Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

[westwall]

Why don't you people wise up and stop making baseless accusations?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia gathers data from meteorological stations around the world and the university processes the information for the Hadley Center and the UK Met Office. The only thing they do with that data is collect monthly averages of temperature and assess the temperature of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude spacial grid of the Earth, if an area has enough ground stations to give good data and the ground stations existed during the time they use for a base average. Governments use universities because they will do the work cheaper. The UK Met Office and Hadley Center was started by the conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Now, you Denialistas were asked how is it possible to change that data and you didn't answer, because you don't have an answer. You just keep making baseless charges only backed by your words, that can't make sense unless the whole world is involved in a giant comspiracy. Our National Climatic Data Center does the same thing, collecting meteorological data from around the world for the Department of Commerce. The countries that send that data keep records in their own countries, so anyone changing that data would be caught. There is also satellite temperature data processed at the University of Alabama.

But it's you Revisionists who have dropped 5000 weather stations from use. Now, you only use the ones near urban areas that benefit from the Urban island Effect. Do you realise we are using the same number of weather stations as were used back in 1916? A thinking person would wonder why.

A REVISIONIST, on the other hand, will just look at something else to falsify.

You just make things up and believes someone is going to buy it, like that nonsense about using urban areas! They evaluate whether the data will be representative of the grid I mentioned. 5 degrees by 5 degrees is a large area that can have various geographies.

What part of excluding areas that didn't have data during the base period can't you understand? What part of GISS and HadCRUT being entirely independent don't you understand? What part of that data still existing in the nations that provided it don't you understand?

You say they are falsifying data, but you can't give one example from all those countries providing that data to support your claims. Is every country on Earth involved in this conspiracy to falsify data on the US and UK temperature maps? Your claims are just words from someone making them up.

The NCDC and Met Office still gather data from all the weather stations they can get data from, but they can't use the data on a map if data didn't exist for that area during the base period where they compare current data with the past. In the future, when data exists to show an anomaly in a particular area, then they can do it. When they can't determine the changes in temperature in a grid area, they just leave the grid blank, so how is that falsifying data to not even show an anomaly for a grid, when there is no way of knowing what the anomaly is? In order to show the changes of present temperatures to the past, you have to know what the past temperatures were.

I live in the mid-Atlantic area and the weather is warmer than it was. I've seen videos of farmers in Greenland and they are growing crops they couldn't grow before. There are hundreds of glaciers that had pictures taken of them and they show retreat. There are pictures of homes in permafrost areas losing their foundation. There is evidence of sea ice melting. There is a world of evidence of warming and you run around telling people it isn't happening for your economic agenda.

When you post pictures of nuclear submarines surfacing and say it can't happen today, then you have no credibility in what you choose to claim. You knew those submarines were surfacing in polynias and intentionally made false statements about it not being able to happen today.

The only way it would be possible to falsify those global temperatrure maps is to lower the past temperatures during the base period and raise the present temperatures on a monthly basis. The UK and the US would both have to be doing it, all the countries of the world supplying the data would have to be going along with it and the US would have to be changing it's satellite temperature data to go along with it. Even if all that was possible, how do you convince the ice to go along with it?

I gave you a chart of June Snow Cover for the Northern Hemisphere and pointed out the area was like 3 times the area of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). If it didn't get warmer what happened to the snow? What happened to the arctic sea ice to reduce it to around the area of GIS? You can claim melting 97% of the Greenland surface was a once in a 150 year thing, but with less arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover, it's going to be a regular thing.

Why aren't you the proper little revisionist...here you go, read and learn. This is three links of hundreds available to you. I suggest you read something other than the propaganda you are being spoonfed. If you actually want to learn that is.

Weather Extremes : Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis? | Weather Underground

Guest Post By Richard Berler Chief Meteorologist KGNS TV Laredo, TX | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization | Watts Up With That?

 

[Dubya]

But it's you Revisionists who have dropped 5000 weather stations from use. Now, you only use the ones near urban areas that benefit from the Urban island Effect. Do you realise we are using the same number of weather stations as were used back in 1916? A thinking person would wonder why.

A REVISIONIST, on the other hand, will just look at something else to falsify.

You just make things up and believes someone is going to buy it, like that nonsense about using urban areas! They evaluate whether the data will be representative of the grid I mentioned. 5 degrees by 5 degrees is a large area that can have various geographies.

What part of excluding areas that didn't have data during the base period can't you understand? What part of GISS and HadCRUT being entirely independent don't you understand? What part of that data still existing in the nations that provided it don't you understand?

