Wheels Falling Off???

SSDD

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2012
16,672
1,965
280
Could it be that the wheels are finally falling off of the jury rigged AGW bandwagon? Are the drivers starting to look for an exit?

Jones and Hansen, the two primaries have acknowledged that there has been no warming now for more than 15 years in spite of steadily rising CO2 and now....

NOAA actually doing experiments ala the Surface Stations Project and finding that station sitting actually does have an effect on the data being gathered. They acknowledge that their experiment indicates a signifigant warming bias.

What next, acknowledgements that it has all been a big mistake and the surface station data led them astray?
 
hahaha dont get your hopes up. this is zombie science that refuses to die because there is always more money available for funding the same type of research no matter how often it has failed in the past.


Jones' faulty Chinese UHI paper is still alive despite the obvious fraud and now Muller's BEST UHI paper will obviously get printed up in that bogus self publishing Indian Journal. volume one issue one, no less!
 
Last edited:
Could it be that the wheels are finally falling off of the jury rigged AGW bandwagon? Are the drivers starting to look for an exit?

Jones and Hansen, the two primaries have acknowledged that there has been no warming now for more than 15 years in spite of steadily rising CO2 and now....

NOAA actually doing experiments ala the Surface Stations Project and finding that station sitting actually does have an effect on the data being gathered. They acknowledge that their experiment indicates a signifigant warming bias.

What next, acknowledgements that it has all been a big mistake and the surface station data led them astray?

Links or data to back the flap-yap?
 
Could it be that the wheels are finally falling off of the jury rigged AGW bandwagon? Are the drivers starting to look for an exit?

Jones and Hansen, the two primaries have acknowledged that there has been no warming now for more than 15 years in spite of steadily rising CO2 and now....

NOAA actually doing experiments ala the Surface Stations Project and finding that station sitting actually does have an effect on the data being gathered. They acknowledge that their experiment indicates a signifigant warming bias.

What next, acknowledgements that it has all been a big mistake and the surface station data led them astray?

Links or data to back the flap-yap?

I would have thought you were at least bright enough to look up something like that....guess I was wrong.

Via experiment, NOAA establishes a fact about station siting: ?nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory? | Watts Up With That?

I guess now you are going to tell me that the information is no good based entirely on where it comes from regardless of links to the source.
 
It's now nearly impossible to find a denialist who isn't a bitter right-wing crank. That's because denialism is now purely a political cult. Few of them know a thing about the science, and few care. They're basically just making crap up now.

In contrast, AGW science is embraced by the entire political spectrum across the world. That would be because the actual facts aren't political. Sucks to be a denialist, as the entire world is laughing at them now, but hey, they shit their own bed.
 
It's now nearly impossible to find a denialist who isn't a bitter right-wing crank. That's because denialism is now purely a political cult. Few of them know a thing about the science, and few care. They're basically just making crap up now.

What did I make up? Are you saying that the experiments performed didn't indicate a warming bias? Are you saying that it hasn't been acknowledged that the warming trend has gone flat for the past 15 years at least?

In contrast, AGW science is embraced by the entire political spectrum across the world. That would be because the actual facts aren't political. Sucks to be a denialist, as the entire world is laughing at them now, but hey, they shit their own bed.

"science" being embraced by politics? That is cause for suspicion on its own without the failure of models, data tampering and the host of other hocus pocus going on within climate science.

As to whose laughing, if you were to actually pull your head out of your ass, or the sand, or mann's ass, or wherever you have it buried, you would see that the big rats are indeed positioning themselves for an exit from the failed AGW hypothesis.

By the way, what is nearly impossible to find is a scientist who doesn't depend on grant money for a living who is on the AGW bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
Fact still remains, there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single Academy of Science, or a single major University in any nation whose policy statements do not state that AGW is a fact. And most state that it is a clear and present danger.

Now that doesn't agree with flap-yap wingnuts, so they simply claim that all scientists are on someone's payroll. And that it is all a grand conspiracy. Even as the Arctic Ice Cap and Alpine Glaciers are melting. Even as thousands of temperature records for heat are being broke every year on one continent or the other. Even as we see the increase in acidity in the ocean begin to negatively affect the very base of the food chain. Even as we see extreme weather events increase double and triple.

Not to worry. You can ignore reality. Reality will not return the favor. You can be sure that in the future, you will experiance the reality of a changing climate.
 
Fact still remains, there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single Academy of Science, or a single major University in any nation whose policy statements do not state that AGW is a fact. And most state that it is a clear and present danger.

