Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 171
  1. #126
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Don't you know Ray, It's fashionable to use the latest fad... Blame it on Global Warming.

    I like those examples. Afterall, the raniest July in a very long time here is why I started this thread. It still isn't raining as much as it used to here in Portland... Damn. I miss going three months with no rain...

    By the way. What happened to RNR?

    RNR.... Where are you....

    I'm waiting for explainations of why I don't know ...

  2. #127
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Don't you know Ray, It's fashionable to use the latest fad... Blame it on Global Warming.

    I like those examples. Afterall, the raniest July in a very long time here is why I started this thread. It still isn't raining as much as it used to here in Portland... Damn. I miss going three months with no rain...

    By the way. What happened to RNR?

    RNR.... Where are you....

    I'm waiting for explainations of why I don't know ...

    Oh, he is off pouting. And don't know if you noticed
    but he is way above us. I think he said he is a
    budding scientist, many times. He doesn't like any
    facts. Well except his own, which of course have
    been well vented and peer reviewed and graphed and
    refined and forms a consensus of opinion which of
    course make them indisputible and above question.
    Any mention of any other source other than his is
    out of the question because they all take big oils
    money. Of course taking the tax payers money is
    okay. Don't you know.

  3. #128
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.

    'Dirty snow' warming the Earth, study finds; a few paragraphs from the link:

    A team of U.S. scientists has found that "dirty snow" is a surprisingly significant contributor to global warming, and is urging Canada -- as "custodian" of a vast, snowbound nation -- to lead an international cleanup effort.

    The researchers have measured, in the first comprehensive study of its kind, how snowy landscapes tainted by carbon particles from inefficiently burned fuels and forest fires are absorbing more of the sun's heat than the less sooty snow cover of centuries past.

    "Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smokestacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground," the team explains. "Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow. Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling."
    In their NASA-funded project, Mr. Zender and three colleagues from UC-Irvine and the University of Colorado calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth's temperature to rise 0.1 to 0.15 C, or up to 19% of the total warming of 0.8 C over the past 200 years.

    In that time, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 C, and dirty snow there has caused at least 0.5 C of the warming, the team found.

    "The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions," the scientists note. But their research has "determined that a lesser-known mechanism -- dirty snow -- can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases."
    "In some polar areas, impurities in the snow have caused enough melting to expose underlying sea ice or soil that is significantly darker than the snow. The darker surfaces absorb sunlight more rapidly than snow, causing additional warming. This cycle causes temperatures in the polar regions to rise as much as 3 C during some seasons," the scientists say.

    "Once the snow is gone, the soot that caused the snow to melt continues to have an effect because the ground surface is darker and retains more heat."

  4. #129
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Post Count
    4,132
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/sc.../10arctic.html

    August 10, 2007
    Analysts See ‘Simply Incredible’ Shrinking of Floating Ice in the Arctic
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN

    The area of floating ice in the Arctic has shrunk more this summer than in any other summer since satellite tracking began in 1979, and it has reached that record point a month before the annual ice pullback typically peaks, experts said yesterday.

    The cause is probably a mix of natural fluctuations, like unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles ac ulating in the air, according to several scientists.

    ...

  5. #130
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Well, another victory for us deniers. Recently, it has been proven that the NASA data reporting 1998 as the hottest year has corrupted results. A Y2K bug is blamed. This doesn't quite wash with me for the reason, especially since an 'Al-Gore-rythm' for calculcations is said to be faulty. A few links and quotes from the articles:

    NASA Bitten by Y2K Bug

    Having noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000, it’s now been confirmed that a Y2K bug had affected NASA’s climate data. The agency has acknowledged what they refer to as an “oversight” and have released corrected figures in their latest data refresh. Accordingly, the warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long touted in the media as “record-breaking”) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but it will most certainly be taken as lending credence to the arguments of climate change deniers who maintain the issue is anything but “settled science” in their estimation.
    Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever

    You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

    "One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

    It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.

    Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:

    "the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

    But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?

