What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
This is one of those thing which I ONLY see debates of on the internet. I have never heard anyone IRL talk about it.
Have any of you guys ever heard anyone bring it up?
Have any of you guys changed anything because of it? Like driving less and caring for the environment more?
Personally, I don't know what to think....I see it as a task for politicians. And as long f.e China opens new coalmines and according to Greenpeace is predicted to extract or burn 1400 million (kilos?) of cole I just live as usual.
I'm excited thinking of a possible WWIII when resources are running out though
I know it sounds strange but that's how I feel.
Buy an electric car. I did and it's great!
Actually, that is completely false. There has been NO other independent studies of the station citing other than Watts.. BUt you are free to believe whatever fantasies you would like.
Wrong.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/
That looks like an explanation into the quality and self-checking of the data to me. The methodology is laid out in the papers. If you have an issue with how the data is being analyzed or an issue with the self-checks, please point it out.
In edit-This data is available to anyone who wishes to access the database, so if anyone or any group with a political agenda wishes to discredit the data, all they would have to do is go here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
Every state and year from about the 1930s (some states start at earlier or later dates by a few years). Pull the data and show us how it is false. Thanks.
[/quote]
#1 it is not independent.
#2 It does not even address the issue raised. It did not evaluate the siting problems.
Please address the issues being debated, not the ones you want to debate.
I edited my post too late so I will repost.
1) No it is not independent. The point is that if the data is not accurate, there would be a TON of people with agendas who would analyze the data and show it to be false. The databank is open to everyone.
2)That IS the issue. If the data is faulty inaccurate or false it would be EASILY shown, via self-checks or external analysis. The data base is open and freely (and easily) accessed. The link is in my above post. Where are the multiple analyses showing the data to be false?
Think of the multiple wins that would be achieved by showing the data to be false. Political win ('The Greenies are falsifying data for their own political means'), economic win ('More lefties over-spending money from hard working people'), cultural win ('Those egg heads will do anything to keep the common man scared'), etc. All that has to be done is to analyze the data and show it to be bunk. Where are the studies showing the data to be cooked?
In edit-Here is a letter from the OIG to members of Congress about the data collection of the USHCN. Please note the first and fourth paragraphs.
http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/STL-19846.pdf
Just as one has freedom of religion, one has freedom of theories....and AGW is a theory. Not a law, a theory. It's speculation based on computer simulations that have NEVER been accurate. And the more I learn about it, the more I understand that humans are in no way affecting the climate of their own neighborhood, let alone the climate OF THE ENTIRE EARTH. Oh..i take that back...there's a lot of climate cooling going in my house...as it's 107 degree outside and 78 inside with my coal/oil powered AC unit. Thank god we have coal and oil! I looove me some coal and oil.
I find it ironic that those that believe in AGW and want our government to take action to restrict our carbon footprint by force rant and rave on using computers produced by oil and coal, using coal and oil generated electricity, driving coal powered cars (electric cars), accessing services that use coal and oil (i.e. Stardock, Google, Apple, the interwebs). The only way you are able to rant about the theory of AGW is because men and women who love oil and coal lifted human civilization out the per-industrial age.
Bottom line...humans are much better of with oil and coal..and nuclear. Green tech is most coal and oil when you trace it back to how it's produced (batteries, equipment, transportation--all oil/coal). Oh..and all those green tech companies that Obama supported?? LOLZ! Given BILLIONS of our taxes..and they went under....because solar and wind just aren't viable alternatives.
one does not have the freedom to force others to believe in a theory or to be forced to act against their will based on a theory. You can't force me to stop using oil and coal just because you have an idea why we have weather. No one is stopping you from going cave-man. Please I'd love for you AGWers to renounce oil and coal and see what life is like without......have fun!
Heh, Heh.
Just for future reference, “climate change” is not a theory, it’s an observation.
“Man-made climate change” is a theory.
A detailed analysis of the stations took a long time for Anthony Watts to do. It is not like the data is readily accessible on the Internet (it is now thanks to him). So each site had to be independently verified and analyzed. Hence why there is not a "ton" of people taking on the responsibility.
And I thought the agenda was good science. However, I am getting the impression is not about science, but merely presenting a united front for talking points.
The subject is "Global" not American. The quality of data is an issue, but it cannot be easily shown. The problem is most do not care about the quality of data, they just use the data. The quality of the data is suspect as has been demonstrated. What has not been demonstrated is if it impacts the conclusions reached. Since (so far) there has not been a quantitative inspection of the data to determine the UHI influence (only in specific instances has it been quantified), there is no way to tell.
It is a supposition. It is not a theory yet. The null hypothesis remains in effect.
To your first point-Who cares? I say this not in jest; it sounds like an excuse. I do not doubt that there is a tremendous amount of data to analyze; however, if the data is junk, if the collection is junk, if the analysis is junk, all that has to be shown is one misstep in the chain to discredit the conclusion, correct? Where is that smoking gun? If he cannot recruit others to find fault with the data, he should get more people to assist him. Again, look at all the 'wins' the deniers would have if they show that the data/collection/analysis is faulty. That seems like a great motivator to me.
To your second point-Sounds like more excuses. In fact, how can you say this with a straight face 'The quality of data is an issue, but it cannot be easily shown.' That is laughable. How do you know it is an issue if the work is too hard for someone to do? Let's say that you are correct; at least wait until you have the data in hand before you say 'The quality of the data is an issue' because then you would have proof from more than one source. What you stated is at best hopeful speculation. It sounds like you THINK/WISH/HOPE that the data quality is an issue. but by your own admission, you have no proof of it. The 'quality of the data has been shown to be suspect' by ONE PERSON. Where is the rest of the legion?
To your point about it being US data, in your post #153, you were refuting the post of jackswift85 in post #135 which mentioned BY NAME the USHCN data, which is why I showed you the links I did. The data is available for anyone to analyze and draw their own conclusions. I cannot speak for data collected by any other entity.
What you still don't get is that you behave holier than thou because you are so 'environment minded' and assume that is a good thing, whilst not doing that is automatically a bad thing. Which is total crap.
What you still don't get is that you are so well off you CAN make a choice, it is a luxury 'problem'. Only people with too much can be bothered by having too much. It's really shocking that you can't see this as i feel you represent a large part of the econut society at large.
What you again still don't get is that what you call 'wasting' i call 'using'. So when i 'purposely waste' i just use that what i paid for. And if that means for example i let my computers run 24/7 that is not wasteful to me, but surely is to a an econut's mind.
In contrast to others i find your 'environment friendly' behavior quite repulsive oozing smugness from every pore. Hey guys, look at me, i am so darned good, i am not wasting energy. Yuck.
...
Environmentally correct or not, I have made changes on my local level. I went all electric, no natural gas use at all, I switched to CFL bulbs, ditched my CRT monitors for LCD and 32" CRT TV for the same LCD tech. I also purchased an Energy Star rated A/C unit and water heater. I run fans and open windows instead of running the air conditioner when possible. ( I like hot weather, the wife, not so much)
I lived in Vegas for 16 years, so water conservation has been part of my thinking ever since. Last year, Illinois got slammed with a drought, I can honestly say that I did not contribute to the widespread water shortages we had.
Those who intentionally "waste" water, electricity or food, I suspect have never woken up thirsty, cold, hungry and in the dark. I have, so I have a deep appreciation for these things.
I also repair, rebuild and recycle things rather than replace them. Sure, most of my stuff is old, but it's all 100% paid for. I feel no need to "keep up" with anyone. "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" Newer isn't always better anyway.
I'm not out to save the planet. I am out to save me money. The money I have saved is money that didn't go to the power company which already has plenty. We are having enough trouble keeping the current bill paid as it is. The greedy S.O.B.'s raise rates every time you turn around. It's also money we have to spend on other things.
Going green is great, especially if the green is going in my wallet.
Interesting. I'm sure the (indirect) source will be disparaged by 'some'.
Yeah, just as disparaged as this.
Several years back, when the shit hit the fan on the "correction" of the temperature record, there were numerous examples on skeptic websites of rural temperature stations that were clearly doctored to an incorrect reading. I've always been paranoid, so I went to the sources just to be sure, they were indeed doctored.
In the interest of testing for cherry picking, I checked individual rural temperature records in the USHCN and GHCN at random. They didn't cherry pick. At the time(I'd hope they're at least competent enough to have fixed this by now, corrupt shouldn't mean stupid after all) they were achieving the modeled results by simply adding the required degrees to individual station records in one year spikes, and spreading the yearly distribution out for the end result. They were then "homogenizing" the rural records by tilting them to match the nearest urban station records, which have naturally shown a gradual increase due to the increasing level of urban amplification.
At which point I wrote the whole damned thing off, called everyone fucking morons, and went back to keeping up in a less time consuming fashion.
Huh, if you don't mind indirect sources, you'll love ones that actually have direct commentary from the researchers themselves about how "skeptics" have misconstrued their research doing the usual "skeptic" cherry-picking and taking information out of context.
Umm, that's the exact opposite of the method they use to homogenize data. They homogenize the urban stations to match the rural stations, to better calculate the Urban Heat Index and make sure that increasing urban amplification does not bias those urban stations' trends one way or another. If you meant to say that the homogenization process affects the rural temperatures, sorry, there's nothing funny going on. The methods to homogenize the data are sound. There is no intentional hoodwinking going on here.
I also recommend you revisit the 97% study as well. There's been more than one consensus study. Yes, about 68% of the abstracts do not state a specific position on AGW (and only 1% say AGW is not real, that's the more important number here), but even so, much like there aren't any specific positions by astrophysicists' papers on how the Earth revolves around the sun, climate scientists don't state a position on AGW. Just in case that the methodology used did cover up a large amount of "skeptic" scientific papers, they asked the authors of the papers themselves to state the position their papers take... and guess what, only 39 authors disagreed with the AGW theory while 1342 endorsed it. (With 761 authors still stating no position/undecided) That's 2.9% of scientists that rated their own papers against AGW. You would think if the 'anti-AGW' crowd had more credibility, they would get more than 39 guys out of over 2000 (and those anti-AGW papers aren't even cited often...!).
You guys really need to stop just parroting disinformation and debunked talking points from Watts. I'd love for you guys to be right, I really do. But the spell of confusion and doubt cast by those motivated by purely political or economic reasons will seriously hamper the efforts of those trying to avert disaster. Frogboy posted earlier that he'd love to hear what excuses I would have if we had another decade of "stagnant" temperatures (stagnant meaning the hottest decade on record) goes by. I'd like to hear the excuses when we don't.
As I've been saying, this entire idea that climate change has plateaued is controversial at best:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23590626/un-says-1st-decade-shows-accelerated-warming-trend?source=rss
A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average.
Jarraud says the data doesn't support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.
"The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin," he said. "If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration."
Jarraud says the data show warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
Yet another source that claims they've removed the bias, while failing to explain how removing a known positive bias from nearly the entire collection of stations, results in a higher end result.
According to AGW, the TLT measurements show higher warming than the direct surface measurements, because the opacity of the atmosphere to the 3% of the infrared spectrum CO2 has an effect on is a wee bit taller than the stations. Bunk theory or not, this principle is sound, a matter of simple physics. Warming caused by the air is naturally going to be warmer in the air. How much is arguable, which one should be higher is not.
Globally, the surface data shows around .16C per decade, this while the satellite records show between .13C and .14C in the TLT. Warmer? Digging up worldwide station data sets would be a great deal of effort though, a comparison against the USHCN measurements is easier.
Unaltered "good" stations in the US show .155C per decade, GISS and the TLT measurements both show .16C per decade over the US. Plausible numbers, surface stations reading within the margin of error for that necessarily lower reading against TLT measurements. After your wonderful climatologists get through "correcting" the surface stations, they show .3C per decade over the US. This is the warming trend you've bought, a bullshit number twice as high as the TLT measurements that must necessarily outpace the surface trend.
You can pretend I'm just a kook all you want, but this isn't the work of conspiracy theorists. We start with a number in line with the satellite measurements, courtesy of NASA, and end up with one twice as high, courtesy of the NCDC, and I'm supposed to be convinced because the models are right in line with the doctored data sets. Politics and science don't mix, you've been sold a bunch of bullshit by people with an economic agenda.
Maybe I'm wrong and they just forgot to convert to Celsius. Maybe they actually believe the temperature on Venus is because of CO2, and not because the planet has 93 times as much atmosphere. Maybe they shit perfumed gold bricks...
I thought that was religion....
Are you people still going at it? Don't you have jobs?
One could ask the same of you...
What is this "job" you speak of?
Ah....ending a sentence with a preposition....
What is this "job" of which you speak?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
