GISS: 2010; warmest spring ever.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
yet you refuse to back it up with conclusive evidence
wattsupwiththat
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm not going to spend all day digging through some guy's blog for facts. If you want to prove a position, you do the research. When you're citing a textbook, you don't just say "It's in the book"... You show WHERE in the book it is.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
occums razor is going to be invoked now. What is more likely? Funding has been cut in a ton of places so the first thing to go is weather stations? Or... A comprehensive, extensive, and effective manipulation of all the weather stations (including ones they aren't fully funding) is going on.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A comprehensive, extensive, and effective manipulation of all the weather stations (including ones they aren't fully funding) is going on.
yep: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I'm not going to spend all day digging through some guy's blog for facts. If you want to prove a position, you do the research. When you're citing a textbook, you don't just say "It's in the book"... You show WHERE in the book it is.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)no, you arent are you. You arent going to spend anytime looking at the data, or any other research that questions the validity of GISSs reported data. There is so much on this site about Hansens manipulations. Its all there is you want. Heres another piece for you: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull?
Actually, here in New York, it was a ridiculously warm spring... We were getting July-style weather back in April. Totally ridiculous. And when it wasn't staying insanely hot, it was jumping up and down 20 degrees day-to-day... One day it's 80, next day it's 60... 70... 50... 80 again... Lost count of how many times my coworkers and I talked about the schizophrenic weather...
fat_boy wrote:
After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite?
I think the point of the global warming theory (As opposed to climate change) is that the overall amount of energy in the system (Earth) would increase. That doesn't mean every region would be affected the same way.
fat_boy wrote:
Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station\_data/\[^\] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined
Does that mean they don't have enough data now, or that they had so many in the 80s that it was redundant? Are they more concentrated geographically than they were in the 80s, or more evenly distributed?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does that mean they don't have enough data now, or that they had so many in the 80s that it was redundant? Are they more concentrated geographically than they were in the 80s, or more evenly distributed?
Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?[^] (From 'Skeptical Science', one of the few GW sites that I can read without blowing a fuse.)
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe. Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years. Very few countries have records back to the mid 19th century. In the UK I believe there are only a few this old. No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this. Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased. If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will. The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling the data in this way. You can choose to ignore this if you like, I wouldnt expect anymore from you. From anyone. Mankind is infinitely capable of deluding itself, of clinging to long held truths because the alternative is too painfull a quesiton to bear. Go on. On your way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will.
Maybe that's the reason they don't need as many weather stations. :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
no, you arent are you. You arent going to spend anytime looking at the data, or any other research that questions the validity of GISSs reported data. There is so much on this site about Hansens manipulations. Its all there is you want. Heres another piece for you: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Interesting. Just looked through some of that info on the "Bolivia problem[^]". Looks like it might be inaccurate, but I don't see any deliberate manipulation. Seems like their method just didn't work in all situations, and the article is pointing out the outliers. Of course, did the same thing happen on the other end of the spectrum? Were warm desert regions eliminated through lack of data, and covered with surrounding cooler regions? If so, one could point out just those points to "prove" that the study actually underestimated the warming instead of overstating it. So was the study inaccurate? Quite possibly. Was it mistakenly biased in one direction? Quite possibly. Was it INTENTIONALLY biased in one direction? For that, I haven't seen any proof.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does that mean they don't have enough data now, or that they had so many in the 80s that it was redundant? Are they more concentrated geographically than they were in the 80s, or more evenly distributed?
Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?[^] (From 'Skeptical Science', one of the few GW sites that I can read without blowing a fuse.)
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Interesting data. Haven't seen much reporting from the GW side (As of course the most vocal folks on this forum are anti-GW).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there are a dozen rooftop weather stations in a five mile radius
No, no where near that density. Actually its quite low. And even worse outside the US and northen Europe. Many countries only have a few weather stations whose data goes back more than 50 years. Very few countries have records back to the mid 19th century. In the UK I believe there are only a few this old. No, what is disturbing is the way that only stations showing warming are kept, ie those near airports or other urbanised locations with the rural ones being dropped. The gaps are then filled in by computer programs using the remaining readings as a base. r the data is adjusted to show warming. Take a lok at wattsupwiththat for a full rundown on this. Naturally, and if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased. If GW is such a 'defining issue' then why arent ALL the weather stations that were used, being used today? Why arent MORE stations being built? After all they put satellites into space to measure temperature, so its not as if there was a lack of will. The simple answer is that the only warming comes form fiddling the data in this way. You can choose to ignore this if you like, I wouldnt expect anymore from you. From anyone. Mankind is infinitely capable of deluding itself, of clinging to long held truths because the alternative is too painfull a quesiton to bear. Go on. On your way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased.
Well, you should have a look at my chart that shows how as temperature stations have decreased recently that the population has increased! Or my chart on how many wins the Yankees have accrued this season vs. how pregnant my wife looks. It's quite amazing...each win the Yankees get seems to make my wife look more and more pregnant!
-
fat_boy wrote:
if you had looked at my link to a chart showing number of stations vs temperature, you wil see that as the number of stations dropped, and rapidly, the temperature increased.
Well, you should have a look at my chart that shows how as temperature stations have decreased recently that the population has increased! Or my chart on how many wins the Yankees have accrued this season vs. how pregnant my wife looks. It's quite amazing...each win the Yankees get seems to make my wife look more and more pregnant!
Wait, you mean that 2 possibly completely unrelated things might not have anything do with each other? OH MY GOD!!!! This will so ruin CSS' day.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Because localized weather as well as climate has effected my crops before. Someone in one part of the city might have different harvest results than I do. My overall point being that general trend being climate + local weather = personalized weather. Where I live has actually had more rain then ever recorded so far and we're set to get more this weekend. While I don't know about warmest spring ever, I do have to say that the amount of rain and the intensity of the storms seems to have gone up. I've never had beans ready this early before for example. My tomatoes are very far along and if it weren't for all the rain I'd be harvesting them too. I can see how some parts of the world or country could have had a warmer than usual spring, but that isn't going to be true for all parts or translate into early crop yields. When the volcanoes erupted in Europe and grounded all those planes they were talking about us having a cooler summer. What are they talking about? We're having a normal hot one with extra water and cloudier skies so far where I'm at. With all the cloud cover Some of my crops are stunted a bit.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Be careful. You plainly know what you're talking about, and that's not what we appear to do around here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The spring (March/April/May) of 2010 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest (land/sea combined) on record going back to 1880, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).[^] (Hope that isnt too much link for you Dave and Ian. If it is I will just take out all the consonants next time ;)) Tell it to the fruit trees that are two weeks later than last year.... Maybe it was warm enough somewhere to offset the snow and cold records most of us experienced this winter and spring, and if it was, is the concept of a global average temperature even usefull? After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite? Its like saying the percappita wealth of a country is high, and thus all the people live well, when only 20% of the population has almost all the wealth while 80% live in total poverty. Then add the fact that GISS are using only 10% http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/[^] the number of weather stations today to prepare this data than in the 80s, and, as the number of stations used has declined, the temperature hase risen [^], you can see that really, these statement by GISS are not only irrelevant to much of the world, but very likely wrong. And even worse, intentionally wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
After all, how can it be relevant if much of the area is experiencing the opposite?
Bleat, bleat. I won't bother explaining again why this is all stupid and has nothing to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.