Climategate, AP Not Impressed

[Navy1960]

There is no real dispute that weather data from cities, as collected by meteorological stations, is contaminated by urban heat island (UHI) bias, and that this has to be removed to identify climatic changes or trends. In cities, vertical walls, steel and concrete absorb the sun’s heat and are slow to cool at night. More and more of the world is urbanized (population increased from 1.5 B to 6 B in 1900s).
The UHI effect occurs not only for big cities but also for towns. Oke (who won the 2008 American Meteorological Society’s Helmut Landsberg award for his pioneer work on urbanization) had a formula for the warming that is tied to population. Oke (1973) found that the UHI (in °C) increases according to the formula

GISS uses in the USA, southern Canada and northern Mexico an urbanization adjustment based on the amount of night time light measured by satellites from the station locations. Unlit stations are classified as rural stations. This does produce some adjustment and a reasonable plot of temperatures but as GISS notes, this is just less than 2% of the globe.”
The difference from their adjusted values and the NOAA no longer adjusted shows NOAA was misguided in their removal of the urban adjustment, with a net cooling of 0.2F in 1930s and warming of 0.4F near 2005. NOAA data adjusted to the GISS base period of 1951-1980.

The net warming in the UHI adjusted GISS US data set from the peak around 1930 to the peak near 2000 was a meager 0.15C. It may be assumed the same would be true for the world if we could make a similar needed UHI adjustment.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf

Joseph D’Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. He has over 30 years experience in professional meteorology. Mr. D’Aleo was Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint” for WSI’s popular Intellicast.com web site. He is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College. He has authored and presented a number of papers as well as published a book focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made skillful seasonal forecasts possible. Mr. D’Aleo has also authored many articles and made numerous presentations on the roles cycles in the sun and oceans have played in climate change.

Mr. D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist and was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He has served as a member and then chairman of the American Meteorological Society’ Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, and has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. Mr. D’Aleo was elected a Councilor for the AMS.

Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.

Mr. D’Aleo’s areas of expertise include climatology, natural factors involved in climate change, weather and climate prediction, and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. Balling has been a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, Dr. Balling authored The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality. He is also co-author of the book Satanic Gases with Pat Michaels.
ICECAP


While the debate rages, perhaps there are a few out there that do have the ability to call into question this so called consensus and still have the ability to debate their peers on a professional level.

And why would we exclude UHI? Since you seem to understand that dark asfalt ABSORBS heat you would also understand that the land mass under the ice that is melting WILL ABSORB MORE HEAT than the ice which reflects it.....Now hear is the real bitch.....Permafrost releases METHANE from dead plant matter and I thing we ALL know that METHANE is an even worse greenhouse gas. YES!!??

Doran, et al (2002) conducted a study of temperatures and ecosystem response in
Antarctica’s dry valleys. They begin by stating that
“The average air temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by 0.06°C per decade
during the 20th century,” according to the IPCC, “and by 0.19°C per decade from 1979 to
1998.”
In fact, “Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions,” which
would suggest that Antarctic temperatures should have warmed more than this in response to
increases in greenhouse gases.
However, “Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming,” they
declare that "our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data" demonstrated “a net
cooling over the entire Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during
summer and autumn,” when ice melt would be most likely to occur. A study of temperatures
and ecosystem response in the McMurdo Dry Valleys indicated a cooling of 0.7°C per
decade between 1986 and 2000.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

But a study led by Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta concludes permafrost is far more resistant to climate change than previously claimed. The study, “Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic” (Science, September 19, 2008), examines ancient ice, determined to be 740,000 years old, found in the Yukon. The permafrost has, indeed, remained “permanent” despite having experienced climate change—both warming and cooling—for hundreds of thousands of years.

William D. Balgord, Ph.D., president of Environmental & Resources Technology, Inc., a Middleton, Wisconsin-based consulting firm, also doubts the models’ ability to reflect the complex realities of the geophysical world.

“The 2006 Nature article is long on implications for severe melting of permafrost, predicted by the author’s crafted model, but short on evidence that melting is proceeding at an adequate rate and sufficiently long time to set in play the positive feedback loop described by Chris Field,” said Balgord.

