The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki why don't you just admit that you can't "prove" that most NWS stations are in "cool parks" for the same reason that I couldn't "prove" that most of them aren't in "cool parks", the evidince does not exist, there has never been a survey of all the stations to find the physical location of the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Just read the NWS site. They say the locations and they are almost all airports.

As far as the GISS record all of the stations they use are in rural areas. They use satellite imagery to pick stations in dark areas and avoid stations that have lights nearby. In areas outside of the US they won't use any station near a town > 10,000 people.

Statistical analysis shows those stations don't suffer from heat island effects. Does NASA have a photo of each station? As far as I know satellite imagery is all they've used.


[ QUOTE ]
Now you might think that I'm some "anti global warming nut" but I'm not, I do in fact belive the earth is warming up and that man is in fact causing some of it. I might debate you just how much man is contributing and what the ramifications are but that's a whole other subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok

[ QUOTE ]
Now what I do have a problem with is all the missinformation, half-truths, out right lies and general scare tactics used by a lot of MMGW advocates and their total intransigence when presented with facts they don't like or don't fit in with perconceived views.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this seems to contradict your previous statement. If you believe the scientists are lying then show proof. Otherwise you are simply quoting nutters and that discussion is a waste of time. So if you want a serious discussion either retract this statement or show proof of a lie propagated via a major scientific organization.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you would that think given the importance of global warming and the amount of money being spent on research these problems would have been addressed with some speed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data that everyone was using,

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots has been done. The fall of Russia caused the loss of a lot of surface stations. Politics can't be controlled. On the other hand the Argo system has been launched since that time and it is a much better system than surface stations.

btw much more was supposed to be done but politics killed more than a few projects:

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/free_dscovr.php

A climate satellite is built and paid for. Nations offer to launch it for free. Scientists say it's an essential mission. So what's it doing in a box outside DC?

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki can you honestly tell me that you think the data from those 5 examples (not to mention all the others) is accurate and is not "contaminated" ? Do you need someone to spend a few million dollars to prove "a statistically significant higher temperature than the surrounding area" when a 12 year old can look at the pictures and see the data from those stations is "contaminated" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few million dollars? One, a decent portion of the analysis has already been done. You read the abstract of the paper. Two, Professor Eli Rabet does it for free on his blog and has debunked many "contaminated" station claims. These stations are surprisingly resistant. Failing NOAA's code does not automatically mean that the stations are giving false readings. Until you show that the stations are giving false readings (not that hard to test for) AND those stations are apart of the GISS record then you are talking theory with no hard evidence.



Also, I need to double check but I don't think any of these stations make the official GISS surface record. And in GISS the trend is set by rural stations which are classified as the following:

In the United States (and nearby Canada and Mexico regions) the rural stations are now those that are “unlit” in satellite data, but in the rest of the world, rural stations are still defined to be places with a population less than 10,000.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/...ansen_etal.pdf

So you could practically set these stations on fire and it wouldn't mean a damn thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be better to just admit that there is a problem, take that money and just fix the probelm ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh there are problems with the surface record for sure. But they are not the kind of problems that climate change skeptics say they are.

Short on time will probably post more later

[wacki]

like I said, this theory of "contaminated" stations has been busted:

http://tinyurl.com/yoth9e

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
like I said, this theory of "contaminated" stations has been busted:

[/ QUOTE ]
Busted? Yeah like OJ was proven innocent.
Where is the beef? I see NOTHING in this link to prove your assertion. The only way to disprove heat islands is is to create 2nd stations in nearby areas without the artificial heat contaminations and compare the two temp readings....

The "evidence" the nitwits use on your link is based on satellite temp data. Uh....just because you use a 2nd method to measure heat islands does not disprove anything.
<slapping forehead shaking head in disbelief>

Until the heat contamination errors are corrected with NEW temp stations located faway from artificial heat sources...then there is nothing to talk about... Until then, audits are continuing to be conducted on temp stations and more and more contaminated stations are being exposed....

[wacki]

Felix, your reading comprehension sucks.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Having basic critical thinking skills more than compensates.
I tried my best with the elementary school writing presented on your link. But the subpar writing looked genius compared to the incoherant rant from the author....

The facts remain that the temp data is contaminated as shown by surfacestations.org audits. Locating temp stations near artificial heat sources invalidates the data. And no amount of satellite readings can erase this unpleasant fact for the MCGW cult....

[wacki]

Your reading comprehension still sucks. Try reading it again and repeating it's content correctly.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I don't think so....
You offer a link with an incoherant rant as supposed proof and you STILL have not addressed this issue that many temp stations have been contaminated with artifically heat sources....yet this data is used to support MCGW. The burden of proof is on people like yourself to prove the data is clean. I have already SEVERAL times shown that temp stations have been improperly installed and improperlay located where artificial heat sources could be affecting their readings. As far as I'm concerned. All temp data should be thrown in the trash and we should start from square one....