then and now

[Old Rocks]

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/fact-from-fiction.pdf

Misleading:CO2Has Been Much Higher in the Past and It Was Colder
•440 million years ago CO2is estimated to be about 1200 ppm with large glaciation
•Today values = 390 ppm
•However, the sun was 4% weaker 440 million years ago!
•To overcome the weaker sun, CO2values would need to be around 3000 ppm to prevent ice!

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of then and now...


Then....

Now...

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why am I not surprised that you believe Time to be a peer reviewed scientific journal?

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/fact-from-fiction.pdf

Page 28

Fiction:Ice Age Predicted in the 1970s
Claim: Scientists were predicting a coming ice age inthe 1970s so how can we trust them now?

•The “coming ice age” was mostly a story portrayed by the media –NOT scientists!
•Cooling between 1940-1970 due to global dimming by air pollution –and still occurring today!

 

[Oddball]

PFFFFT!

In the wake of the CRU/UCAR/NCAR/IPCC chicanery, "peer review" is a dead letter.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. In other words, Oddie, you going to stay happily willfully ignorant. Them thar librul pointy headed intellectual scientists ain't got nuttin' to teach you. How the hell do people like you survive in our society? Oh yeah, forgot. Welfare.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks brings up a very good point. The sun has a much higher output now than a billion years ago. Yet the earth had liquid water then. If the water cycle was the thermostat then it is surely the thermostat now. Climate models are weak at describing heat transport by water and choose to focus on CO2 because it is much simpler. But the total percentage of CO2 effect is far smaller than the error bars of water effect. It is like trying to balance the federal budget by cracking down on welfare cheats but ignoring health care costs, you may get public support but it doesnt get results.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is not what scientists are stating.

 

[IanC]

NOAA GISS is stating that. Just not the department under Hansen's control.

Not unlike the NOAA study that found the Urban Heat Island Effect to be orders of magnitude higher than Hansen and Jones say it is.

 

[IanC]

NOAA GISS is stating that. Just not the department under Hansen's control.

Not unlike the NOAA study that found the Urban Heat Island Effect to be orders of magnitude higher than Hansen and Jones say it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

NOAA GISS is stating that. Just not the department under Hansen's control.

Not unlike the NOAA study that found the Urban Heat Island Effect to be orders of magnitude higher than Hansen and Jones say it is.

And the prelimnary studies by the Berkeley Group found it to be non-existant.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results

So it looked to several climate scientists that I have spoken to that the BEST effort was stacked with confusionists and funded by deniers in order to push a dubious message and advance Muller’s for-profit consulting business.

The problem for Muller, however, was that there’s really no way to turn the surface temperature data into something that it isn’t. Even hard-core deniers haven’t been able to put a dent into it:

Must-read NOAA paper — Q: “Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?” A: “None at all.
Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one“
“New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.“
And BEST isn’t run by hard-core deniers, the kind who don’t have any professional scientific reputation and hence can just make crap up.

So it’s no surprise at all that, as Caldeira reported to me, “Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

 

[Si modo]

NOAA GISS is stating that. Just not the department under Hansen's control.

Not unlike the NOAA study that found the Urban Heat Island Effect to be orders of magnitude higher than Hansen and Jones say it is.

And the prelimnary studies by the Berkeley Group found it to be non-existant.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results

So it looked to several climate scientists that I have spoken to that the BEST effort was stacked with confusionists and funded by deniers in order to push a dubious message and advance Muller’s for-profit consulting business.

The problem for Muller, however, was that there’s really no way to turn the surface temperature data into something that it isn’t. Even hard-core deniers haven’t been able to put a dent into it:

Must-read NOAA paper — Q: “Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?” A: “None at all.
Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one“
“New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.“
And BEST isn’t run by hard-core deniers, the kind who don’t have any professional scientific reputation and hence can just make crap up.

So it’s no surprise at all that, as Caldeira reported to me, “Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

I guess you missed the part where Muller said his analysis is incomplete and does not address most biases. And, he says in his own testimony that he has yet to address urban heat island biases.

You should switch to snake oil.

 

[Oddball]

LOL. In other words, Oddie, you going to stay happily willfully ignorant. Them thar librul pointy headed intellectual scientists ain't got nuttin' to teach you. How the hell do people like you survive in our society? Oh yeah, forgot. Welfare.

In other words, I don't trust the word of people who lie, hide and destroy evidence, blacklist researchers who come to different conclusions, and just make shit up out of whole cloth....Nor do I trust the research of those they "peer review" as having any credible veracity.

 

[Old Rocks]

NOAA GISS is stating that. Just not the department under Hansen's control.

Not unlike the NOAA study that found the Urban Heat Island Effect to be orders of magnitude higher than Hansen and Jones say it is.

And the prelimnary studies by the Berkeley Group found it to be non-existant.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results

So it looked to several climate scientists that I have spoken to that the BEST effort was stacked with confusionists and funded by deniers in order to push a dubious message and advance Muller’s for-profit consulting business.

The problem for Muller, however, was that there’s really no way to turn the surface temperature data into something that it isn’t. Even hard-core deniers haven’t been able to put a dent into it:

Must-read NOAA paper — Q: “Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?” A: “None at all.
Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one“
“New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.“
And BEST isn’t run by hard-core deniers, the kind who don’t have any professional scientific reputation and hence can just make crap up.

