Indeed, earth systems are not only finite but have boundaries beyond which their nature and behavior in all likelihood will not be to our liking. To name a few - climate, ocean acidifcation, fresh water availably, loss of biodiversity and phosphate availability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o41WgM4f5uI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePnFDq8qULI&feature=related
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
..The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to "skeptics" (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn't publish enough in the peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
...This nonsense has been spread by a denialist blogger by the name of E. M. Smith (aka Chiefy). His ignorance is breathtaking....
?
..Indeed, the Marysville station violates the quality control standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius. That is not the only shortcoming of the Marysville data; it turns out that daily data were missing for as many as half the days of any given month. Either the device failed to self-record, or no one recorded the daily data as procedure requires. NASA simply filled in the gaps in the data by “interpolating.”
a survey of more than two-thirds of these stations reveal that the Marysville station is not an anomaly.
To the contrary, 89 percent of the 860 temperature stations surveyed fail to meet the National Weather Service’s site requirements that stations must be located at least 30 feet away from any artificial heat source.
http://www.american.com/archive/201...e+of+Ideas,+Online)&utm_content=Google+Reader
pics
http://www.surfacestations.org/
as for satellites
..Does NASA inspect each station to see if it is near a heat sink such as a parking lot? No: it delineates weather station locations with nighttime satellite photos. In other words, if a station is near an urban light source as seen from space, it is classified as urban and adjusted accordingly. But many of the rural stations suffer from the defects Watts’s volunteer army has documented, so NASA’s method may not account for station bias properly....
..if a pharmaceutical company came to the Food and Drug Administration with data on a drug trial that was this sloppy and prone to manipulation, the FDA would not be amused. Yet we’re basing multi-trillion-dollar global decisions in part on this work. And it doesn’t help that NASA’s lead scientist in their temperature trend work is the über -alarmist James Hansen, who advocates civil disobedience to shut down coal-fired power plants and crimes-against-humanity trials for climate skeptics. ...
this isn't science. its a religion. which is why all the religious style name calling like 'non believer, flat earthers, deniers etc and the associated violent behaviour and language comes out.
the basic flaw is they do not have a model that works or is believable as they didn't share the data upon which it is based. so its kind like black box trading. and on this black box all of us are paying billions transferring wealth from the many to the few via the instrument of the carbon exchanges. why are the fees for carbon contracts much higher than any other financial contract?
science isn't about black box. ponzis are.
?
..Indeed, the Marysville station violates the quality control standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius. That is not the only shortcoming of the Marysville data; it turns out that daily data were missing for as many as half the days of any given month. Either the device failed to self-record, or no one recorded the daily data as procedure requires. NASA simply filled in the gaps in the data by “interpolating.”
a survey of more than two-thirds of these stations reveal that the Marysville station is not an anomaly.
To the contrary, 89 percent of the 860 temperature stations surveyed fail to meet the National Weather Service’s site requirements that stations must be located at least 30 feet away from any artificial heat source.
http://www.american.com/archive/201...e+of+Ideas,+Online)&utm_content=Google+Reader
pics
http://www.surfacestations.org/
as for satellites
..Does NASA inspect each station to see if it is near a heat sink such as a parking lot? No: it delineates weather station locations with nighttime satellite photos. In other words, if a station is near an urban light source as seen from space, it is classified as urban and adjusted accordingly. But many of the rural stations suffer from the defects Watts’s volunteer army has documented, so NASA’s method may not account for station bias properly....
..if a pharmaceutical company came to the Food and Drug Administration with data on a drug trial that was this sloppy and prone to manipulation, the FDA would not be amused. Yet we’re basing multi-trillion-dollar global decisions in part on this work. And it doesn’t help that NASA’s lead scientist in their temperature trend work is the über -alarmist James Hansen, who advocates civil disobedience to shut down coal-fired power plants and crimes-against-humanity trials for climate skeptics. ...
this isn't science. its a religion. which is why all the religious style name calling like 'non believer, flat earthers, deniers etc and the associated violent behaviour and language comes out.
the basic flaw is they do not have a model that works or is believable as they didn't share the data upon which it is based. so its kind like black box trading. and on this black box all of us are paying billions transferring wealth from the many to the few via the instrument of the carbon exchanges. why are the fees for carbon contracts much higher than any other financial contract?
science isn't about black box. ponzis are.