“What he and other pro-warming advocates ignore is overwhelming evidence of strong negative feedbacks in place, resisting changes that might disrupt global climate patterns beyond the envelope of natural variability,” Balgord added. “To cite another example, the Holocene [the current geological period that has existed since the retreat of the last continental glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere] has been firmly in place now for some 12,000 years. During this period, sea levels have not risen or fallen significantly from their current positions, clear evidence of a climatic ‘still-stand.’”
Melting Permafrost Scare Deflated by New Study - by Bonner R. Cohen - Environment & Climate News

Listen I'm quite well aware of the UHI effect so much so that NASA/NOAA has to adjust it's data gathering techniques in 2007 to account for it. In fact let me cite you an example of how NOAA gathers data. Take Calfornia for instance. it gathers data from 2 stations, one in L.A. the other in Santa Monica, both UHI, and excludes data in its averaging from all the other 27 stations localted in rural areas that could result in a swing of temp. variations. Thesse variations are at the moment show a net increase in Temps that is higher than it should be because if that exclusion. Further, even though the sun heats land masses UHI heating is significantly higher than the surrounding natural heating of bare land including the top layer of permafrost. Methane and CO2 are a byproduct of permafrost melting and I don't think I have ever indicated otherwise nor suggested that the impact of a release of massive amounts of Methane into the atmosphere would be a good thing.

An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas. The phenomenon was first investigated and described, though not by name, by Luke Howard in the 1810s.[1] The temperature difference usually is larger at night than during the day, and is most apparent when winds are weak. Seasonally, UHI is seen during both summer and winter. The main cause of the urban heat island is modification of the land surface by urban development which uses materials which effectively retain heat.

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.

Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An “exhaustive review” shows “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” « Climate Progress

And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also. So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!

but all those anti warmers who have not read all the emails are the experts and the AP does not know what it is talking about.

 

[Si modo]

good morning si modo,

ohhhh, I was just facetiously reusing the word "cult" that is constantly said and repeated about those who do believe that man has contributed to this Global warming trend....

and if those who believe the scientists who say that man has contributed to global warming are a ''CULT'', then one can EASILY say that those who are part of the group of people that Deny that man made Global warming is contributing to our warming, are ALSO a CULT....

My main point, is that the anti global warming group, who are constantly reiterating the information they are told by their BIASED group of Scientists and journalists, are NO DIFFERENT, than anyone in the opposing group....are they? The accuse their opposition's view as being biased while they themselves only use BIASED analysis for their own position.

Do they really have legitimate, unbiased reporting on their point of view on the subject as they expect and require of their opposition?


I think NOT. that's all I was trying to say....

Care

First of all, I have no idea what the 'anti global warming group' is. You are terribly misinformed if you think that there are scientists who conclude that anthropogenic CO2 does not contribute to any global warming. I suggest you understand what the scientific debate actually is.

Ok smarty pants, with your infinite wisdom , let's see you explain it to me....then we will see if I can keep up with you, and your understanding of the Scientific argument!

I have no idea how I can explain a term you used that you have yet to tell me what it means - the 'anti global warming group'. So, on that, I am at a loss.

If folks pay attention to the questions I ask of others (notably partisans for some reason), I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed). This tells me that one has no idea what the scientific debate is as the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other with respect to the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. That sentence right there is the debate of the actual science.

Your telling me that there is an 'anti global warming group' of scientists, or even of those who are not apostles of the Al Gore rhetoric, does the same thing. It is a term that has little to do with the actual scientific debate.

Now, these scientists involved in this scandal HAVE actually made conclusions about the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. Those conclusions have been based on correlations for years. There is nothing scientific about that and those who know science have been saying that such conclusions are not scientific as they are illogical. These same scientists have gone on to develop predictive models (and some others, as well). However, almost all of those predictive models are not falsifiable which means the models have nothing to do with science - again.

In fact, there are some models that actually are scientific, so that's a plus. However, there has been other science done that falsifies those models. And, ironically enough, these are the scientists that seem to be targeted for marginalization by this group in the scandal.

Smell enough for you? It does to scientists.

 

[JimH52]

You people that are determined to prove fraud, please keep posting. But the facts are the facts. No frivilous and often cheap e-mails from arrogants scientist are going to change that.

