Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by radioprius1, Dec 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    I would bet that you are getting your information from American main stream media. I wish I could find the link, but there's a great article that shows how the media repeats the same story about a huge ice shelf breaking off each year, including the same picture, headline, etc.

    Check this out:

    Let me google that for you

    and

    Antarctic sea water shows 'no sign' of warming | The Australian

    and

    Arctic sea ice was melting severely in 1922: This WUWT article from 2008 was on Fox News tonight Watts Up With That? --- These things are cyclical :)

    According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic (link) summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

    We can compare arctic sea ice from 1980 to today.

    [​IMG]

    (Note: 30 years ago, the technology didn’t exist to display snow cover on the left image.)

    Things aren't as bad as you have been led to believe.
     
  2. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Great article by Dr. Roy Spencer:

    Spencer: A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science Watts Up With That?

    "
    I’m always searching for better and simpler ways to explain the reason why I believe climate researchers have overestimated the sensitivity of our climate system to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

    What follows is a somewhat different take than I’ve used in the past. In the following cartoon, I’ve illustrated 2 different ways to interpret a hypothetical (but realistic) set of satellite observations that indicate (1) warming of 1 degree C in global average temperature, accompanied by (2) an increase of 1 Watt per sq. meter of extra radiant energy lost by the Earth to space.

    [​IMG]

    The ‘consensus’ IPCC view, on the left, would be that the 1 deg. C increase in temperature was the cause of the 1 Watt increase in the Earth’s cooling rate. If true, that would mean that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by late in this century (a 4 Watt decrease in the Earth’s ability to cool) would eventually lead to 4 deg. C of global warming. Not good news.

    But those who interpret satellite data in this way are being sloppy. For instance, they never bother to investigate exactly WHY the warming occurred in the first place. As shown on the right, natural cloud variations can do the job quite nicely. To get a net 1 Watt of extra loss you can (for instance) have a gain of 2 Watts of forcing from the cloud change causing the 1 deg. C of warming, and then a resulting feedback response to that warming of an extra 3 Watts.

    The net result still ends up being a loss of 1 extra Watt, but in this scenario, a doubling of CO2 would cause little more than 1 deg. C of warming since the Earth is so much more efficient at cooling itself in response to a temperature increase.

    Of course, you can choose other combinations of forcing and feedback, and end up deducing just about any amount of future warming you want. Note that the major uncertainty here is what caused the warming in the first place. Without knowing that, there is no way to know how sensitive the climate system is.

    And that lack of knowledge has a very interesting consequence. If there is some forcing you are not aware of, you WILL end up overestimating climate sensitivity. In this business, the less you know about how the climate system works, the more fragile the climate system looks to you. This is why I spend so much time trying to separately identify cause (forcing) and effect (feedback) in our satellite measurements of natural climate variability.

    As a result of this inherent uncertainty regarding causation, climate modelers are free to tune their models to produce just about any amount of global warming they want to. It will be difficult to prove them wrong, since there is as yet no unambiguous interpretation of the satellite data in this regard. They can simply assert that there are no natural causes of climate change, and as a result they will conclude that our climate system is precariously balanced on a knife edge. The two go hand-in-hand.

    Their science thus enters the realm of faith. Of course, there is always an element of faith in scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in the arena of climate research the level of faith is unusually high, and I get the impression most researchers are not even aware of its existence.
    "

    I think he makes a fantastic point about the less we know about the climate system the easier it is to make it seem very sensitive to input.
     
  3. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    I agree icarus and I have stayed away from this thread for quite some time but decided to see if the same old drivel was being thrown about and it was.
     
  4. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Actually the articles and stories about the ice shelf are not repeated as you claim. At least you admit it is happening. So what is the cause? A warming Earth? (LOL) Oh well, it seems as though we will just have to wait and see what happens. Meanwhile the ice caps keep shrinking and the glaciers keep retreating. Anyone have a fiddle?
     