    As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

    "One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

    Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece en led Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

    "A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

    As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

    Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

    1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

    So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to , then?
    Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)

    year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
    ---------------------------------
    1880 -.26 *
    1881 .29 *
    1882 .07 -.24
    1883 -.68 -.30
    1884 -.63 -.41
    1885 -.54 -.46
    1886 -.28 -.39
    1887 -.17 -.21
    1888 -.32 -.06
    1889 .28 -.04
    1890 .20 -.11
    1891 -.20 -.19
    1892 -.51 -.21
    1893 -.72 -.38
    1894 .17 -.30
    1895 -.66 -.22
    1896 .19 -.10
    1897 -.08 -.22
    1898 -.15 .03
    1899 -.41 .00
    1900 .57 -.01
    1901 .05 -.11
    1902 -.13 -.13
    1903 -.65 -.34
    1904 -.48 -.35
    1905 -.47 -.37
    1906 -.02 -.21
    1907 -.24 -.17
    1908 .14 -.02
    1909 -.27 .02
    1910 .28 -.11
    1911 .17 -.15
    1912 -.88 -.08
    1913 -.03 -.16
    1914 .09 -.29
    1915 -.15 -.33
    1916 -.50 -.31
    1917 -1.06 -.35
    1918 .06 -.40
    1919 -.10 -.07
    1920 -.41 .17
    1921 1.15 .15
    1922 .18 .02
    1923 -.07 .17
    1924 -.74 -.05
    1925 .36 -.05
    1926 .04 -.02
    1927 .15 .01
    1928 .07 -.03
    1929 -.58 .18
    1930 .16 .15
    1931 1.08 .27
    1932 .00 .63
    1933 .68 .61
    1934 1.25 .44
    1935 .04 .41
    1936 .21 .45
    1937 -.13 .37
    1938 .86 .36
    1939 .85 .45
    1940 .03 .49
    1941 .61 .35
    1942 .09 .21
    1943 .17 .19
    1944 .14 .22
    1945 -.03 .22
    1946 .72 .17
    1947 .10 .18
    1948 -.08 .13
    1949 .20 -.10
    1950 -.28 -.05
    1951 -.42 .14
    1952 .32 .27
    1953 .90 .32
    1954 .85 .47
    1955 -.03 .43
    1956 .29 .26
    1957 .14 .13
    1958 .06 .08
    1959 .17 .02
    1960 -.24 -.01
    1961 -.02 .02
    1962 -.02 -.03
    1963 .19 -.01
    1964 -.07 -.05
    1965 -.11 -.07
    1966 -.24 -.16
    1967 -.10 -.19
    1968 -.28 -.19
    1969 -.23 -.16
    1970 -.11 -.21
    1971 -.10 -.11
    1972 -.35 -.03
    1973 .24 -.05
    1974 .15 -.08
    1975 -.20 .06
    1976 -.25 -.09
    1977 .37 -.24
    1978 -.52 -.16
    1979 -.60 .02
    1980 .22 -.12
    1981 .64 -.02
    1982 -.36 .10
    1983 -.01 -.03
    1984 .00 -.01
    1985 -.42 .22
    1986 .73 .29
    1987 .83 .25
    1988 .32 .51
    1989 -.19 .50
    1990 .87 .40
    1991 .69 .25
    1992 .30 .38
    1993 -.44 .27
    1994 .46 .10
    1995 .34 .05
    1996 -.17 .38
    1997 .03 .47
    1998 1.23 .51
    1999 .93 .69
    2000 .52 .79
    2001 .76 .65
    2002 .53 .55
    2003 .50 .58
    2004 .44 .66
    2005 .69 *
    2006 1.13 *
    ---------------------------------

  6. #131
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Well WC, looks like RNR is still pouting. I wonder how he will
    explain your latest post. Or even if he will try.

    Of course he more than likely is talking to all those learned professors, that like him, that want everyone to conform to his/their life changing ways to protect civilization. And increase taxes and help the third world countries.....etc....etc.....etc.....

    You know the old story, if you cant convince people. Just
    dazzle them with your BS.

  7. #132
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You know, when I said "Al-Gore-Rythm," I was saying that jokingly. However, I heard yesterday that the scientist responsible for the data was one in the same as the on that got Gore started on his Global Warming stint!

