Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And he is CORRECT! The CO2 effect is less than half of the expected log warming. This means the atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. This means the Climate Sensitivity equation is roughly 0.3 to 1 (observed rise in temp vs expected rise from CO2 alone). The atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. When we add in the natural variation components, it drops to less than 0.07/1. This places it in the Margin of Error and insignificance.After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.
Oh...one more point... You wrote.."That is simply incorrect. UHI was discussed, also to death, on this forum years ago.I did so in response to your demand for "proof". And, of course, you are not the only one. It is extremely common for people unfamiliar with science to think it involves proofs.
The idiocy here is thinking that truck drivers anywhere are unaware of that possibility. They aren't. Ask a truck driver.
Decisions have to be made under all manner of conditions, often lacking anything as comforting as a strong consensus among the experts.
Because your description of the method by which that data were gathered is grossly incorrect. It is a very common mistake of yours.
Dispute? Not proof? Not refutation? Not falsification?
Lots of things could affects the results. That's why the many highly educated, experienced scientists who work these figures out are very careful to avoid making mistakes. And the mistakes they do make are ones YOU wouldn't think of in a million years. Missing 12% of the world's land mass would be a mistake the scientists 6-year old would catch. And your comment, of course, is based on another error on your part.
You're about a decade out of date. Most stations are not located in heat islands and the whole subject has been studied to death and accounted for in the data long ago.
That is simply incorrect. UHI was discussed, also to death, on this forum years ago.
Because everything you've suggested here is incorrect. No one is ignoring areas of the Earth. In places where no direct measurements are possible, indirect measurements are made and verified. Measurement are made via satellite. Models are run to replicate likely conditions and thus likely temperatures between physically disparate measurements.
Why would you go to the International Energy Agency (IEA) for advice about the accuracy of Russian temperature data? That is not where their expertise lies and they have a documented history of providing inadequate emphasis on alternative energy technologies.
I did and I was right. The premises of almost every post you've put up on this forum have been complete trash.You wrote: "Because your description of the method by which that data were gathered is grossly incorrect. It is a very common mistake of yours."
I've got a better idea. Show us some scientific evidence: published studies or the like, that support your contention that human GHG emissions have had NO effect on the Earth's climate.OK prove me wrong!
I am making the assumption that because, based on the wealth of scientific evidence, better than 99% of the published scientists on this planet have concluded that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming, that it is extremely likely to be correct and that I am well justified to treat it as a fact.See pompous people make the assumption that JUST because they say so it is true!!!
The scientists who have come to these conclusions are probably smarter than me and definitely smarter than you.After all they are smarter than everyone else!
Good to see you show some self awareness. But, you've still got that misunderstanding about "proof". What you can see is evidence.But us dummies want to see proof!
2012? Where the fuck did you get that date? I built my first PC in 1983. IBM started in 1981 and mainframes - the sort that might be used for climate studies - began appearing in the late 1960s. The first global climate model was run in 1967.Prove to me that before computer systems in 2012
I don't think you wrote what you intended to write there. Certainly, recording temperature data typically required standing outside experiencing whatever temperature it might be, though I can easily imagine thermometers that might be read through a window from indoors. And the temperature across the US and the world is far more likely to be temperate than at the extremes you note. I would add that the glass-mercury and alcohol thermometers used by the USWS prior to the introduction of digital instruments are easily read to a tenth of a degree and that personnel collecting those data were trained how to do so.for over 100 years the method of recording temperatures DID NOT... AGAIN DID NOT require a human standing in -20° or less or +120 ° or more writing down what they may have seen was 1 degree differences that were then copied many times by humans!
Proof to you? Can I now make the same assumptions that you attempted when I wrote "nonesense"?Proof to me that "urban heat islands" didn't affect temperatures!
Here is a good example of one of those mistaken premises you love to make. The world's climatological organizations: NOAA, NASA, Hadley, JMA, etc. have not been ignoring or incorrectly treating Siberia or any other portion of the planet. They are not stupid. You thinking they are is classic Dunning-Kruger.Prove to me that NOT including 12% of the Earth's land mass where the AVERAGE temperature is January averages about −20 °C (−4 °F) and July about +19 °C (66 °F)
Siberia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Prove to me that I should bother debating someone as ignorant on this topic as are you.PROVE to me those assumptions are wrong!
Oh thank god. I was SO-OOOOO worried.I won't continue as correcting your remaining issues is beyond your attention span!
Poor Crick... Right to personal attacks. Thanks for admitting you are clueless and have nothing to offer in debate. You keep citing the IPCC when they have been disproven many times over. Thier math doesn't add up, ever. You don't know what it is you post, and you cannot defend it. You are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger affect.I did and I was right. The premises of almost every post you've put up on this forum have been complete trash.
