how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[mamooth]

Funny admiral but we saw the post here in the thread to.. It has red text easy to spot.. It was a response to your post..

Sure ya will admiral just like you were so honest about the PM I sent you... Still waiting on that apology.. Any time no rush...

That thread was you and Saigon's doing, you wanted attention and you got it.

Reported for trolling (endless personal vendetta.)

Again, such crap belongs only in the Rubber Room thread. Put it here, you get reported.

 

[IanC]

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.

Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

They are

a) the raw data has been available to anyone that wanted it. It always has been.

c) the real data is month to month, not year to year.

b) if you have a record of it, then it isn't a secret that was "uncovered".

He thinks he's found something new.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work. If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing. But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.

The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis..

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are..

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US..

That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record.

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick"..

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

 

[itfitzme]

Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

They are

a) the raw data has been available to anyone that wanted it. It always has been.

c) the real data is month to month, not year to year.

b) if you have a record of it, then it isn't a secret that was "uncovered".

He thinks he's found something new.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work. *If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing. *But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.

The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis..*

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are..*

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US..*

That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record.*

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick"..*

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/find-station

Here is a collection of the raw data

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

 

[PMZ]

None of these guys are actually capable of debating. The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation. If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right. When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement. People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions. Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

I agree with you Foxy. 8 years ago whenever a story on AGW was run in virtually any paper the split was around 50/50 between supporters and sceptics. Now, it is overwhelmingly sceptic. In fact the posts to the UK newspapers and the German papers are derisive at the least. There is outright mockery of the supporters now.

Whenever one of these libtards posts some BS poll that says they are winning I just laugh because they are so, so far removed from reality.

Here's another way to look at it. How much money is being invested in the assumption that AGW is real, vs that invested in the assumption that it is false?

You seem to have this unshakable belief that nature prefers to give you what you want. That you are entitled. That the Grand Wizard of the Flat Earth Society has a special in with God. Nobody is listening to your whining. Nobody cares about your high school science opinions.

The science is over. It's moved on to business and engineering now.

Don't worry, the strong will continue to carry the weak as we've always done.

 

[mamooth]

Prove smoking is harmful.

And do it in a paragraph.

If you can't, you have to admit smoking is harmless.

Naturally, I'm also going to declare any data you do provide is fraudulent, or simply handwave it away as "irrelevant".

This describes the tactic SSDD uses over and over. Which is why he's not taken seriously, at least outside of the cult.

 

[mamooth]

One of the effects of global warming -- why Miami is doomed. It's already having major problems with flooding, sewage removal and salinization of the water supply, and it's only going to get worse. Can Miami slowly transform itself to Venice, or will the big one eventually arrive and wipe it out?

Why the City of Miami Is Doomed to Drown | Politics News | Rolling Stone
---
South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won't just come in from the east – because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. "Imagine Swiss cheese, and you'll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like," says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. "Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here," says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas. "Protecting the city, if it is possible, will require innovative solutions."
---

 

[SSDD]

You seem to have this unshakable belief that nature prefers to give you what you want. That you are entitled. That the Grand Wizard of the Flat Earth Society has a special in with God. Nobody is listening to your whining. Nobody cares about your high school science opinions.

Funny you mention the "Flat Earth Society" since climate models portray the earth as a literal flat disk that does not rotate, does not have night or day and arbitrarily move the sun four times further away from the earth than it actually is.

The science is over.

The science never got started insofar as climate science goes as eividenced by your inability to provide even one bit of hard evidence that proves that mankind's CO2 emissions are responsible for any climate change at all...as well as your inability to state how much of the fraction of a degree of warming that has happened in the past 100 years is due to mankind's CO2 emissions. No actual hard data...nothing more than computer models and wild hanwaving claims of imminent disaster that you don't seem to be able to describe in any sort of detail...and what detail you manage gets shot down as more handwaving as quickly as you post it...like your claim of more tornados when your own source says that the number of tornadoes is way below average.

 

[flacaltenn]

The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis..*

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are..*

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US..*

That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record.*

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick"..*

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

The variance of a single simple process does NOT collapse SUDDENLY without a cause.. What do you suppose the CAUSE of that collapse was for 1996 to 1998? You're not a very sophisticated of statistics are you?

The raw data is term of art when applied to what you or I have access to. As I told you, it says RIGHT ON THE GISS WEBSITE, that the newest databases have been pruned for various reasons. Especially the historical records.

And you seem to be completely disinterested in the magnitude of the DIFF between the official GISS US temp record and comparisons to other data preps and satellite.. That's pure deflection.. There are documented comparisons of the GISS data cooking ALL OVER the place.. Showing MANUFACTURED "hockey sticks" in the latter Official Versions..