You say they are falsifying data, but you can't give one example from all those countries providing that data to support your claims. Is every country on Earth involved in this conspiracy to falsify data on the US and UK temperature maps? Your claims are just words from someone making them up.

The NCDC and Met Office still gather data from all the weather stations they can get data from, but they can't use the data on a map if data didn't exist for that area during the base period where they compare current data with the past. In the future, when data exists to show an anomaly in a particular area, then they can do it. When they can't determine the changes in temperature in a grid area, they just leave the grid blank, so how is that falsifying data to not even show an anomaly for a grid, when there is no way of knowing what the anomaly is? In order to show the changes of present temperatures to the past, you have to know what the past temperatures were.

I live in the mid-Atlantic area and the weather is warmer than it was. I've seen videos of farmers in Greenland and they are growing crops they couldn't grow before. There are hundreds of glaciers that had pictures taken of them and they show retreat. There are pictures of homes in permafrost areas losing their foundation. There is evidence of sea ice melting. There is a world of evidence of warming and you run around telling people it isn't happening for your economic agenda.

When you post pictures of nuclear submarines surfacing and say it can't happen today, then you have no credibility in what you choose to claim. You knew those submarines were surfacing in polynias and intentionally made false statements about it not being able to happen today.

The only way it would be possible to falsify those global temperatrure maps is to lower the past temperatures during the base period and raise the present temperatures on a monthly basis. The UK and the US would both have to be doing it, all the countries of the world supplying the data would have to be going along with it and the US would have to be changing it's satellite temperature data to go along with it. Even if all that was possible, how do you convince the ice to go along with it?

I gave you a chart of June Snow Cover for the Northern Hemisphere and pointed out the area was like 3 times the area of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). If it didn't get warmer what happened to the snow? What happened to the arctic sea ice to reduce it to around the area of GIS? You can claim melting 97% of the Greenland surface was a once in a 150 year thing, but with less arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover, it's going to be a regular thing.

Why aren't you the proper little revisionist...here you go, read and learn. This is three links of hundreds available to you. I suggest you read something other than the propaganda you are being spoonfed. If you actually want to learn that is.

Weather Extremes : Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis? | Weather Underground

Guest Post By Richard Berler Chief Meteorologist KGNS TV Laredo, TX | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization | Watts Up With That?

Try a primary source for information and stop reading propaganda, while accusing others you don't even know of being like you! You haven't seen me post a link that isn't a primary source of information, because I don't need someone else doing an analysis and telling me what to think. A person with a science background would know that.

Consider your first link, "Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis?"! The NCDC is just an archive of weather information. GISS uses their temperature data to compare present temperatures with the past. You would think being a branch of the Commerce Department would give a Denialista a clue. GISS is part of NASA.

Consider your last link! WUWT is a lying propaganda blog, in fact, your links are blogs that give out misinformation and not scientific information.

Environmentalists didn't get the government to put up satellites measuring arctic sea ice, the Department of the Defense did it for the United States Navy, so they could surface submarines without using active sonar, which will give away a subs position. It's must come to a shock to you that the DOD would have an interest in weather data or our Navy would have an interest in sea level rise. When they want satellites, they go to NASA.

 

[westwall]

You just make things up and believes someone is going to buy it, like that nonsense about using urban areas! They evaluate whether the data will be representative of the grid I mentioned. 5 degrees by 5 degrees is a large area that can have various geographies.

What part of excluding areas that didn't have data during the base period can't you understand? What part of GISS and HadCRUT being entirely independent don't you understand? What part of that data still existing in the nations that provided it don't you understand?

You say they are falsifying data, but you can't give one example from all those countries providing that data to support your claims. Is every country on Earth involved in this conspiracy to falsify data on the US and UK temperature maps? Your claims are just words from someone making them up.

The NCDC and Met Office still gather data from all the weather stations they can get data from, but they can't use the data on a map if data didn't exist for that area during the base period where they compare current data with the past. In the future, when data exists to show an anomaly in a particular area, then they can do it. When they can't determine the changes in temperature in a grid area, they just leave the grid blank, so how is that falsifying data to not even show an anomaly for a grid, when there is no way of knowing what the anomaly is? In order to show the changes of present temperatures to the past, you have to know what the past temperatures were.

I live in the mid-Atlantic area and the weather is warmer than it was. I've seen videos of farmers in Greenland and they are growing crops they couldn't grow before. There are hundreds of glaciers that had pictures taken of them and they show retreat. There are pictures of homes in permafrost areas losing their foundation. There is evidence of sea ice melting. There is a world of evidence of warming and you run around telling people it isn't happening for your economic agenda.

