It's been a bad week for deniers

I'm done cyclo. You obvously refuse to read. or can not understand.

The NOAA site showed data from NOAA, NCDC, CRU, etc. YOU CAN NOT ASSUME that since a statistical paper picks one data point, that point is the only accurate one. The real climate article only looked at moscow, the noaa site shows all the temperatures in the grid of the russian heat wave adjusted and not adjusted. You also have cut off the data set where the previous record occured. Stephan did not cut off the data in the cold period after the highs in the 30s, why are you. Read DOLE. read the paper that you think contradicts GISS and NCDC data sets, you will realize they only look at partial data, and the real climate folks are just looking at a subset of the data with more errors. Even this data confirms rather than contradicts Dole. Do you also think the IPCC models Dole used for attribution are things to totally ignore?

All of the related studies looked at July data back to when records began. If you have a better model that finds warm winter nights cause summer highs, please by all means educate the group, but I'm done responding until you actually read some of the data.

 

No you don't. You will hit reply as soon as you read it.

very simple: the annual averages are far more better indicator of general warming trend then selectively picked one summer month.

You asking why the Moscow data provided in previous post only go back to 1948? and not include previous maximums of 1880 and 1930s or even minimum of 1940? very simple there are several events which preceding data unreliable:
- the reporting stations were moved (for one VKO and VDNh were built in 1941 and 1939). Data provided for the reporting station since it had been established at that location
- Moscow sea was built in 1937 just 80mi north

but let's get back to this:



A few issues:
a) markings at the top clearly show that 2010 data excluded.
b) except for Moscow other points on grid unnamed and cannot be validated.
c) some of the points are of suspect. For example the one showing (-1.4) is in vicinity of large man-made body of water, built back in 1950s.
d) using the 1880 data as a baseline is strange at best. why not 1879? or 1886? or 1940? why not use reconstructed data from PET maximum, then we'd be looking at considerable cool down.
e) you will have to go to chogan2 posts and realclimate critiques to look at other issues. obviously you don't read them as you keep ignoring them.

It appears you have difficulty grasping the concept. While the Dole et al study is flawed it is not being argued against. What is argued for is that the general warming in region contributed to record high temperatures. If the same heatwave had occurred several decades earlier, the temperatures had been lower.

 

"I'm done cyclo. You obvously refuse to read. or can not understand."That is funny, coming from a denialist.

 

...not a ringing endorsement of AGW, but OK for now.
IEA has a much stronger position, but I do not see how we can possibly change course in 5-yrs unless some disaster strikes:

 

Maybe THIS week warmist activist alarmists will remove the blinders.

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II! – Telegraph Blogs

I'm STILL not holding my breath. It's hard to shake the true believers' faith, no matter the reality.

Cheers!

 

That cuts both ways. To deny that humanity is causing great harm is to deny reality.

 

Having no facts to support them the deniers haul out some more gossip and backbiting from two years ago. Ho hum. Thanks for sharing.

 

Exactly. It is not new information. It is the same information from long long ago re-released now.

Watching Faux News you would never realize that though...

 

A vaccination against the Durban Conference. Or, BEST needed to be bested. Take you pick.

I know it's off topic, but there is a new review of biochar in the Journal of Environmental Quality. Turns out that if you want to use it to improve ag. soils, yo uneed to make it the right way. Put that together with Lehmann's recent SBB review on biochar and soil animals, and you could get up to speed on the topic without much pain. Both those journals are behind paywalls, but I bet you can guess who to ask. For your personal-use-only copies.

Purloined emails, of course are always for free

 

But it's printed in red. That makes it true!

Tom

 

LOL...good one. But I thought it was the first sentence of the whole thing...which a claim off an internet site must make it even more true:

 

Oh, the biting rebuttals. I reel.

If the comedians would only read and understand...

A major point is that the 'scientists' (I put that in quotes because they have the credentials, but pervert science in the pursuit of political ideology - the cause) in whom the zealots place all their faith, can be shown - over and over again - in these e-mails to privately doubt the very 'facts' they so publicly claim as settled science.