    I also heard that this scientist refuses to show his calculations that yielded the increase of a 0.15 Celsius average. Could he have purposely manipulated the data?

    I see a pink slip in this guys future. Some say I'm psychic, but you don't need to be psychic to know if he cannot show this as an accident, this guy is likely history.

  8. #133
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Post Count
    4,132
    August 16, 2007
    Op-Ed Columnist
    The Big Melt
    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

    If we learned that Al Qaeda was secretly developing a new terrorist technique that could disrupt water supplies around the globe, force tens of millions from their homes and potentially endanger our entire planet, we would be aroused into a frenzy and deploy every possible asset to neutralize the threat.

    Yet that is precisely the threat that we're creating ourselves, with our greenhouse gases. While there is still much uncertainty about the severity of the consequences, a series of new studies indicate that we're cooking our favorite planet more quickly than experts had expected.

    The newly published studies haven't received much attention, because they're not in English but in Scientese and hence drier than the Sahara Desert. But they suggest that ice is melting and our seas are rising more quickly than most experts had anticipated.

    The latest source of alarm is the news, as reported by my Times colleague Andrew Revkin, that sea ice in the northern polar region just set a new low - and it still has another month of melting ahead of it. At this rate, the "permanent" north polar ice cap may disappear entirely in our lifetimes.

    In case you missed the May edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade - three times greater.

    The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict.

    Three other recent reports underscore that climate change seems to be occurring more quickly than computer models had anticipated:

    .

    Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them - and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope.

    .

    In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change - meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts - to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there).

    .

    Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world's several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. "At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated," the article declared.

    What does all this mean?

    "Over and over again, we're finding that models correctly predict the patterns of change but understate their magnitude," notes Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

    This may all sound abstract, but climate change apparently is already causing crop failures in Africa. In countries like Burundi, you can hold children who are starving and dying because of weather changes that many experts believe are driven by our carbon emissions.

    There are practical steps we can take to curb carbon emissions, and I'll talk about them in a forthcoming column. But the tragedy is that the U.S. has become a big part of the problem.

    "Not only is the U.S. not leading on climate change, we're holding others back," said Jessica Bailey, who works on climate issues for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. "We're inhibiting progress on climate change globally."

    I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue - recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.

    "We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.

    "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."

    Critics scoff that the scientific debate is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain - and they're right. There is natural variability and lots of uncertainty, especially about the magnitude and timing of climate change.

    In the same way, terror experts aren't sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda's next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there's uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn't act vigorously to confront them - yet that's our national policy toward climate change, and it's a disgrace.

  9. #134
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    August 16, 2007
    Op-Ed Columnist
    The Big Melt
    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    Who cares about words of a columnist who specializes in political science?

    What knowledge does he have to parse the correct information on the subject? Yes, Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice. However, their interiors are gaining ice, and are still near balance. As for the Arctic ice, it is floating ice. It could completely melt and not have any direct effect on sea level. It would have a minor indirect effect as the Arctic ocean absorbs more solar energy. As the average ocean temperatures warm, the heat expansion will have a minor effect.

    Find the root problem for the Ice Melts. All credible evidence I have seen shows for Greenland and the Arctic, it is black soot contamination. The ice shelfs in the south are normal periodic phenomena as they are floating ice that stresses from the non-floating ice on the land mass.

    wiki; Nicholas Kristof

  10. #135
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Post Count
    4,132
    I am amused by these fallback positions "even if it is melting, it's because of something else". Anyway, here is something recent on the imbalance:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0719143502.htm

    Source: University of Colorado at Boulder
    Date: July 20, 2007

    Glaciers And Ice Caps To Dominate Sea Level Rise This Century, Says New Study

    Science Daily - Ice loss from glaciers and ice caps is expected to cause more global sea rise during this century than the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

    The researchers concluded that glaciers and ice caps are currently contributing about 60 percent of the world's ice to the oceans and the rate has been markedly accelerating in the past decade, said Emeritus Professor Mark Meier of CU-Boulder's Ins ute of Arctic and Alpine Research, lead study author. The contribution is presently about 100 cubic miles of ice annually -- a volume nearly equal to the water in Lake Erie -- and is rising by about three cubic miles per year.