I've got a better idea. Show us some scientific evidence: published studies or the like, that support your contention that human GHG emissions have had NO effect on the Earth's climate.
I am making the assumption that because, based on the wealth of scientific evidence, better than 99% of the published scientists on this planet have concluded that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming, that it is extremely likely to be correct and that I am well justified to treat it as a fact.
The scientists who have come to these conclusions are probably smarter than me and definitely smarter than you.
Good to see you show some self awareness. But, you've still got that misunderstanding about "proof". What you can see is evidence.
2012? Where the fuck did you get that date? I built my first PC in 1983. IBM started in 1981 and mainframes - the sort that might be used for climate studies - began appearing in the late 1960s. The first global climate model was run in 1967.
I don't think you wrote what you intended to write there. Certainly, recording temperature data typically required standing outside experiencing whatever temperature it might be, though I can easily imagine thermometers that might be read through a window from indoors. And the temperature across the US and the world is far more likely to be temperate than at the extremes you note. I would add that the glass-mercury and alcohol thermometers used by the USWS prior to the introduction of digital instruments are easily read to a tenth of a degree and that personnel collecting those data were trained how to do so.
Proof to you? Can I now make the same assumptions that you attempted when I wrote "nonesense"?
Here is a good example of one of those mistaken premises you love to make. The world's climatological organizations: NOAA, NASA, Hadley, JMA, etc. have not been ignoring or incorrectly treating Siberia or any other portion of the planet. They are not stupid. You thinking they are is classic Dunning-Kruger.
Prove to me that I should bother debating someone as ignorant on this topic as are you.
Oh thank god. I was SO-OOOOO worried.
You have made THAT claim many times over and yet have NEVER identified who and how they have been disproven.You keep citing the IPCC when they have been disproven many times over.
That is quite comical coming from you.Thier math doesn't add up, ever.
I see there is something else you don't understand.You don't know what it is you post, and you cannot defend it. You are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger affect.
It astounds me how you can blather on as if you are fooling anyone concerning the level of your knowledge. I've got a better idea. Let the world's atmospheric physicists (you know, the real ones) have a look at Dr Heller's HYPOTHESIS and see what they think. What's that? What do you say? They HAVE had a look? And they rejected it ALL? That's terrible. BtW, you might want to look up the definition of "postulate" before you misuse it again.What do you call a trace gas, that can be shown to have little to no effect in our atmosphere? Its affect can be shown to be no larger than noise in our climatic system. Yep, its CO2. when you do the math and include natural drivers its affect is 0.07/1, well inside the margin of error for the gas and thus insignificant in our atmosphere. Please disprove what Dr Heller postulated.
Because EVERYONE including dummies like you believe in "Global warming" (which isn't it funny it's now "Climate Change"),I did and I was right. The premises of almost every post you've put up on this forum have been complete trash.
I've got a better idea. Show us some scientific evidence: published studies or the like, that support your contention that human GHG emissions have had NO effect on the Earth's climate.
I am making the assumption that because, based on the wealth of scientific evidence, better than 99% of the published scientists on this planet have concluded that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming, that it is extremely likely to be correct and that I am well justified to treat it as a fact.
The scientists who have come to these conclusions are probably smarter than me and definitely smarter than you.
Good to see you show some self awareness. But, you've still got that misunderstanding about "proof". What you can see is evidence.
2012? Where the fuck did you get that date? I built my first PC in 1983. IBM started in 1981 and mainframes - the sort that might be used for climate studies - began appearing in the late 1960s. The first global climate model was run in 1967.
I don't think you wrote what you intended to write there. Certainly, recording temperature data typically required standing outside experiencing whatever temperature it might be, though I can easily imagine thermometers that might be read through a window from indoors. And the temperature across the US and the world is far more likely to be temperate than at the extremes you note. I would add that the glass-mercury and alcohol thermometers used by the USWS prior to the introduction of digital instruments are easily read to a tenth of a degree and that personnel collecting those data were trained how to do so.
Proof to you? Can I now make the same assumptions that you attempted when I wrote "nonesense"?
Here is a good example of one of those mistaken premises you love to make. The world's climatological organizations: NOAA, NASA, Hadley, JMA, etc. have not been ignoring or incorrectly treating Siberia or any other portion of the planet. They are not stupid. You thinking they are is classic Dunning-Kruger.
Prove to me that I should bother debating someone as ignorant on this topic as are you.
Oh thank god. I was SO-OOOOO worried.
climateaudit.org
How you could be more wrong in your assertions is beyond me. LOL... you don't have a clue that the math doesn't add up and you are incapable of doing the math yourself. You seem to know a lot that isn't true... Again, with personal attacks, that fail missing their target.You have made THAT claim many times over and yet have NEVER identified who and how they have been disproven.