This interests me.. It should interest anyone CLAIMING that there is no bias or selective interpretation of this simple sensor record...

 

[IanC]

The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis..*

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are..*

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US..*

That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record.*

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick"..*

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

 

[itfitzme]

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. *It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

Well, then there is only one solution. Quit wasting time on a forum, get out a thermometer, and start measuring temperatures around the globe. *Take a laptop with you and we'll keep a record.

Because at some point, we either have to trust what someone else wrote down or do the work ourself. *And so far all I read are complaints from the peanut gallery that they don't like the acting.

Like I said, we can always use the temp record from "your" back porch. And you should have plenty because you've had fifty years to collect it.

 

[itfitzme]

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. *It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, these were 0.15 and now they are 0.18. Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old.

And what I never see is someone actually doing the work that they complain was done wrong. *And I'm not surprised because at some point, you have to rely on someone elses work because you can't go measuring the entire globe for fifty years every day, collect, compile, program, average, and then report it. For all you know, thousands of temperature stations have been run by pot smoking, alchoholic meth-heads who just wrote a bunch of numbers down when the boss called asking for their report, interupting a perfectly good booty call. And you know it's true because you've worked with a guy or two, on the graveyard shift, that was tossing down cold ones, in tha backnof the stock room. You just can't trust anyone. Geez

 

[IanC]

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. *It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

Well, then there is only one solution. Quit wasting time on a forum, get out a thermometer, and start measuring temperatures around the globe. *Take a laptop with you and we'll keep a record.

Because at some point, we either have to trust what someone else wrote down or do the work ourself. *And so far all I read are complaints from the peanut gallery that they don't like the acting.

Like I said, we can always use the temp record from "your" back porch. And you should have plenty because you've had fifty years to collect it.

If there are real problems, and there are, why are you against fixing them? Iceland is a perfect opportunity to evaluate whether homogenization techniques are working appropriately.

 

[Foxfyre]

Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme- *of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

The variance of a single simple process does NOT collapse SUDDENLY without a cause.. What do you suppose the CAUSE of that collapse was for 1996 to 1998? You're not a very sophisticated of statistics are you?

The raw data is term of art when applied to what you or I have access to. As I told you, it says RIGHT ON THE GISS WEBSITE, that the newest databases have been pruned for various reasons. Especially the historical records.

And you seem to be completely disinterested in the magnitude of the DIFF between the official GISS US temp record and comparisons to other data preps and satellite.. That's pure deflection.. There are documented comparisons of the GISS data cooking ALL OVER the place.. Showing MANUFACTURED "hockey sticks" in the latter Official Versions..

This interests me.. It should interest anyone CLAIMING that there is no bias or selective interpretation of this simple sensor record...

Apparently they've been dickering with the ocean levels too--there has been no significant rise in ocean levels over the last several decades though from what I have read, the ocean levels have been rising for at least the last 10,000 years but certainly less speedily than the previous 10,000 years when the great ice sheets covering most of Europe etc. 20,000 years ago were melting. One account suggests about 7 inches rise per century, but probably less than that. Coastal flooding from rising oceans may not be due to ocean levels increasing as much as it is from land masses sinkng--we are all floating on a molten core, yes?

But the pretty graphs at the sites promoting AGW would have you believe that ocean level increases have spiked dramatically recently. If so, why are the white sand beaches out there along the Florida coast and other places not dramatically shrinking in size or moving inland?

Here are just a few opinions on that:

Now a story has reported that researchers at the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group have been caught adding 0.3 millimeters per year (about the thickness of a fingernail) to its actual measurements of sea levels.

They're manipulating data to manufacture a rise in the ocean!

The actual recorded data was not published. Adjusted data inflating real sea level measurements got released instead.
Sea levels rise by fraud - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com

Support for the Examiner report:
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data | Fox News

And needing further research but interesting among the controvery of the 97% consensus for AGW:

Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. In such instances, they simply pretended the paper did not exist, in regard to their 97 percent claim.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ?97 Percent Consensus? Claims | Human Events

The Dr. Morner cited by Human Events was this one:
Sea levels not rising: Swedish scientist - The Hindu

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old. Another year and another selected data points that "just look funny".

Sure ya did.. You ran every one of them.. And MY -- you "ran the regression analysis" too... How damn impressive.. Was there a REASON to run regression on a simple data prep that just requires temporal averaging or filtering? Was it LINEAR or Polynomial? Why add predictive lines to a historical record? Do you have the coefficients for a "hockey stick" shaped regression analysis?

Wow -- you wrote the program too?? What ---- Excel isn't good enough for this simple plotting and prep? Don't have a license to MathCad or SciCad? Is it open source? Can I have it? Might be better than some of Hansen's work..