    In contrast, the CU-Boulder team estimated Greenland is now contributing about 28 percent of the total global sea rise from ice loss and Antarctica is contributing about 12 percent. Greenland is not expected to catch up to glaciers and ice caps in terms of sea level rise contributions until the end of the century, according to the study.

    ...

  11. #136
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    And you point spurster?

    The team estimated accelerating melt of glaciers and ice caps could add from 4 inches to 9.5 inches of additional sea level rise globally by 2100.
    They are estimating this much additional from what historical data already says we increase? Not much, and an estimate based on thrends that change. We have been in an accelerated melting of the Northern region. The most recent increases I do attribute to pollution. Not warming. Nobody addresses the correct causes.

    How accurate this other article is, I don't know. It at least sounds reasonable except the fear they throw in about Greenland completely losing it's ice. I was refering to the other link which has little or no merit.

  12. #137
    Marilyn Rae Lover jochhejaam's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    7,614
    The arguements for GW have been weakened to the extent that it deserves no more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    Global baloney
    It turns out the last decade wasn't the hottest in history
    Sunday, August 19, 2007
    Jack Kelly, Columnist for the Pittsburg Post Gazette & The Toledo Blade.


    It was a small change, made quietly two weeks ago on the Web site of the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies. But it could have big implications.

    Al Gore claimed in his 2006 crockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that nine of the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last decade, with 1998 the warmest year on record.

    Not so, says the GISS, which is affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University, and is headed by Dr. James Hansen, scientific godfather of global warming alarmism. According to the GISS, the hottest years ever in the United States were, in order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

    Only one year in the last five (2006, fourth) is on this list, and only three in the last 10, compared with four in the 1930s.

    The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also publishes annual data on U.S. temperatures. Its estimates for the last decade are higher than GISS's. Data collected from NASA weather satellites do not show the warming trend GISS and NCDC do. (Satellites indicated a warming of only a third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999.)

    The adjustments in annual temperatures from the GISS's original data to the corrected version are quite small (temperatures from the year 2000 forward were reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius), but the rhetorical implications are great. It sounds so much more alarming to say: "Nine of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade" than to say: "One of the last five years was almost as warm as 1934."

    It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station.

    A surface station in Detroit Lakes, Minn., showed a big jump in annual mean temperature in the year 2000. Mr. Watts figured this was because two air conditioning vents were installed near the station that year, blowing hot air on the sensor. He expounded upon his theory on his Web log (Watts Up With That?) and promptly got shot down. Several readers noted much of the e occurred in winter, when the air conditioning units weren't running.

    Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who reads Mr. Watts' blog, had another theory. Perhaps there was a Y2K bug in the software GISS used. He reverse engineered the GISS data, and discovered an error that went far beyond one surface station in Detroit Lakes. Data collected after 1999 wasn't being adjusted to account for the time of day when readings were taken.

    Without disclosing how it arrived at its conclusions, the Goddard Ins ute quietly acknowledged that Mr. McIntyre was right.

    The United States is only 2 percent of the world's land mass. It's possible the rest of the world's been getting hotter in the last few years, even if the United States hasn't. But as Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post noted, we only have surface temperature readings for half the world today. Prior to World War II, we had readings for less than a quarter of it.

    Many of those readings are suspect. Earlier this month, British mathematician Douglas Keenan accused Dr. Wei Chyung Wang, upon whom the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for data on China, of research fraud.

    Mr. Keenan was able to cry foul on the dubious data because the lead author of the paper to which Dr. Wang contributed his figures was a British scientist, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Under British law, those who conduct publicly funded research must disclose the data and methodology on which they based their conclusions.

    No such law exists in the United States. Though publicly funded, neither the scientists at the Goddard Ins ute nor the National Climatic Data Center disclose how they arrive at conclusions so they can be independently verified. They ought to.