That is quite comical coming from you.
I see there is something else you don't understand.
It astounds me how you can blather on as if you are fooling anyone concerning the level of your knowledge. I've got a better idea. Let the world's atmospheric physicists (you know, the real ones) have a look at Dr Heller's HYPOTHESIS and see what they think. What's that? What do you say? They HAVE had a look? And they rejected it ALL? That's terrible. BtW, you might want to look up the definition of "postulate" before you misuse it again.
When someone actually does, I will look. But, it's not my data. It is the data of the scientists who collected it.Because EVERYONE including dummies like you believe in "Global warming" (which isn't it funny it's now "Climate Change"),
but when some skeptics point out deficiencies in the data, YOU can't accept it!
Did you intend this as a joke? This is over eleven years old. Have you tried any of the links in that article? Most don't work and the ones that do lead to articles that say this is pure shite. The IEA barely ever existed, is not a Russian government agency and was certainly never an expert on climate science. If you think that refutes the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports, you're out of your fucking mind.IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
On Mar 31, 2004 Jones wrote to to Mann as follows: Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully s…
That's what the IEA supposedly said. See if you can find a copy of the IEA report they're talking about. Let me know how that goes, eh.Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
It is reported the IEA report states. But we do not have the IEA report or any of the evidence they might have used to come to these conclusions. We do have - in your very own links - several other sources saying this is all crapOver 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Hadley apparently disagrees. And they still exist and one can find their reports.The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
Which claim is based on what? "Everybody knows"?On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
Prove it. Let's see that fucking report and their data and their methods and all the crap you fools always insist on seeing. YOU'RE the one who said you demand proof. Where's your proof that this report ever even existed?IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Not responsible for the content. What a fucking surprise.The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
Then why did you claim that computer analysis didn't start till 2012?(Oh "Cricket"... that crap you proudly beat your chest... " I built my first PC in 1983."
I was using a Commodore PET in 1978 sending text messages through my Racal-Vadic 9600 BPS modem.. to my beeper phone..long before text messaging via cell phones was used...so don't give me any crap about computers!
Where in the following screen shot is the word "computer analysis"..When someone actually does, I will look. But, it's not my data. It is the data of the scientists who collected it.
Did you intend this as a joke? This is over eleven years old. Have you tried any of the links in that article? Most don't work and the ones that do lead to articles that say this is pure shite. The IEA barely ever existed, is not a Russian government agency and was certainly never an expert on climate science. If you think that refutes the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports, you're out of your fucking mind.
That's what the IEA supposedly said. See if you can find a copy of the IEA report they're talking about. Let me know how that goes, eh.
It is reported the IEA report states. But we do not have the IEA report or any of the evidence they might have used to come to these conclusions. We do have - in your very own links - several other sources saying this is all crap
Hadley apparently disagrees. And they still exist and one can find their reports.
Which claim is based on what? "Everybody knows"?
Prove it. Let's see that fucking report and their data and their methods and all the crap you fools always insist on seeing. YOU'RE the one who said you demand proof. Where's your proof that this report ever even existed?
Not responsible for the content. What a fucking surprise.
Then why did you claim that computer analysis didn't start till 2012?
www.theatlantic.com
In Post #20 you wrote "Prove to me that before computer systems in 2012 for over 100 years the method of recording temperatures DID NOT... AGAIN DID NOT require a human standing in -20° or less or +120 ° or more writing down what they may have seen was 1 degree differences that were then copied many times by humans! "Where in the following screen shot is the word "computer analysis"..
I would suggest it is you who is attempting to correct your mistakesNO WHERE! dummy again making up statements!
Your comment states that "before computer systems in 2012" people were forced to expose themselves to harsh temperatures to manually obtain thermometer readings. If you comment had nothing to do with computers, why, in its first clause, did it include "before computers systems in 2012"?I was quoting that from 1880 to 2012 according to the IPCC the temperature increased 1.53° see below!
Had nothing to do with computers!!!
This is complete bullshit. Those thermometers can easily be read to a tenth of a degree. And legibility errors are not systematic. They would tend to increase scatter, not produce a bias towards higher temperatures. And it's damned fucking rare to find temperatures of -30 or 120 anywhere on this planet much less in the continental US.
Satellite data are more accurate and more thorough and more consistent but they did not reveal any change in trend. You're trying to claim that such errors are the source of the observed warming. This is just another of your ignorant 'misunderstandings'. Errors don't all go in the same directions, They are not consistent over time. Presentations of these data all show their expected individual error ranges. You are not elucidating some great failing of natural science, you're simply continuing to display and quantify your own ignorance.I never claimed that! What I was pointing out for dummies like you was the diminished use of humans to physically log in temperatures. Using satellites and weather stations that recorded temperatures electronically, there is MORE accuracy.