Let's forget about YOUR claimed attempts or somebody else's data prep problem and just LOOK at the official USHCN record from GISS.. Fair ENOUGH?

Here's the difference that data cooking makes from 1999 to 2012.. You shouldn't have any problem telling which one is recently cooked version..

 

[itfitzme]

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

Well, then there is only one solution. Quit wasting time on a forum, get out a thermometer, and start measuring temperatures around the globe. *Take a laptop with you and we'll keep a record.

Because at some point, we either have to trust what someone else wrote down or do the work ourself. *And so far all I read are complaints from the peanut gallery that they don't like the acting.

Like I said, we can always use the temp record from "your" back porch. And you should have plenty because you've had fifty years to collect it.

If there are real problems, and there are, why are you against fixing them? Iceland is a perfect opportunity to evaluate whether homogenization techniques are working appropriately.

I'm all for "fixing" stuff. *I found the two temp stations in my area. One is by the airport and one is by the reserviour. *There was one in a residential area, at someones housenor something, but it has been gone since before I moved here.

Have you found the temp stations near you? *I gave you the NOAA link.

Or is what you really mean is that you want someone else to fix it. You find things to complain about and someone else fixes it. *In my experience, that's usually what people do, stand around watching someone else do the work, then complain about it.

 

[itfitzme]

Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.

Too bad you won't be seeing this piece of valuable advice then.... I just pretty much ripped your claims to shreds.. See -- the only time I use ignore is when I'm DAMN certain the clown I'm ignoring couldn't EVER POSE A THREAT to my credibility or reputation..

You made a horrible mistake.. Laugh away ClownBoy....

 

[IanC]

Well, then there is only one solution. Quit wasting time on a forum, get out a thermometer, and start measuring temperatures around the globe. *Take a laptop with you and we'll keep a record.

Because at some point, we either have to trust what someone else wrote down or do the work ourself. *And so far all I read are complaints from the peanut gallery that they don't like the acting.

Like I said, we can always use the temp record from "your" back porch. And you should have plenty because you've had fifty years to collect it.

If there are real problems, and there are, why are you against fixing them? Iceland is a perfect opportunity to evaluate whether homogenization techniques are working appropriately.

I'm all for "fixing" stuff. *I found the two temp stations in my area. One is by the airport and one is by the reserviour. *There was one in a residential area, at someones housenor something, but it has been gone since before I moved here.

Have you found the temp stations near you? *I gave you the NOAA link.

Or is what you really mean is that you want someone else to fix it. You find things to complain about and someone else fixes it. *In my experience, that's usually what people do, stand around watching someone else do the work, then complain about it.

I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem. How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.

 

[westwall]

I hope you're right. It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me. You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a) who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked. Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all. Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there. But they aren't all idiots. I figure some are paying attention.

I agree with you Foxy. 8 years ago whenever a story on AGW was run in virtually any paper the split was around 50/50 between supporters and sceptics. Now, it is overwhelmingly sceptic. In fact the posts to the UK newspapers and the German papers are derisive at the least. There is outright mockery of the supporters now.

Whenever one of these libtards posts some BS poll that says they are winning I just laugh because they are so, so far removed from reality.

Here's another way to look at it. How much money is being invested in the assumption that AGW is real, vs that invested in the assumption that it is false?

You seem to have this unshakable belief that nature prefers to give you what you want. That you are entitled. That the Grand Wizard of the Flat Earth Society has a special in with God. Nobody is listening to your whining. Nobody cares about your high school science opinions.

The science is over. It's moved on to business and engineering now.

Don't worry, the strong will continue to carry the weak as we've always done.

The IPCC states that for the paltry sum of 76 trillion dollars squandered over 40 years we may be able to lower the global temp by one degree...maybe. That is what they wish to extort from the first world. How much mitigation do you think 76 trillion bucks would buy?

Below is the actual report. So you tell us, which would be a better use of all of that money. Spending in the hope that we can lower the temp by one degree or using that money to mitigate whatever effects DO occur?



http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[westwall]

Here is access to raw station data

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Here is a collection of the raw data

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. *It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, these were 0.15 and now they are 0.18. Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old.

And what I never see is someone actually doing the work that they complain was done wrong. *And I'm not surprised because at some point, you have to rely on someone elses work because you can't go measuring the entire globe for fifty years every day, collect, compile, program, average, and then report it. For all you know, thousands of temperature stations have been run by pot smoking, alchoholic meth-heads who just wrote a bunch of numbers down when the boss called asking for their report, interupting a perfectly good booty call. And you know it's true because you've worked with a guy or two, on the graveyard shift, that was tossing down cold ones, in tha backnof the stock room. You just can't trust anyone. Geez

Really? Show us your work then..