The Global Warming Conspiracy

[SpidermanTUba]

All of the enviro wacko perdictions also have not happened

How does showing that one prediction by one guy that has nothing to do with global warming relate to that claim?

First it was global cooling and the next ice age

There was never a consensus on global cooling. In fact, there isn't a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that impending global cooling is more than likely. A least none that I've seen, and repeated attempts to get those who claim such references exist to provide them, have failed.

[red states rule]

How does showing that one prediction by one guy that has nothing to do with global warming relate to that claim?


There was never a consensus on global cooling. In fact, there isn't a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that impending global cooling is more than likely. A least none that I've seen, and repeated attempts to get those who claim such references exist to provide them, have failed.

There is not a consensus because global wamring is a myth and does not exist

[SpidermanTUba]

I am not surprised that my subtlety escaped you yet again. The “large object” is climate change, or using the contemporary vernacular: “global warming”, which is the subject of this thread. Looking at a 40 year (or 127 year) record that may or may not show a trend and concluding that man is warming the earth is like looking at an elephant hair and coming to the conclusion that you are looking at a mouse.

I'm not making any conclusions based solely on the temperature record. I am merely claiming that the temperature has shown an upward trend for the past 40 years. And it has. It doesn't "may or may not show a trend" - it does show a trend, for at least the past 40 years. I'm sorry, but you can't wish this fact away and this has nothing to do with elephant hair and mice. If you plot the past 40 years of global temp data on a graph, and then do a regression analysis, there will be a definitive upward trend. That is my claim - and it is true, as supported by the data I have provided.

[SpidermanTUba]

There is not a consensus because global wamring is a myth and does not exist

So there was not a consensus on global cooling because there isn't a consensus on global warming? WTF are you talking about?

[MtnBiker]

A well maintained surface station;



A not so well maintained surface station;



This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.

http://surfacestations.org/

Without a doubt all surface temperatures have been recorded accurately and consistently for the past 127 years.

[glockmail]

I'm not making any conclusions based solely on the temperature record. I am merely claiming that the temperature has shown an upward trend for the past 40 years. And it has. It doesn't "may or may not show a trend" - it does show a trend, for at least the past 40 years. I'm sorry, but you can't wish this fact away and this has nothing to do with elephant hair and mice. If you plot the past 40 years of global temp data on a graph, and then do a regression analysis, there will be a definitive upward trend. That is my claim - and it is true, as supported by the data I have provided.

As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

[Sitarro]

As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

It's kind of a waste of time to argue with someone that thinks living in a bowl 29 ' below sea level, surrounded by three huge bodies of water at sea level, in a hurricane corridor with an idiot for a Mayor is a good idea.

[SpidermanTUba]

As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area.

[SpidermanTUba]

It's kind of a waste of time to argue with someone that thinks living in a bowl 29 ' below sea level, surrounded by three huge bodies of water at sea level, in a hurricane corridor with an idiot for a Mayor is a good idea.

Do you have anything to share other than your hatred?

[MtnBiker]

That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area.

Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

If so how can you be certain?

What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

What if the suface stations where painted with different paint material from one station to the next, would that have a potential effect?

[Sitarro]

Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

If so how can you be certain?

What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

What if the suface stations where painted with different paint material from one station to the next, would that have a potential effect?

Exactly, with the constant improvements to equipment, even the most heavily funded organizations get behind....... NASA would be a great example, look at the computer equipment onboard the shuttle. Anything measured in the early seventies was done at a time when cutting edge car audio consisted of 4 track tape decks. What type of equipment was used in WW2 where they still weren't using jets, WW1 where aircraft had fabric covering..... etc.

[glockmail]

That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area.

The various locations of the Syracuse station throughout the general geographical area were not part of the NOAA data record. It was only due to the fact that I had lived in the area for 11 years and became interested in local history that I establish the fact that the station had been moved. It would have taken much more research, again at the local level, to pinpoint exact locations, as well as merely the general nature of the surrounding buildings at annual increments in the historical record. And again, as MB so nicely demonstrated, effects of minor site changes, none which are researchable over a 127 year record, can make a significant factor in the data over time.

So these “adjustments” that your cited research relies heavily on are entirely subjective at best.

[SpidermanTUba]

Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

No. That's why they eliminate outliers.

What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

Answers to these questions can be found in these places:

Free, M., J.K. Angell, I. Durre, J. Lanzante, T.C. Peterson and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Using first differences to reduce inhomogeneity in radiosonde temperature datasets, J. Climate, 21, 4171-4179.

Peterson, Thomas C. and Russell S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature data base, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2837-2849.

Peterson, T.C., T.R. Karl, P.F. Jamason, R. Knight, and D.R. Easterling, 1998: The first difference method: maximizing station density for the calculation of long-term global temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 103 (D20), 25967-25974.

[SpidermanTUba]

Exactly, with the constant improvements to equipment, even the most heavily funded organizations get behind....... NASA would be a great example, look at the computer equipment onboard the shuttle. Anything measured in the early seventies was done at a time when cutting edge car audio consisted of 4 track tape decks. What type of equipment was used in WW2 where they still weren't using jets, WW1 where aircraft had fabric covering..... etc.

You are aware that the instrument for measuring temperature is a fairly simple device that's been around for hundreds of years, right?

[SpidermanTUba]

And again, as MB so nicely demonstrated, effects of minor site changes, none which are researchable over a 127 year record, can make a significant factor in the data over time.

Fortunately, inhomogeneity in the record can be measured - and adjusted for - without knowing its causes.

So these “adjustments” that your cited research relies heavily on are entirely subjective at best.

Specifically, what do you think is wrong with the Karl and Williams approach?