"But, but, but, but... yeah... no.But that
The temperatures aren't different.The Problem With Using Old Weather Reports to Track Climate Change
It’s not just the temperature that’s different. The tools used to measure it are different, too.
From your "The Atlantic" articleThe weather logs survived the flood, but it took decades to restore and reorganize them. When the documents finally became available again a few years ago, scientists embarked on a project to analyze their contents for the first time, but soon discovered that they faced a new set of challenges. The sheer number of data points was daunting in itself—the documents included information from 13 different locations, each of which recorded the weather every three to four hours for 16 years—but each of these readings also had to be translated into modern measurements. The dates and times had to be recalculated, since the old Florentine calendar began March 25 instead of January 1, and days started at twilight rather than midnight. Temperaturesalso had to be adapted from the Galileo scale used at the time to the Celsius scale. And there were other changes to consider: deforestation around weather stations, the construction of asphalt roads and buildings.
The old Florentine calendar began March 25 instead of January 1, and days started at twilight rather than midnight.
Data inconsistencies aren’t just a pain for the people measuring—they also make it harder to analyze the ways in which the planet is changing over time. Temperatures have been officially recorded in almost all regions of the world since the early 20th century. By the 1930s, records from individual temperature stations around the globe numbered in the millions. But using these records to unearth any long-term global trends involves pooling several different data sets, collected with very different methodologies across wide expanses of time and space. Unavoidably, there are gaps. In some cases, technological breakthroughs have made it impossible to directly compare readings separated by a few decades. And temperature records from many places are scattered and fragmented: Historical events often disrupt data collection (during World War II, for example, recordings from Pacific Island thermometers dropped sharply), and some areas have sparser coverage than others.
The Problem With Using Old Weather Reports to Track Climate Change
It’s not just the temperature that’s different. The tools used to measure it are different, too.
In Post #20 you wrote "Prove to me that before computer systems in 2012 for over 100 years the method of recording temperatures DID NOT... AGAIN DID NOT require a human standing in -20° or less or +120 ° or more writing down what they may have seen was 1 degree differences that were then copied many times by humans! "
I would suggest it is you who is attempting to correct your mistakes
Your comment states that "before computer systems in 2012" people were forced to expose themselves to harsh temperatures to manually obtain thermometer readings. If you comment had nothing to do with computers, why, in its first clause, did it include "before computers systems in 2012"?
This is complete bullshit. Those thermometers can easily be read to a tenth of a degree. And legibility errors are not systematic. They would tend to increase scatter, not produce a bias towards higher temperatures. And it's damned fucking rare to find temperatures of -30 or 120 anywhere on this planet much less in the continental US.
Satellite data are more accurate and more thorough and more consistent but they did not reveal any change in trend. You're trying to claim that such errors are the source of the observed warming. This is just another of your ignorant 'misunderstandings'. Errors don't all go in the same directions, They are not consistent over time. Presentations of these data all show their expected individual error ranges. You are not elucidating some great failing of natural science, you're simply continuing to display and quantify your own ignorance.
"But, but, but, but... yeah... no.
The temperatures aren't different.
From your "The Atlantic" article
Nowadays, climate scientists have a few different tools for correcting these sorts of artificial discrepancies as the information is collected. Some have developed algorithms that identify and separate climate-change-related weather fluctuations from those attributable to some other cause. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm, for example, compares monthly temperatures from a network of stations, comparing the data from each one to that of its neighbors. To identify abnormalities in temperature data, the algorithm looks for abrupt shifts at one station that are absent from those surrounding it. The NOAA also runs its daily meteorological observations through quality-control measures to eliminate duplicate data, outliers, and other inconsistencies. When all of these numbers are corrected, the globe can be divided into a grid of boxes, and researchers can fill in the blanks based on satellite readings and temperature measurements from surrounding areas.
In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.
Relating that raw data to what’s happening today, though, is its own long and difficult process. On its website, the American Institute of Physics explains the history of climate studies this way: “The few pages of text and numbers were the visible tip of a prodigious unseen volume of work. One simple sentence (like ‘last year was the warmest year on record’) might be the distillation of the labors of a multi-generational global community. And it still had to be interpreted.”
So it takes work and knowledge and technique and experience. This is why we rely on scientists to figure out what's going on in the world and why - and not idiots like you.
Now this is exactly what I wrote...where is the word "analysis"???Where in the following screen shot is the word "computer analysis"..
Facts again something you hardly ever use:And it's damned fucking rare to find temperatures of -30 or 120 anywhere on this planet much less in the continental US.
www.currentresults.com
And so tell me again how "fucking rare"....And it's damned fucking rare to find temperatures of -30 or 120 anywhere on this planet much less in the continental US.
