Avatar

[RawdogDX]

The key is the first sentence....ON RECORD

We've been keeping records of temperatures for about 130 years...for about 80 of those years we were still crapping in outhouses...so how good were the instruments.  The earth is BILLIONS of years old.  We have some ice core samples saying one thing and others saying something else.  We have some scientists evaluating literally tree rings from about 15 trees and deciding to extrapolate that to the entire planet.

And no, if you read the articles I posted, we are BEYOND the min cycle right now which is why some scientists are wondering if we are going into a prolonged cooling period like we had at the turn of the century or perhaps the little ice age, because we've PASSED the 11 year cycle.

By the way, do a search on those temperature gathering centers....what a disgrace some of those are.  Putting them right next to blacktop, parking lots, exhaust fans, air conditioners...it's funny how those temperature readouts fluctuate so much (like the ones at the U. of Arizona) vs those in places in the middle of nowhere....hmmm).

So just to be clear, we are supposed to believe scientists who say that the temperature on jupiter has increased from what it was 20 years ago (based on god knows what) and believe the scientists who tell us what the temperature of the earth was millions of years ago based on ice, but the scientists who track temperatures here on earth are FOS because you think they are too stupid to take their own AC units into account.

[Hards Alumni]

Because it's complex stuff....the very same reason why the climate folks refused to let their models be examined for fears of being caught manipulating or unable to explain their modeling (too late, that one is out of the bag now).  Those East Anglia folks really nailed it.


I would hope at the very least you would acknowledge that climate and what affects climate goes well beyond the study of climatology.  To not engage the opinions of other scientists in related fields is naive.

I never said anything to the contrary.

I simply said that the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change.

as for 'caught manipulating data', I'd like to see exactly you are referencing.  If you are referencing the 64mb of emails that were 'hacked', I've got plenty of news for you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs

Great places to put weather stations to capture all of the magnified heat from the blacktop....nothing like distorting the data.

[Hards Alumni]

Great places to put weather stations to capture all of the magnified heat from the blacktop....nothing like distorting the data.

I approve of your assumption that data for all sets include the select weather stations that you mentioned.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So just to be clear, we are supposed to believe scientists who say that the temperature on jupiter has increased from what it was 20 years ago (based on god knows what) and believe the scientists who tell us what the temperature of the earth was millions of years ago based on ice, but the scientists who track temperatures here on earth are FOS because you think they are too stupid to take their own AC units into account.

Nope, to be clear we're supposed to be highly skeptical about all of this and ask questions about why they're putting temperature readers next to Air Conditioners or on the black top or roofs.

We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask why some scientists are saying earth is warming due to human activities while other scientists are saying other planets are warming at the same time and ask why

We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask why the AGW crowd has not been willing to share models, share data, has emails flying around seemingly advocating the distortion of data......sorry, but if this happened on the other side, you would be levitating you would be so pissed off.

We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask questions about data that is based on 130 years of records when the earth is billions of years old and has gone through ice ages and heating periods many times in the past

And just as we're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask where BIG OIL's money is going, we should be EQUALLY skeptical about where all this environmental $$$$ is going, who it is funding, and what the end game is there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I never said anything to the contrary.

I simply said that the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change.

as for 'caught manipulating data', I'd like to see exactly you are referencing.  If you are referencing the 64mb of emails that were 'hacked', I've got plenty of news for you.

And like I said, I also believe in climate change, it's been going on forever and will continue to go on FOREVER.  The question is whether it is AGW or not.

And please, let me know about the news you have from the "hacked" (and already verified as authentic emails).  Thanks

[Hards Alumni]

And like I said, I also believe in climate change, it's been going on forever and will continue to go on FOREVER.  The question is whether it is AGW or not.

And please, let me know about the news you have from the "hacked" (and already verified as authentic emails).  Thanks

I'm fine with asking questions.  What I'm not fine with is blindly accepting the minority opinions which have been debunked time and again.

as for the hacked email's that have been 'verified' (by who exactly? the hackers with an adgenda?.. right)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

time for another homework lesson CBB.

[🏀]

[quote author=Hards_Alumni link=topic=16860.msg166645#msg166645 date=1262218578

In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs, what about the millions of miniature green houses that are cars?
[/quote]

Let's get one thing straight here, it's asphalt, not blacktop.

Second, asphalt is the most recycled construction material.

Third, the color of asphalt has no more/less impact to warming than the grey color of concrete.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I approve of your assumption that data for all sets include the select weather stations that you mentioned.

LOL....read the article I linked, the sad part is that the data from these sites WERE \ ARE included in the data sets...that is why it's so troubling.   It's an embarrassment. I didn't even post the best photos.  The fact that ANY of this data becomes part of the set is scary.

I've got news for you, there is a reason why Mann and others are suspended right now.

[Hards Alumni]

LOL....read the article I linked, the sad part is that the data from these sites WERE \ ARE included in the data sets...that is why it's so troubling.   It's an embarrassment. I didn't even post the best photos.  The fact that ANY of this data becomes part of the set is scary.

I've got news for you, there is a reason why Mann and others are suspended right now.

You're right, the 5 you've shown versus the THOUSANDS of stations.  The one's you've shown don't even make a blip on a statistical analysis.  But that is of little concern to you.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf

Why wouldn't you post the 'best' photos?  Do you wish to form a weaker argument?  I somehow doubt it.