    As the GISS was quietly acknowledging its error, Newsweek magazine, with exquisitely bad timing, declared in an Aug. 13 cover story that the debate on global warming was over.

    "The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading," <In other words, it was a great read if you're into fiction. What a joke!> wrote Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson in the following issue.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810390-373.stm

  13. #138
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of climate shift or 'global warming'


    You discredit Jochhejaam with a statement that you don't back up, and I bet you cannot.

    Have you read this tread from the start, with the evidence presented against man-made global warming?

    Tell me why I am wrong. Put your money where your mouth is!

  14. #139
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    The arguements for GW have been weakened to the extent that it deserves no more credibility than the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    Global baloney
    It turns out the last decade wasn't the hottest in history
    Sunday, August 19, 2007
    Jack Kelly, Columnist for the Pittsburg Post Gazette & The Toledo Blade.


    It was a small change, made quietly two weeks ago on the Web site of the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies. But it could have big implications.

    Al Gore claimed in his 2006 crockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that nine of the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last decade, with 1998 the warmest year on record.

    Not so, says the GISS, which is affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University, and is headed by Dr. James Hansen, scientific godfather of global warming alarmism. According to the GISS, the hottest years ever in the United States were, in order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

    Only one year in the last five (2006, fourth) is on this list, and only three in the last 10, compared with four in the 1930s.

    The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also publishes annual data on U.S. temperatures. Its estimates for the last decade are higher than GISS's. Data collected from NASA weather satellites do not show the warming trend GISS and NCDC do. (Satellites indicated a warming of only a third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999.)

    The adjustments in annual temperatures from the GISS's original data to the corrected version are quite small (temperatures from the year 2000 forward were reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius), but the rhetorical implications are great. It sounds so much more alarming to say: "Nine of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade" than to say: "One of the last five years was almost as warm as 1934."

    It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station.

    A surface station in Detroit Lakes, Minn., showed a big jump in annual mean temperature in the year 2000. Mr. Watts figured this was because two air conditioning vents were installed near the station that year, blowing hot air on the sensor. He expounded upon his theory on his Web log (Watts Up With That?) and promptly got shot down. Several readers noted much of the e occurred in winter, when the air conditioning units weren't running.

    Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who reads Mr. Watts' blog, had another theory. Perhaps there was a Y2K bug in the software GISS used. He reverse engineered the GISS data, and discovered an error that went far beyond one surface station in Detroit Lakes. Data collected after 1999 wasn't being adjusted to account for the time of day when readings were taken.

    Without disclosing how it arrived at its conclusions, the Goddard Ins ute quietly acknowledged that Mr. McIntyre was right.

    The United States is only 2 percent of the world's land mass. It's possible the rest of the world's been getting hotter in the last few years, even if the United States hasn't. But as Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post noted, we only have surface temperature readings for half the world today. Prior to World War II, we had readings for less than a quarter of it.

    Many of those readings are suspect. Earlier this month, British mathematician Douglas Keenan accused Dr. Wei Chyung Wang, upon whom the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for data on China, of research fraud.

    Mr. Keenan was able to cry foul on the dubious data because the lead author of the paper to which Dr. Wang contributed his figures was a British scientist, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Under British law, those who conduct publicly funded research must disclose the data and methodology on which they based their conclusions.

    No such law exists in the United States. Though publicly funded, neither the scientists at the Goddard Ins ute nor the National Climatic Data Center disclose how they arrive at conclusions so they can be independently verified. They ought to.

    As the GISS was quietly acknowledging its error, Newsweek magazine, with exquisitely bad timing, declared in an Aug. 13 cover story that the debate on global warming was over.

    "The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading," <In other words, it was a great read if you're into fiction. What a joke!> wrote Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson in the following issue.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810390-373.stm
    The dataset used in the study covered only the United States. Considering the US consists of only 2% of the world's actual surface area, it's difficult to justify that global warming is only a data related issue based on such a small sample

    Besides, after the correction is factored in, 5 of the hottest 10 years on record occur prior to WW2, before the correction, the data points out that 4 of the hottest 10 years on record occurred prior to WW2, that's a delta of 10%.