The US HCN is useless in climatology as it is so badly corrupted. Most people today use the much more trustworthy US-CRN data, but it too is now being subjected to NOAA manipulations of the recent historical record as these stations did not record a rise in temperature but an overall decline. Today that decline has been erased by manipulation.Some latest information regarding global warming..
Page 17 of this report: 2022 EDITION CORRUPTED CLIMATE STATIONS The Official U.S. Temperature Record
Remains Fatally Flawed
The authors discovered 32 percent of USHCN stations recorded at least a 20 percent temperature increase in the area of heat sinks within 100 meters of the thermometer.
In the larger urban heat island areas, more than 52 percent of the USHCN stations saw a temperature increase of 20 percent or more from surfaces within 1,000 meters of the station producing a heat sink effect. Essentially, the presence of heat sinks is heavily correlated to high temperature readings.
Maximum Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS) housing Nimbus digital thermometers starting in the 1980s.
Examples of how the temperature recording stations are located near heat sources which increase the readings, artificially!
So the images on images, 1 and 3 on the left is where the temperature recording equipment is located and the images on the right of images 1 and 3 is what heat source is influencing the readings.
Page 22 of the Corrupted Climate Stations 2022 Edition report...
View attachment 737749
I did not put quotes around the word "analysis" so I never said that you had used that word. But if you'd like to keep obsessing about it to draw attention away from your silly mistake, feel free.Now this is exactly what I wrote...where is the word "analysis"???
In what way?Now I used the words "computer systems in 2012" incorrectly.
Are you now suggesting that the first time computers were applied to temperature data was 2012? Or, are you suggesting that weather stations now include computers? Or, are you under the impression that any digital instrument is actually a computer?I should have wrote: "Prove to me that before non-human temperature recordings were done in
Bug? Who is Bug?In Post #20 you wrote "Prove to me that before computer systems in 2012 for over 100 years the method of recording temperatures DID NOT... AGAIN DID NOT require a human standing in -20° or less or +120 ° or more writing down what they may have seen was 1 degree differences that were then copied many times by humans! "
Bug....WHERE IN THE ABOVE WORDS THAT I WROTE is the word "analysis"???
Bug wrote:
I didn't say that it never gets that cold, I said it was "rare to find". Producing specific examples does not refute my statement.Facts again something you hardly ever use:
Below -30°
- The Polar Plateau of the Antarctic is unquestionably the coldest place in the world. Dome A, the highest point on the East Antarctic ice sheet and the coldest spot there, has an mean annual temperature of -58.3 degrees Celsius
- northern Canada has the coldest places. Eureka, in Nunavut, boasts the country's lowest annual mean temperature of -19.7
- The weather station that repeatedly records the coldest air in eastern Siberia is at Oymyakon. The coldest winter month in Eureka averages -38.4 °C (-37 °F), while Oymyakon's coldest month averages -46.0 °C (-50.8 °F)
- The coldest blast of weather set the US's record low temperature of minus 80 °F (-62.2 °C) on January 23, 1971. That record was made during three days of temperatures in the minus 70s which lasted from January 22 to 24 near the Arctic Circle in central Alaska
Ditto.Above 120°Coldest Places in the World - Current Results
Temperatures and descriptions of the coldest places in the world, including Antarctica, Greenland, northern Canada and eastern Siberia.
- The world record highest air temperature of 134°F (57°C) was recorded at Furnace Creek,CA on July 10, 1913. Summer temperatures often top 120°F (49°C) in the shade with overnight lows dipping into the 90s°F (mid-30s°C.)
- Weather - Death Valley National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
- Record heat bakes Middle East as temperatures top 125 ...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/06/07/record-june-heat-wave-middle-east/
Record heat bakes Middle East as temperatures top 125 ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › weather › 2021/06/07
Jun 7, 2021 — On Saturday, high temperatures hit 123.8 degrees in Sweihan, a small town about 50 miles east of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Omidieh ...- Aug 12, 2021 — In case you missed it. 120F in Sicily
How dumb is it to think that citing specific examples refutes " fucking rare"?AGAIN how fucking dumb are you when you wrote:
And so tell me again how "fucking rare"....
My god are you stupid.Just for you Bug.... question:
If the temperature reaches -58° at times in some parts of the world and +120° that is a range of nearly 178°
So if you did what I did, checked what the average # is of -58° (lowest Temperature in Antarctica)- to 120 i.e. determined that the average temperature from -58° to +120° is 31° .
which raises the question:
have these temperatures been included in the assumption the Earth's temperature has increased 1.53 since 1880?
