Temperature Fraud Expands

[FloridaJohn]

People are putting some of us in this forum into this "denier" category and we don't deserve it. 

I agree with you. There are some people in this forum who are honestly trying to understand the science behind climate change (and I think you are one of those, BTW). There are others who just want to stir up a ruckus and have no intention of trying to understand the current body of knowledge. Unfortunately, the two groups often get lumped together here and that can have a tendency to drive people away.

I would encourage you to start a thread for each of your issues you list above. I am by no means an expert in climate change, but there a lot of people here who are, and if you are approaching the subject from a scientific point of view (i.e discuss data and research), you will find many people here willing to engage with you. Just stay away from the websites with known "bad actors" as a resource.

I am of the opinion that scientific understanding in this country is at an all time low (I'm not talking about you here). There are a large group of the public that can no longer separate fact from opinion anymore. This was something I learned as a matter of course in school, but I am not so sure that is even being taught anymore. So when people come into this forum with a chart they got from a website, I believe that many times they don't understand why it is wrong. Instead of shooing them away, I would rather point out what their mistake is and help them learn. This skill is even more important in the "internet age," because anyone with a website can put up something that sounds good, but has no bearing on reality. People need to be able to ferret this stuff out on their own, but they need the skills to do it.

[WeatherRusty]

Blizzard,

 

The scientific consensus does not say CAGW is certain or that the science is settled in all areas. How many times do I have to tell you that the science regarding feedbacks allows for an uncertainty between 2 and 4.5C for a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That's a factor of more than two, and the difference from one end of that spectrum of uncertainty to the other on climate is enormous. Equilibrium climate sensitivity involves the net consequence of all positive and negative feedback. We don't know that CAGW is guaranteed, but we can't rule it out either. Of course total anthropogenic forcing could well exceed the equal of a single doubling of CO2 if we keep going the way we are headed, and there remains the threat of methane release from the arctic thaw.

[blizzard1024]

I agree with you. There are some people in this forum who are honestly trying to understand the science behind climate change (and I think you are one of those, BTW). There are others who just want to stir up a ruckus and have no intention of trying to understand the current body of knowledge. Unfortunately, the two groups often get lumped together here and that can have a tendency to drive people away.

I would encourage you to start a thread for each of your issues you list above. I am by no means an expert in climate change, but there a lot of people here who are, and if you are approaching the subject from a scientific point of view (i.e discuss data and research), you will find many people here willing to engage with you. Just stay away from the websites with known "bad actors" as a resource.

I am of the opinion that scientific understanding in this country is at an all time low (I'm not talking about you here). There are a large group of the public that can no longer separate fact from opinion anymore. This was something I learned as a matter of course in school, but I am not so sure that is even being taught anymore. So when people come into this forum with a chart they got from a website, I believe that many times they don't understand why it is wrong. Instead of shooing them away, I would rather point out what their mistake is and help them learn. This skill is even more important in the "internet age," because anyone with a website can put up something that sounds good, but has no bearing on reality. People need to be able to ferret this stuff out on their own, but they need the skills to do it.

Thanks. will do. take care. 

[FloridaJohn]

When they say the science is settled it can't be for this stuff.

When people say the science is "settled," I believe they are talking more about the basics of climate change: Greenhouse gasses warm the earth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This is making the earth warmer. The source of this carbon dioxide is fossil fuels being burnt by mankind. A warming world will be bad for mankind. Bad things in the future can be stopped by action now.

There are definitely still some areas where things have not been proven, but those are on the edges of the science. There is nothing we don't know already that should keep us from acting. Being 100% sure of all possibilities is not necessary. We are well above the 90% mark now, and that should be good enough. People make decisions all the time without 100% complete information, and this is no different. Adjustments can be made along the way as new information is learned.

That is what is generally thought of as "settled."

[blizzard1024]

Blizzard,

 

The scientific consensus does not say CAGW is certain or that the science is settled in all areas. How many times do I have to tell you that the science regarding feedbacks allows for an uncertainty between 2 and 4.5C for a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That's a factor of more than two, and the difference from one end of that spectrum of uncertainty to the climate is enormous. Equilibrium climate sensitivity involves the net consequence of all positive and negative feedback. We don't know that CAGW is guaranteed, but we can't rule it out either. Of course total anthropogenic forcing could well exceed the equal of a single doubling of CO2 if we keep going the way we are headed, and there remains the threat of methane release from the actic thaw.

