We have been gored by Gore!

boyntonstu · 2nd February 2010, 05:57 AM

We have been gored by Gore!

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-weather-fraud

…..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..

How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy?

Follow the money, follow the money.

DC · 2nd February 2010, 06:07 AM

yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet.

folow the money? as if we really are doing ANYTHING significant against climate change..... Copenhagen saved our climate so much.... not !

Upchurch · 2nd February 2010, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

We have been gored by Gore!

I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article.

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

…..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..

'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that?

I direct your attention to this.

(we almost need that as an emoticon.)

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy?

Probably more trust than we can have in Pseudo-Science and Politics when the spew nonsense to affect policy.

Thunder · 2nd February 2010, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..

this is an issue I have too thought about. but then I was told that scientists are not stupid people, and adjust temperature readings to factor in heat-island effect.

what evidence do you have that they are not factoring in the concrete, asphalt, and brick heat island effect?

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 06:53 AM

Yeah…

If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there. You can also look at just rural sites and see the exact same thing. The final nail in the coffin for this little conspiracy theory is that the effects of urbanization have been removed from temperature data for a long time.

mhaze · 2nd February 2010, 07:34 AM

Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that?

I direct your attention to this.

The problem isn't that they didn't think to control...the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data, or the raw data itself, or both.

marksman · 2nd February 2010, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there.

Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs...

tyr_13 · 2nd February 2010, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs...

Really the living in the mermaid inner cities is much more sustainable than most other forms of living. It's the mermaid sub-urban sprawl you have to worry about.

Ryokan · 2nd February 2010, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article.

He's the one that invented the whole climate change fraud, don't you know?

Upchurch · 2nd February 2010, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable.

Because... why?

"Climategate" was a legitimate controversy and not a smear-job based on out-of-context statements?

I refer you to my above link.

Darth Rotor · 2nd February 2010, 09:05 AM

I'd like to point out that the measured change of the CO2 content of seawater is not a myth.

That facet of climate change, whatever you wish to discuss in re readings on thermometers, is an indicator that we need greater CO2 absorption, and less CO2 production, since the capacity of the oceans to absorb is finite.

Plant more trees. And a few more, while you are at it.

DR

varwoche · 2nd February 2010, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

We have been gored by Gore!

Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh.

Quote:

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

Quote:

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas

Someone send a memo to the glaciers, the permafrost and the biota -- tell them to chill out.

Quote:

How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy?

Pseudo-skeptical arm waving.

Quote:

Follow the money, follow the money.

Pseudo-skeptical arm waving.

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data

Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is…

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh.

That doesn’t matter, all right thinking libertarians know Gore is running a massive global conspiracy of scientists to pick on the little oil companies and make megabucks form themselves!!!!

theprestige · 2nd February 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by DC

yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet.

There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. Al Gore could have gone with that, and nobody would have complained (though they might have expected him to set a good example in not polluting).

Upchurch · 2nd February 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason.

What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled?

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is…

You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect!

Originally Posted by UpChurch

What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled?

Anthropogenic Global Warming. Mostly the hockey stick. Oh, and the realization that in light of the scientific gyrations over our nicely chilled present winter season, AGW can now explain anything.

Peephole · 2nd February 2010, 11:59 AM

Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot.

Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...

Peephole · 2nd February 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect!

Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations.

CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot.

Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

That is not the case.

Originally Posted by Peephole

Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.

More likely, it's because the "deniers" haven't invented time travel yet to grab the raw data from one hundred fifty years. That seems to be the time frame we're looking at, as far as I can tell.

Upchurch · 2nd February 2010, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

Yeaaaah. This.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Yeaaaah. This.

No, this.

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

That is not the case.

Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

Dancing David · 2nd February 2010, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

Quote:

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Quote:

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about? By the way, CRU didn't use "national weather organizations." What they mean by weather stations are things like these:

Quote:

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

From the OP's article. No, these are not weather stations manned by people that keep individual records.

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about?

a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.

A sign of things to come?

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. Now please stop talking about things you don't know about. It is clear that there was data that only CRU possessed that was key to their conclusions. Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. The data from those weather stations in China was incorrigibly compromised (and that doesn't even have to do with the other data fiasco).

Obviously CRU is not the keeper of all climate data in the world; just the stuff they based their conclusions on.

Guybrush Threepwood · 2nd February 2010, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Quote:

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

I'm sorry Varwoche, but this clearly shows you have not read the article. The paper being disputed was from 1990. Urban heat islands was really an end of the eighties thing, like the Happy Mondays.

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 01:46 PM

Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

varwoche · 2nd February 2010, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.

Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)

varwoche · 2nd February 2010, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. ... Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again.

Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.

Originally Posted by varwoche

Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)

You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that.

Quote:

Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin?

lomiller · 2nd February 2010, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.

Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

What you don't understand is that your mouth is not made of solid gold. Phil Jones co-published that research paper (referenced in the OP) with a Chinese-American researcher in 1990. Now, for some reason, it's hard to find when his term actually began at CRU - but if it did before 1990, that would be CRU actually taking in raw data from weather stations. Ahem. Perhaps you could be useful for once and find out if that is true or not.

Sporanox · 2nd February 2010, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

Oh, by the way...

Originally Posted by The Guardian

The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.

2008. Now if you mean that the heat phenomenon is only slightly supposed to affect global warming, then you would be right according to what's come out so far. But it did seem you were implying something else.

Thunder · 2nd February 2010, 07:19 PM

just out of curiosity, how to climatalogists adjust temperature readings to factor in various amounts of heat island effect?

a thermometer near grey concrete will have less of a heat island effect than near black asphalt.

wouldn't every single thermometer require a separate and unique heat island adjustment?

2nd February 2010, 05:57 AM	#1
boyntonstu Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 916	We have been gored by Gore! We have been gored by Gore! Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-weather-fraud …..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas….. How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy? Follow the money, follow the money.

2nd February 2010, 06:07 AM	#2
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet. folow the money? as if we really are doing ANYTHING significant against climate change..... Copenhagen saved our climate so much.... not !
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

2nd February 2010, 06:53 AM	#5
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Yeah… If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there. You can also look at just rural sites and see the exact same thing. The final nail in the coffin for this little conspiracy theory is that the effects of urbanization have been removed from temperature data for a long time.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 07:34 AM	#6
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,384	Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

2nd February 2010, 07:45 AM	#7
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Upchurch 'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that? I direct your attention to this. The problem isn't that they didn't think to control...the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data, or the raw data itself, or both.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 06:34 AM	#3
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by boyntonstu We have been gored by Gore! I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article. Originally Posted by boyntonstu …..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas….. 'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that? I direct your attention to this. (we almost need that as an emoticon.) Originally Posted by boyntonstu How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy? Probably more trust than we can have in Pseudo-Science and Politics when the spew nonsense to affect policy.

2nd February 2010, 06:37 AM	#4
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by boyntonstu So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas….. this is an issue I have too thought about. but then I was told that scientists are not stupid people, and adjust temperature readings to factor in heat-island effect. what evidence do you have that they are not factoring in the concrete, asphalt, and brick heat island effect?

2nd February 2010, 07:49 AM	#8
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by lomiller If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there. Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs...

2nd February 2010, 08:03 AM	#9
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Originally Posted by marksman Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs... Really the living in the mermaid inner cities is much more sustainable than most other forms of living. It's the mermaid sub-urban sprawl you have to worry about.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

2nd February 2010, 08:41 AM	#10
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,172	Originally Posted by Upchurch I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article. He's the one that invented the whole climate change fraud, don't you know?

2nd February 2010, 08:56 AM	#11
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by mhaze Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable. Because... why? "Climategate" was a legitimate controversy and not a smear-job based on out-of-context statements? I refer you to my above link.