Heartland? So I go to your link here thinking I wonder what study this article is based on. Turns out "Corrupted Climate Stations" is simply a series published by Heartland and this article is based on the "2022 Edition". It's sole author is the inestimable Anthony Watts. I'm not going to bother repeating all of the issues I have with Watts and Heartland as a science source. Do me a favor. Go to Google and ask for "scholarly articles" on whatever climate topic you think of interest. Let's try it with this subject right here. I'll ask for "scholarly articles on corrupted climate stations". The first up was your very Heartland/Watts article. The second was a PolitiFact check on a Facebook post citing data from Watts' report. PolitiFact - Fact-checking a talking point about ‘corrupted’ climate change data . It's much shorter than Watts 2022 Edition. And the comments come from actual degreed scientists, not retired weathermen.Now recently .....
A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022)
I agree with you that the CRN is better than HCN but what source has informed you that the HCN is useless due to corruption?The US HCN is useless in climatology as it is so badly corrupted. Most people today use the much more trustworthy US-CRN data, but it too is now being subjected to NOAA manipulations of the recent historical record as these stations did not record a rise in temperature but an overall decline. Today that decline has been erased by manipulation.
U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites across the contiguous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These stations use high-quality instruments to measure temperature, precipitation, soil conditions, and more. USCRN provides...www.ncei.noaa.gov
OH am I so glad you quoted Politifact.org!!!I did not put quotes around the word "analysis" so I never said that you had used that word. But if you'd like to keep obsessing about it to draw attention away from your silly mistake, feel free.
In what way?
Are you now suggesting that the first time computers were applied to temperature data was 2012? Or, are you suggesting that weather stations now include computers? Or, are you under the impression that any digital instrument is actually a computer?
Bug? Who is Bug?
I didn't say that it never gets that cold, I said it was "rare to find". Producing specific examples does not refute my statement.
Ditto.
How dumb is it to think that citing specific examples refutes " fucking rare"?
My god are you stupid.
Heartland? So I go to your link here thinking I wonder what study this article is based on. Turns out "Corrupted Climate Stations" is simply a series published by Heartland and this article is based on the "2022 Edition". It's sole author is the inestimable Anthony Watts. I'm not going to bother repeating all of the issues I have with Watts and Heartland as a science source. Do me a favor. Go to Google and ask for "scholarly articles" on whatever climate topic you think of interest. Let's try it with this subject right here. I'll ask for "scholarly articles on corrupted climate stations". The first up was your very Heartland/Watts article. The second was a PolitiFact check on a Facebook post citing data from Watts' report. PolitiFact - Fact-checking a talking point about ‘corrupted’ climate change data . It's much shorter than Watts 2022 Edition. And the comments come from actual degreed scientists, not retired weathermen.
OH am I so glad you quoted Politifact.org!!!
I use to live in the Tampa Bay area and the same NON-Profit company Poynter Institute OWNS Politifact.org as well at that time
the St. Petersburg Times (Now Tampa Bay Times as Poynter being NON-Profit was selling more advertising at a less rate than the for profit Tampa Tribune which Poynter put out of business). At that time Poynter Institute was so socialistic/Democrat supporters
they were known as "Pravda West"! Look it up! So this "non-profit" Poynter completely put out of business Tampa Tribune laying off people all because they were Non-profit and paid NO TAXES!
Any "FACT finding by Politifact.org is totally biased!
Check out this web site that totally demolishes most "Politifact.org's "FACTS" which the vast majority of the time are totally left leaning!
PolitiFact Bias
The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.www.politifactbias.com
PFB was started in early 2011 by Jeff D. and Bryan White, independent bloggers who share a sense of outrage that PolitiFact often peddles outrageous slant as objective news.
As PolitiFact expands its state operations, the number of stories it produces far exceeds our capacity to review and correct even just the most egregious examples of journalistic error or bias. We aim to encourage an army of Davids to counteract the mistakes and bias in PolitiFact's stories.
How can I trust you when you admit to partisanship?
Our admission of partisanship is a trademark of our honesty--one you won't get from PolitiFact.
We rely on the quality of our work to earn your trust.
So don't ever quote Politifact.org to me as I can totally blow it up from their BIASED LEFT, Democrat "facts"!
Extracted from Facebook posts - Fact-checking a talking point about ‘corrupted’ climate change data | The Paradise NewsOH am I so glad you quoted Politifact.org!!!
I use to live in the Tampa Bay area and the same NON-Profit company Poynter Institute OWNS Politifact.org as well at that time
the St. Petersburg Times (Now Tampa Bay Times as Poynter being NON-Profit was selling more advertising at a less rate than the for profit Tampa Tribune which Poynter put out of business). At that time Poynter Institute was so socialistic/Democrat supporters
they were known as "Pravda West"! Look it up! So this "non-profit" Poynter completely put out of business Tampa Tribune laying off people all because they were Non-profit and paid NO TAXES!