The fact remains that the vast majority of the bodies of those scientific societies are not on the agw hoax bandwagon....and the fact remains that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist who doesn't depend on grant money who is on the bandwagon...and the fact remains that people like you who support corruption in science are as guilty as those who have been corrupted by money and noteriety.
 
Fact still remains, there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single Academy of Science, or a single major University in any nation whose policy statements do not state that AGW is a fact. And most state that it is a clear and present danger.

The fact remains that the vast majority of the bodies of those scientific societies are not on the agw hoax bandwagon....and the fact remains that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist who doesn't depend on grant money who is on the bandwagon...and the fact remains that people like you who support corruption in science are as guilty as those who have been corrupted by money and noteriety.

Some proof of that statement. From a credible source. Or stand as a proven liar.
 
Extremist Global Warmists are like the Black Ghostbuster Winston:

"Uh lady if there's a paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say!" :D
 
Could it be that the wheels are finally falling off of the jury rigged AGW bandwagon? Are the drivers starting to look for an exit?

Jones and Hansen, the two primaries have acknowledged that there has been no warming now for more than 15 years in spite of steadily rising CO2 and now....

NOAA actually doing experiments ala the Surface Stations Project and finding that station sitting actually does have an effect on the data being gathered. They acknowledge that their experiment indicates a signifigant warming bias.

What next, acknowledgements that it has all been a big mistake and the surface station data led them astray?

528-52.gif


Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Am I the only one that think 6% is vastly overstated?
 
Could it be that the wheels are finally falling off of the jury rigged AGW bandwagon? Are the drivers starting to look for an exit?

Jones and Hansen, the two primaries have acknowledged that there has been no warming now for more than 15 years in spite of steadily rising CO2 and now....

NOAA actually doing experiments ala the Surface Stations Project and finding that station sitting actually does have an effect on the data being gathered. They acknowledge that their experiment indicates a signifigant warming bias.

What next, acknowledgements that it has all been a big mistake and the surface station data led them astray?

Links or data to back the flap-yap?



Does providing links ever make the slightest bit of difference to you?

the story comes up via Dispatch from AMS: Looking at Land Surface Temperatures | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is a direct test of the importance of siting. They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.

It’ll take a lot more data to sort out the various temperature effects. One way the buildings might affect the nighttime temperature even when the sensor is upwind of the buildings is infrared radiation: the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.

the abstract of Kkochendorfer's ongoing experiment-
Abstract

Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.

a photo of the site of the experiment (figure 7 from 5.1.3 of http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/publications/annual_reports/FY11_USCRN_Annual_Report.pdf)

noaa_heat_experiment_fig7.jpg


the original caption-
Figure 7. Active temperature controlled steel building and parking area located near Oak Ridge, TN. Five sampling sites (yellow pins) are seen northeast of the thermal source, corresponding to USCRN thermal site score classes 5 (closest) through 1 (furthest).

more information can be found at Via experiment, NOAA establishes a fact about station siting: ?nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory? | Watts Up With That? and Station bias ? an old problem | Watts Up With That?



this experiment is only in the data gathering stage so I dont think we can make sweeping generalizations from preliminary results although they do seem to coincide with most people's experience with urban heat island effect (UHI).

(I would imagine Muller is none too pleased!)
 
Some proof of that statement. From a credible source. Or stand as a proven liar.

You are asking for proof of a negative rocks. If you want to prove me wrong, then the onus falls on you. Provide evidence that the majority of the membership of the scientific bodies you constantly refer to 1) do not depend on grant money and 2) support the hypothesis of AGW.
 
this experiment is only in the data gathering stage so I dont think we can make sweeping generalizations from preliminary results although they do seem to coincide with most people's experience with urban heat island effect (UHI).

(I would imagine Muller is none too pleased!)

We do know that the CRN project has been ongoing now for a bit over 10 years and never gets mentioned as a database that shows the socalled warming trend or that this year or that was the hottest ever. It is a group of meticulously placed stations whose data do not need to be corrected. A 10 year run is sufficient to highlight the problems with the present data gathering network.
 
no thanks, or even acknowledgement for the links that you asked for?

that is certainly very rude but not unprecidented in your case. you always ignore what you dont want to think about.
 
I read that link. It stated that stations closer to buildings recorded higher temperatures. What it did not address was the corrections for that factored into the reading from the urban stations. Corrections that Muller stated actually tended to give reading a bit less than the rural stations.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/uhi-revised-june-26.pdf

Mullers "corrections" were shown to be way off by the surface stations project which was peer reviewed and published in an actual scientific journal as opposed to the front that is supposedly printing the berkley project. Volume 1 issue 1, just for muller. What a hoot.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top