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
more weather stations
..The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more...
It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
who benefits big financially from carbon trading? china.
..The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more...
It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
who benefits big financially from carbon trading? china.
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
why its black box trading
..SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
its a pattern around the world
...More major embarrassment for New Zealand’s ‘leading’ climate research unit NIWA tonight, with admissions that it “does not hold copies” of the original reports documenting adjustments to New Zealand’s weather stations.
The drama hit the headlines worldwide in late November when serious questions were raised about the “adjustments” NIWA had made to weather records. The adjusted data shows a strong warming trend over the past century, whereas unadjusted records had nowhere near as much warming.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
so its no different to looking at a chart and saying is there a trend and then betting on it. but as we know the trend changes on the time frame you look at and you maybe be buying right into resistance on a larger time frame. but at least in trading we have more accurate data. nothing black box about the price chart.
..SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
its a pattern around the world
...More major embarrassment for New Zealand’s ‘leading’ climate research unit NIWA tonight, with admissions that it “does not hold copies” of the original reports documenting adjustments to New Zealand’s weather stations.
The drama hit the headlines worldwide in late November when serious questions were raised about the “adjustments” NIWA had made to weather records. The adjusted data shows a strong warming trend over the past century, whereas unadjusted records had nowhere near as much warming.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
so its no different to looking at a chart and saying is there a trend and then betting on it. but as we know the trend changes on the time frame you look at and you maybe be buying right into resistance on a larger time frame. but at least in trading we have more accurate data. nothing black box about the price chart.
Last edited:
1. The Commons Enquiry exonerated Phil Jones and CRU - no faking of data, no faking of results and most importantly no reason to question the validity of the research.
2. CRU responded to the nonsense in the Guardian here:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
This response cites a more recent paper by Jones (2007) which re-examines the Chinese temperature record using more stations with more accurate metadata than used in the 1990 study. It's findings are almost identical to the 1990 paper. The issue of urban heat island effect has always been taken into account by climate researches and has been addressed in multiple research publications.
Gavin Schmidt of NASA discusses this in detail here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/#more-2808
There is no case for Phil Jones to answer over this and he is due an apology from Pearce at the Guardian.
Let us be very clear about one thing DATA HAS NOT BEEN LOST. The original raw station data is held by the national meteorological services of nations around the world. They are the curators of the data. CRU's role was never as a central worldwide repository of meteorological station data. It's charter is research.
Most of the historical climate data is and has been for years been available from the NOAA maintained Global Historical Climatology Network which does have a charter to maintain such a publicly available database. Anybody is free use this data and also free to contact national meteorological services to request data than they consider to be missing from the GHCN database.
Once more just muck raking nonsense with the sole objective of smearing the reputations of climate scientists.
What a load of old garbage.
The issue of station siting has been discussed extensively in peer reviewed published research for years. The researchers compiling the major surface temperature go to great effort to correct for siting variations. eg:
Hansen 2001: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
Petersen 2003: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf
Parker 2006: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/JCLI3730.1
Jones: 2008: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml
Menne 2010: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf examined Watts' claims about station siting (comparing "well sited" and poorly cited weather stations) and found no evidence of an artificial warming trend.
More discussion of micro influences here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature.htm
-----------------
All the major instrumental temperature reconstructions are in very close agreement:
1. CRU
2. NOAA
3. NASA GISS
4. UAH Satellite (compiled by Skeptics Spencer and Christie)
5. RSS satellite.
Furthermore the oceans' heat content is increasing:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
And there is a measured imbalance in the earths energy budget: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
The arctic sea ice is rapidly retreating. The Greenland, West and East Antarctica ice sheets are losing mass. Glaciers worldwide are retreating.
The evidence is overwhelming. The world is rapidly warming and no amount of deliberate misrepresentation will change that fact. Who do you want to believe - the real science or the politically motivated garbage peddled by unqualified bloggers.