    Considering the fact that heat islands are a relatively recent phenomena, it's hard to say just how accurate the data recorded before WW2 is.

    Raw Data Dump
    Last edited by McFudpucker; 08-20-2007 at 04:55 PM.

  15. #140
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    A Light On Upstairs?

    Sorry to send another e-mail so soon. No need to read further unless you are interested in temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S. and a thousandth of a degree over the world.

    Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html) had a flaw in the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally published in our 1981 Science paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html) we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

    Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we have made that correction.

    The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

    Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

    Somehow the flaw in 2001-2007 U.S. data was advertised on the internet and for two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the President, that I must “step down”, or that I must “vanish”. Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks.

    My apologies if the quick response that I sent to Andy Revkin and several other journalists, including the suggestion that it was a tempest inside somebody's teapot dome, and that perhaps a light was not on upstairs, was immoderate. It was not ad hominem, though.

    NASA's Statement on Corrected Data's Effect on Global Temperature

  16. #141
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I don't care what they say. They acknowledge a mistake and then say it doesn't affect global averages? Think about it. The USA is the standard bearer for most things scientific. Chances are, other countries used the same flawed formulas.

    What are the chances of the USA averages only being affected? What are the chances of the USA 1934 numbers being the highest while globally is so much different?

    Just more excuses from the alarmists. They just make it up as they go. They are probably the same ones that perpetrated the bad formulas and are now in need of redemption. I for one, understanding enough of the sciences involved completely dispute the degree to which others blame mankind for global warming. I could care less what these experts say especially since there is not 100% consensus.

    We were discussing how this July/August so far feels like October here in Portland!

    Please.... Bring back the global warming.... I miss the heat....

  17. #142
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Hey WC October in July/August........caused by global warming.
    I cant wait to hear how the Cat five blowing in the Caribbean was
    caused by global warming.

    I'm sure dan can find an article somewhere.

    I still wonder why RNR wont come back and defend his
    position. Still sulking I guess.....

  18. #143
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    I don't care what they say. They acknowledge a mistake and then say it doesn't affect global averages? Think about it. The USA is the standard bearer for most things scientific. Chances are, other countries used the same flawed formulas.

    More like the US followed the same flawed protocols considering that modern temperature keeping has been around since the 1850's.

    What are the chances of the USA averages only being affected? What are the chances of the USA 1934 numbers being the highest while globally is so much different?

    Relatively High.

    Just more excuses from the alarmists. They just make it up as they go. They are probably the same ones that perpetrated the bad formulas and are now in need of redemption. I for one, understanding enough of the sciences involved completely dispute the degree to which others blame mankind for global warming. I could care less what these experts say especially since there is not 100% consensus.

    We were discussing how this July/August so far feels like October here in Portland!

    Please.... Bring back the global warming.... I miss the heat....
    So, as long as the data supports your opinion, it's relevant, as soon as the data contradicts your worldview, it is no longer relevant? OK, thanks for clearing that up.

    Well, another victory for us deniers. Recently, it has been proven that the NASA data reporting 1998 as the hottest year has corrupted results. A Y2K bug is blamed. This doesn't quite wash with me for the reason, especially since an 'Al-Gore-rythm' for calculcations is said to be faulty. A few links and quotes from the articles:

    You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

    "One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

    It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.

    Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:

    "the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

    But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?

    As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

    "One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

    Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece en led Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

    "A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

    As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

    Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

    1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

    So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to , then?

  19. #144
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Hey WC October in July/August........caused by global warming.
    I see it as a natural cyclical climate change myself. For the record, when I said "we," I meant those who I talk to locally. I try to clarify such things, but failed in this case.

    I cant wait to hear how the Cat five blowing in the Caribbean was caused by global warming.

    I'm sure dan can find an article somewhere.
    Sure, the combined delta-T (temperature differential) in the atmospheric layering and the water temperature explains such things. I'm sure he can to.