When you post pictures of nuclear submarines surfacing and say it can't happen today, then you have no credibility in what you choose to claim. You knew those submarines were surfacing in polynias and intentionally made false statements about it not being able to happen today.

The only way it would be possible to falsify those global temperatrure maps is to lower the past temperatures during the base period and raise the present temperatures on a monthly basis. The UK and the US would both have to be doing it, all the countries of the world supplying the data would have to be going along with it and the US would have to be changing it's satellite temperature data to go along with it. Even if all that was possible, how do you convince the ice to go along with it?

I gave you a chart of June Snow Cover for the Northern Hemisphere and pointed out the area was like 3 times the area of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). If it didn't get warmer what happened to the snow? What happened to the arctic sea ice to reduce it to around the area of GIS? You can claim melting 97% of the Greenland surface was a once in a 150 year thing, but with less arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover, it's going to be a regular thing.

Why aren't you the proper little revisionist...here you go, read and learn. This is three links of hundreds available to you. I suggest you read something other than the propaganda you are being spoonfed. If you actually want to learn that is.

Weather Extremes : Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis? | Weather Underground

Guest Post By Richard Berler Chief Meteorologist KGNS TV Laredo, TX | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization | Watts Up With That?

Try a primary source for information and stop reading propaganda, while accusing others you don't even know of being like you! You haven't seen me post a link that isn't a primary source of information, because I don't need someone else doing an analysis and telling me what to think. A person with a science background would know that.

Consider your first link, "Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis?"! The NCDC is just an archive of weather information. GISS uses their temperature data to compare present temperatures with the past. You would think being a branch of the Commerce Department would give a Denialista a clue. GISS is part of NASA.

Consider your last link! WUWT is a lying propaganda blog, in fact, your links are blogs that give out misinformation and not scientific information.

Environmentalists didn't get the government to put up satellites measuring arctic sea ice, the Department of the Defense did it for the United States Navy, so they could surface submarines without using active sonar, which will give away a subs position. It's must come to a shock to you that the DOD would have an interest in weather data or our Navy would have an interest in sea level rise. When they want satellites, they go to NASA.

I hate to tell you but that is all you are reading. if you wish to learn something real then read some alternative PRIMARY source materials. Every claim that has been made by the revisionists has been proven false when a real study was done on their claims.

Clearly you have no mind of your own and will only parrot the party line. I wonder if you are yet another olfraud sock. he has many of them.

 

[Old Rocks]

More unsubstanciated flap yap from Walleyes. He claims to be a scientist, but continues to post material from blogs. And ignores the material that is being published in real peer reviewed scientific journals.

AGW Observer

 

[Dubya]

Why aren't you the proper little revisionist...here you go, read and learn. This is three links of hundreds available to you. I suggest you read something other than the propaganda you are being spoonfed. If you actually want to learn that is.

Weather Extremes : Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis? | Weather Underground

Guest Post By Richard Berler Chief Meteorologist KGNS TV Laredo, TX | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization | Watts Up With That?

Try a primary source for information and stop reading propaganda, while accusing others you don't even know of being like you! You haven't seen me post a link that isn't a primary source of information, because I don't need someone else doing an analysis and telling me what to think. A person with a science background would know that.

Consider your first link, "Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis?"! The NCDC is just an archive of weather information. GISS uses their temperature data to compare present temperatures with the past. You would think being a branch of the Commerce Department would give a Denialista a clue. GISS is part of NASA.

Consider your last link! WUWT is a lying propaganda blog, in fact, your links are blogs that give out misinformation and not scientific information.

Environmentalists didn't get the government to put up satellites measuring arctic sea ice, the Department of the Defense did it for the United States Navy, so they could surface submarines without using active sonar, which will give away a subs position. It's must come to a shock to you that the DOD would have an interest in weather data or our Navy would have an interest in sea level rise. When they want satellites, they go to NASA.

I hate to tell you but that is all you are reading. if you wish to learn something real then read some alternative PRIMARY source materials. Every claim that has been made by the revisionists has been proven false when a real study was done on their claims.

Clearly you have no mind of your own and will only parrot the party line. I wonder if you are yet another olfraud sock. he has many of them.

I've posted on WUWT and didn't use blogs to refute their nonsense. The site lies constantly, so you should feel right at home there.

Your last post contained three links, two from right-wing blogs and one from an interview of a meteorologists objecting to FAA, not NCDC temperature readings. Maybe you ought to read your own posts! Do I have to quote where he used NCDC readings to dispute the airport's FAA temperature readings? Way to prove your point that NCDC temperature readings are false!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

 

[Dubya]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia justs collects land station data from around the world, just like the NCDC does. Explain how data transmitted from other countries can be destroyed and how all meteorological data doesn't exist at the NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina and in the countries that send that data!

