Global warming scepticism

Global warming/climate change has been a hot topic with those on the left believing it to be fact, no arguments allowed...and those on the right being skeptical. Please go to the following link and read about this (http://www.surfacestations.org/) and make up your own mind.

This site has surveyed over 1000 of 1221 temperature recording stations in the US and has found that only 11% meet the NOAA guidelines. Please take the time to read...They are also asking for volunteers in several states...And post all the locations with pictures.

 

And this is the temperature data that the NOAA/NASA prefers to torture....I mean use.

 

Interesting.

Someone has not been making this a priority....

Seriously, considering all the taxes we pay and all the people we have on expensive payrolls in government, couldn't we expect a bit more than this sorry list of weather stations that often don't even use the correct paint?

It is time to get rid of all the liberal arts majors specializing in agency PR and get some real scientists, with real clout, active in our government again. Make the PR people their assistants; get the horse before the cart instead of the opposite.

It is so much easier to specialize in PR and bs; so, so many learned that from our recent leadership....

 

No need to make it a priority, Al Gore already claimed it to be so and the Messiah backed him up. It's a closed case. Two Nobel Prizes says so.

 

You mean two Nobel boobs who are both better known for spending tax dollars like drunken sailors.

 

Yea, that's the dudes. So we gotta keep the Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change/whatever it's being called this week thing going. It takes a lot of money to fly those fuel burning jets.

 

If we ever start doing something about GW so we are all able to keep breathing, it would be nice to have a reliable system to track the effects of whatever we are doing.

I finally figured out why all our ultra income people are still so ardently seeking more and more--they want enough to be able to afford a full lifetime supply of oxygen for their airtight homes.

 

A few things--

The climate is changing. The climate is always changing.

Pollution is bad regardless.

The weather readings in my area have been notoriously bad since they relocated the measuring station from the airport to, and I am not kidding, the west-facing sunken cloverleaf at the intersection of two highways. They say it makes no difference, but when it is reporting winds at 6 mph and trees are flying by your house, you will probably be skeptical.

 

And yet it turns out that the badly sited stations show exactly as much warming as the well-sited stations. Which means your whole argument goes up in smoke.

And you know who says that? Anthony Watts himself, founder of the Surface Stations Project. In his one-and-only peer-reviewed paper.

"overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications"

 

Key phrase.

Now, address the OP.

 

Already did address it, but you didn't read Watts' paper for content. The OP referred to PAST station siting issues. The Watts paper addressed and measured those past station siting issues and determined that those past issues made no difference to temperature trends.

The Watts paper also addressed possible future station siting issues by talking about what might happen with the (then new) USHCN -- which is where you drew your out-of-context quote. But the USHCN stations were not used when determining past trend differences between stations. Indeed they could not have been, since their histories don't go back far enough.

 

Actually what he said was that they were nearly identical...He also stated that because missing data sets were filled in from nearby stations or estimated that the lows and high temperatures were not correct and this would change the average or mean temperature. I mean we are talking about a .7 degree Celsius increase over the last fifty years...

I suggest you follow this link and do some more reading...

http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstr...ct509579.shtml

 

It's hard to see how such a procedure would bias the average, or more importantly the trend, either up or down. Which means I still see no cause for complaint.

So?

link appears to be broken.

 

fixed link

http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml

 

The OP didn't ask a question or offer an opinion. There's nothing in it to address.

(and a blog cover page hardly seems like the 'latest us & world news.')



​

 

Global warming was an imminent issue and hot topic 20 years ago. Chicken Little can only sqwak for so long before she gets ignored.
Climate fluctuation is a fact. Long before humans, the climate changed. This is actually a relatively cool period.

 

By chicken little you mean 97% of climate scientists? Yea. You can ignore science. Good luck with that flight.

​

​

 

Climate change is "very likely" due to human activity? Wow.
Explain the tripical temperatures during the Jurassic era, the little ice age.
Climate fluctuation predates humanity.
And the imminent doom predicted regarding glibal warming two decades ago hasn't materialized. At all.

 

The problem I have with the argument that these warming and cooling trends have happened before is that when they did, 2 billion people did not live in the areas that will be impacted.

I can look out my back door and see the levels of the sea on the water walls. Over the last ten years, I have watched the high tides get higher.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property being protected by those walls.

If we continue to have this argument about whether the warming trends are man made or not, we run the danger of ignoring the reality of billions in property damage all because admitting to sea level rise would be seen as some as admitting that Climate Change is real.

That is the greatest danger I see coming from those who hate Al Gore. Al Gore doesn't matter. Property damage and two billion displaced humans do.

 

I agree.




​

 

Haha. Yeah, Gore is pretty lame. But all that aside... You are chatting on an internet dorum using a computer or smart phone. I bet you drive a car. Obviously you have electricity. We like our gadgets much more than being green, don't we? Humanity will more than likely be the cause of our own extinction. You act like humans can be the saviors of the planet. Don't be so vain. We are just another animal in the ever evolving and changing universe. The cockroaches will outlive us. And universally speaking, you are no more valuable than the cockroach that will remain when you are gone or better than whatever animal pops up in the dirt you return to.

 

Climate change is very likely impacted by human activity was the ground breaking scientific conclusion in that link.
Not a single conclusive piece of evidence to support the notion. Not one study using controlled variables and measurements. Not a statement regarding climate fluctuation predating humanity....

 

That link wasn't one study. It was a summary of statements from 18 well respected scientific organizations summarizing their conclusions from many studies.

You want to believe something contrary to the findings of 97% of climate scientists, you're free to do so. You may even be right.

Science doesn't promise to prove theories. It only offers an explanation or summary of observations and then seeks to remove all observable untruths from it. No one has proven the law of gravity or the theories of planetary motion. Feel free to ignore those as well. Good luck with your flight.

​

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.(link)

NASA

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)


​

 

70's Ice Age Coming!!!
90's Searing hot planet from Global Warming!!!
now Climate Change!!

They wait for the current weather, then make a statement, lol.
Rush said all their prediction theories are based on computer models, not reality.

 

Politics. For instance, organizations like the APS 2007 statement did not canvas any of their members for the statement and was put out by only a couple of people. Notable APS scientist members quit because of it. The APS members complained and they revised it just recently. They held a workgroup to go over this and they completely ignored the workgroup output and basically rehashed the 2007 statement.