Any "FACT finding by Politifact.org is totally biased!
Check out this web site that totally demolishes most "Politifact.org's "FACTS" which the vast majority of the time are totally left leaning!
PolitiFact Bias
The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.
PFB was started in early 2011 by Jeff D. and Bryan White, independent bloggers who share a sense of outrage that PolitiFact often peddles outrageous slant as objective news.
As PolitiFact expands its state operations, the number of stories it produces far exceeds our capacity to review and correct even just the most egregious examples of journalistic error or bias. We aim to encourage an army of Davids to counteract the mistakes and bias in PolitiFact's stories.
How can I trust you when you admit to partisanship?
Our admission of partisanship is a trademark of our honesty--one you won't get from PolitiFact.
We rely on the quality of our work to earn your trust.
So don't ever quote Politifact.org to me as I can totally blow it up from their BIASED LEFT, Democrat "facts"!
“The warming rates we are living through are truly astonishing for Earth, even if they feel slow day to day,” Richardson said.Awesome visualization and a much-needed update to Laurentide Ice Sheet margins thru time! https://t.co/RUxxFhrI1k
— Dr. Katherine Glover (@gloverkatherine) March 11, 2020
Except, I don’t know anywhere climate is changing? Been silent on this boardThe bed wetters got tired of having to change the narrative from "global cooling" to "global warming" every few decades so they came up with climate change.
That encompasses anything- hot/cold, wet/dry, calm/storm- they all can fit under that umbrella to fool the sheeple with nonsense hysteria about the weather.
The climate has always & will always change. Going Chicken Little over it is for the masked morons.
Most of the US is under record breaking drought conditions so where's all this water going?
Still waiting on that list of climate scientists you said you had?Extracted from Facebook posts - Fact-checking a talking point about ‘corrupted’ climate change data | The Paradise News
The Heartland Institute cited a report it paid for and produced.
Do you deny this?
That report analyzed a small sample of 128 temperature stations out of several thousand volunteer-run stations
Do you deny this?
“The correct approach is to write a scientific paper and submit it to a scientific journal,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist currently serving as research lead at Stripe, a San Francisco-based technology company. “In this specific case, the author of the report, Anthony Watts, submitted a paper on the topic around 10 years ago, but was unable to successfully convince other scientists of the validity of his findings and to pass the peer review process.”
Do you deny this? Are you familiar with Zeke Hausfather? He has been an author of 35 climate studies published in peer reviewed journals which have been cited 2,603 times.
Donald J. Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, characterized Watts as a “well-known climate denialist.”
Do you deny that Watts is a well-known climate denialist? Professor Wuebbles is the Harry E. Preble Endowed Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He was formerly the head of this department from 1994 to 2006, and was the founding director of the University of Illinois' School of Earth, Society, and Environment from 2006 to 2008. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He has been a Coordinating Lead Author and contributor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports. - Wikipedia
How Data is Collected
Scientists, volunteers and automated instruments collect climate data such as air chemistry, temperature, precipitation and wind speed, according to NOAA. Instruments carried on balloons can provide data from points more than 10 miles high. Satellites track temperature, winds and clouds.
NOAA and the National Weather Service have two programs that monitor weather conditions in the U.S., said Robert Rohde, lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, a Berkeley, California, organization providing global temperature data.
Rohde is, as they say, the lead scientist with Berkely Earth. He has a Wikipedia page at Robert Rohde - Wikipedia which you can read at your leisure. It notes that he co-wrote a study which found that 1.6 million people had died early deaths due to pollution in China. I assume you are familiar with the origins of Berkely Earth. If not, please look that up.
One program, the Cooperative Observer Program (COOP), relies on more than 8,700 volunteers who record daily temperature data using weather monitoring equipment.
The other program is a network of about 900 more sophisticated, automated weather stations often set up in connection with airports or weather bureaus, Rohde said. The standards for installing those stations are more rigorous than Cooperative Observer Program stations, he said.
So, the standards for COOP stations, which Watts wrote about, are the looser of the two.
The Heartland report looks exclusively at 128 COOP stations out of thousands. Rohde said that “immediately undermined” its conclusion that 96% of climate data is corrupt. It is unclear how those stations were selected.
According to National Weather Service instructions, COOP stations should be installed over level terrain at least 100 feet from “any extensive concrete or paved surface,” and should not be placed where water or drifting snow collects.
Rohde said that some COOP stations are closer than recommended to structures, artificial surfaces or vegetation. “In the worst cases, local impediments may greatly disturb the temperature readings reported,” he said, resulting in temperature readings “dominated by the surfaces and other features in the immediate vicinity of the sensor.”
Going deeper into the data concerns
The Heartland report argued that such temperature stations, which might be placed near structures or parking lots, resulted in corrupted data.
