Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

[Trakar]

Then I trust you can link to posts of yours criticizing Chris for his endless "record high temperatures prove global warming" posts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160278-more-record-temps.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/184329-2011-the-second-hottest-summer-on-record.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/128720-2010-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

or not

Provide evidence that the assertion is valid and I will address it. None of the links Daveman provided support his assertion.

 

[daveman]

Being that the "here" for global warming is the entire "globe," your warming is everywhere. You seem to be having a comprehension problem understanding the difference between local/seasonal variations and globally averaged temperature anomalies over time.

Then I trust you can link to posts of yours criticizing Chris for his endless "record high temperatures prove global warming" posts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160278-more-record-temps.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/184329-2011-the-second-hottest-summer-on-record.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/128720-2010-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

 

[Katzndogz]

People can make a record high temperature. Put the sensor in a weed covered lot. Next year pave the lot. Instant record high temperature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

6 degrees here. where THE FUCK is my global warming?

Being that the "here" for global warming is the entire "globe," your warming is everywhere. You seem to be having a comprehension problem understanding the difference between local/seasonal variations and globally averaged temperature anomalies over time.

Then I trust you can link to posts of yours criticizing Chris for his endless "record high temperatures prove global warming" posts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160278-more-record-temps.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/184329-2011-the-second-hottest-summer-on-record.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/128720-2010-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

That's different, those numbers support AGW

 

[Cecilie1200]

People can make a record high temperature. Put the sensor in a weed covered lot. Next year pave the lot. Instant record high temperature.

And, coincidentally, temperature readings are often taken at places like airports, as is the official rainfall measurement.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Or take CO2 readings near an active volcano

 

[SSDD]

People can make a record high temperature. Put the sensor in a weed covered lot. Next year pave the lot. Instant record high temperature.

Putting your sensor at the end of an airport tarmac also works well and putting your sensors near AC exhaust vents does a pretty good job of it as well. The surface stations project found all sorts of inventive ways in use for obtaining higher temperatures.

Of course if you really want to heat up the present, the most effective means climate science has found so far is to drastically cool down the past.

 

[Trakar]

Then I trust you can link to posts of yours criticizing Chris for his endless "record high temperatures prove global warming" posts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160278-more-record-temps.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/184329-2011-the-second-hottest-summer-on-record.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/128720-2010-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

Apparently it is, since that's exactly what the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change nutballs always do.

 

[westwall]

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.
And really, you shouldn't let out the secrets your guys are using as regards the making stuff up...they are so good at it I am sure they would be very irate with you if you let their secrets out.

 

[Trakar]

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

 

[westwall]

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

 

[Trakar]

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

The majority of the references I have already provided over the last week do not utilize or rely upon the data from computer models. (But Watts' paper and analyses rely almost exclusively upon computer models and the data filtered through such models - so you only approve of models when they are used by people you approve of?)

 

[Dubya]

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

 

[daveman]

I have not seen any posts by Chris that state or strongly suggest the narrative you assert. Please provide compelling supportive evidences/links for your assertions. Record high temperatures, in and of themselves are not a "proof" of global warming. That said, in conjunction with other evidences, record high temperatures may provide a measure of supporting evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

You just keep seeing what you want to see.

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

You spend your time exclusively in the Environment forum, do you not?

If you can't see that Chris, an AGW zealot, is trying to tie record high temps to AGW, then it's strictly because you don't WANT to see it.

Period.

 

[daveman]

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

No, that relies on cherry-picking which stations to use.

IEA: Hadley Center ?probably tampered with Russian climate data? « Climate Audit

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

 

[IanC]

Or you can present some evidence that actually and clearly supports your assertions and we can see what happens. Of course it is a lot easier to make stuff up and stamp your feet in faux outrage.

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

how is this paper not peer reviewed and published?

Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends". Journal of Geophysical Research 16 (D14). Bibcode 2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

 

[Dubya]

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

No, that relies on cherry-picking which stations to use.

IEA: Hadley Center ?probably tampered with Russian climate data? « Climate Audit

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

It doesn't really on computer models, like one idiot said and it requires picking stations with dependable data. In order to calculate a 5 by 5 degree grid, you also have to have data from the base period.

Grow a brain!

 

[Dubya]

Look it up yourself. Watts published a paper (yes it was peer reviewed and everything!) on the poor siting of weather stations and NOAA agreed. They are supposedly addressing the issue.

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

how is this paper not peer reviewed and published?

Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends". Journal of Geophysical Research 16 (D14). Bibcode 2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

I don't know, were the rest of the peers idiots like Anthony Watts?

 

[IanC]

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

how is this paper not peer reviewed and published?

Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends". Journal of Geophysical Research 16 (D14). Bibcode 2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

I don't know, were the rest of the peers idiots like Anthony Watts?

is that some sort of sad joke? like the pal reviewers that let Gergis et al through review only to get demolished once it was released?

the one thing about skeptical papers is that you know they have been picked over with a fine tooth comb before they get published.