I agree. There is uncertainty in feedbacks. But 2 to 4.5C would be CAGW IMO...especially 3C+.  Also a 2 to 4.5C warming implies only positive feedbacks...but there is uncertainty that feedbacks are even positive. This does come from some peer review literature, not my own opinion. Of course, these folks are in the minority in climate science but do show evidence that can't be ignored and needs further research. Methane does cycle through the atmosphere quickly and I have heard lectures from some of the more mainstream climate scientists that believe in CAGW that state the effects of methane are uncertain...this would be Dressler in this case.   Please don't treat me like a child either... "How many times do I have to tell you..."  But in any event, thanks for the fairly cordial reply. 

[WeatherRusty]

When people say the science is "settled," I believe they are talking more about the basics of climate change: Greenhouse gasses warm the earth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This is making the earth warmer. The source of this carbon dioxide is fossil fuels being burnt by mankind. A warming world will be bad for mankind. Bad things in the future can be stopped by action now.

There are definitely still some areas where things have not been proven, but those are on the edges of the science. There is nothing we don't know already that should keep us from acting. Being 100% sure of all possibilities is not necessary. We are well above the 90% mark now, and that should be good enough. People make decisions all the time without 100% complete information, and this is no different. Adjustments can be made along the way as new information is learned.

That is what is generally thought of as "settled."

You are exactly right. Of course the "skeptics/deniers" love to throw out the "settled" point in order to cast climate scientists in a compromising light. Blizzard thinks climate scientists have menuvered themselves outside the mainstream of science for this very reason. Except that the science does not shut anyone out. However, ideas must pass the peer-review process to be taken seriously, and this is where the skeptics fail on the actual science. Lots of rhetoric and little substance on an acedemic level.

[blizzard1024]

When people say the science is "settled," I believe they are talking more about the basics of climate change: Greenhouse gasses warm the earth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This is making the earth warmer. The source of this carbon dioxide is fossil fuels being burnt by mankind. A warming world will be bad for mankind. Bad things in the future can be stopped by action now.

There are definitely still some areas where things have not been proven, but those are on the edges of the science. There is nothing we don't know already that should keep us from acting. Being 100% sure of all possibilities is not necessary. We are well above the 90% mark now, and that should be good enough. People make decisions all the time without 100% complete information, and this is no different. Adjustments can be made along the way as new information is learned.

That is what is generally thought of as "settled."

I agree "Florida" dude. But how do we know that a warming world is that bad for humans? Of course the sea level thing is one good reason, but in general mankind tends to thrive during warm periods and suffer in cold spells. History shows this. Of course the degree of warming is more important. It could reach a point that indeed becomes bad for people. But even +2-3C over 100 years should cause too many problems and man will have to adapt. In fact, the human species should learn how to adapt to climate change but it will happen no matter what...CO2 increases or not. It also is in man's best interest to develop alternate energy sources as we will run out of fossil fuels someday. We should protect mother earth too. I am on the same page with many of you in these instances. I just am, skeptical of the doomsday scenarios. If the proof starts to emerge by observations, like rapid unprecedented warming way beyond the present rates in 10-20 years, satellite confirmation of an enhanced greenhouse effect showing positive feedbacks for clouds and water vapor then I will believe this stuff. More research is needed. But there is no reason some action could start...but unfortunately, there will be no action as long as China and India continue to build coal burning plants. 

[WeatherRusty]

I agree. There is uncertainty in feedbacks. But 2 to 4.5C would be CAGW IMO...especially 3C+.  Also a 2 to 4.5C warming implies only positive feedbacks...but there is uncertainty that feedbacks are even positive. This does come from some peer review literature, not my own opinion. Of course, these folks are in the minority in climate science but do show evidence that can't be ignored and needs further research. Methane does cycle through the atmosphere quickly and I have heard lectures from some of the more mainstream climate scientists that believe in CAGW that state the effects of methane are uncertain...this would be Dressler in this case.   Please don't treat me like a child either... "How many times do I have to tell you..."  But in any event, thanks for the fairly cordial reply. 