3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: ” Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, …”

1527.txt: Rob Wilson: ” There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”

4369.txt: Tim Osborn: ” This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ”

4758.txt: Tim Osborn: ” Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! ”

2009.txt: Keith Briffa: ” I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions,”

3994.txt: John Mitchell (Met Office) on draft IPCC report: ” Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

1104.txt: Wanner: “I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report… I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

I would include a link to the entirety of the newly released material, but why would you care?

cheers!

 

It's not hard to find climateaudit, climatedepot, globalwarming.org,

Climategate.com might be your one-top shop for all those matters.

As ever, reading and doing ones' best to understand the science itself requires more effort. There are websites that attempt to summarize and distill it, but I'm happy to turn this back over to uforya to list those.

Anyway, they are not so hard to find either.

I am, to some degree interested in the probative value of emails - like in an actual court of law. It seems obvious that printed evidence that arrives via unknown sources, with no known chain of custody, would have none.

On the other hand, emails obtained directly from an original computer server, via FOIA, with a defined chain of custody might have. What do others here think about that?

I remember that we have had discussions here about suspicions of tampering (or adjustments, if you prefer) with instrumental temperature records. I haven't mentioned that there are legal outfits dealing in "Forensic meteorology", that provide evidence on whether the wind or rain in a particular time and place exceeded certain thresholds . For insurance compensation, for example. You pay them money, they provide certified copies of the original station records. Things like that must have probative value, or the price could not be charged.

It makes me wonder where emails fit in, on a legal scale from evidence to hearsay.

No such wondering about the internet-shared versions, but if it brings anyone comfort or joy (or even indignation!) to people to discuss those, who am I to object?

 

This just popped up:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial
Maximum
Andreas Schmittner,1* Nathan M. Urban,2 Jeremy D. Shakun,3 Natalie M. Mahowald,4 Peter U. Clark,5
Patrick J. Bartlein,6 Alan C. Mix,1 Antoni Rosell-Melé7

In press, in Science, here's the DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513

Excerpt from abstract

"...Here, combining extensive sea and land
surface temperature reconstructions from the Last
Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we
estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty
(1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic
constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model,
these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme
climatic change than previously thought."

So 3 oC per CO2 doubling is now down to 2.3

'Course the result is derived from modeling and paleotemperatures, but what can you expect? Time travel continues to elude us.

...and, Just in time for Durban! So they won't have to spend all their time reading purloined emails.

Purloined. I still love that word.

 

Climate change is obviously real, and anyone who denies that is evidently extremely stupid or ignorant. Despite this, blaming people won't get anywhere.

The oil companies are not "evil." Neither is my co-worker who just bought a 2011 Lincoln Navigator which gets 8MPG in the city. He's a good person, just too into himself to realize that he is an idiot. I can't change who he is.

The price of a barrel of oil has increased 3 times over the past 12 years. Has this affected things? Of course it has! Americans are more fuel-sensitive than ever before. That is a huge win. Change is coming, but the market will determine the speed of the change.

Demand must be a factor. I urge everyone to stop fighting the "evil corporations," and instead partner with them. One of my least favorite companies, Bank of America, offers employees $3,000 if they buy a new Prius. Why is that a bad thing? What if all of the top 100 companies in the S&P 500 offered their employees money to help save the environment? Maybe, my idiot co-worker would have thought twice about buying his POS Navigator (BTW, I rode in it, and it's terrible. I felt like I was in a boat).

The other idea, is to change the tax code. Currently, employees who drive for work can get up to 50 cents/mile in driving expense. The mileage is indexed to gas prices. If we changed that, fixed it at 25 cents per mile, and doubled it if you owned a hybrid or electric vehicle, imagine the change. Navigator sales would decrease by half at least!

Have hope, the world will kill us all before we kill it. We're not powerful nor smart enough to do so.

 

There is a lot of truth in there but expect nuclear fallout.

I think by now, people are starting to get the picture that fighting each other is getting us nowhere, perhaps we can all just get along. Group hug. :grouphug:

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. ECC 4:9-16

 

The Purloined letter.. The Murders in the Rue Morgue.. I can get behind.. but the Purloined email???

 

ooh geez.. what a fitting fitting 1st post for someone from outer space.. Denialist Manifesto quintessence. Bravo for taking time to register.

 

Rather than jump into the same old meat grinder. I have one question--Are CO2 levels going up?