20 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

Anthony Watts finally got the surface station project paper peer reviewed and accepted. All volunteer! NO grants or tax money paid for this important piece of science that shows just how incompetent the NOAA, NCDC, et al have been when it comes to measuring temperature changes in the US.

http://wattsupwithth...paper-accepted/

This is amazing on so many levels.

[Rogerdodger]

All the news outlets seem to be settled.

I wonder if this might be part of it:

Soros Linked to Over 30 Major News Organizations; ABCNEWS Amanpour sits on board...

NPR Scandal Puts Federal Funding in Doubt as "Billionaire George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR to hire 100 new reporters."

Edited by Rogerdodger, 12 May 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[OEXCHAOS]

It really makes you wonder... Some of the behavior by some "climate scientists" is so outlandish and their science so shoddy that it makes me wonder how easily other branches of science have been corrupted. I want to distill this in no uncertain terms: The US land temperature record is unreliable. 90% of the surface stations are non-compliant with NOAA standards. This means that it is just as likely that the US land temperature record shows no warming or even COOLING, rather than warming over the last 100 years. No one can say with any reasonable certainty that such is NOT the case. This means that anyone who relied upon the US land temperature record for their studies has to call their own work into question. This is BAD. Horrifying. A huge body of scientific work is near useless thanks to the shoddy work and perhaps game playing by some. Mark

[MaryAM]

It really makes you wonder... Some of the behavior by some "climate scientists" is so outlandish and their science so shoddy that it makes me wonder how easily other branches of science have been corrupted.

I want to distill this in no uncertain terms: The US land temperature record is unreliable. 90% of the surface stations are non-compliant with NOAA standards. This means that it is just as likely that the US land temperature record shows no warming or even COOLING, rather than warming over the last 100 years. No one can say with any reasonable certainty that such is NOT the case.

This means that anyone who relied upon the US land temperature record for their studies has to call their own work into question.

This is BAD. Horrifying. A huge body of scientific work is near useless thanks to the shoddy work and perhaps game playing by some.

Mark

Mark

You are soooooo correct. Climate changes have occurred in the geologic past hundreds of thousands of millions of times - there have been cooling and warming periods long before man ever walked the face of the earth mostly due to solar intensity cycles - thank goodness that's why we have oil, coal and natural gas. Can anyone prevent Mammoth mountain from emitting tons of CO2 - lets put a large tarp over it??? It's a bunch of people, too stupid to live or to even recognize their own incompetency, trying to justify their existence, since they are not growing anything, mining anything or making anything and we are now burning a very caustic substance in our cars that will ultimately put them in the environmentally unfriendly junk heap - ethanol. I have to say that my preference for energy is geo- thermal. Japan could have generated all of its electricity from geo-thermal sites (quite different from using it for heating and cooling in colder climates)- and they have quite a few where all they had to do was drill near volcanoes and generate steam. All we need to heat our homes are geo-thermal systems and a compressor - a system that will out last most of our houses but it is expensive to install initially. Now they have the worlds nuclear nightmare in progress and we are getting no news about it except from our own Bob-C.
Mary Anne

[diogenes227]

All the news outlets seem to be settled.

I wonder if this might be part of it:

Soros Linked to Over 30 Major News Organizations; ABCNEWS Amanpour sits on board...

NPR Scandal Puts Federal Funding in Doubt as "Billionaire George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR to hire 100 new reporters."

"Billionaire George Soros gave $1.8 million to NPR to hire 100 new reporters."

Maybe I missed it but I could not actually find this quote in the link. No wonder there's a scandal, that's only $18,000 each. That's even less than Walmart pays. I knew things were getting bad in journalism since Bush administration destroyed the economy but that is truly depressing. Given that a free, responsible and unfettered press is a cornerstone of democracy this makes me fear for the future of the American experiment. Fox News, by the way, is not a responsible news organization; it has been known to lie about virtually everything, serving as a propaganda machine solely on behalf of the rising oligarchic class. So maybe those reporters are actually getting more than they say (if they said actually said it?). For the sake of our democracy, let's hope so.



If you're not getting the point, the point is this is politics, politics, and nothing but politics.

Good luck and good trading.

[OEXCHAOS]

Oh, it's politics, alright...and the perversion of what's left of the mainstream media.

[Rogerdodger]

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know."

The science is settled? LOL!
If science is settled then why are there constantly new discoveries, many of which turn "scientific consensus" on it's head?
Here's a recent story line:
"In this ultraviolet light video taken by NASA, you can watch a phenomenon that scientists didn't believe could exist until a few months ago."

"scientists didn't believe could exist until a few months ago."
The science is settled?

