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.
In Oklahoma City, the temp averages have been down nearly every month for the past year, assuming the official weather station there is properly sited. If they switch to say its global cooling, that won't end well either.
How about we raise our standards for meteorology? Anthony Watts is an ex-television weather presenter on local tv in 2004, who does not hold actual meteorology credentials. He makes a living attempting to disprove real science. Maybe he should go back to school and get an actual degree.
"...So called “climate skeptics” deploy an arsenal of misleading graphics, with which the human influence on the climate can be down played (here are two other examples deconstructed at Realclimate). The image below is especially widespread. It is displayed on many “climate skeptic” websites and is regularly updated...."
"It requires quite some skill to produce a misleading graph like Watts’ global climate widget, which hides the actual connections between global temperature, CO2 and the sunspot cycle. Watts’ widget is quite a useful indicator though: whenever you see it on a website, you know they are trying to fool rather than inform you there...."
Every instrument ever made has some degree of inaccuracy. The way science tries to work is they use multiple, independent sources of data to verify the results. For example, climate variation can be checked using instruments, tree rings, lake deposits, ice cores, coral growth, and so forth. Statistical mathematics is used to determine the variation and to find outliers due to measurement errors. Scholarly peer review is there to make sure the data is used properly.
How about we raise our standards for meteorology? Anthony Watts is an ex-television weather presenter on local tv in 2004, who does not hold actual meteorology credentials. He makes a living attempting to disprove real science. Maybe he should go back to school and get an actual degree.
"...So called “climate skeptics” deploy an arsenal of misleading graphics, with which the human influence on the climate can be down played (here are two other examples deconstructed at Realclimate). The image below is especially widespread. It is displayed on many “climate skeptic” websites and is regularly updated...."
"It requires quite some skill to produce a misleading graph like Watts’ global climate widget, which hides the actual connections between global temperature, CO2 and the sunspot cycle. Watts’ widget is quite a useful indicator though: whenever you see it on a website, you know they are trying to fool rather than inform you there...."
Watts has done this before and has never proven his point other than some stations had issues but certainly not enough to tilt the data. Besides is he really going to make the argument that its not warming.
Every instrument ever made has some degree of inaccuracy. The way science tries to work is they use multiple, independent sources of data to verify the results. For example, climate variation can be checked using instruments, tree rings, lake deposits, ice cores, coral growth, and so forth. Statistical mathematics is used to determine the variation and to find outliers due to measurement errors. Scholarly peer review is there to make sure the data is used properly.
It is? So didn't Mann's peers reject his "hockey stick" article when it was first submitted?
So why do AGW papers use four different temp measurements and assume that "proxy temps" have the same standard deviation in measurements as satellite data?
Why has AGW relied upon inconsistent temp locations?
Why has AGW far under weighted the greatest surface area of the earth (the oceans)?
Why has AGW not adhered to defined measuring standards, except over the last 20 years in which NO WARMING has been identified?
AGW is a statistical and methodological hoax perpetuated upon those who have essentially no understanding as to what constitutes a valid scientific study. When the data collecting methods are subjected to uniform standards, suddenly the "warming" disappears.
It's painful watching people pretend that they are climate experts because they read denier blogs.
I mean, the obvious counter to this is that it has no bearing whatsoever on satellite atmospheric data, which continue to show higher and higher temperatures across the board. Also, a meteorologist is not a climate expert. They have some similarities, but are actually very different fields of study. Also, a good, science-based study on land-based temperatures could easily take into account any potential inaccurate thermometer calibrations. This guy seems clueless.
I think Anthony Watts should publish his findings so that the AGW crowd can see how they're all wrong. Oh wait, the data has already been published and discussed! Problem solved! But of course the denier crowd will claim conspiracy, ignorant liberal scientists, blah blah blah.
Really, there will always be deniers of anything - there are flat-earthers, there are people who believe man never landed on the moon, there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened, or Sandy Hook. So a few AGW deniers is to be expected. But it is pointless to debate with them as they will cling to their conspiracy theories. So what's the point? The world has moved on. Like it or not, AGW is a policy driver for most countries and many industries.
I think Anthony Watts should publish his findings so that the AGW crowd can see how they're all wrong. Oh wait, the data has already been published and discussed! Problem solved! But of course the denier crowd will claim conspiracy, ignorant liberal scientists, blah blah blah.
Really, there will always be deniers of anything - there are flat-earthers, there are people who believe man never landed on the moon, there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened, or Sandy Hook. So a few AGW deniers is to be expected. But it is pointless to debate with them as they will cling to their conspiracy theories. So what's the point? The world has moved on. Like it or not, AGW is a policy driver for most countries and many industries.
So you are denying that the global warming deniers are denying what you are claiming to deny?
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.
