LOLOLOLOL!!!!   True true true true true true.    We're like little Italy in WWII.   Oooh Italy you can sure beat up those Ethiopians.   LOL!   Can't even take on Greece by yourselves.

Share the love man it's Christmas!!   

IIIIIIIII'm dreaming of a whiiiiiiiiite Christmas...

but the warm sky can't make snoooooow......

well the tundra's melting,

and Exxon's smelting,

more carrrrrrrrrbon in LA's stop-and-go....

Come on boys and girls!

Ooooooh the runway outside is frightful

but the terminal is so delightful

as long as there's nowhere to go

find a ho, hire a ho, #%@#$@# a ho!

We've been waiting 8 hours connecting,

the couple beside me is necking

there's no empty bathroom stalls to go

yellow snow!  yellow snow!  yellow snow!

I gotta  disagree there - On the pure military aspect we can pretty well take anyone.

The part where, for it to be worth it we have to clean up the mess and set up a Marshall plan?

That's harder even with a smart guy in office. Nevermind a Village idiot like W, sadly.

Jonnan

There's a bit of a gray line where pure military stops and everything else starts.   If the troops, the leadership, or the country supporting the troops lacks the resolve, does that count?   That's Vietnam.   The more wrong your cause, the bigger your fifth column undermining you.   And that cancels out a lot of smart bombs and infrared sensors.  Our nation's resolve hasn't been tested yet, because we're taking on little mickey-mouse countries who can't point a shiny ICBM down our neck.   I'm already pissed off enough as it is just paying taxes and wrecking our economy over this $#!$##. 

Note to Mumble -

Glad you survived your MI & that you remain smoke free.  May you stay healthy & happy, however you define the latter.

My father had his first MI @ 47, quit cold turkey & craved tobacco every day until he died 7 years later, so I understand how tough that can be.

Back on topic -

If heat island & Stevenson screen issues have been 'debunked,' why is it that all the adjustments to raw data I've seen have been upwards?  What's the basis for saying that the 'true' temperatures were all actually higher than the recorded temps?

But my views on war are that war is hell and it should be. It's the last thing in the world that any rational person should want and it shouldn't be used in any kind of limited sense as some kind of diplomatic bargining chip. If it comes to war then the way I feel is that you go into it whole hog, giving no quarter, eliminate your enemy, and be done with it.

If potential enemies believed that if they fucked with us then we're likely to nuke them back to the stone age then they'd be far less likely to attack us, but they know that even if we do attack them we'll be all concerned about collateral damage and even if we do eventually win we'll build them back up afterwards better than they were before the war. That seems to me to eliminate a lot of the downside of going to war with us in the first place. I say win the war and forget about all this hearts and minds stuff. Like I said war is hell and you can't sugarcoat hell.

In point of fact I posted 8 separate links to articles rebutting various aspects of Mr. Eschenbach's argument. Did you read them all? I've obviously gone over all of these before but I guess I'll have to do it again. I'll leave out a few of the links for brevity's sake.

One of the last ones was in fact a statistical comparison between the raw and adjusted GHCN/CRU datasets. This also happens to address Daiwa's question from reply #586 where he asks why all adjustments are only in the upwards direction. The answer is that they are *not*. It's just that deniers only point out positive adjustments and make no mention of the negative ones.

The following graph is from http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/ which as I said compares the raw and adjusted GHCN/CRU datasets. Note the mean adjustment is 0 and the average adjustment is 0.017°C/decade which is less than 10% of the average warming trend over the last century of 0.2°C/decade. So even if all the adjustments were bogus it would only account for 10% of the reported warming. But they aren't bogus and there's data to prove it (see the next link).

This proves that adjustments (at least in the GHCN/CRU dataset) are made in both positive *and* negative directions and that the net total adjustment sums pretty close to zero.

Also here's a report from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that goes into quite a bit of detail about the precise why and how these adjustments were made (at least for the Australian stations). Note that every single Australian station is listed along with its location, elevation, start year, quality rank, whether its urban or not, whether its included in the high quality dataset and it isn't the reason its not included.

http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

Here's a similar document that also goes into quite a bit of detail regarding adjustments to individual Australian stations. Basically data from individual stations are examined for discontinuities that do not exist in nearby stations and statistically corrected. A representative record from a single station is given as to the magnitude and direction of adjustments as well as the reason. The point is that such data exists for *all* stations that have been adjusted.

http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf

Now here is one of the earlier rebuttals that I posted and admittedly you're correct in saying that all this one does is to make the argument that it's supposed to be that way however it did post a graph of the record from the high quality station at the Darwin airport and note that compares very closely to the "adjusted" data that seems to be causing such a fuss.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/the-smoking-gun-darwin-station-temperature-adjustments/

Here's another one that makes pretty much the same argument as the above article and posts essentially the same graph from the Darwin airport shown below. However it does make one additional point and that is that Mr. Eschenbach makes the mistake of treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now I'm not a statistion so I'm not sure why this is a problem but apparently it's either simple incompetence or it's intentional fraud.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

The bottom line is that the adjustments are both justified and documented, and even if they weren't would at most reduce warming by less than 10%.

There is no smoking gun. There is no evidence of foul play whatsoever. This is indeed debunked way more than should have been humanly necessary but you really do actually have to read the data presented to make any kind of honest decision.

This is why it's not such a good idea to go around puffing up your chest simply because we beat up on a pissant of a country, particlarly when we haven't even demonstrated the ability to finish the job. You end up pissing off one of the few true friends that you have.

Yeah, they place pretty much EXACTLY the same value on human life we do.  The Chinese value Chinese lives more than American lives.  The Americans value American lives more than Chinese lives.    That's why we have wars.

In fairness if I had found such a thing I would have posted it. But I'm limited by the data that I can easily find on the net. I spend quite enough work finding even only that much with no help from anyone in the denier camp. I also would like an explicit record of each and every station with complete justification for each and every adjustment applied. The data I supplied specifically addressed each and every one of these issues but regretably did not contain all information from every measuring site on the planet.

All you do is want. I directly answer your question and still you have no response but to want more.

You wanted an answer as to why all adjustments were "upward" I gave you an direct scientific answer that in fact proves not only that your assumption is wrong but also showed that there is no significant upward bias in the adjustments and not a word was spoke.

It's only the sum of all regional data assumedly weighted by the size of the region that then becomes global data.

So of course the data at darwin station zero or even the collection of data from all of Australia is regional. It was this regional data that some denier pointed to in order to somehow disprove or discredit AGW. In this case the attempt was to imply mishandling of data by AGW proponents. Every single aspect of his argument has been debunked but that's not sufficient, you then reply to this debunking as if AGW proponents were trying to make some kind of specific point from the data this denier dreged up. There was no particular conclusion that any AGW proponent was trying to make with the data from darwin station zero only to debunk the false claims made by yet another denier.

Precisely what facts not in evidence am I assuming? Don't worry, I don't expect a response as that would require far more than a sentence or two. You asked the following question that has nothing to do with a distinction between GW & AGW hence there was nothing for me to "conflate".

It's oh so very easy to respond to something that someone has put obvious work and effort into with a dismisssive sentance or two but like I said it doesn't really matter because although you may be fooling yourself you don't fool the interested observer that happens to maintain an objective opinion. That observer is fully aware of precisely who the arrogant jerk is and who isn't.