[NinerSevenTango]

The Strategy --

Trumpet alarmist headlines throughout the land, reinforce and reward the true believers, silence the opposition. Let it be a wave of pronouncements and proclamations, a triumph of the masses that will wash over everyone.

Then, when the inconvenient truth comes out, be as silent as possible. Let it be like blasphemies whispered in church -- the few who hear it will fear the consequences of listening. They will doubt their own ability to pass judgement. Surely the monolith cannot be wrong -- everything is based on it.

But it turns out that once again, the data was fudged. In order to make a dramatic outcome. That could be trumpeted across the land as final evidence that the activities of mankind in bettering his life are bringing about a global environmental catastrophe. And the only way to stop it is to stop the capitalist pigs NOW.

And so the evidence is out. It was all a big LIE. By exactly the same method as the hockey stick temperature graph LIE, the emergency news that 1998 was the hottest year on record is a LIE.

But it will be quietly swept under the rug.

Here is the big news, which will be kept quiet:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

Enjoy!

--97T--

[fizzissist]

Anthony Watts is spearheading the effort here in the U.S. to quantify the Stevenson Screens used in temperature measurements. There's 1221 of 'em, and so far around 200have been audited.

What is most interesting is the number of stations that are subject to .....well, let the pictures speak for themselves...

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Geof]

Anthony Watts is spearheading the effort here in the U.S. to quantify the Stevenson Screens used in temperature measurements. There's 1221 of 'em, and so far around 200have been audited.

What is most interesting is the number of stations that are subject to .....well, let the pictures speak for themselves...

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Yes, good reliable data collection.

Anyway, welcome back, and perhaps you can comment on this.

When you read a bit about how these "highest temperatures" wherever and whenever they were recorded, are defined it seems to me that they are almost meaningless regarding making a conclusion on climate change. The way I read it they are the most anomalous reading compared to a 30 year average; presumably the high anomaly.

There must be a low anomaly but this seems to be ignored, however, if the high and low occurred in contiguous years doesn't that render both of them useless for making any conclusion about anything. That is if they had a relevance in the first place.

Also because they are being compared to a temporally local average if there was an underlying oscillation longer than the period over which the average was taken, some anomalous highs would be lower than other anomalous highs but they are all counted as highs.

I thik it reinforces the adage that statisticians are the biggest liars of all.

[dynosor]

...however, if the high and low occurred in contiguous years doesn't that render both of them useless for making any conclusion about anything.

No. When the high point leads the low point over consecutive years it is ignored, but when the low point leads the high point, that is evidence of global warming...

[Geof]

No. When the high point leads the low point over consecutive years it is ignored, but when the low point leads the high point, that is evidence of global warming...

Yes, I overlooked that it definitely does 'prove' it.

Are you in training to be a statistician by any chance .

[dynosor]

Are you in training to be a statistician by any chance .

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[handlewanker]

Hi fellow earthmen, I don't know what you lot are spouting about, when you have low temperatures it's bl##dy cold, roll on global warming, warm is cool, cold is miserable, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

The environment will look after itself long after we are all gone, it's been doing just that since the beginning of time, but when a load of do gooders and investment councillors point the way to a profit margin slant, beware, vested interests will rule your life, and you aren't going to get out of it alive anyway.

Btw, as things are being "forecast", it might be a wise decision to sell up that waterfront property with the view that is priceless, because in 250 years time the water levels will have risen 2 metres, and then it will go down again to a new record low.

For the moment I'm enjoying riding around in my big gas guzzeler, because the government is making megabucks on the profits from oil revenues IT IMPORTS FOR OUR BENEFITS, and so they can afford to pay me my ever increasing pension payouts.
Yo' tink I know b##gger nothing, I know b## all.

If you really were concerned with environmental issues, then you would ban anything that replaced the air we breathe with toxic fumes, but that would be asking the investors to take a 100% profit loss on oil shares, and that goes for the human animal as well, the biggest consumer of clean air and largest polluter know.
Ian.

[totally_screwed]

Recently, there has been a widespread attack on meteorological station data, on the misunderstanding that these underpin recent warming trends.

This is not a genuine misunderstanding of the evidence but a coordinated & deliberate misinterpretation of the facts – a lie.

What is known is that the earliest station is South Carolina beginning 1871.
Records from 158 stations begin prior to 1900. Most station records are essentially complete for at least 50 years; the latest beginning year of record is 1948.

It is evident that the construction in proximity to the stations is post installation.

With this in mind, while the www.surfacestations.org survey has an outward appearance of being objective and unbiased, it was in-fact carefully contrived to achieve a hidden but substantial inbuilt bias towards sites close to population centres. It is inevitable that participants are going to photograph sites nearest them, so the sample will be heavily weighted towards sites near them where the encroachment of development is all too apparent.

Evidence of this bias is shown by the following sentence which has been altered:
"If you have a digital camera, a portable handheld GPS device with accuracy within 100 feet or better, and the ability to follow simple instructions, you can help us demonstrate that many of the assumptions about climate change based on the surface temperature record may in fact be due to faulty data!"
The underlined section has been replaced by “you can contribute to this database”
http://www.surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm

Continuity of data is important to meteorologists. So relocation of the stations is not an option that is willingly undertaken.

The effects of construction in proximity to stations do affect readings, but this is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and has been known at least since 1938! The station data have to be compensated for the UHI.

Quote
Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.
End quote
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

So the claims that the UHI affected station data are somehow responsible for the warming trend is wrong and a complete fabrication!

There is good reason to suspect that this coordinated attack has been triggered by the fossil-fuel-lobby, in an attempt to undermine the public's confidence in the science.