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
..the politically motivated..
that works both ways.
its well known after the fall of communism all the loony lefties went into climate action groups. which is why they are desperate to promote climate change because its not the climate they want to change but the capitalist system through bogus trojan horse ideas like climate 'justice'. Why maoist loving maurice strong hosts 'leadership courses' on his [funny] farm who will become the new 'elders' in a one world government.
Also those who own carbon exchanges have been heavily promoting the climate justice nonsense because it will make them the richest people in the world because they will get a cut of every carbon trade which have a turnover of contracts worth in the trillions.
so you have looney lefties and the rothschild buddy gang piggy backing on these shaky models on short climate time frames.
the science is one thing the political/financially driven activism another.
that works both ways.
its well known after the fall of communism all the loony lefties went into climate action groups. which is why they are desperate to promote climate change because its not the climate they want to change but the capitalist system through bogus trojan horse ideas like climate 'justice'. Why maoist loving maurice strong hosts 'leadership courses' on his [funny] farm who will become the new 'elders' in a one world government.
Also those who own carbon exchanges have been heavily promoting the climate justice nonsense because it will make them the richest people in the world because they will get a cut of every carbon trade which have a turnover of contracts worth in the trillions.
so you have looney lefties and the rothschild buddy gang piggy backing on these shaky models on short climate time frames.
the science is one thing the political/financially driven activism another.
oiltanker
Established member
- Messages
- 955
- Likes
- 89
take a look at this long term climate chart.
looks a ranging market. we have not broken out of the range yet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/sediments-show-pattern-in-earths-long-term-climate-record/
so when people say there is a trend they need to show the timeframe. they tend to omit that data because it looks stupid when compared to a longer time frame of climate data.
looks a ranging market. we have not broken out of the range yet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/sediments-show-pattern-in-earths-long-term-climate-record/
so when people say there is a trend they need to show the timeframe. they tend to omit that data because it looks stupid when compared to a longer time frame of climate data.
Nonsensical drivel. Scientific papers are not accepted for publication by reputable journals nor approved by reviewers according to political criteria.
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect goes back to well before the Russian revolution. Which is somewhat earlier than the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In 1896, the first estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing was made by a Swedish chemist. That estimate was not all that far away from todays best estimates.
Go and read the The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. It is available as a book or free online: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Yes, indeed they do need to show the time scale which over the last century shows rapid warming that cannot be explained without the excess CO2 emitted by humans. I don't know what you think the chart shows that in any way contradicts this.
The role of the earths orbital eccentricity and precession has long been known as factors in climate forcing and glaciation. One of the reasons for the great interest in paleoclimate studies is that they help the understanding of climate change and the attribution of that change to physical causes. That is a world away from claims than the climate is "always cyclical".
The fact that the climate has changed in the past and over relatively short time frames and by quite large amounts should be even more cause for concern that humans are changing atmospheric composition in a way that forces climate. This is the new factor that was not present ever before in the history of the planet.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Bye-bye, Global Cooling Myth: Hottest march and hottest Jan-Feb-Mar on Record
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/...-march-on-record-nasa-uah-rss-satellite-data/
"It was the hottest March in both satellite records (UAH and RSS), and tied for the hottest March on record in the NASA dataset. It was the hottest (or tied for hottest) January through March in all three records."
Note that the UAH satellite record is maintained by AGW skeptics Spencer and Christie who are certainly not prone to exaggeration.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/...-march-on-record-nasa-uah-rss-satellite-data/
"It was the hottest March in both satellite records (UAH and RSS), and tied for the hottest March on record in the NASA dataset. It was the hottest (or tied for hottest) January through March in all three records."
Note that the UAH satellite record is maintained by AGW skeptics Spencer and Christie who are certainly not prone to exaggeration.
Last edited:
Climategate Officially Dead
"The scientists at the centre of the row over the hacked climate emails have been cleared of any deliberate malpractice by the second of three inquiries into their conduct."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
"The scientists at the centre of the row over the hacked climate emails have been cleared of any deliberate malpractice by the second of three inquiries into their conduct."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