So it’s no surprise at all that, as Caldeira reported to me, “Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

I guess you missed the part where Muller said his analysis is incomplete and does not address most biases. And, he says in his own testimony that he has yet to address urban heat island biases.

You should switch to snake oil.

Old gal, not only can you not do grade school math, you obviously never heard of statstical analysis. I would be very surprised in BESTs numbers chaned in any significant fashion with the full data analysed.

 

[Si modo]

And the prelimnary studies by the Berkeley Group found it to be non-existant.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results

So it looked to several climate scientists that I have spoken to that the BEST effort was stacked with confusionists and funded by deniers in order to push a dubious message and advance Muller’s for-profit consulting business.

The problem for Muller, however, was that there’s really no way to turn the surface temperature data into something that it isn’t. Even hard-core deniers haven’t been able to put a dent into it:

Must-read NOAA paper — Q: “Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?” A: “None at all.
Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one“
“New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.“
And BEST isn’t run by hard-core deniers, the kind who don’t have any professional scientific reputation and hence can just make crap up.

So it’s no surprise at all that, as Caldeira reported to me, “Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

I guess you missed the part where Muller said his analysis is incomplete and does not address most biases. And, he says in his own testimony that he has yet to address urban heat island biases.

You should switch to snake oil.

Old gal, not only can you not do grade school math, you obviously never heard of statstical analysis. I would be very surprised in BESTs numbers chaned in any significant fashion with the full data analysed.

Yet, Muller states that his work is preliminary, and cautions those to whom he was testifying of the exact nature of his testimony - that it is preliminary and has yet to adress most biases. And, Muller states that he has yet to address the urban heat island biases, specifically (along with the other biases he said he has yet to address).

I know you WANT these preliminary results that do not address most biases to be set in stone, but the reality is different.

You are a true believer, though.

 

[IanC]

we shall see if BEST performs the same type of adjustments as GISS. if they do, at least the reasoning will be public and accessible to debate. if they dont put in the significant adjustment then the total rise and shape of the trend will be noticably different.

Old Rocks- the other NOAA departments I mentioned are separate from the temp data agency. We have discussed them before.

 

[Old Rocks]

I guess you missed the part where Muller said his analysis is incomplete and does not address most biases. And, he says in his own testimony that he has yet to address urban heat island biases.

You should switch to snake oil.

Old gal, not only can you not do grade school math, you obviously never heard of statstical analysis. I would be very surprised in BESTs numbers chaned in any significant fashion with the full data analysed.

Yet, Muller states that his work is preliminary, and cautions those to whom he was testifying of the exact nature of his testimony - that it is preliminary and has yet to adress most biases. And, Muller states that he has yet to address the urban heat island biases, specifically (along with the other biases he said he has yet to address).

I know you WANT these preliminary results that do not address most biases to be set in stone, but the reality is different.

You are a true believer, though.

Damn, cannot stop lying, old gal? The study very well did address the urban heat island myth. And here are the paragraphs that addressed it, and the site for the whole of Dr. Muller's testimony before Congress.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Poor Temperature Station Quality
Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close
to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations
in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own
standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve
studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the
U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear
to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'd much rather...

 

[Si modo]

Old gal, not only can you not do grade school math, you obviously never heard of statstical analysis. I would be very surprised in BESTs numbers chaned in any significant fashion with the full data analysed.

Yet, Muller states that his work is preliminary, and cautions those to whom he was testifying of the exact nature of his testimony - that it is preliminary and has yet to adress most biases. And, Muller states that he has yet to address the urban heat island biases, specifically (along with the other biases he said he has yet to address).

I know you WANT these preliminary results that do not address most biases to be set in stone, but the reality is different.

You are a true believer, though.

Damn, cannot stop lying, old gal? The study very well did address the urban heat island myth. And here are the paragraphs that addressed it, and the site for the whole of Dr. Muller's testimony before Congress.

....

No, it did not. From Muller's testimony last week: "Berkeley Earth hopes to complete its analysis including systematic bias avoidance in the next few weeks. We are now studying new approaches to reducing biases from:
1. Urban heat island effects. Some stations in cities show more rapid warming than
do stations in rural areas. ...."

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Either you or Muller is lying. Guess where I place my bet?

What part of the meaning of 'preliminary' confounds you?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Our key caveat is that our results are preliminary and have not yet been published in a
peer reviewed journal. We have begun that process of submitting a paper to the Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, and we are preparing several additional papers
for publication elsewhere.
NOAA has already published a similar conclusion – that station quality bias did not
affect estimates of global warming – -- based on a smaller set of stations, and Anthony
Anthony Watts and his team have a paper submitted, which is in late stage peer review,
using over 1000 stations, but it has not yet been accepted for publication and I am not at
liberty to discuss their conclusions and how they might differ. We have looked only at
average temperature changes, and additional data needs to be studied, to look at (for
example) changes in maximum and minimum temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more warming in the U.S.
than the poor stations by 0.009 ± 0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what might be
expected, but also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and
performing the calculation in several different ways. But we are consistently finding that
there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to the inclusion of the poorly
ranked US stations.