 

[edthecynic]

Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.

As the warming continues into the coming decade, we should all remind the brainless trolls just how badly they have been misled. Not that they will admit it, they are still insisting that WMD were in Iraq.

What warming?

First of all, I have no idea what the 'anti global warming group' is. You are terribly misinformed if you think that there are scientists who conclude that anthropogenic CO2 does not contribute to any global warming. I suggest you understand what the scientific debate actually is.

Ok smarty pants, with your infinite wisdom , let's see you explain it to me....then we will see if I can keep up with you, and your understanding of the Scientific argument!

I have no idea how I can explain a term you used that you have yet to tell me what it means - the 'anti global warming group'. So, on that, I am at a loss.

If folks pay attention to the questions I ask of others (notably partisans for some reason), I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed). This tells me that one has no idea what the scientific debate is as the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other with respect to the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. That sentence right there is the debate of the actual science.

Your telling me that there is an 'anti global warming group' of scientists, or even of those who are not apostles of the Al Gore rhetoric, does the same thing. It is a term that has little to do with the actual scientific debate.

Now, these scientists involved in this scandal HAVE actually made conclusions about the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. Those conclusions have been based on correlations for years. There is nothing scientific about that and those who know science have been saying that such conclusions are not scientific as they are illogical. These same scientists have gone on to develop predictive models (and some others, as well). However, almost all of those predictive models are not falsifiable which means the models have nothing to do with science - again.

In fact, there are some models that actually are scientific, so that's a plus. However, there has been other science done that falsifies those models. And, ironically enough, these are the scientists that seem to be targeted for marginalization by this group in the scandal.

Smell enough for you? It does to scientists.

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. And they are merely parroting GOP hate media quoting morons passed off as scientists like Lord Monkton.

You have no scientists who have falsified anything. You deniers use a cherry picked year like 1998 and then claim that the U of East Anglia data is the only accurate data because it says 1998 is the warmest year and the American data says 2005 was warmest and 2007 tied 1998 for 2nd place. But now you claim the U of East Anglia cooks their data to hide the decline.
Or you deniers continue use Troposphere data that you know was doctored by LimpBoy's climatologist Roy Spencer and his partner John Christy even after Christy admitted that his own data matches the surface temp data once the correct sign for Diurnal Drift is used.
Or you deniers use data from floats that had defective depth gauges after the problem was discovered and corrected because the floats were reading temps at deeper depths than their gauges reported because deeper water temp is colder.
Or you deniers use tree ring data that is known to be wrong because it does not match direct instrument data.
CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.

 

[slackjawed]

JUST IN:
Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.

That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.

 

[Si modo]

Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.

What warming?

Ok smarty pants, with your infinite wisdom , let's see you explain it to me....then we will see if I can keep up with you, and your understanding of the Scientific argument!

I have no idea how I can explain a term you used that you have yet to tell me what it means - the 'anti global warming group'. So, on that, I am at a loss.

If folks pay attention to the questions I ask of others (notably partisans for some reason), I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed). This tells me that one has no idea what the scientific debate is as the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other with respect to the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. That sentence right there is the debate of the actual science.

Your telling me that there is an 'anti global warming group' of scientists, or even of those who are not apostles of the Al Gore rhetoric, does the same thing. It is a term that has little to do with the actual scientific debate.

Now, these scientists involved in this scandal HAVE actually made conclusions about the magnitude and/or the significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature. Those conclusions have been based on correlations for years. There is nothing scientific about that and those who know science have been saying that such conclusions are not scientific as they are illogical. These same scientists have gone on to develop predictive models (and some others, as well). However, almost all of those predictive models are not falsifiable which means the models have nothing to do with science - again.

In fact, there are some models that actually are scientific, so that's a plus. However, there has been other science done that falsifies those models. And, ironically enough, these are the scientists that seem to be targeted for marginalization by this group in the scandal.

Smell enough for you? It does to scientists.

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. ....

Show me where I have.

.... And they are merely parroting GOP hate media quoting morons passed off as scientists like Lord Monkton. ....

As I've never cited Monckton when discussing the science, I have no idea what you are talking about.