 

[westwall]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia justs collects land station data from around the world, just like the NCDC does. Explain how data transmitted from other countries can be destroyed and how all meteorological data doesn't exist at the NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina and in the countries that send that data!

I suggest you ask Phil Jones. When presented with claims for raw data under FOIA he countered with the claim that he had lost all of it.

 

[Trakar]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

Got compelling supporting science sources for any of these assertions?

 

[westwall]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

Got compelling supporting science sources for any of these assertions?

Oh hell just go away. You can't even carry on a decent conversation any more, now you're just a troll wasting time.

 

[Trakar]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

Got compelling supporting science sources for any of these assertions?

Oh hell just go away. You can't even carry on a decent conversation any more, now you're just a troll wasting time.

Conversations involve the interactive exchange of considerations and facts. I see no sign of consideration or supportive fact in any of your posts. If you wish to quit responding to my posts that is a choice that you alone can make.

 

[Dubya]

AGW is a cult because they still support East Anglia Data Distortion Center even after they were caught red-handed altering and destroying data.

AGW: It just ain't science

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia justs collects land station data from around the world, just like the NCDC does. Explain how data transmitted from other countries can be destroyed and how all meteorological data doesn't exist at the NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina and in the countries that send that data!

I suggest you ask Phil Jones. When presented with claims for raw data under FOIA he countered with the claim that he had lost all of it.

I suggest you figure out what is involved and stop making groudless accusation!

 

[Oddball]

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

 

[IanC]

Got compelling supporting science sources for any of these assertions?

Oh hell just go away. You can't even carry on a decent conversation any more, now you're just a troll wasting time.

Conversations involve the interactive exchange of considerations and facts. I see no sign of consideration or supportive fact in any of your posts. If you wish to quit responding to my posts that is a choice that you alone can make.

did it bother you that UEA spent so much time and effort blocking FOI requests to release station locations and temperature data in the late 00's? did the read_me_harry files cause you any consternation as to the accuracy of the CRUTemp dataset?

do you differentiate between legitimate concerns over science or is it just a black/white issue with you that everything your scientists say is 100% true while everything skeptical scientists is 100% false?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia justs collects land station data from around the world, just like the NCDC does. Explain how data transmitted from other countries can be destroyed and how all meteorological data doesn't exist at the NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina and in the countries that send that data!

I suggest you ask Phil Jones. When presented with claims for raw data under FOIA he countered with the claim that he had lost all of it.

I suggest you figure out what is involved and stop making groudless accusation!

You first bub.. you started yakking about this stuipd shit.

 

[Trakar]

[
The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

Ah, a fringe rightwing whackadoodle opinion piece, with no compelling or even substantive support, merely more assertion and delusional rambling,...well that ought to clear things up.

 

[IanC]

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia justs collects land station data from around the world, just like the NCDC does. Explain how data transmitted from other countries can be destroyed and how all meteorological data doesn't exist at the NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina and in the countries that send that data!

I suggest you ask Phil Jones. When presented with claims for raw data under FOIA he countered with the claim that he had lost all of it.

I suggest you figure out what is involved and stop making groudless accusation!

did you actually follow that story at the time? have you investigated both sides of the story? what do you think of the climategate emails that strongly suggest that FOI was being ignored? or worse, purposefully thwarted?

 

[Oddball]

[
The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

Ah, a fringe rightwing whackadoodle opinion piece, with no compelling or even substantive support, merely more assertion and delusional rambling,...well that ought to clear things up.

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

So what you're saying is that Phil Jones is a liar.

Funny, that's the conclusion I drew when I read the Hadley e-mails and the harry_read_me files.

 

[IanC]

[
The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

Ah, a fringe rightwing whackadoodle opinion piece, with no compelling or even substantive support, merely more assertion and delusional rambling,...well that ought to clear things up.

which specific parts of that piece are you saying are false? it seems to be a fairly accurate time line of the events that took place.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

[
The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

Ah, a fringe rightwing whackadoodle opinion piece, with no compelling or even substantive support, merely more assertion and delusional rambling,...well that ought to clear things up.

Well, obviously, in your attempts at massive information overload, you failed to even read the piece. Here, I'll help.. here's one pretty alarming part:

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

There's your beloved climatologist... scared to even have his data looked at because someone might question it.

What a fucking joke..