Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have ANY idea what I was speaking of? And no, it wasn't NASA.
And yes, silly deniers. Are you one of those who claims there is no warming at all?
Yes, I am quite well aware of what you are speaking of and some rural spots vary due to vegetation as well which is why the requirements for measuring ground temperature are specific to avoid locality effects such as hot pockets of vegetation, tarmac influence, air conditioning units and the like.
Your "discovery" temperature variations through locals while entertaining, is not a support of your suggested conclusion. It does show your lack of understanding of how they monitor surface temperatures and why it is important to properly maintain them.
We talk about the stations, the variations of temperatures and the problems with letting warming bias creep in. You claim you are so "keen" in your observations, but while you were patting yourself on the back for being so brilliant, I doubt you ever considered the surface stations and the problems with UHI as well as other varying calibration issues these stations have. It probably never occurred to you that the USHCN network is in terrible shape. They have some good stations, but the number of bad stations outnumber the good ones by a great number. You were likely never even aware of it. I mean, this is't information that they like to make known and certainly the talking point sites for the enviroidiots is going to mention as it detracts from their message. www.surfacestations.org
And that isn't even getting into the issues with them homogenizing the data to fit warmer trends. Not only do they (NASA) show a tendency to select stations with extremely poor CRN ratings, but they also like to work the data with some fancy math that, well /gasp, even makes it turn out warmer. (following is what I responded to you with)
You also were probably so concerned about the planet suddenly turning into a fire ball why you read the emotionalizing and fearful information from your informative (tm) sites that you probably even missed all of the information available that actually shows the problems with these stations. Here are some pretty pictures to keep your attention.
Just in case you wanted to know what a proper site looks like:
You sure really put us science hating "denizers" in our place though. I mean, we are just propaganda right? I mean, we always avoid talking about the specifics of the issue and simply point to administrations and evade anything that might deal with the actual science right? Oh wait, I am sorry, that would be your side.
So please excuse me if I don't take your support for your position because you noticed a bit of a change in temps when you were driving out of town. That type of weak conclusive focus might be what you and your side accept as "scientific", but some of us see it for what it really is, blowing smoke up peoples arse.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-14-2010 at 01:36 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted text and your response to it.
Yes, I am quite well aware of what you are speaking of and some rural spots vary due to vegetation as well...
No you're not. And yes, vegetation plays a role, but that is also a point I've made (deforestation, for example). It is a no-brainer, you don't need to write a half page thesis to explain that. In fact, you're just elaborating on my point, that human influence (deforestation, concrete jungles are creating zones of higher ambient temperature).
Quote:
So please excuse me if I don't take your ignorant summary of support for your position because you noticed a bit of a change in temps when you were driving out of town.
I am not looking for your support. In fact, far from it. I'm asking you to explain your position. To ask the question you left out: Do you support the idea that earth is warming up?
Don't worry about the causes, yet. We can discuss that later. Just that... is earth getting warmer as a whole? I need this to differentiate complete deniers from those who acknowledge a warming up but aren't ready to accept human influence. Where do you fall?
Ever as in whatever they choose it to be. Don't you know how the new science works? You create a hypothesis and then you mold the data to fit it. Its the new craze in science, its called creative science or sometimes referred to as political science.
Ever as in whatever they choose it to be. Don't you know how the new science works? You create a hypothesis and then you mold the data to fit it. Its the new craze in science, its called creative science or sometimes referred to as political science.
How did "old" science work? BTW, how is NASA measuring the temperature variance? Could you tell them how to do it properly?
So, NASA has released sets of data showing that this January to June has been the hottest January to June on record.
I'm expecting the people who offered snowflakes in Podunk, TX as proof against global warming to now make a 360 and say it is now a reality due to this new data.
Climate must be measured over thousands of year and trend evaluated over millions of years.
Looking at the "climate" of the last month is like trying to read a bill board with your face plastered one inch from the surface- it is a poor perspective.
Given that the only long term data, the fossil record, clearly refutes global warming, the left chooses to ignore it. This is the antithesis of science, in which one has no vested interest in the outcome of a study, but is simply interested in the truth. The cult of global warming is only interested in any "data" (whether it is faked or innacurate or not) that reinforces thier pre-determined supposition.
OK, let us ASSUME that global warming is FACT...
Let us ASSUME that sea levels will rise as the ice melts...
Let us ASSUME that what is now prime agricultural land will become desert...
Got that firmly fixed in your mind?
Now then...
WHY is there no effort to relocate people and buildings that are close to the ocean shores?
WHY is there no planning to farm the now-frozen lands that will "soon" become prime agricultural land?
WHY is there no effort by ANY government to mitigate the effects of global warming?
WHY do "they" insist on stopping what may very well be unstoppable?
WHY can't the "experts" agree on the size in the change of sea level that will take place?
When I see action being taken, instead of continuing rhetoric, THEN perhaps I will believe.
By "action" I mean making an effort to DO something, instead of telling the world we have to STOP doing whatever "they" are against! Start relocating people and buildings. Start building dikes to hold the water back. Something. Anything. BUT do something!
No you're not. And yes, vegetation plays a role, but that is also a point I've made (deforestation, for example). It is a no-brainer, you don't need to write a half page thesis to explain that.
I am not looking for your support. In fact, far from it. I'm asking you to explain your position. To ask the question you left out: Do you support the idea that earth is warming up?
Don't worry about the causes, yet. We can discuss that later. Just that... is earth getting warmer as a whole? I need this to differentiate complete deniers from those who acknowledge a warming up but aren't ready to accept human influence. Where do you fall?
Is it getting warmer as a whole? What does that mean? Are you asking if it is getting warmer than it has ever been? No. That one is evident.
Has it been warming the last several years? Not really, we have been in a static or slightly cooling trend for the last 10 years or so. Regionally, we have shown some places above average, others below. By the way, even Trenberth admitted this in the emails with his famous:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
Also, the global results reported by GISS are messy (pretty much like everything they do). Gridcells are showing hot spots in some areas and the evidence is showing the reasons for it (as I explained in the previous post).
So, do I deny anything? Nope, but I am aware of what is conclusive and what is not and I have looked at a lot more of the data than you have (I have read your posts on the subject for a while).
If you were looking for an easy out with your question, you won't get one.
How did "old" science work? BTW, how is NASA measuring the temperature variance? Could you tell them how to do it properly?
Others have, they stone walled them and it led to a FOI scandal with the CRU and the CEI is suing NASA over its failure to provide its records as well. McIntryre showed Mann's Hockey stick to be garbage, he explained why the math was wrong, why using the data that way was unprecedented in statistical analysis and you know what he got, attacked. Heck he even pointed out the problems with Jones analysis only to get a response of:
"Why would I give you that information, we have put over 25 years into it and all you are going to do is try and prove it wrong"
*chuckle*
I don't think they are interested in the right ways, I think they are interested in their ways.
As for how "old" science works? Look up the scientific method, now apply it to your modeling happy climate demigods. If you don't see a problem, then I can't help you.
So, NASA has released sets of data showing that this January to June has been the hottest January to June on record.
I'm expecting the people who offered snowflakes in Podunk, TX as proof against global warming to now make a 360 and say it is now a reality due to this new data.
First, just going off the thread's title, I assumed that NASA had some amazing launches, possibly visiting Neptune with a craft designed for a soft landing. Another words, in the first half of the year NASA was looking good. They were HOT.
Now I find out that this heat is about the climate. Anyway, I've tried to convince a couple of guys at work that climate change is pretty much a no doubter. Glaciers are melting. Tropical plantlife is living in latitudes north of where they once could survive. There is some question as to why there is climate change. I tell folks that at least some, if not all of it is man-made. And there's valid reasons for this belief. But climate change is a tough sell. For some reason it's hard to believe. But then again, no one believed that a hurricane could have submerged huge areas of New Orleans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