 

The 2 to 4.5C is the consensus of a large number of climate sensitivity studies. The numbers are not just pulled out of thin air.

 

Methane breaks down to CO2 plus water vapor and the CO2 does have a long atmospheric life time.

 

Clouds are at once a positive feedback in adding to the greenhouse effect and a negative feedback by backscattering sunlight to space.

 

Water vapor is a positive feedback

Lapse rate is a negative feeback.

Ice albedo is a positive feedback.

And so on.....

The history of climate change on Earth indicates a net positive feedback, otherwise the climate would be much more stable than it has shown to be in the past and from both empirical evidence and modeling the consensus is 2 to 4.5C.

[blizzard1024]

Not sure what your are talking about. There are so many posts...please let me know and I will address to the

best of my ability. 

> 

you have yet to call out the issues with the link in the first post.

 

Ok. Got you. First of all, I never said I agree with this article or WUWT or Bastardi etc. If you thought that, you misunderstood me. But yes I read that article. I would love to see the tech note that explains the changes in the U.S temperatures from the first dataset before 1998 to the one showing the warmer present conditions and cooler 1930s. Why did they make such major changes to the U.S record that basically increases the warming?  I am sure they have good solid scientific reasons and I would like to examine this. The heat wave "index" shows the 1930s had more extreme heat waves than the 2000s and this is based from the EPA. Not sure how credible the EPA is in climate science and what this index means. I will have to look into this too. One of the problems with communicating to the public is that I am sure this index and how the temperature data was changed, is from complex statistical methods(especially the temperature records) of which the general public would never understand. Many people are generally scientific illiterate. That is the biggest problem. They can be easily influenced and when they see data that is provided in the article it makes them not believe in AGW. Scientists need to become better at communicating climate change. 

[blizzard1024]

links to peer-reviewed science that supports this contention?

I will have to dig up some history references on this. The little ice age and the cooler period during the dark

ages are two times when human suffering was harsh from failed crops, and diseases. I have a book on the little ice age.

People did well during the medieval warm period in Europe, Iceland and Greenland and we know what happened

to the Vikings during the LIA and we know about famines and disease in Europe. I can get some peer reviewed references out of this book.

When I do I will send them to you. 

[blizzard1024]

The 2 to 4.5C is the consensus of a large number of climate sensitivity studies. The numbers are not just pulled out of thin air.

 

Methane breaks down to CO2 plus water vapor and the CO2 does have a long atmospheric life time.

 

Clouds are at once a positive feedback in adding to the greenhouse effect and a negative feedback by backscattering sunlight to space.

 

Water vapor is a positive feedback

Lapse rate is a negative feeback.

Ice albedo is a positive feedback.

And so on.....

The history of climate change on Earth indicates a net positive feedback, otherwise the climate would be much more stable than it has shown to be in the past and from both empirical evidence and modeling the consensus is 2 to 4.5C.

The water vapor feedback is not necessarily positive. Spencer and Braswll (2008) Lindzen and Choi too among others. There is uncertainty here, Clouds are uncertain. Lapse rate is negative...yes and Ice albedo is positive yes. 

 

The paleoclimate record does not show this. The climate was very erratic when there were large ice sheets due to the ice-albedo feedback and enormous amounts meltwater shutting down the north atlantic drift current. The climate became stable during the interglacials of which we are in now. From graduate level coursework and associated research I have done on paleoclimatology the ice-albedo feedback is the most important feedback. The feedback also encompasses more than albedo. When an ice sheet melts it lowers in elevation and hence warms adiabatically which further melts the ice sheet. As the elevation drops there is less orographic lift and less snowfall too which further leads to the demise of the ice sheet. Once enough meltwater collects it eventually breaks away and flows into the North Atlantic and shuts down the current rapidly cooling the NH which turns the climate around. This leads to the ice sheets building up again and so on. Very erratic and you don't need CO2 to describe this. It has some small effect. 

[blizzard1024]

don't PM them to me.  post them in this thread.

I was planning on posting to the whole thread and not pm you. take care. 