  5. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Antarctic Sea Ice

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  6. ufourya

    ufourya We the People

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    1,258
    332
    42
    Location:
    Texas
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius c
    Model:
    Two
    If , by the 'same old drivel', you mean the suggestion that mainstream 'climate science' has been hijacked by a relatively small clique of ideologues, yup, I'm still relaying that information.

    I have indeed been saying the same truthful things for many months. ONLY NOW what I've been saying is coroborated by the release of the UEA/CRU E-mails. The unadulterated truth is there for those with the courage to look. Well, they must not only look but also have the ability to inderstand and the integrity to accept the truth of the matter.

    To come out from hiding and make the false assertion you make is indicative of obdurate ignorance or willful trolling. Please grow up and admit your errors. You were wrong. You are wrong. Period.
     
  7. MJFrog

    MJFrog Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    780
    263
    0
    Location:
    NE Oklahoma
    Vehicle:
    2018 Nissan LEAF
    Model:
    N/A
    The point of this thread is not whether (oops, almost spelled it "weather") climate is changing (it is, it has, and it will continue to change), but questioning if man is causing or contributing to that change...and if so, by how much.
     
  8. ufourya

    ufourya We the People

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    1,258
    332
    42
    Location:
    Texas
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius c
    Model:
    Two
    Climate Change Fraud - Climate Misinformation and Contradictions Continue

    Snippet below:

    There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.—Goethe

    Extreme cold weather across the Northern Hemisphere drew attention away from the leaked files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that showed how the entire work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was falsified. The cold simply isn’t supposed to happen. As Kevin Trenberth of the CRU gang said on 12 October 2009, “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.” It’s true only because they can’t hide the reality.
     
  9. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    So..........is there global warming or not? If this thread is about mans role then why are almost all of the post in denial of the warming?
     
  10. skruse

    skruse Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    1,454
    94
    0
    Location:
    Coloma CA - Sierra Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Climate is the means and extremes for the most recent 30-year period. Weather is what is happening outside at the moment. We have never had 6+ billion people on earth before. We have measured records for almost 1,000,000 years (ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, sea floor & lake sediments, tree ring data, stalactite & stalagmite data). This is all falsifiable, objective peer reviewed published data. You cannot rely upon anecdotal information.

    Credible weather stations follow World Meteorological Organization, NOAA-National Weather Service and GLOBE protocols. Rain and temperature gauges have specific guidelines and are never placed near buildings, trees and other obstructions or modifiers.

    Do not be mislead by anecdotal, politically motivated, impulsive, entertainment deniers.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    A 30 year average is absolutely ridiculous.

    Unfortunately you are dead wrong. In fact, 90% of the surface stations are sited so poorly that they give an error greater than or equal to 1.0'C (greater than the global warming that is supposed to have occurred over the last century.)

    [​IMG]

    Here's another surface station in Colorado:

    [​IMG]

    Here, the weather station was placed 2 feet off of a building, but conveniently next to a large air conditioning unit. Any thoughts on the localized ambient temperature when that baby kicks on?

    Some more:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    (^^ Nice BBQ pit!!)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Since I'm going on and on, here is a graphic showing the overall quality of surface stations in the USA:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And the key to read them:

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, yellow, orange, and red are all bad. These sites are rated by the NOAA's Climate Reference Network site handbook.

    [​IMG]

    Let's see you refute that :)


    Ah, I agree with you :)

    Actually, I encourage everyone to go out and look at the evidence themselves. Don't take my or anyone's word. Arrive at your own conclusions.

    --

    It makes me wonder, your post was completely full of demonstrable lies. Did you really believe what you were posting when you posted it? Or were you purposefully stirring the pot? I mean, did you *really* believe that all the surface stations are sited properly? Or did you know that 90% of the stations in the USA are sited poorly, ACCORDING TO THE NOAA CRN GUIDELINES?

    In fact, there is an entire website dedicated to analyzing these stations:

    http://surfacestations.org/
     
  12. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Well there seems to be ice falling apart all over the world.

    September 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
    Manhattan Sized Ice Cap Breaks

    in: Analysis, Big Problems, Crazy Stuff, Current Events
    Large pieces of ice are seen drifting off the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in this photo.

    A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday. (Pics)
    Mountain peaks project through the ice cap on northern Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada

    Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.
    “The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under cloud for a bit during our research and when the weather cleared up, all of a sudden there was no more ice shelf. It was a shocking event that underscores the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,†said Muller.
    Muller also said that two large sections of ice detached from the Serson Ice Shelf, shrinking that ice feature by 47 square miles — or 60 percent — and that the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf has also continued to break up, losing an additional eight square miles.
    Muller reported last month that seven square miles of the 170-square-mile and 130-feet-thick Ward Hunt shelf had broken off.
    This comes on the heels of unusual cracks in a northern Greenland glacier, rapid melting of a southern Greenland glacier, and a near record loss for Arctic sea ice this summer. And earlier this year a 160-square mile chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf disintegrated.
    “Reduced sea ice conditions and unusually high air temperatures have facilitated the ice shelf losses this summer,†said Luke Copland, director of the Laboratory for Cryospheric Research at the University of Ottawa. “And extensive new cracks across remaining parts of the largest remaining ice shelf, the Ward Hunt, mean that it will continue to disintegrate in the coming years.â€
    Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean’s surface but are connected to land.
    Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s. All that is left today are the four much smaller shelves that together cover little more than 299 square miles.
    Martin Jeffries of the U.S. National Science Foundation and University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a statement Tuesday that the summer’s ice shelf loss is equivalent to over three times the area of Manhattan, totaling 82 square miles — losses that have reduced Arctic Ocean ice cover to its second-biggest retreat since satellite measurements began 30 years ago.
    Article continues below
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    “These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present,†said Muller.
    During the last century, when ice shelves would break off, thick sea ice would eventually reform in their place.
    “But today, warmer temperatures and a changing climate means there’s no hope for regrowth. A scary scenario,†said Muller.
    The loss of these ice shelves means that rare ecosystems that depend on them are on the brink of extinction, said Warwick Vincent, director of Laval University’s Center for Northern Studies and a researcher in the program ArcticNet.
    “The Markham Ice Shelf had half the biomass for the entire Canadian Arctic Ice Shelf ecosystem as a habitat for cold, tolerant microbial life; algae that sit on top of the ice shelf and photosynthesis like plants would. Now that it’s disappeared, we’re looking at ecosystems on the verge of distinction,’ said Muller.
    Along with decimating ecosystems, drifting ice shelves and warmer temperatures that will cause further melting ice pose a hazard to populated shipping routes in the Arctic region — a phenomenon that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to welcome.
    Harper announced last week that he plans to expand exploration of the region’s known oil and mineral deposits, a possibility that has become more evident as a result of melting sea ice. It is the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that scientists say is the chief cause of man made warming and melting ice.
    Harper also said Canada would toughen reporting requirements for ships entering its waters in the Far North, where some of those territorial claims are disputed by the United States and other countries.
    Via CNN
     
  13. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    An answer to all of the people who think that global warming is a hoax.

    10 Outrageous Claims 10) "Wake up, America. There hasn't been any global warming, which is what we heard over and over and over again - there hasn't been any global warming for 10 years." - Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA)
    No warming for 10 years? Well, not exactly true. 1998 was the 2nd hottest year on record while 2008 was only the 8th hottest. So, if you only look at those two years, you might assume there hasn't been any warming. But, 2005 was the hottest year on record and the warmest decade on record is 1998 through 2008. The trends are clear. The planet is warming. Period.
    9) "You want to talk about a massive new welfare program for energy? It's in here too... It's a whole new welfare program for energy." - Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
    If you want to talk welfare, what about the hundreds of billions the oil, gas and coal industries have received in subsidies and tax breaks over the years?
    8) "God has put us on this Earth as responsible stewards of these resources, and we ought to use them responsibly. This bill does not do it. In fact, it does nothing good. The only meaningful thing that it might do is provide a relatively meaningless photo op for our President in December in Copenhagen as he stands to brag about what America has done while the leaders of India and China laugh at us behind his back." - Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
    We look forward to working with Rep. Conaway to strengthen this bill and to fight for the strongest possible international global warming treaty later this year.
    7) "Energy producing states like Oklahoma will be economically punished and devastated." - Rep Tom Cole (R-OK)
    Rep. Cole should have a look at climate models showing that Oklahoma could spend nearly the entire summer with 100+ temperatures by the end of the century. Talk about devastating.
    6) "We should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff." - Rep. Doc Hasting (R-WA)
    That's an interesting point given that the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world that never ratified the Kyoto global warming treaty and that much of Europe is operating under a carbon cap right now.
    5) "[For some, this bill is an] economic death sentence." - Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
    As opposed to the current economy in which we are held hostage by our reliance on foreign oil and in which only last summer we saw gas prices exceed $4/gallon.
    4) "The whole point of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels, or 85 percent of the energy we consume, more expensive." - Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
    No, the point of this bill is to cap global warming pollution, put Americans back to work building out our clean energy future, and free us from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
    3) "Do you want to throw away the economic prosperity for nothing, because that's what this bill does. And for what, to satisfy the twisted desires of radical environmentalists." - Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
    With millions of Americans out of work and the economy in recession, it might not be the best time to talk about "throwing away our economic prosperity" or to support the status quo.
    2) "[This will bring us back to] hunting and gathering." - Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
    Yeah, when we look at solar panels, hybrids and windmills, that's exactly what comes to mind - hunting and gathering societies.
    1) "The idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax... We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it's a hoax!" - Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
    A global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists taking tens of thousands of measurements on everything ranging from ice core samples to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to sea level rise, hundreds of governments around the world working to address global warming pollution, dozens of science academies that have endorsed the reality of global warming and urged action, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world who have joined the movement to promote global warming action.
    And, we're all coordinating our activities to push this hoax because...?
     
  14. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Your #10 is the only one that has to do with the science. See this link for lots of graphs and information:

    The IPCC and Recent Cooling The Climate Conspiracy

    If you will be a gentleman, please read back through this thread and see the ClimateGate emails that I've posted regarding recent cooling. Even the ClimateGate scientists admit (privately) that we've been in a cooling trend for a long time.

    I don't think any scientifically inclined person really denies that we have been experiencing cooling for nearly a decade now.

    Edit: here are a couple of the emails:

    (note, the above was written in 2005. The trend has continued, so according to Phil Jones we would now have 11 year cooling trend.)




    Etc, etc. Who do you believe? The scientists or the "deniers"? Oops, we are both saying the same thing! :)

     
  15. drees

    drees Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    1,778
    245
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    I never said that we'd still be in the Little Ice Age without AGW. You are reading my posts with too much bias.

    I'd rather avoid calling people names, but if that's how you label yourself I suggest you re-read your posts and reconsider because you certainly don't appear to be a "lukewarmer".

    More cherry picking again. While 2007 did have an extremely low summer sea ice extent, sea ice extent remains well below average and has been steadily decreasing the past 30 years.

    [​IMG]

    The snow coverage in the new maps deceive you. It's quite clear that sea ice extent is much smaller in 2009 than 1980. See image above. And as I've mentioned before, sea ice extent (but you continue to forget) is not nearly as important as sea ice volume which has been recorded as thinning significantly in recent years.

    Still cherry-picking quotes, are you?


    I think I'll defer to the experts in climate and statistics, or are you now a published expert on climate research? Please point me to your papers, I am interested in your work.

    You do realize that they don't simply take all surface stations values at face value because of the possibility of siting issues are you have described?

    Part of the work done to analyze data is sifting the good data from the bad - that means comparing temperature records from known good rural surface stations and comparing those records to urban surface stations.

    That said, even urban surface stations show no statistically significant difference from rural surface stations - the effect is minimal at most (yes, there have been multiple published studies on the urban heat island effect on temperature readings and the results have been similar).
     
  16. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Yikes, drees, a lot fail in that post. I'll reply when I have a lot of free time, probably tomm morning.

    Edit: Quickly, I agree - let's see what the experts say about recent cooling - just have a look at the emails I posted to priushippie :)
     
  17. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Duplicate post,, sorry, see below.
     
  18. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    Since the deniers must feel that it is effective to communicate by repeating the same post information over and over and over again ad infinitum/ad nausium, I will repost this one.

    Only now we have gone on another several pages.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Well, it sucks that I have to go through this, again, and show you that you are incorrect.

    I said:

    You said:

    I said:

    You said:

    I then responded with a tortuously long post, available here, that demonstrated the natural events that coincided with the industrial revolution.

    Please explain how I am misquoting you. I think it's very obvious that you thought we would still be experiencing cooling had it not been for the industrial revolution.


    I think our production of CO2 may have played a very very small role in the warming from 1975-1998. Avoiding calling me a name would be fine, I may be incorrect in considering myself a lukewarmer. I'd use whatever term that got the point across that I can objectively look at all the data and not be blinded by an ideology.


    Arctic sea ice is down from 1979-2000. But it's up from 2007. Alarmists quote when sea ice is going away, but never when it's forming. I guess it doesn't appeal to your emotions when I write that sea ice was forming at the rate of 26,000 square miles per day in December 2009.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And on an unrelated note (not pictured here), Antarctic ice is growing.



    Sadly, the authors you love are not experts in either climate or statistics. That is why Michael Mann's original hockey stick was debunked. In fact, that was one of the big complaints of the Wegman report about the hockey stick:

    I'm sorry if you feel that statistics or parts of climate science are beyond you. I don't feel the same.


    I have actually written an entire blog post on this topic. You can see it here:

    Quality of U.S. Temperature Data The Climate Conspiracy

    But let's look at what you said:

    Incorrect. The NOAA CRN (Climate Reference Network) has never gone to all of the sites and rated them according to their guidelines themselves. The only person who has ever done such a comprehensive analysis is Anthony Watts of Home . Therefore, it is impossible for them to account for the problems with the surface stations since they have never rated the stations.

    Edit: Hypothetically, if the CRN ever reviewed all of the sites, the only proper thing would be to make sure each site is setup so that it has no potential for error.


    There are 1,221 active climate-monitoring surface stations in the USA. Of those 1,221 stations, 948 have been evaluated by Watt's Surface Stations project. Of these 948, 90% have been found to be very poorly sited. Poorly sited means that they are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures. This means the overwhelming majority of stations in the USA have been reporting bad data. (Please note that the USA data is generally considered the best data in the world. Yikes!)

    As shown in that pie graph posted earlier, 90% of the surveyed surface stations have an error greater than or equal to 1.0 'C. This amount of error is greater than the amount of global warming we are supposed to have experienced from 1900-2000. Let me say that again: the amount of error is greater than the amount of warming we are supposed to have undergone in the last 100 years. The other 10% of the stations have been surveyed to show that they are capable of giving good data.

    So, now we know that according to the NOAA CRN's guidelines, 90% of the surface stations in the USA are not capable of giving good data. They have errors greater than the amount of global warming we have supposedly experienced in the last one hundred years. It would be easy to assume that the other 10% give good data all the time.

    Unfortunately that is not the case. Let's see why.

    To collect surface station data site observers are given a card on which they are supposed to fill out the maximum and minimum temperatures each day. At the end of the month they are supposed to submit their card to National Climatic Data Center so that they can be compiled into the national database.

    Well, what happens when the site observer doesn't work on a particular day? No readings occur. What happens when that observer is off because of a holiday? No readings occur. In fact, in Marysville, California, at Chico University Mr. Watts found that the temperature form for July 2007 had only 14 of 31 days completed. That is less than half a month's worth of data.

    Missing data is not a rare phenomenon. Many sites have missing data. So even if a site is rated as capable of providing good data by the NOAA CRN, the data still must be read by someone. If that person is missing half the month, then you're not getting a significant quantity of good data.

    So what happens when stations have missing data? From Watts' report: "[There exists] a data algorithm used by NCDC called FILNET, short for Fill Missing Original Data in the Network, that is used to “infill” missing data using interpolations of data from surrounding stations. After reading about it, I came to the conclusion that NCDC uses FILNET to create “missing” data where none was ever actually. measured."

    From a government report on the matter:

    Basically, if data is missing from a certain site then data is taken from near-by sites and adjusted to fit the missing data site. Wow.

    So, we see that 90% of our stations are not capable of providing quality data, and then we see that sites which have missing data have data filled in from surrounding sites by the FILNET program. So even a site that is capable of producing good data, if data is not read for a day, could have bad data filled in for it by this FILNET program. This means that even the 10% of sites that are capable of providing good data are contaminated by the 90% of sites that have bad data.

    So now that we see the quality of data from the stations is overwhelmingly poor, let's look a little more at the numbers and types of stations.

    In April 1978 there were over 6,000 surface stations, and now we have dropped down to around 1,200. Of these stations, there are two main types. There are stations that are found in urban areas, which are more likely to be contaminated by local heat sources (see the photos above), and then there are stations in rural areas, which are less likely to be contaminated by local heat sources.

    So, we know somewhere around 4,800 surface stations dropped out of monitoring temperatures. The vast majority of the stations that dropped out were rural stations. This is unfortunate because the rural stations are the ones that tend to give the most accurate data (because of less urban heat contamination.)

    Since the majority of stations that dropped out were rural ones, we can deduce that when the FILNET program is applied to stations that are missing data, data is more likely to come from urban (contaminated) locations than rural ones.

    By now, I'm sure you're thinking "holy poop, can it get any worse?" Unfortunately it does.

    After all the data is collected from the stations, and after missing station data is created by the FILNET program, adjustments are applied to “homogenize” the data (that is, data is compared to surrounding stations and adjusted accordingly) that impart an even larger false warming trend.

    Below is an example of the "homogenized" data. The blue line is the "raw" (unaltered) data. The red line is the "homogenized" (altered) data. You can clearly see the data from 1880 has been altered to appear cooler in the beginning, and less cooler as time travels toward the present. This does two things: 1. it makes it appear the past was cooler, which makes our current warming look unique, and 2. it gives the data a steeper warming trend, which makes our current warming look more severe.

    [​IMG]

    And lastly we can look at this graph released by the NOAA that demonstrates the differences between the raw and homogenized data sets. Note that this is a graph of differences, it shows the difference between the raw and homogenized data sets. Since this graph trends upwards, it means that the homogenized data sets have been reading (much) warmer than the raw data sets. It's funny how this curve is very similar to the curve we see showing a warming trend.

    [​IMG]

    We see that NOAA’s adjustments to raw temperature data have generally been to increase, not decrease, recent temperatures. The net effect of NOAA’s adjustments is to increase the rise in temperature since 1900 by 0.5 'F.

    So, after we consider all of these facts, let's answer our question of "how good is the quality of U.S. temperature data? The evidence overwhelmingly supports that is of poor quality. Do you think the U.S. temperature data should be used to write legislation?


    How dare I forget this ClimateGate email:

    You gotta love that they know they are feeding us poop.
     
  20. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.