quote :

"The ones meeting the standards cited all suggest rising temperatures."

AFTER correction. AKA, after dicking with the numbers, possibly by "correction" with stations over 900 miles away! read it again. It says "homogeneity-adjusted" temperatures. That adjustment is deeply at fault, so to say "look, this one matches this one after we dick with it" is highly disingenuous.

Quote :

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says."

bingo. I saw that study and knew people were gonna go apeshit about it.

Quote :

"If you were to read this thread, you would think that the case for global warming was based totally on surface station data."

it kind of is.

Quote :

"US surface station data, no less."

actually, work is now being done to record conditions at global sites, and they are finding many similarly-flawed stations.

Quote :

"I fail to see how being representative of the surrounding environment matters when you're measuring relative change over time."

because the airport hasn't always been there in that state. But, yes, throw jet exhaust onto a thermometer and tell me that's not going to change the result...




aaaaand, I KNEW you were going to comment on the editor resigning. hahahaha. WAAAAAAAAAHHH, THEY GOT A PAPER IN!!! I BETTER RESIGN!!!! Did he actually find problems with it? No. he just claimed it had problems. Did he retract it? Of course not. if there are fatal problems with it, why not retract it instead of resigning? riiiiiiiiiight. Because it gives a better narrative to say "that paper was so bad the editor resigned!" You don't even have to comment on the paper any more after that. And then the problem with "failing to consider how the media would report on it"? REALLY? That's what climate science is concerned about now? jesus

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2011 6:23:15 PM

Quote :

"I need to go to TV stations now?"

You think those are tv stations? Thanks for confirming everyone's longstanding belief that you are completely clueless...

9/6/2011 6:56:36 PM

that's all you got? you give me a bunch of four letter symbols and ask me to "go there", and the letters start with a K. I guess you want me to do your work and figure out what they are, too. how about you stop being fucking coy and say what they mean, so I can then again show you how stupid bringing them up is

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2011 7:03:24 PM

Aww, poor thing. You bring up something as your "proof" and then demonstrate that you don't even know what you're looking at/talking about. Much like your abortion crusade and then flailing hopelessly on IVF.

9/6/2011 7:11:34 PM

hahahaha. you post another example of yourself being hopelessly obtuse and somehow that is my problem? hahahaha
newsflash: it's not my job to research your bullshit claims to figure out what the hell you are talking about. if you can't reference your shit reasonably well, I'm just gonna ignore it

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2011 7:13:00 PM

Christ almighty...is aaronburro really so retarded he does not recognize those callsigns? Sounds like he is (in his own earlier words) "random guy out in the woods beatin his pecker". And having spent a good deal of time at NWS RAH doing Skywarn Spotter Net Control I do have to admit the intelligent folks there would have a good laugh at his regurgitation of far right talking points.
Me thinks they would view him as such:

9/6/2011 7:32:26 PM

So just that everyone is clear, if you speak of things that are clearly out of aaronburro's league even after he was the one to spout something he found on some website in the first place, then you are automatically "hopelessly obtuse".

9/6/2011 8:00:18 PM

still waiting for you to make a point. I should go check out some random place that you won't say what it is. got it. now, what's your point? clearly I guessed wrong initially. i guess I need to guess again. are they moles on your backside? or are you going to continue being obtuse?

9/6/2011 9:53:15 PM

The point was made. You simply either chose to ignore it or missed it entirely. What you have demonstrated is that you either haven't read the very site you've been touting or you simply didn't understand what the hell you were looking at (both are equally plausible given your record) but rather just sat back and said "See! This guy says their wrong so global warming is a hoax!! Nah nah!!"

9/6/2011 11:37:41 PM

and you continue not to say what the hell you are talking about. instead you say "hahaha, you don't know the obtuse thing I am talking about, hahahahaha" and you fail to make any point while doing so. why do I need to visit those stations? what will it do for me? how will it help your point in any way, shape, or form? right, it won't. now, make a god damned point or shut the fuck up

again, it's not my job to make any sense out of the gibberish and cryptic shit you post. that's your fucking job. much like the IVF nonsense, you make an obtuse reference to something, and then act all smug that you "got me," when in all reality, you just said something that was enough to be possibly related yet not enough for anyone to legitimately google to figure out what the hell you are talking about. and then you act surprised when someone asks you to explain.