[WeatherRusty]

The water vapor feedback is not necessarily positive. Spencer and Braswll (2008) Lindzen and Choi too among others. There is uncertainty here, Clouds are uncertain. Lapse rate is negative...yes and Ice albedo is positive yes. 

 

The paleoclimate record does not show this. The climate was very erratic when there were large ice sheets due to the ice-albedo feedback and enormous amounts meltwater shutting down the north atlantic drift current. The climate became stable during the interglacials of which we are in now. From graduate level coursework and associated research I have done on paleoclimatology the ice-albedo feedback is the most important feedback. The feedback also encompasses more than albedo. When an ice sheet melts it lowers in elevation and hence warms adiabatically which further melts the ice sheet. As the elevation drops there is less orographic lift and less snowfall too which further leads to the demise of the ice sheet. Once enough meltwater collects it eventually breaks away and flows into the North Atlantic and shuts down the current rapidly cooling the NH which turns the climate around. This leads to the ice sheets building up again and so on. Very erratic and you don't need CO2 to describe this. It has some small effect. 

No one has said CO2 drives the glacial cycle. Milankovitch cycles do, by inducing a shift in strength of where in latitude and which season solar radiation falls on the northern hemisphere. The glacial cycles are currently tied most strongly to the 100,000 yr. cycle of orbital inclination. Of course, as you have mentioned these glaciations did not commence until the Isthmus of Panama closed off the ocean circulation between the Atlantic and Pacific.

[skierinvermont]

People are putting some of us in this forum into this "denier" category and we don't deserve it. I agree with the basic premise of AGW. I just don't think it is settled that we will see CAGW. I already stated what is settled and what is uncertain. There are uncertainties in the feedbacks, clouds and convection. When they say the science is settled it can't be for this stuff. There is too much complexity in the climate system. Other fields are not proposed major changes to how society lives. That is why there are attacks on climate science especially because they say the science is settled for CAGW and we need to act know. That is why the other fields don't get attacked. They are not proposing measures that could make energy much more expensive and experiment with our global economy.  It is possible that the effects on the global economy would not be bad...but there is uncertainty here too. 

 

I am not up on the smoking issue but those who are ignorant of the climate system and trying to protect business interests will no doubt side with people who are skeptical. However,  many of these people can be classified as "deniers" because they don't even believe the earth is warming, or that CO2 warms the atmosphere. In fact, I have even seen some hack scientists who wrote a paper stating that CO2 actually leads to cooling! This is junk science and these people might be classified as "deniers" because CO2 and its radiative properties have been confirmed by spectroscopy. But I still don't like calling anyone names and won't. 

 

Thanks for the good reply. Wish others had your tact and reasonable approach to a comment.  cheers.  

 

You categorically rule out the possibility of CAGW and you have argued that net feedbacks are negative. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there any justification for either argument, and your arguments are poor at best misleading and biased at worst. Mainstream science has found no way of ruling out the possibility of a climate sensitivity near 4C. On the other hand, there is tremendous evidence that feedbacks are at least slightly positive, and that climate sensitivity is at least 1.8C. Most likely it is near 3C.

 

I think the most you can say without becoming a denier is that you believe climate sensitivity is closer to 2C than 3C or 4C. And only if you present sound scientific arguments for why you think it's probably on the lower side of what most experts believe. That's sort of where I lie (a sensitivity of 2-3C), although I don't pretend I have the knowledge or strong enough arguments to rule out higher sensitivities of 3 or 4C+. 

[smerby]

The problem is that the climate scientists are not trying to silence the skeptics, the skeptics (aka Deniers) are trying to silence the scientists. The Deniers know they have the media's ear, they know what needs to be said to journalists to get their point across, and they know how to say it.

Scientists, on the other hand, put all sorts of qualifiers and conditions on their findings and results, and they publish in scientific journals rarely read by journalists or the general public. The scientists feel that the results of their work, through rigorous use of the scientific method and the peer review process, will show what the actual "truth" is in their research.

