Climate Change Data Error

Fascinating. I bet this won't get ANY play in the popular press, since it's not the "sky is falling" type of global warming story they like to beat us over the heads with.

I had trouble linking through on your links, so perhaps you are right - Steve is being attacked by a DOS. Perhaps it should be called a DOT (Denial Of Truth) attack.

NASA not releasing the data is beginning to smell like Mann's now discredited "hockey stick" saga. Steve destroyed Mann's hockey stick all the while Mann refused to release the source data. What kind of science is this? I thought reproducibility was a cornerstone of the scientific method. Perhaps it is unless you have an agenda to push.

For anyone interested in some of the other problems with surface temperature measurement sites, see this.

Hopefully the turds presumably attacking Steve's site won't attack Pielke's.

 

Here BTW, is one of the images that apparently started the ball rolling with respect to questions about the CONUS temperature stations.

Apparently there was a 4 degree C jump in temperature at this station in 1999 - right when the AC units were installed.

 

Now someone explain to me who's faking the glaciers and polar ice caps melting?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 11 2007, 07:06 AM) [snapback]493966[/snapback]</div>

It's all Clinton's fault!!!

 

Smoke is pouring out of No. 3 engine, its power is starting to falter, the cabin is getting uncomfortably hot and the flight crew is starting to sweat, but the captain shrugs and points to the oil temperature gauge, the only gauge to No. 3 that isn't pegged or dying, which indicates a mild rise but is still solidly in the green, and says "Nothing to worry about; I know the entire instrument panel seems to indicate the engine's afire, but look, the oil temp reads good, so there can't be anything really bad happening to that engine. Relax."

MB

 

When the galcial model considers something other than temperature i let you know why the glaciers are retreating. All glaciers melt, all the time, its just that when they expand (or don't shrink) they are actually just getting more snow. Maybe the rain/snow pattern over these glaciers have changed causing less snow to fall on them and for that snow to fall elsewhere? Since GW models don't consider percipitation, i wonder.

I am glad that the GW crowd wasn't around during the las ice age since if they were I would have grown up under a few hundred feet of ice in northern Ohio!!

I wonder what SUV's caused that ice to melt?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 11 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]494014[/snapback]</div>

*cough*

*cough*

"Oh, look! Our canary died in this mine! That's OK, canaries die all the time!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 11 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]494014[/snapback]</div>

The GW crowd? What a moronic ad hominem attack. Please wow us with your ability to marginalize those that don't agree with you by lumping them into a "group." All glaciers melt all of the time? Therefore by definition those that do not agree with you espouse that no glacier should melt any time? Every hear of the false dilemma error? GW models don't consider percipitation (sic)? Where do you get this stuff? Cite a published peer reviewed scholarly source or kindly go away.

 

I predict most will agree that there is a problem only after Hawaii disappears and coastal states include Nevada and Pennsylvania. Does it really matter if it is entirely natural or aggravated by civilization? The end result is going to be the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Aug 11 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]494077[/snapback]</div>

It matters because if the cause of the warming is not man then we should spend the money on dealing with the effects of warming rather than on trying to reduce our impact.

 

Well, as long as you are trying to play the objective thinking person, head over to realclimate.org and read some real science discussion.

 

"1934 and all that"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...4-and-all-that/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 11 2007, 03:46 PM) [snapback]494093[/snapback]</div>

Actually nearly all of the efforts used to reduce impact have huge returns of investment regarding health, economy, and overall sustainability. Try again

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 11 2007, 08:31 PM) [snapback]494143[/snapback]</div>

And even if its in part due to a natural process, the amount of greenhouse gases we pump to the atmosphere would have to greatly exacerbate the process.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 11 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]494152[/snapback]</div>

Especially when coupled with a degradation of the processes that help to cycle GHGs. Like reaching a bifurcation point, we will see a complete restructuring before too long or the network will collapse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 11 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]494152[/snapback]</div>

What is the amount of greenhouse gases we (Humans) pump into the atmosphere as compared to other natural processes?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 11 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]494026[/snapback]</div>

1) Non-disclosure agreement.
2) If this fellow reversed-engineered someone’s computer program he broke the law but if it’s just data he’s probably ok.
3) I could be wrong.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 11 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]494164[/snapback]</div>

"Burning fossil fuels, making cement, burning forests and grasslands, and other human activities release nearly 30 billion tons of CO2 every year, on average, containing some 8 billion tons of carbon. (Burning Fossil Fuels 49%, Industrrial Processes 24%, Deforestation 14%, Agriculture 13% source ~ World Resources Institute). About 3 billion tons of this excess carbon is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems, and around 2 billion tons are absorbed by the oceans, leaving an annual atmospheric increase of some 3 billion tons per year. If current trens continue, CO2 concentrations could reach about 500ppm (appraoching twice the preindustrial level of 280ppm) by the end of the twenty-first century."

Estimated Fluxes of Pollutants and Trace Gases to the Atmosphere In million metric tons/yr.

Species.........................Natural..........Anthropogenic
CO2........................................370,000........29,600
CH4.........................................155..............350
CO...........................................1,580...........930
NMHC (nonmethane hydrocarbon)..860...........92
NOx..........................................90................140
SO2..........................................35.................79
SPM (suspended particles)...........583...............362

Cited from "Environmental Science - A Global Concern. 8th Edition (William Cunningham, Mary Ann Cunningham, Barbara Saigo)

I urge you to read the Millenium Ecosystem Assement Report to see how our global ecosystems are fairing and then refer back to this information and try to realize how we are exacerbating the problem by destroying the very systems that we need to help us relieve this problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 11 2007, 08:31 PM) [snapback]494143[/snapback]</div>

If the returns are so great then how come it isn't happening on its own already?