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2011 11:43:12 PM

Quote :

"why? when the specific change we are talking about is on that order of magnitude? Look, if the change was 100s of degrees and we were bitching about a thermometer being off a half a degree, you'd have a point. but when the purported change is half a degree and the margin of error is half a degree? that's a significant point, man."

Yes. So let's just say that the models had predicted 0.8 +/- 0.5 degrees.

Before I even look at the data, what is my expectation, and what are my conclusions given any outcome? Well, anything between -0.3 and 1.3 is mostly inconclusive and doesn't prove anything. It's similar to how you can prove any physical theory. You can only disprove them.

Outcomes greater than 2.0 or smaller than -1.5 would strongly suggest that the model was incorrect. In fact, that would be a pretty good conclusion in that case. But neither of these are the case. No matter who you listen to, temperature has been stable, and the predicted changes have been small enough that at least experimental evidence does not disprove the model.

The models are falsifiable on time scales of several decades into the future from now. This is fact.

9/7/2011 12:03:26 AM

^^ Yet everyone else with a solid foundation of knowledge of one or both of those topics knew exactly what I was referencing so more likely what you characterize as "cryptic shit" was merely you once again demonstrating your inability to even marginally grasp a concept that you seem so determined to try and not only tackle but refute.

9/7/2011 1:07:12 AM

Quote :

"Feel free to read the whole thing. I'm sure WATTS UP WITH THAT has cracked the code within it, but he pretty clearly outlines why he left and if you can find any bullying in there, then you're trying too hard:"

Nah, I read his "statement". But let's look a little deeper. He pissed off Trenberth by letting this study be published. Unfortunately for him Trenberth chairs the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment. And Wagner is the head of a group trying to start a Soil Moisture Network. That is also a group that wants the help of this Global Energy & Water Cycle Experiment. Good luck getting that help after allowing that study to be published.

kiss the ring Wagner, kiss the ring

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 8:40 AM. Reason : I wasn't familiar with the stations HockeyRoman gave, but I was pretty sure they weren't radio/TV ]

9/7/2011 8:37:48 AM

Quote :

"...is aaronburro really so retarded"

Yup, he is.

9/7/2011 1:11:12 PM

^^Ah yes, once again, the Science Mafia OBVIOUSLY (based on your own reasoning, not the statement) forced this. Also, LUCRATIVE GRANT BONANZAS.

Seriously, who do you think is the more profitable funder? Who actually sees it as an investment towards furthering their interests (or is there a lucrative futures market in carbon credits that has been hidden from us that all these people are scampering for like some 3rd rate James Bond villains?)?

9/7/2011 1:19:25 PM

Quote :

"The models are falsifiable on time scales of several decades into the future from now. This is fact."

and yet, they are spoken about as if they are fact right now and that we should make policy decisions on them right now. You don't see a problem with that?

Quote :

"Yet everyone else with a solid foundation of knowledge of one or both of those topics knew exactly what I was referencing so more likely what you characterize as "cryptic shit" was merely you once again demonstrating your inability to even marginally grasp a concept that you seem so determined to try and not only tackle but refute."

and yet, you still haven't explained why you brought them up. please, forgive me for not delving into the naming system of weather stations. i am truly so much worse off for not knowing the moniker for the station sitting right underneath an A/C vent. yep, that changes everything. now, AGAIN, WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING POINT? That you know how to reference station X properly? Good on you!

Quote :

"Seriously, who do you think is the more profitable funder? "

are you really asking that? Do you REALLY think that EXXON is giving more money than governments and the green lobby. are you that fucking stupid?

9/7/2011 1:30:32 PM

Quote :

"and yet, they are spoken about as if they are fact right now and that we should make policy decisions on them right now. You don't see a problem with that?"

My parents used to tell me this regarding right-of-way in traffic accidents:

"You can be right, and you can also be dead right"

9/7/2011 3:05:51 PM

so, we should make policy decisions based on mere spectres and that's a good idea to you. got it

9/7/2011 7:33:55 PM

if a meteor had a 95% chance of hitting Earth and causing a mass extinction we would do something about it.

Apparently that's not enough risk when it comes to greenhouse gases.

9/7/2011 7:47:20 PM