But that allegation ignores key facts.
First, climate scientists know that weather station data can be impacted by poor siting, and they adjust data accordingly.
Second, climate change analysis focuses on changes over time.
“Siting problems often cause the station to be consistently a bit too hot, or too cold, but that bias often remains more or less uniform over time,” Rohde said. “In such cases, it may still be possible to estimate trends related to climate change even if the observations themselves are not ideal.”
Research has not proved that poor station siting results in biased conclusions, however.
A 2013 study found that the network of stations can provide reliable data on temperature trends even when stations rated “poor” are included.
NOAA spokesperson John Bateman told PolitiFact the agency has known about the concerns caused by problematic station sites for decades, and it has “developed techniques to account for and correct these potential problems.”
The Heartland Institute told PolitiFact that its conclusions were valid because experts did not disagree that some COOP stations are at sites that fail to meet NOAA’s quality recommendations. The group argued that because of those stations, any methods used to adjust the data and remove bias would “actually make the problem worse.”
Data is adjusted, corroborated and widely accepted
In 2009, NOAA acknowledged that the placement of a number of temperature stations did not follow National Weather Service siting recommendations. Still, a peer-reviewed 2006 study that sought to evaluate the potential bias caused by poor station locations “found no bias in long-term trends,” NOAA said. That study evaluated a small subset of data, so its conclusions had limitations.
Researchers account for temperature station locations and measurement times, said Mark Richardson, a research scientist at the California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who studies climate change. “So, even if a thermometer is in a warmer place, like a city, the effect of the local warmth is filtered out to prevent it from affecting trends.”
NOAA publishes U.S. weather station data online, and groups such as Berkeley Earth, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the United Kingdom’s Met Office and the Japan Meteorological Agency use it to build climate records.
“The independent groups all agree about the pattern of U.S. and global temperature changes,” Richardson said.
Since 1880, average global temperature has increased by at least 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit (or 1.1 degrees Celsius), according to Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ temperature analysis.
By way of comparison, Richardson said that the Earth cooled about 4 to 6 degrees Celsius tens of thousands of years ago and a nearly 4 kilometer thick mass of ice known as the Laurentide ice sheet spread over Canada and reached parts of the U.S.
“The warming rates we are living through are truly astonishing for Earth, even if they feel slow day to day,” Richardson said.
These trends are corroborated by data from temperature stations that are not in poorly placed areas.
Wuebbles said satellite trends in temperature “exactly match the ground-based observations,” but the Heartland Institute’s study does not analyze that corroboration.
Our ruling
A headline on Facebook claimed “96% of U.S. climate data is corrupted” because the NOAA’s temperature stations were purposefully placed “in man-made hot spots.”
Although some temperature stations are not placed in ideal conditions, experts said they are there to provide a consistent historical record and added that the data is evaluated and adjusted for biases.
There is widespread consensus that annual global average temperatures are rising, experts said.
We rate this claim False.
The Wikipedia article on Politifact verifies some of the assertions you've made about them but the only evidence that there might be a bias is that they print more fact checks of Republican statements than Democratic statements. Their fact checks are consistently accurate and can be trusted. The conclusion I drew from it, that Wikipedia would not voice, is the assumption that conservatives, mimicking their glorious leader, were simply lying far more often than were liberals.OH am I so glad you quoted Politifact.org!!!
I use to live in the Tampa Bay area and the same NON-Profit company Poynter Institute OWNS Politifact.org as well at that time
the St. Petersburg Times (Now Tampa Bay Times as Poynter being NON-Profit was selling more advertising at a less rate than the for profit Tampa Tribune which Poynter put out of business). At that time Poynter Institute was so socialistic/Democrat supporters
they were known as "Pravda West"! Look it up! So this "non-profit" Poynter completely put out of business Tampa Tribune laying off people all because they were Non-profit and paid NO TAXES!
Any "FACT finding by Politifact.org is totally biased!
Check out this web site that totally demolishes most "Politifact.org's "FACTS" which the vast majority of the time are totally left leaning!
PolitiFact Bias
The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.
PFB was started in early 2011 by Jeff D. and Bryan White, independent bloggers who share a sense of outrage that PolitiFact often peddles outrageous slant as objective news.
As PolitiFact expands its state operations, the number of stories it produces far exceeds our capacity to review and correct even just the most egregious examples of journalistic error or bias. We aim to encourage an army of Davids to counteract the mistakes and bias in PolitiFact's stories.
How can I trust you when you admit to partisanship?
Our admission of partisanship is a trademark of our honesty--one you won't get from PolitiFact.
We rely on the quality of our work to earn your trust.
So don't ever quote Politifact.org to me as I can totally blow it up from their BIASED LEFT, Democrat "facts"!