Unfortunately, the Deniers do not have to be able to defend their claims. Their science does not have to follow the scientific method, nor does it have to be peer reviewed. They can take all the error bars and qualifiers and turn them into "doubt" about the findings. All they have to do is create a public awareness of a "controversy." By not losing, the Deniers win. Because as long as the public has the perception that the science is not "settled," then inaction is the proper course. However, if the science were actually settled (like it is and has been for a long time), then the discussion will have to move to solutions to the problems. And the companies funding The Deniers do not want that to happen (because it will be bad for business). Business as usual is a win for The Deniers. And right now, they are winning.

I would also add that this is unlike almost any other scientific field, or as you put it "mainstream science." There are no coordinated attacks against astronomy, or geology, or just about any other field. The only other field that has seen this kind of attack was the medical field in the "debate" about smoking. If you look at the history of that "debate," you will find the exact same arguments used in the climate change "debate" against the idea that smoking is bad for you, and that second-hand smoke is bad for you (aka "the science isn't settled," "it is natural," "if it does happen, it won't be bad"). In fact, if you look into it a little further, you will find the exact same people that sided with the tobacco companies are the ones leading the charge against the science of climate change. And that has to make you think; Why?

 

Isn't Al Gore the megaphone for CAGW? He definitely has the mainstream media's ear and he does not have to defend anything he says about CAGW. Al Gore is a polarizing figure and in my opinion is doing climate science a disservice. I think the climate science community should have a better spokesman than Al Gore, perhaps Dr. Richard Alley. Whats wrong with having a moderated public debate about climate change. Have a series of debates and let the chips fall. 

 

Smerby

[ORH_wxman]

Isn't Al Gore the megaphone for CAGW? He definitely has the mainstream media's ear and he does not have to defend anything he says about CAGW. Al Gore is a polarizing figure and in my opinion is doing climate science a disservice. I think the climate science community should have a better spokesman than Al Gore, perhaps Dr. Richard Alley. Whats wrong with having a moderated public debate about climate change. Have a series of debates and let the chips fall. 

 

Smerby

 

 

Al Gore is garbage for climate science...he is just as bad as someone like Goddard...the only difference is he has a career in politics and is a high profile figure which makes it even worse than some scrub like Goddard. Most of his claims are not peer reviewed. Even scientists who have peer reviewed work often spout off claims of unsubstantiated junk for their own agenda like James Hansen and Roy Spencer which is why it is a good idea to read their peer reviewed papers before believing the stuff that gets out on twitter, blogs, etc.

[blizzard1024]

You categorically rule out the possibility of CAGW and you have argued that net feedbacks are negative. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there any justification for either argument, and your arguments are poor at best misleading and biased at worst. Mainstream science has found no way of ruling out the possibility of a climate sensitivity near 4C. On the other hand, there is tremendous evidence that feedbacks are at least slightly positive, and that climate sensitivity is at least 1.8C. Most likely it is near 3C.

 

I think the most you can say without becoming a denier is that you believe climate sensitivity is closer to 2C than 3C or 4C. And only if you present sound scientific arguments for why you think it's probably on the lower side of what most experts believe. That's sort of where I lie (a sensitivity of 2-3C), although I don't pretend I have the knowledge or strong enough arguments to rule out higher sensitivities of 3 or 4C+. 

 

You are exactly right. Of course the "skeptics/deniers" love to throw out the "settled" point in order to cast climate scientists in a compromising light. Blizzard thinks climate scientists have menuvered themselves outside the mainstream of science for this very reason. Except that the science does not shut anyone out. However, ideas must pass the peer-review process to be taken seriously, and this is where the skeptics fail on the actual science. Lots of rhetoric and little substance on an acedemic level.

 

I said I was skeptical of strong positive feedbacks even the ones in the peer reviewed literature. Just my scientific opinion. I am not completely discounting them...just think they are too high. That's all. I don't think that climate scientists purposely wanted to "maneuver themselves outside the mainstream of science for this very reason..." Funding and especially politics has made this happen IMO. Many of these scientists are good people who believe in their work. I know Michael Mann. I feel sorry for what they are doing to him. It is really terrible. I may not agree with all his stuff but I respect him as a scientist and he is being treated horribly by the right wing in this country. 