Watch an entire hemisphere of the sun explode!
http://io9.com/57131...the-sun-explode

I wonder if there's any possibility that the sun has more effect on the earth than camels in Australia? NAW!
http://www.sfgate.co...NGG37ER2PUA.DTL
June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Killing wild camels in Australia may help the nation generate carbon credits under a plan proposed by Northwest Carbon, a land and animal management consultant, with climate legislation to be debated next week.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 13 June 2011 - 04:47 PM.

[salsabob]

In regard to the original paper that started this thread -

Putting aside the couple of grad students looking to please their thesis committee or get a job, there really are just two 'big names' on the paper. For the sake of argument, let's put aside one of them -


http://www.sourcewat...e=Anthony_Watts

Credentials held - Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]

Credentials not held - Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]

- and instead go with the guy on the paper that very few would dispute his credentials, Dr. Pielke, B.A. (mathematics), M.S/Ph.D. (meteorology); 300+ peer-reviewed scientific papers, who has published his on seperate conclusion about the paper with Watt's name on it -

http://pielkeclimate...all-et-al-2011/

and his conclusions from the "citizen volunteers" study -

Q: So is the United States getting warmer?

A: Yes in terms of the surface air temperature record. We looked at 30-year and 115-year trends, and all groups of stations showed warming trends over those periods.

Q: Has the warming rate been overestimated?

A: The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.

Q: Do the differing trend errors in maximum and minimum temperature matter?

A: They matter quite a bit. Wintertime minimum temperatures help determine plant hardiness, for example, and summertime minimum temperatures are very important for heat wave mortality. Moreover, maximum temperature trends are the better indicator of temperature changes in the rest of the atmosphere, since minimum temperature trends are much more a function of height near the ground and are of less value in diagnosing heat changes higher in the atmosphere; e.g see .

Q: What about mean temperature trends?

A: In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.

However, even the best-sited stations may not be accurately measuring trends in temperature or, more generally, in trends in heat content of the air which includes the effect of water vapor trends. Also, most are at airports, are subject to encroaching urbanization, and use a different set of automated equipment. The corrections for station moves or other inhomogeneities use data from poorly-sited stations for determining adjustments to better-sited stations.

Q: What’s next?

A: We also plan to look specifically at the effects of instrument changes and land use issues, among other things. The Surface Stations volunteers have provided us with a superb dataset, and we want to learn as much about station quality from it as we can.

Yes, truly amazing in so many ways, but pretty much along the lines of what the Menne et al paper concluded a couple years ago when refuting Watt -

http://www1.ncdc.noa...ne-etal2010.pdf

"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?

Funny, how this conclusion from the Menne paper is exactly what this new Pielke paper concludes (and Watt is suggesting is profound); it’s just that it was concluded a few years ago, but it's something more than nice to have confirmation in real science.

I can see why even this short thread quickly changed the subject. Kind of reminds one of this earlier event in the year -

http://www.accuweath...sensus-gets.asp

Global Warming Consensus gets a Surprise Boost Apr 5, 2011; 10:35 PM ET
UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians, led by professor Richard Muller, who has been critical of government run climate studies for many years, recently launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming by analyzing a large volume of temperature data.

By the way, the project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases, according to the Los Angeles Times.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups," according to the Times article.

The group was surprised by its findings, according to Muller, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined

Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

I mean look at these guys!

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[OEXCHAOS]

Muller has engaged in scumbaggery and IMO should not be trusted to be anything but a shill. Pilke has said a lot and I can dig through his articles as well as the one in question, if you like. BTW, you quote an obviously erroneous LA Times article. "the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases, according to the Los Angeles Times." I mean, are you REALLY posting that as something credible? If you're that lazy when it comes to fact checking, how many other sloppy conclusions are you going to post or regurgitate? Hell, we aren't even sure that atmospheric Co2 REALLY drives warming AT ALL.

[Rogerdodger]

Remember, a flat earth in the center of the universe was the scientific consensus of the day.
Galileo was called a denier in his day.

Want to know why Nobel Laureate Al Gore likely doesn't want to debate any of the myriad of scientists and politicians that have challenged him to such a tête-à-tête regarding his man-made global warming theories?
Al Gore Got a D in Natural Sciences at Harvard before getting a political peace prize for his great wisdom.
His main inconvenient proof consisted of Styrofoam props and "borrowed" fictional movie footage.
But he means well and profits accordingly.

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...d#ixzz1PCYnu2cc

But for those who insist on "buying insurance" just in case, what prevents you from living what you profess to believe?
Get off the Grid.
Walk. Grow your own food.
Use an outhouse, complete with corn cobs.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 13 June 2011 - 06:38 PM.