    The one thing I have not disputed is the possibility of CO2 concentrations increasing storm activities. It traps the same about of heat, but it traps a higher percentage at the lower elevations. This can in theory increase the severity of storms by the increased delta-T. I don’t think there is much of a change, but to quantify the increased delta-T to intensities would be some pretty difficult modeling, especially since we cannot get the simple stuff right.

    I still wonder why RNR wont come back and defend his
    position. Still sulking I guess.....
    We both know. He cannot find facts that counter the facts in my arguments.

  20. #145
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So, as long as the data supports your opinion, it's relevant, as soon as the data contradicts your worldview, it is no longer relevant? OK, thanks for clearing that up.
    No, you are assuming as to what I am assuming. How can that bear any accuracy whatsoever?

    I explained my points well enough. Challange that point if you must.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-21-2007 at 10:36 PM. Reason: changed :point" to "points"

  21. #146
    Purrrrrrrrrrrr Holt's Cat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    4,203
    Does global warming exist in some shape or form? Sure. Is a 200 foot tidal wave due to a renegade glacier in the North Atlantic going to destroy the Eastern US seaboard? Probably not. What I hate about this debate is much like any other it boils down to heads on both sides getting carried away with themselves and their self-proclaimed greatness that any hope of finding a rational, reasonable solution to the problem is lost. So drop your Messianic hopes and read a little. Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    The Rest of Humanity

  22. #147
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Does global warming exist in some shape or form? Sure. Is a 200 foot tidal wave due to a renegade glacier in the North Atlantic going to destroy the Eastern US seaboard? Probably not. What I hate about this debate is much like any other it boils down to heads on both sides getting carried away with themselves and their self-proclaimed greatness that any hope of finding a rational, reasonable solution to the problem is lost. So drop your Messianic hopes and read a little. Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    The Rest of Humanity
    Who is getting carried away with their greatness?

    I and others have just ask is man really the cause of
    the so called global warming? And what is the problem?
    Man? I don't think so and there is no absolute answer
    to the question. Some accuse the deniers of politicizing
    the whole thing. But who is trying to pass laws and
    impose taxes on everyone to counter the so called man
    made warming. First, we need to find out if warming
    is really occurring and then find out what is causing it.

  23. #148
    Purrrrrrrrrrrr Holt's Cat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    4,203
    As I said.

  24. #149
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Reference my post of 8-21, above, here is a nice little article to
    back-up my comment on added taxes. Seems as those the
    British are too happy about politicians answer to global warming.


    PUBLIC WARY OF GREEN TAX MOTIVES



    Monday September 3,2007


    Nearly two-thirds of the public believe ministers are using environmental fears as an excuse to raise tax revenue, according to a poll.

    And research suggests their cynicism is justified - with green taxes raking in £10 billion more for the Treasury than it would cost to offset the entire UK's carbon footprint.

    The figures are contained in a dossier compiled by pressure group the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA).

    The do ent is likely to provide grim reading for politicians of all colours - including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron - who are committed to making individuals pay for habits which damage the environment.

    A survey carried out by YouGov for the TPA found that only a fifth of people thought politicians were genuinely trying to change behaviours using the tax system. In contrast, 63% believed they were using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.

    Nearly four-fifths voiced opposition to the so-called "pay as you throw" schemes floated by the Government to encourage recycling - despite previous surveys indicating a majority backed the idea.

    Some 60% said fuel duty was an unfair tax, while 45% thought the same about air passenger duty - which was recently doubled by the Government.

    Opinion was evenly split over whether they approved in principle of extra "green" charges on motoring and air travel - with 46% saying they did not and 45% saying they did.

    Using previous international research into climate change, the report estimated that covering the social cost of carbon emissions would have cost £11.7 billion in 2005.

    But receipts from green taxes such as fuel duty, road tax and the Climate Change Levy totalled £21.9 billion. On average every household in the UK paid £400 more in levies than it cost to cover their own footprint, the TPA claimed.

    ==================================
    I wonder if they will give the excess back to the taxpayer....
    yeah, like fun they will. I'm sure they can put it to good
    use, even if the taxpayer cant afford the tax.

  25. #150
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Post Count
    4,132
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/sc...h/08polar.html

    Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday.

    ...

    The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.

    ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •