Oh My God Global Warmingis Causing Snow

[USA_1]

Yes - snow doesn't mean cooler temperatures, it means more precipitation. This is all about people's association of snow with cold, which is about as goofy a "scientific" observation as it gets.

It's really pathetic how even the cable news shows were claiming all the snow proves there is no global warming. What a bunch of morons.

 

[misterman]

It's really pathetic how even the cable news shows were claiming all the snow proves there is no global warming. What a bunch of morons.

As Colbert put it - "what's happening right now is all that matters, just ask any peekaboo-ologist" - with a picture of a baby.

 

[USA_1]

As Colbert put it - "what's happening right now is all that matters, just ask any peekaboo-ologist" - with a picture of a baby.

The daily show proved there is global cooling with a chart showing how temps have been dropping steadliy since august.

 

[Gill]

The daily show proved there is global cooling with a chart showing how temps have been dropping steadliy since august.

Kinda like global warming being "proven" by charts of temperature rising since the end of the Little Ice Age???

 

[misterman]

Kinda like global warming being "proven" by charts of temperature rising since the end of the Little Ice Age???

No, not like that.

 

[Councilman]

I see so much misinformation here I can't tell who knows what is real and what is part of the Global Warming HOAX.

Clearly recent revelations such as CO2 levels being essentially unchanged for the last 150 years, the exposed cover up of facts of the hoax for political gain by scientists, the record cold temperatures that have been going even lower since what, 1994 that don't fit in any way with the flawed computer models the Global Warming Cult members are using, and they are at a loss to explain should be obvious that the claim of "GWH" Global Warming HOAX is all is just that. A HOAX.

 

[Gill]

No, not like that.

Or how about like....

Putting thermometers in asphalt parking lots next to air conditioners and burn barrels, then declaring the world is burning up due to man's greed ????

 

[misterman]

I see so much misinformation here I can't tell who knows what is real and what is part of the Global Warming HOAX.

Clearly recent revelations such as CO2 levels being essentially unchanged for the last 150 years, the exposed cover up of facts of the hoax for political gain by scientists, the record cold temperatures that have been going even lower since what, 1994 that don't fit in any way with the flawed computer models the Global Warming Cult members are using, and they are at a loss to explain should be obvious that the claim of "GWH" Global Warming HOAX is all is just that. A HOAX.

Maybe all your evidence of a hoax is a hoax.

 

[misterman]

Or how about like....

Putting thermometers in asphalt parking lots next to air conditioners and burn barrels, then declaring the world is burning up due to man's greed ????

Why does that matter?

It's the change in temps that matters. The thermometer will be compared to itself over time, not to other thermometers, so it doesn't matter if you put one next to a hot parking lot. If the average temp at that same thermometer is higher a decade later, that shows an increase in temps.

 

[Gill]

Why does that matter?

It's the change in temps that matters. The thermometer will be compared to itself over time, not to other thermometers, so it doesn't matter if you put one next to a hot parking lot. If the average temp at that same thermometer is higher a decade later, that shows an increase in temps.

Bingo!! You finally got it right.

The temperature recording station that I posted a photo of above from Tahoe City has been there since 1906. Do you think there was an asphalt parking lot around it then? What about the burn barrel or other garbage stored near it? Were cars parked next to it in 1906??

All of these things raise the air temperature around the recording station and the amount of heat emitters has grown steadily since the station was installed over 100 years ago.

Still wonder why temperature has been rising for the past 100 years?? Weather recording stations were originally placed in pristine locations to avoid contamination by heat or cold. Cities and civilization have engulfed them, raising nearby temperatures.

 

[spud_meister]

Bingo!! You finally got it right.

The temperature recording station that I posted a photo of above from Tahoe City has been there since 1906. Do you think there was an asphalt parking lot around it then? What about the burn barrel or other garbage stored near it? Were cars parked next to it in 1906??

All of these things raise the air temperature around the recording station and the amount of heat emitters has grown steadily since the station was installed over 100 years ago.

Still wonder why temperature has been rising for the past 100 years?? Weather recording stations were originally placed in pristine locations to avoid contamination by heat or cold. Cities and civilization have engulfed them, raising nearby temperatures.

do you not think scientist would have taken this into account?

 

[Gill]

do you not think scientist would have taken this into account?

I KNOW they have not taken it into account.

 

[spud_meister]

I KNOW they have not taken it into account.

how do you know this? do you have your own little weather station from 1906 that differs in it's results?

 

[Gill]

how do you know this? do you have your own little weather station from 1906 that differs in it's results?

It's called research and reading scientific papers that describe the process. :roll:

You should try it some time.

 

[spud_meister]

It's called research and reading scientific papers that describe the process. :roll:

You should try it some time.

so the majority of the international scientific community whom study climate are obviously less intelligent than you, they fail to realise that asphalt absorbs and and releases large amounts of heat?

 

[Gill]

so the majority of the international scientific community whom study climate are obviously less intelligent than you, they fail to realise that asphalt absorbs and and releases large amounts of heat?

I don't have the time nor the inclination to trade insults with you.

If you want to discuss the problem intelligently, then read up on it and come back and I'll be glad to continue.

Until then..... :2wave:

 

[misterman]

Bingo!! You finally got it right.

The temperature recording station that I posted a photo of above from Tahoe City has been there since 1906. Do you think there was an asphalt parking lot around it then? What about the burn barrel or other garbage stored near it? Were cars parked next to it in 1906??

All of these things raise the air temperature around the recording station and the amount of heat emitters has grown steadily since the station was installed over 100 years ago.

Still wonder why temperature has been rising for the past 100 years?? Weather recording stations were originally placed in pristine locations to avoid contamination by heat or cold. Cities and civilization have engulfed them, raising nearby temperatures.

Are these the stations that are used to determine whether global temps are rising?

 

[misterman]

It's called research and reading scientific papers that describe the process. :roll:

You should try it some time.

Then post a few.

 

[Gill]

Are these the stations that are used to determine whether global temps are rising?

These are USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) stations.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[misterman]

I don't have the time nor the inclination to trade insults with you.

If you want to discuss the problem intelligently, then read up on it and come back and I'll be glad to continue.

Until then..... :2wave:

It wasn't an insult. It was an obvious question. You are asking us to accept an assertion that you, a guy whose name we don't even know, knows more than the entire world full of scientists using advanced techniques and technology and rigorously scrutinizing their data. You are asking us to believe that they've all made an incredibly simple mistake that was obvious to you, yet wasn't to them.

A couple of photos and saying you read some papers is hardly convincing evidence of that.

 

[misterman]

These are USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) stations.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Are they the only stations? How many are there total? Do the scientists take these things into account? Are they really statistically significant as part of the overall data? You seem to know alot about it, tell us more.

 

[Gill]

Then post a few.

Here's three to start:

Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, L. Schell, W. Parton, N. Doesken, K. Redmond, J. Moeny, T. McKee, and T.G.F. Kittel, 2002: Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: An example from eastern Colorado, USA. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 421-434.

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007b: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

 

[misterman]

Here's an interesting commentary on this controversy:

The bias in temperature readings is a well-known problem to climate scientists, especially for older monitoring stations located where urban centers have sprung up around them, notes geophysicist Michael E. Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. Mann, one of the scientists whose e-mails were flagged in the climategate dustup, is part of a group of climate scientists who run the website “RealClimate,” which provides news and commentary on global warming and climate change.


When a bias is noted in the long-term temperature record for a site, Mann says, the data are not used or corrected to account for the problem. Much of the work to estimate global surface temperature changes has been devoted to teasing out these urban heat island effects, Mann adds. There are different ways to do it, he says, but basically scientists compare weather stations in the same region to estimate what the temperature bias is for an individual station.


IPCC examined the urban heat island effect in the 2007 assessment and concluded that it might indeed have impacts on local temperature readings. But IPCC determined that the errant heating has a negligible influence on long-term global average temperature measurements of less than 0.006 °C per decade over land and has no effect over the oceans.


“You can eliminate urban stations from a data set or ignore land and look only at ocean data, and you still get a similar warming trend as you do with the corrected data,” Mann says. “So the argument that the urban heat island effect somehow contaminates our ability to estimate global surface temperatures just doesn’t hold water.”


Global Warming And Climate Change | Cover Story | Chemical & Engineering News

 

[Gill]

Are they the only stations? How many are there total? Do the scientists take these things into account? Are they really statistically significant as part of the overall data? You seem to know alot about it, tell us more.

There are over 1,200 stations in the continental US. Temperatures are adjusted for an urban bias, but not for micro UHI bias. A station can be sitting in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, but as long as it's not located in the middle of a city, it is classified as rural and does not get a UHI adjustment.

A project is underway to visually inspect and review each of the stations. Over 900 have been inspected and more than 60% have a margin of error of >2 degrees C, according to NOAA siting specifications.

An example:

This is properly sited station along with its historical temperature graph.

Here is a poorly sited station along with its temperature graph.

 

[misterman]

Here's three to start:

Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, L. Schell, W. Parton, N. Doesken, K. Redmond, J. Moeny, T. McKee, and T.G.F. Kittel, 2002: Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: An example from eastern Colorado, USA. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 421-434.

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007b: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

Got anything online? Abstracts at least? I don't have access to a library with these journals or subscriptions to them.