.... You have no scientists who have falsified anything. ....

Oh really?

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Just two peer-reviewed examples of falsified models (only one is needed, and note that both are before the apparent scandal).

.... You deniers ....

What am I denying?

.... use a cherry picked year like 1998 and then claim that the U of East Anglia data is the only accurate data because it says 1998 is the warmest year and the American data says 2005 was warmest and 2007 tied 1998 for 2nd place. But now you claim the U of East Anglia cooks their data to hide the decline. ....

Show where I've done any such thing. I use peer-reviewed science.

.... Or you deniers ....

What am I denying?

.... continue use Troposphere data that you know was doctored by LimpBoy's climatologist Roy Spencer and his partner John Christy ....

So, peer-reviewed science is NOT valid in your amateurish mind?

even after Christy admitted that his own data matches the surface temp data once the correct sign for Diurnal Drift is used. Or you deniers ....

What am I denying?

.... use data from floats that had defective depth gauges after the problem was discovered and corrected because the floats were reading temps at deeper depths than their gauges reported because deeper water temp is colder. ....

Nope. I just show peer-reviewed work which falsifies models.

.... Or you deniers ....

What am I denying?

.... use tree ring data that is known to be wrong because it does not match direct instrument data. ....

Nope. I just use peer-reviewed science.

.... CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.

Science, by definition, is not partisan, although I would bet you and others would like it to be.

 

[The T]

determines they do nothing to change the science of global warming.

Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An “exhaustive review” shows “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” « Climate Progress

And I read this is a local conservative newspaper also. So, Limbaugh will be beating a dead horse for months to come...HA!

but noted scientist Sarah palin said...on her facebook of course.....there really is no such thing as global warming.

Is the Globe Warming because the Million Degree Heat is leaching to the surface?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

JUST IN:
Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.

That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.

I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate and credible.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Y';all keep talking shit, but you never even attempted to address TF's case. You have admitted that you are wrong.

 

[Si modo]

y';all keep talking shit, but you never even attempted to address tf's case. You have admitted that you are wrong.

tf?

 

[JimH52]

THERE HAS TO BE A CONSPIRACY!

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by Si modo
I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).

Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. ....

Show me where I have.

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JUST IN:
Big bad wolf reports grandma was eaten by bears.

That statement is as credible as this so-called news report.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and PFF

 

[The T]

Originally Posted by Si modo
I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. ....

Show me where I have.

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

However? Are the Deniers denying what the Flat Earthers have denied?

Or ARE THEY Denying the Flat Earthers and their false claims that still have YET to be Denied?

 

[manu1959]

if in fact the earth is warming....and if in fact it is man made....and if in fact within 5 years the arctic ice shelf will be gone.....

there is no way for man....in particular the US alone to stop it ....

you would need to shut down manufacturing and the burning of fossil fuels worldwide.....today......

somehow i see mother nature reacting to this abundance of c02 in her own wisdom to correct this anomaly.....just as she did when volcanoes erupted and meteors hit the earth.....the earth will be just fine...man sure as shit better figure out how to adapt.....

 

[The T]

if in fact the earth is warming....and if in fact it is man made....and if in fact within 5 years the arctic ice shelf will be gone.....

there is no way for man....in particular the US alone to stop it ....

you would need to shut down manufacturing and the burning of fossil fuels worldwide.....today......

somehow i see mother nature reacting to this abundance of c02 in her own wisdom to correct this anomaly.....just as she did when volcanoes erupted and meteors hit the earth.....the earth will be just fine...man sure as shit better figure out how to adapt.....

PROVE IT. Your comparison of MAN's impact to that of Volcanos...even ONE is rejected...

MAN is NOT that powerful, except in the relnm of NUCLEAR industry...but even *IF* we fuck up and blow ourselves up?
The EARTH would recover...and not even miss US after we're GONE...

 

[The T]

Come with me as we attempt to DANCE ON A VOLCANO...

Nature is of more Import than anything MAN could ever be...

(Music by GENESIS)

 

[concept]

Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?

It is the data that is the incriminating part.

 

[The T]

Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?

It is the data that is the incriminating part.

What data? It was destroyed.