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.
Also, the issue is global warming not US warming. The US is a small fraction of the global area. Not saying the accuracy of American weather station is unimportant, but we shouldn't miss the big picture.
Satellite data correlates rather well with recent surface temperature data, with the exception satellite data is more responsive to El Niño / La Niña cycles.
The satellite data seems quite convincing to me over the past 30 years and bounds the potential impact of contamination of surface stations, a point made in a CA post on Berkeley last fall here. Prior to the satellite period, station histories are “proxies” of varying quality. Over the continental US, the UAH satellite record shows a trend of 0.29 deg C/decade (TLT) from 1979-2008, significantly higher than their GLB land trend of 0.173 deg C/decade. Over land, amplification is negligible.
The thing is, if the US network is in question, what does that mean for the world networks? Consider the fact that the US stations in "surface level evaluations" have a tendency to be more constrained to higher standards than many world stations (which was pointed out in some evaluations of world stations in various individual assessments).
Nothing that is a found will change anything. This concept of those clinging to their bias isn't a new issue. We have books filled with past people and organizations that refused to accept anything that did not bow to their dogma.
This is business as usually and I don't care if Watt's paper or any other came up with undeniable proof, we do not live in an age of science and reason, but in one of perception and manipulation. The truth these days is only as valid as the number of sheep you can flock to your cause.
Nothing that is a found will change anything. This concept of those clinging to their bias isn't a new issue. We have books filled with past people and organizations that refused to accept anything that did not bow to their dogma.
This is business as usually and I don't care if Watt's paper or any other came up with undeniable proof, we do not live in an age of science and reason, but in one of perception and manipulation. The truth these days is only as valid as the number of sheep you can flock to your cause.
Speaking of perception, is there any reason you didn't respond to post #71?
Also, I was courteous enough to let the members here know something about myself after you made the request. I think it is your turn, don't you think?
The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States, Canada and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it can't be anything but man-made global warming, according to a new statistical analysis from a top American scientist. Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact' - World - CBC News
Speaking of perception, is there any reason you didn't respond to post #71?
Is there any reason I should have? It wasn't directed at me and I don't respond to every poster that replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Also, I was courteous enough to let the members here know something about myself after you made the request. I think it is your turn, don't you think?
Why? I am not making any appeals to authority or asking anyone to take my qualifications as evidence of anything. It would provide nothing to the discussion.
Besides, you didn't identify yourself, you simply stated "I am one of them".
The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States, Canada and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it can't be anything but man-made global warming, according to a new statistical analysis from a top American scientist. Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact' - World - CBC News
Quote:
But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.
That however doesn't stop them from trying to sensationalize the issue. Like Russia's blocking high, they market on it, get the media to promote it and then when the facts come out later, just issue a statement on their site and hope nobody pays attention.
Quote:
Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn't have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes. But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the U.S. government's National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair one and often used because it is the"golden era" for good statistics
Now why is that? Could it be because their "golden era" is the low end of the record that makes recent high temps look as if they are unprecedented? I mean, never mind the 1930's, lets forget about those and the fact that our current records are only half as many as there were back then.
Now why is that? Could it be because their "golden era" is the low end of the record that makes recent high temps look as if they are unprecedented? I mean, never mind the 1930's, lets forget about those and the fact that our current records are only half as many as there were back then.
Business as usually for these folks.
The 1950s weren't exactly quiet; the mid 50s had a drought similar to the one we had now:
In any case, for the US the whole year has been running warm. I'm curious how the rest of the year plays out numberswise. Hoping for a really warm fall and early winter. Anyone else with me?
In any case, for the US the whole year has been running warm. I'm curious how the rest of the year plays out numberswise. Hoping for a really warm fall and early winter. Anyone else with me?
The thing is, by omitting the 1930's, even though the 1950's had some hot periods, you skew the data to a given perception. As I said, the 1930's in the US is the "HOT" period to which we should be measuring to (including the 1950's) as it was the time to which produced the major drougt to which we know as the "Dust bowl". It seems reasonable and prudent that if we are going to proclaim droughts of major proportions and hint at the recurrence of the "dust bowl", that the analysis actually contain the periods to which this occurred.
Honestly, it is hard to take serious analysis that refuses to even consider past data. I understand that more recent data may be more "reliable" in that it is produced from sources that are more amiable to certain analysis, but to do such and then essentially ignore the past historical data is irresponsible, not so much in a given analysis, but in the manner to which the analysis is often used to promote policy. It permeates of bias and motive, not scientific inquiry.
As for the heat we are experiencing, well... seems like it is on track. We moved into an El Nino and this seems to produce heat in the US as we are seeing if you look back into the relations.
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.