Even if the US surface station data were proved to be wrong, [the US is only ~ 2% of the world's surface!], it will however not make GW go away, because of the mass of data from many different sources that all points in the same direction.

An example is that of borehole data. Borehole temperatures are rising, because of heat seeping down from the surface.

Wherever the scientists look, the data say the same thing the earth is warming – fast!

The oceans, weather balloons, the surface stations, boreholes, satellites, glacial retreat, sea-ice, snow cover.

Observations of the natural world (non-meteorological); on land, plants & animals are migrating towards the poles; montane species are increasing their altitude, where possible; fish populations are likewise moving polewards to follow their food source in cold water. Polar species are in trouble.

Global warming is often misunderstood that this means warming everywhere. This is not the case. GW means an increase in average temperatures. Some temperatures are decreasing, as seen in Antarctica, and others are increasing by more than average. Climate patterns are changing, so new or larger deserts are a distinct possibility!
But this is entirely consistent with the models.

The models are based on the known physical behaviour of the components of the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere, solar radiation, volcanoes, and human emissions from industry, agriculture and other activities.

[NinerSevenTango]

@totally_screwed:

I see you missed the part where the model was shown to be not predictive of anything; where it has been proved that climate data is being intentionally fudged with secret algorithms to make it conform to the politically preordained conclusion (twice), the last one in particular dealing with just these ground stations; where the methodology for coming up with any kind of average has been shown to be so shaky as to not be defensible; and where the raw data from satellites and balloons does NOT correlate with ground based measurements. Not to mention the fact that killing all industry in developed nations will not have any impact on the temperature, except in the huts of the huddled masses, where it will be very cold in winter.

You're a little late to the classroom.

Yes, your viewpoint will win the day. They won't really kill all economic activity or human survival access to energy. They will just restrict it, tax it, and use the money and the power to rule you.

Edit: Your viewpoint will win because your kind chooses the peers to do the peer review, and ignores those who don't toe the line. But you'd better stay busy:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966
Looks like some of them are being cautious.

If I'm flying along in my fuel-wasting airplane, and my static port freezes over, I will break the glass on an instrument to get an alternate static source, however reluctant I might be to do so. If instruments are collecting bad data, that is worse than having no instrument at all.

[totally_screwed]

@totally_screwed:

I see you missed the part where the model was shown to be not predictive of anything; where it has been proved that climate data is being intentionally fudged with secret algorithms to make it conform to the politically preordained conclusion (twice), the last one in particular dealing with just these ground stations; where the methodology for coming up with any kind of average has been shown to be so shaky as to not be defensible; and where the raw data from satellites and balloons does NOT correlate with ground based measurements. Not to mention the fact that killing all industry in developed nations will not have any impact on the temperature, except in the huts of the huddled masses, where it will be very cold in winter.

You're a little late to the classroom.

Yes, your viewpoint will win the day. They won't really kill all economic activity or human survival access to energy. They will just restrict it, tax it, and use the money and the power to rule you.

Edit: Your viewpoint will win because your kind chooses the peers to do the peer review, and ignores those who don't toe the line. But you'd better stay busy:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966
Looks like some of them are being cautious.

If I'm flying along in my fuel-wasting airplane, and my static port freezes over, I will break the glass on an instrument to get an alternate static source, however reluctant I might be to do so. If instruments are collecting bad data, that is worse than having no instrument at all.

The link you supplied is politically biased merde du jour is a pack of lies and worthless. Try harder!.

You supply no evidence. Be specific, I'm not searching when you can point me directly to the instances referred to. References please!

As an example I will briefly debunk the Shulte survey featuring on the blog url you posted.
The Schulte 'survey' is merely a regurgitation of Benny Peiser's discredited and ultimately retracted failed rebuttal of Oreskes' peer-reviewed survey of research papers on climate change.
Schulte's failed rebuttal strangely even makes the same mistakes as Peiser.

Perhaps you could direct me where it has been published in an ISI peer-reviewed Journal? I think not!

Presumably the rest of your points are as significant!

You'll really have to try harder!

Seems like your jibe "You're a little late to the classroom", really applies to you!

[handlewanker]

Hi all you pseudu soothsayers and doomwatchers, I don't suppose for one minute that your model could predict where the weather pattern will be in 100 years from now?
I would like to invest in some waterfront property but I'm not sure how far inland to go to actually be on the waterfront or in it.
Given that the ice will melt and the rain will rain etc etc, how is it going to be?
I want to get up on the high ground before the rush.
Ian.

[Wade]

First, I would question why the Oil industry would care about Global Warming? The stuff is getting harder to come by, and other (exempt) nations will just use anything we don't use.

The Coal industry is another story. It's the one place the US has it's own supply.

Anytime someone has to adjust the data, there's lots of pressure to calculate it one way or the other. Temperature data near a heat Island is useless for long term world temperature analysis. The only thing it's good for is trending the future growth, and related heating effect, for the local area.

This brings up an interesting question. What if we find out that all the heating is due to heat islands, and dark particle emissions? What if carbon dioxide is not the biggest contributer at all, but solar absorptions from soot? How much soot would have to land on snow, to cause global temperatures to change? Think about it, to say that soot isn't effecting the planet, is the same as my saying that industrial waste heat doesn't heat the air. Wouldn't it be better if we spent all this money on the real problem, rather than the exciting one that scientist want to study? Your going to come to the same conclusion some day, carbon dioxide is largely a result of global warming, not the cause.

Unfortunately, Al Gore has proclaimed it so, so all non-believers shall be cast into the sea, much as a box of tea in Boston. Sharpen the guillotine, and let the Salem witch trails begin anew.