[blizzard1024]

Al Gore is garbage for climate science...he is just as bad as someone like Goddard...the only difference is he has a career in politics and is a high profile figure which makes it even worse than some scrub like Goddard. Most of his claims are not peer reviewed. Even scientists who have peer reviewed work often spout off claims of unsubstantiated junk for their own agenda like James Hansen and Roy Spencer which is why it is a good idea to read their peer reviewed papers before believing the stuff that gets out on twitter, blogs, etc.

Yes. Al Gore probably is one of the reasons why the far right is on the war path against climate change (among others) and the whole thing has become political. spot on. 

[WeatherRusty]

Isn't Al Gore the megaphone for CAGW? He definitely has the mainstream media's ear and he does not have to defend anything he says about CAGW. Al Gore is a polarizing figure and in my opinion is doing climate science a disservice. I think the climate science community should have a better spokesman than Al Gore, perhaps Dr. Richard Alley. Whats wrong with having a moderated public debate about climate change. Have a series of debates and let the chips fall. 

 

Smerby

This isn't a contest to be decided by which "side" appears to present the better case. The validity of the science is not dependent on debating skills. Debate forms public opinion. Physics is not opinion. AGW is not something to be believed or not. If Bozo the Clown argued for AGW and Einstien against, who would you tend to believe?

[WeatherRusty]

Yes. Al Gore probably is one of the reasons why the far right is on the war path against climate change (among others) and the whole thing has become political. spot on. 

Correct, and Sen. James Inhofe has the entire Republican delegation in Congress considering AGW to be in Inhofe's words "the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". He thinks it's a hoax. The senator heading the most influential science committee in the Senate is a conspiracy theorist and outright denier. Deplorable. Disgusting.

[FloridaJohn]

Isn't Al Gore the megaphone for CAGW? He definitely has the mainstream media's ear and he does not have to defend anything he says about CAGW. Al Gore is a polarizing figure and in my opinion is doing climate science a disservice. I think the climate science community should have a better spokesman than Al Gore, perhaps Dr. Richard Alley. Whats wrong with having a moderated public debate about climate change. Have a series of debates and let the chips fall. 

 

Smerby

 

Al Gore does seems to be just about the only pro-global warming guy to consistantly able to get the word out. But as you point out, since he is a political personality, he is definately polarizing. I do think he is trying to do the right thing, but a different person in front of the media would be more helpful to getting the word out.

 

His movie is not altogether bad. Here is a pretty good summary of the movie from Dr. Jeff Masters over at Weather Underground. In it he says:

 

"In brief, Al Gore has the right idea--climate change is an urgent issue that requires immediate action, and his thoughtful movie is a welcome addition to the usual array of mindless Hollywood summer fare. However, the movie has flaws. The presentation of the science is good, but not great--I rate it B minus. The excessive details on Al Gore's life make the movie too long, and his insistence on using the movie as something of a campaign ad detracts from its message."

 

And that is pretty much the problem with Al Gore being in front of the media. It always comes across has him having alterior motives other than climate change. Plus, during the presidential election, half the country did not vote for him and find him untrustworthy.

 

On your idea of having a "debate," I have to agree with Rusty on this one. Science does not have "sides" that can be compared and contrasted, like you would in a debate. There is only one known "truth." Either the ideas and theories stand up to the facts and data, or they do not. If they don't, either more research into that idea is required, or the idea falls to the wayside to be replaced by a better theory that explains the phenomenom in question. Over time, a general understanding of the topic comes into focus, and is understood to be correct. Certainly there will always be a need for refinement and elaboration, but the basic tenets are sound. That is where we are with climate change now.

 

Why don't people want to debate other areas of science? Why aren't people calling for debates about whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth? Because the science has been "settled" for some time now, and a general consensus has been reached. There is no need for debates. This is the same with climate change. Except the Deniers don't want that, so they continue to beat the drum to give the illusion that scientists are unsure of what is happening. They emphasize the "unknowns" or "ranges" and try to paralyze the public and the politicians into doing nothing, and they are succeeding.