2nd February 2010, 09:05 AM	#12
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	I'd like to point out that the measured change of the CO2 content of seawater is not a myth. That facet of climate change, whatever you wish to discuss in re readings on thermometers, is an indicator that we need greater CO2 absorption, and less CO2 production, since the capacity of the oceans to absorb is finite. Plant more trees. And a few more, while you are at it. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

2nd February 2010, 09:09 AM	#13
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,230	Originally Posted by boyntonstu We have been gored by Gore! Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh. Quote: It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked). Quote: So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas Someone send a memo to the glaciers, the permafrost and the biota -- tell them to chill out. Quote: How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy? Pseudo-skeptical arm waving. Quote: Follow the money, follow the money. Pseudo-skeptical arm waving.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack) Last edited by varwoche; 2nd February 2010 at 09:18 AM.

2nd February 2010, 09:10 AM	#14
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Originally Posted by Sporanox the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is…
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 09:13 AM	#15
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Originally Posted by varwoche Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh. That doesn’t matter, all right thinking libertarians know Gore is running a massive global conspiracy of scientists to pick on the little oil companies and make megabucks form themselves!!!!
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 10:33 AM	#16
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565	Originally Posted by DC yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet. There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. Al Gore could have gone with that, and nobody would have complained (though they might have expected him to set a good example in not polluting).
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565

2nd February 2010, 10:46 AM	#17
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by theprestige There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled?

2nd February 2010, 11:42 AM	#18
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by lomiller Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is… You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect! Originally Posted by UpChurch What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled? Anthropogenic Global Warming. Mostly the hockey stick. Oh, and the realization that in light of the scientific gyrations over our nicely chilled present winter season, AGW can now explain anything.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 11:59 AM	#19
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot. Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	__________________ 911science

2nd February 2010, 12:01 PM	#20
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	Originally Posted by Sporanox You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect! Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	__________________ 911science

2nd February 2010, 12:04 PM	#22
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Peephole Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot. Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over... You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science. Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill Last edited by Sporanox; 2nd February 2010 at 12:11 PM. Reason: grammar

2nd February 2010, 12:08 PM	#23
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by lomiller CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece That is not the case. Originally Posted by Peephole Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science. More likely, it's because the "deniers" haven't invented time travel yet to grab the raw data from one hundred fifty years. That seems to be the time frame we're looking at, as far as I can tell.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 12:16 PM	#24
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by Sporanox You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science. Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs. Yeaaaah. This.

2nd February 2010, 12:47 PM	#25
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Upchurch Yeaaaah. This. No, this.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 01:15 PM	#26
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Originally Posted by Sporanox That is not the case. Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 01:21 PM	#27
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,705	Originally Posted by Sporanox You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science. Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs. By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area? So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean? We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long. Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

2nd February 2010, 01:24 PM	#28
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by lomiller Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting. Quote: The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Quote: It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about? By the way, CRU didn't use "national weather organizations." What they mean by weather stations are things like these: Quote: He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data. From the OP's article. No, these are not weather stations manned by people that keep individual records.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 01:31 PM	#29
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Originally Posted by Sporanox Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about? a) the link doesn’t work b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 01:32 PM	#30
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Dancing David By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area? So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean? We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long. Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising. Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2. A sign of things to come?
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 01:38 PM	#31
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by lomiller a) the link doesn’t work b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. Now please stop talking about things you don't know about. It is clear that there was data that only CRU possessed that was key to their conclusions. Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. The data from those weather stations in China was incorrigibly compromised (and that doesn't even have to do with the other data fiasco). Obviously CRU is not the keeper of all climate data in the world; just the stuff they based their conclusions on.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

2nd February 2010, 01:42 PM	#32
Guybrush Threepwood Trainee Pirate Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: An Uaimh Posts: 1,560	Originally Posted by varwoche Quote: It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked). I'm sorry Varwoche, but this clearly shows you have not read the article. The paper being disputed was from 1990. Urban heat islands was really an end of the eighties thing, like the Happy Mondays.

2nd February 2010, 01:46 PM	#33
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,863	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd February 2010, 01:52 PM	#34
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,230	Originally Posted by Sporanox Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2. Cooling? What cooling? 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

2nd February 2010, 04:18 PM	#35
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,230	Originally Posted by Sporanox I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. ... Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

2nd February 2010, 05:15 PM	#36
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by lomiller Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate. This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections. On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most. Originally Posted by varwoche Cooling? What cooling? 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA) You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that. Quote: Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme. Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin?
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill