Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,376
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38860 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Reverting to ad-hominem, I see. Figures.
<quoted text>
Which is my basis for wanting to preserve it, using the best available science as the guide. Something YOU would not understand.
<quoted text>
Ahh. the dreamy philosopher without a real clue. The world doesn't run on dreams. Every once in a while it boots these dumb asses in their fundament.. but they want everyone else to pay the price of their ideology. Not going to happen.
nice ad hominems, sparky!
Lol
Now post something you actually know.
Apparently the best science is off limits to your comprehension and learning abilities?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38861 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No all of the before mentioned statements are true.
Lie we would take your word on it???
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The data bases are routinely updated.
Yup. That is what you get when time doesn't stop and meteorology continues to be sampled every day.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What curious is that the temps before 1950 are always updated down.
Lie. Or conspiracy theory. Take your pick.. Though there may be a predominance of temperature lowering as the location or selection of meteorology data improves and less 'spurious heating' from local terrain features is involved. Most moves of meteorology stations would be to a BETTER location which would be closer to the 'real temperature level' of the area with less additional heating problems from local topography and buildings.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated many times, my own area of the four corners has written recorded temperatures. Those recorded temperatures are not the temps used in the data bases.
Of COURSE not, you dimwit. Raw data has to be first processed for consistency and 'faults' such as location, setup, instrument error, etc. Their are enough meteorology stations as well that in general only the 'most valid' ones are used. The METHODOLOGY of this weeding out and correcting for local errors is quite precise and backed by MANY studies of it's validity.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They've been adjusted down.
In some cases, sure. It is easier to get a higher reading from local problems than a cooler reading so more of the corrections will be downward (i.e compensation of a local heat sink like asphalt paving).
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
CRU did lose their source data. They said so. The data was lost/destroyed in an outdated computer, why they didn't retrieve the data before the computer was shut down?
Lie. They deleted the files because they did not OWN the source or have a license to distribute it to others. They PAID for it from the licensing source and so were OBLIGATED to destroy the records. But it still exists in the ORIGINAL DATABASE. You have been corrected on this issue hundreds of times and continue your LIES.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Proxy studies are location specific. I like proxy studies, I understand how they are conducted. They are very useful in showing patterns of activity. They are most credible when they can be compared to other information and show a similar pattern.
What. Just that specific square foot? Or is it relevant to the local 'microclimate'. Take your time. I know that thinking is hard for you..

And one of the 'methodologies' of both meteorology and proxy climate is validation by correlation with other sources. They have been doing it right since long before you were born..
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about .7 or .8*C difference in temperatures since 1880. Even very minor adjustments to existing data bases can skew such a small variation. And if we started our data base at 1850, we wouldn't even have the .7/.8*C of warming.
The BEST study took ALL of these 'quibbles' and tested them to see if processing them in a way to obviate the claim would make a difference. It didn't. Now grow up and follow the data.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38862 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this your first or second infancy?
what exactly are you "reverting" to here, don?!?

Lol

You people are so funny....and predictable...and hypocritical ......and thick!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38863 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not use temperatures that have been recorded? Why not compare the apples to the existing apples? Why would scientists lose/destroy their data. They're scientists, data is their holy grail.
Because raw data has flaws. To use raw data without validating (as you promote above for climate proxies) is just stupid and bad science. i.e a 'false cooling' can be introduced by a move of the instrument to a different location. The 'raw' data will have a step change that is NOT valid. One must track down the records of the station and CORRECT for these issues.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of questions, not many answers.
Lots of answers if you take those blinders off and get an education. Ignorance is curable.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38864 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Because raw data has flaws. To use raw data without validating (as you promote above for climate proxies) is just stupid and bad science. i.e a 'false cooling' can be introduced by a move of the instrument to a different location. The 'raw' data will have a step change that is NOT valid. One must track down the records of the station and CORRECT for these issues.
<quoted text>
Lots of answers if you take those blinders off and get an education. Ignorance is curable.
There is nothing that a scientist likes better than to find another scientist wrong. If the climate data were adjusted unjustly it would be jumped upon like blowflies on a dead carcass. I am not informed well enough to decide whether or not the data has been compromised but I do know enough about how science works to know that those who are well informed would be very quick to point that out.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38865 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>she emailed me last month, dummy! Gee, you're easily thrown off aren't you?
Ah,leave out an important detail and then fault me for not knowing it.

Lying by omission.

Lying, nonetheless.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38866 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>my kiwi friend has lived there her entire life. If she said it was the coldest winter she can remember...I believe her.
Have you ever even been there, son?
Yes, I know. Apparently you'll believe anything for which there is no evidence.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38867 Sep 4, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the amount of hype given to Australia to prove global warming, Im going to make a prediction based on trends of over-the-top predictions and hype from the past:
Snow will be a thing of the past turned into record snowfalls.
..........
Not over the top at all, some of those southern hemisphere countries are predicted to take the biggest hit with climate change. Especially a few of those small Island countries north of Australia, they are already sand bagging their front door with rising sea levels. As Australia is the driest continent on earth hence the low population and not many mountain ranges means 85% of them live less than 25 miles from the coast, it only takes a small shift in climate for those same people to be either kicking desert sand or wading in water. Take your pick, the mountain ranges in New Zealand are always going to attract more rainfall than Australia yet has experienced long periods of drought. So go figure, but it's another dismissal from the denier crowd that is nothing to be concerned about.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38868 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you found the answer that you previously claimed i didn't answer!!! pretty revealing!! LOL
thus...i didn't fail after all, huh?
who is 'we', son???
i'm on this forum to laugh at the idiocy of 'climate change alarmism'.
what does your science 'pretend' to know that you can back up??? besides your opinions, son?
"To be or not to be" is the question that entertains you here.

You fail in so many ways. Let us count them.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38869 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>i did..... you just insist on not accepting many things you choose not to believe.
that's your choice, son.
and you call that science??
WOW. Your posts shy away from meaning.

Bwahahahahaha
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38870 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie we would take your word on it???
<quoted text>
Yup. That is what you get when time doesn't stop and meteorology continues to be sampled every day.
<quoted text>
Lie. Or conspiracy theory. Take your pick.. Though there may be a predominance of temperature lowering as the location or selection of meteorology data improves and less 'spurious heating' from local terrain features is involved. Most moves of meteorology stations would be to a BETTER location which would be closer to the 'real temperature level' of the area with less additional heating problems from local topography and buildings.
<quoted text>
Of COURSE not, you dimwit. Raw data has to be first processed for consistency and 'faults' such as location, setup, instrument error, etc. Their are enough meteorology stations as well that in general only the 'most valid' ones are used. The METHODOLOGY of this weeding out and correcting for local errors is quite precise and backed by MANY studies of it's validity.
<quoted text>
In some cases, sure. It is easier to get a higher reading from local problems than a cooler reading so more of the corrections will be downward (i.e compensation of a local heat sink like asphalt paving).
<quoted text>
Lie. They deleted the files because they did not OWN the source or have a license to distribute it to others. They PAID for it from the licensing source and so were OBLIGATED to destroy the records. But it still exists in the ORIGINAL DATABASE. You have been corrected on this issue hundreds of times and continue your LIES.
<quoted text>
What. Just that specific square foot? Or is it relevant to the local 'microclimate'. Take your time. I know that thinking is hard for you..
And one of the 'methodologies' of both meteorology and proxy climate is validation by correlation with other sources. They have been doing it right since long before you were born..
<quoted text>
The BEST study took ALL of these 'quibbles' and tested them to see if processing them in a way to obviate the claim would make a difference. It didn't. Now grow up and follow the data.
Did you say the BEST data

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best-upper/f...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38871 Sep 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing that a scientist likes better than to find another scientist wrong. If the climate data were adjusted unjustly it would be jumped upon like blowflies on a dead carcass..
It has been, repeatedly.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38872 Sep 5, 2013
More news from around he globe:
Geneva: Mankind has pushed the world's climate system to the brink, leaving itself only scant time to act, the head of the UN's group of climate scientists said on Monday.

"We have five minutes before midnight," warned Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, whose organisation will this month release the first volume of a new assessment of global warming and its impacts

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/climate-at-...

Also a comment on the self indulgent deniers trying to delay any action. "If people perceive climate change as mostly a threat to future generations, they are unlikely to have a sense of urgency."

http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.s...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38873 Sep 5, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
More news from around he globe:
Geneva: Mankind has pushed the world's climate system to the brink, leaving itself only scant time to act, the head of the UN's group of climate scientists said on Monday.
"We have five minutes before midnight," warned Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, whose organisation will this month release the first volume of a new assessment of global warming and its impacts
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/climate-at-...
Also a comment on the self indulgent deniers trying to delay any action. "If people perceive climate change as mostly a threat to future generations, they are unlikely to have a sense of urgency."
http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.s...
First off, Rajendra Pachauri isn't a scientist, much less a climate scientist. So applying warmists' rules, his opinion means squat.

Second, the guy has a chauffeur drive him to and from work... a whopping one mile in a gasoline car -- even though he was given an electric car to use.

And the second link? Cass Sustein? A lawyer. Wow... you are desperate.

What's next? Psychologists analyzing people's not accepting the warmist mantra?

(whoops... too late on that one)

I'm really amazed at how warmists never hold their leader/spokespeople accountable to their own carbon footprints while they are spouting off about how others should alter theirs.

Once again... a motto of the warmists:

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38874 Sep 5, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie. Or conspiracy theory. Take your pick.. Though there may be a predominance of temperature lowering as the location or selection of meteorology data improves and less 'spurious heating' from local terrain features is involved. Most moves of meteorology stations would be to a BETTER location which would be closer to the 'real temperature level' of the area with less additional heating problems from local topography and buildings.
You really want me to believe that the temperature data is accurate?

This is just a sampling from the Harry Read Me File....sorry but these people did not keep accurate information, not a lie, not a conspiracy, but fact and you want me to believe they know within a 10th of a degree global temperatures.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ...

Now the interesting thing is that the 'Read Me' file for gridding only mentions frs, rd0 (which I'm assuming == wet) and vap. How, then, do I produce cld/spc and the two derived vars?? Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it. This hasn't mattered too much, because the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995 sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway. So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' yet both contain monthly files. These are the files that have been lost according to the gridding read_me (see above). Edit: have just located a 'cld' directory in Mark New's disk, containing over 2000 files. Most however are binary and undocumented. For 1901 to 1995 - stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.

The conclusion of a lot of investigation is that the synthetic cloud grids for 1901-1995 have now been discarded. This means that the cloud data prior to 1996 are static. So I look at a CLIMAT bulletin, and what's the first thing I notice? It's that there is absolutely no station identification information apart from the WMO code. None. No lat/lon, no name, no country. Which means that all the bells and whistles I built into mergedb,(though they were needed for the db merging of course) are surplus to requirements. The data must simply be added to whichever station has the same number at the start, and there's no way to check it's right. Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yetthe WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-) You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late.

Continued next post
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38875 Sep 5, 2013
Continued Harry Read Me File

So there are now two FORREST stations: getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. I honestly have no idea what to do here. and there are countless others of equal bafflingness.

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up - but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada! I have to admit, I still don't understand secondary parameter generation.

Unbelievable - even here the conventions have not been followed. It's botch after botch after botch.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38876 Sep 5, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Not over the top at all, some of those southern hemisphere countries are predicted to take the biggest hit with climate change. Especially a few of those small Island countries north of Australia, they are already sand bagging their front door with rising sea levels. As Australia is the driest continent on earth hence the low population and not many mountain ranges means 85% of them live less than 25 miles from the coast, it only takes a small shift in climate for those same people to be either kicking desert sand or wading in water. Take your pick, the mountain ranges in New Zealand are always going to attract more rainfall than Australia yet has experienced long periods of drought. So go figure, but it's another dismissal from the denier crowd that is nothing to be concerned about.
Yes, you are over the top. You all have so perverted science. You want to take a snapshot of the world today and keep it exactly the way it is, essentially defying the way the world has been for over 4 billion years. You then want to blame any change on man...sea level rise, temperature increase, every storm and hurricane. Man has adapted to climate change you can't make climate do what man wants. When we had our hurricanes it totally devastated our beaches and businesses, but a few years later after pumping sand, we are back up and running. ADAPT. Islands have appeared and disappeared throughout history, but you seem to think every island in this moment in time should be here forever. That actually would be abnormal.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38877 Sep 5, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing that a scientist likes better than to find another scientist wrong. If the climate data were adjusted unjustly it would be jumped upon like blowflies on a dead carcass. I am not informed well enough to decide whether or not the data has been compromised but I do know enough about how science works to know that those who are well informed would be very quick to point that out.
But scientists have published papers showing inaccuracies.

Here is just one:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38878 Sep 5, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, Rajendra Pachauri isn't a scientist, much less a climate scientist. So applying warmists' rules, his opinion means squat.
Second, the guy has a chauffeur drive him to and from work... a whopping one mile in a gasoline car -- even though he was given an electric car to use.
And the second link? Cass Sustein? A lawyer. Wow... you are desperate.
What's next? Psychologists analyzing people's not accepting the warmist mantra?
(whoops... too late on that one)
I'm really amazed at how warmists never hold their leader/spokespeople accountable to their own carbon footprints while they are spouting off about how others should alter theirs.
Once again... a motto of the warmists:
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
I think Pachauri is preparing for his next novel, a followup to his last novel "Return to Almora." His first novel, about the sexcapades of a climate scientist will now focus on his super human powers to stop the climate from changing. I mean really don't you think his statement would be a great opening line for his novel:

Mankind has pushed the world's climate system to the brink, leaving itself only scant time to act, "We have five minutes before midnight,"

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38879 Sep 5, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But scientists have published papers showing inaccuracies.
Here is just one:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
That is a reason why adjustments must be made.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min RealDave 1,156,646
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 25 min wojar is a homo 182,315
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 33 min Frijoles 71,305
Christmas a time for reflection on 47 years in ... 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
Chicagoa s 2014 murder total on track for anoth... 1 hr reality is a crutch 7
Chicago police stop black motorists more, ACLU ... 4 hr L Morales 11
Southern Illinois Supports Police 4 hr Does not matter 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:30 pm PST

ESPN 3:30PM
Bears' Trestman expects to return in 2015
Bleacher Report 4:34 PM
Did Suh Intentionally Step on Rodgers?
Bleacher Report 5:12 PM
Indianapolis Colts Cap Season with Fitting AFC South Sweep
NBC Sports12:50 AM
Colts cap 11-win season with 27-10 win over Titans - NBC Sports
NBC Sports12:57 AM
Vikings finish off Bears with 13-9 win - NBC Sports