 

Like what we are discussing in this thread. The climate sensitivity is 2-4.5C. The Deniers use that as proof the scientists studying this don't know what is happening. "That's a pretty big range," they say, "we shouldn't do anything until we know an exact number." Except science has determined that the warming will absolutely not be zero (that's why it is not in the range), and even a 2C jump in temperatures will be pretty dramatic to the way we live. And this effect is completely reversible. So science is telling us to act now to turn this around while it is still easy and cheap. Waiting until later will make it difficult and expensive.

 

If you want to debate something, that debate should be on what to do about climate change. That debate does have lots of sides and opinions, and there are several ways to go about reducing CO2 emissions. And you don't even have to elimate all CO2 emissions to solve the problem. Just reduce them from where they are now. It can be done, and it won't be super painful, just an adaptation to the way we are currently living. That is the debate we should be having in public, and that is a debate I would love to see.

[FloridaJohn]

Correct, and Sen. James Inhofe has the entire Republican delegation in Congress considering AGW to be in Inhofe's words "the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". He thinks it's a hoax. The senator heading the most influential science committee in the Senate is a conspiracy theorist and outright denier. Deplorable. Disgusting.

 

Yep, and he is not the only one.

 

Meet The House GOP’s Anti-Science Committee

[FloridaJohn]

Back to the original topic of this thread. I found this interesting link this afternoon:

 

The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Datasets

 

It's a detailed description on how the adjustments to temperature are made, with links to research papers that verify the methodology.

[FloridaJohn]

Sorry for the serial posts, but an excellent post over on Skeptical Science about this topic (and where I got the above link from):

 

2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality

 

A couple good charts over there, I liked these two:

 

 

[michsnowfreak]

This isn't going to go over well here.

im not going to get into any discussion in here because many arent very welcome in this subforum....I rarely visit anymore anyway...but since I saw the title "temp fraud" I decided to read the article and it made me think of something Harry and I uncovered in November. Im not getting into any discussion on the subject, just displaying the facts.

 

When NCDC calculates new normals, there is a certain amount of quality control that goes into the raw data. Well, that "quality control" is apparently to adjust all temps upward.

 

The relatively new NOWdata tool used on NWS websites (and NWS has a similar, even more high-tech thing I cant remember what its called) will show you the raw calculated #s...which theoretically should be the same as the official averages. But the 1981-2010 NOWdata avg is CONSISTENTLY colder than the "OFFICIAL" 1981-2010 averages as released by the NCDC.

Here is DTW avg monthly mean, 1981-2010

.......................Jan......Feb....Mar......Apr......May....Jun.....Jul.......Aug....Sep.....Oct.....Nov....Dec

NOWDATA.....25.3.....27.9....36.9....49.0....59.4....69.2...73.4....71.8....64.2....52.2....41.3....29.9

OFFICIAL.......25.6.....28.1....37.2....49.2....59.7....69.4...73.6....72.0....64.4....52.4....41.5....30.1

So each month at DTW, the "official" 1981-2010 normals are consistently 0.2-0.3F WARMER than the ACTUAL raw-data would indicate. Good idea to make the normals for a station that already has seen a huge increase in UHI over the last 20 years WARMER than the ACTUAL numbers are! FWIW, NOWdata snowfall avg is 43.8"....but the new official normal is 42.7".

[skierinvermont]

im not going to get into any discussion in here because many arent very welcome in this subforum....I rarely visit anymore anyway...but since I saw the title "temp fraud" I decided to read the article and it made me think of something Harry and I uncovered in November. Im not getting into any discussion on the subject, just displaying the facts.

 

When NCDC calculates new normals, there is a certain amount of quality control that goes into the raw data. Well, that "quality control" is apparently to adjust all temps upward.

 

The relatively new NOWdata tool used on NWS websites (and NWS has a similar, even more high-tech thing I cant remember what its called) will show you the raw calculated #s...which theoretically should be the same as the official averages. But the 1981-2010 NOWdata avg is CONSISTENTLY colder than the "OFFICIAL" 1981-2010 averages as released by the NCDC.

Here is DTW avg monthly mean, 1981-2010

.......................Jan......Feb....Mar......Apr......May....Jun.....Jul.......Aug....Sep.....Oct.....Nov....Dec

NOWDATA.....25.3.....27.9....36.9....49.0....59.4....69.2...73.4....71.8....64.2....52.2....41.3....29.9

OFFICIAL.......25.6.....28.1....37.2....49.2....59.7....69.4...73.6....72.0....64.4....52.4....41.5....30.1

So each month at DTW, the "official" 1981-2010 normals are consistently 0.2-0.3F WARMER than the ACTUAL raw-data would indicate. Good idea to make the normals for a station that already has seen a huge increase in UHI over the last 20 years WARMER than the ACTUAL numbers are! FWIW, NOWdata snowfall avg is 43.8"....but the new official normal is 42.7".

 

 

Shocking you have uncovered the biggest fraud in history!!! How could so many people have missed this? Simply amazing .. it looks like all they did was just add .2 to every month to make AGW magically appear!! People are so stupid to miss this manipulation. It isn't even hidden! They've handed us the evidence of their own manipulation!

[The_Global_Warmer]

Shocking you have uncovered the biggest fraud in history!!! How could so many people have missed this? Simply amazing .. it looks like all they did was just add .2 to every month to make AGW magically appear!! People are so stupid to miss this manipulation. It isn't even hidden! They've handed us the evidence of their own manipulation!

 

They uncovered the facts and didn't even mention this.

[donsutherland1]

In terms of the 1981-2010 baseline norms, NCDC has posted the following on its website:

 

Several changes and additions have been incorporated into the 1981-2010 Normals. Monthly temperature and precipitation normals are based on underlying data values that have undergone additional quality control. Monthly temperatures have also been standardized to account for the effects of station moves, changes in instrumentation, etc. These enhancements are described in more detail in the following peer-reviewed papers:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf
and
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf

[FloridaJohn]

im not going to get into any discussion in here because many arent very welcome in this subforum....I rarely visit anymore anyway...but since I saw the title "temp fraud" I decided to read the article and it made me think of something Harry and I uncovered in November. Im not getting into any discussion on the subject, just displaying the facts.

 

When NCDC calculates new normals, there is a certain amount of quality control that goes into the raw data. Well, that "quality control" is apparently to adjust all temps upward.

 

The relatively new NOWdata tool used on NWS websites (and NWS has a similar, even more high-tech thing I cant remember what its called) will show you the raw calculated #s...which theoretically should be the same as the official averages. But the 1981-2010 NOWdata avg is CONSISTENTLY colder than the "OFFICIAL" 1981-2010 averages as released by the NCDC.

Here is DTW avg monthly mean, 1981-2010

.......................Jan......Feb....Mar......Apr......May....Jun.....Jul.......Aug....Sep.....Oct.....Nov....Dec

NOWDATA.....25.3.....27.9....36.9....49.0....59.4....69.2...73.4....71.8....64.2....52.2....41.3....29.9

OFFICIAL.......25.6.....28.1....37.2....49.2....59.7....69.4...73.6....72.0....64.4....52.4....41.5....30.1

So each month at DTW, the "official" 1981-2010 normals are consistently 0.2-0.3F WARMER than the ACTUAL raw-data would indicate. Good idea to make the normals for a station that already has seen a huge increase in UHI over the last 20 years WARMER than the ACTUAL numbers are! FWIW, NOWdata snowfall avg is 43.8"....but the new official normal is 42.7".

 

So what you are saying is that there is no legitimate reason to make adjustments to the data? Or only upward adjustments are wrong? How does the NCDC data set compare to other temperature data sets? Can you point me to any studies that show these adjustment result in unreliable results?

 

What other natural effects lead you to believe that the earth is cooling instead of getting warmer? Are glaciers and artic ice getting larger? Are growing zones moving south? Please elaborate on your thinking here, I am interested in know how you arrived at these conclusions.

[WXheights]

I just ran across this little gem from 2010:

 

 

Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the "controversy"

 

This is a story where a memo from Fox News was leaked that contained the following:

 

 

 

 

So please be wary of what you get from Fox News, they are deliberately not attempting to "fact check" any climate-related stories.

 

That link came from this article which does a pretty good job of describing the problems with the way Fox is reporting this, including many of the points echoed in this thread.

Now damn that IS interesting, but I think most knew this by their content already, but apparently there are those who still insist to swallow and then sig hiel