Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Morrigi said:

Do you want a special invitation and a cookie? It is exactly three posts above your remark. Read it.

The links directly address the issue he was talking about. Are you so wilfully ignorant or bullheaded to claim that the plate set before you does not exist?

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

I can't be bothered to read links because they might disagree with my ideology that I can't and won't back up. I'm going to post a link to the Library of Congress because I have nothing relevant to say.
Library of Congress Home

See there? I just proved your point.

Click to expand...

Morrigi said:

Fixed that for you.




Good day.

Click to expand...

Over two and a half years after the Climategate scandal fundamentally undermined public confidence in the theory of manmade climate change, questions are continuing to be raised regarding the means used for collecting data for evaluating global warming, and the process of peer review that evaluates the climate studies.

The latest challenge confronting advocates of the theory of global warming is a study coauthored by Anthony Watts, a former television meteorologist, president of IntelliWeather, and a "convert" to the ranks of the skeptics of manmade global warming. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a site which evaluates the weather stations gathering data used to model changes in global temperatures, because of concerns regarding the accuracy of the data.

Why would the location of the stations matter? Because the growth and spread of the population of the United States could cause localized changes in temperature without having a larger — even global— effect. For example, measurements from a location that was once in the middle of a field might now be surrounded by blacktop; in such a situation, the world has not necessarily gotten warmer but the area around the monitoring equipment certainly has.

The existence of such poorly-placed monitoring equipment is far from hypothetical: an article for FoxNews.com cited several examples:

That problem of poorly sited stations thanks to “encroaching urbanity” — locations near asphalt, air conditioning and airports — is well established. A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station next to an air conditioner exhaust and a cell tower. One in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

The study conducted by Watts and his colleagues (An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends) draws on the SurfaceStation data to reach several significant conclusions, including the following points:

• The analysis demonstrates clearly that siting quality matters. Well sited stations consistently show a significantly cooler trend than poorly sited stations, no matter which class of station is used for a baseline, and also when using no baseline at all. …
• It is demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) ratings have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are quite small. ...
• Not only does the NOAA USCHNv2 adjustment process fail to adjust poorly sited stations downward to match the well sited stations, but actually adjusts the well sited stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations.
• In addition to this, it is demonstrated that urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites. Since a disproportionate percentage of stations are urban (10%) and semi-urban (25%) when compared with the actual topography of the U.S., this further exaggerates Tmean trends.
• NOAA adjustments procedure fails to address these issues. Instead, poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward (not downward), and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations. Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

In other words, the study determined that not only are many monitoring stations poorly placed, the erroneous data generated by the poorly-placed urban sites is actually being used to adjust the data gathered at better-situated rural sites. What is the result? “The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward.”

Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring

Click to expand...

The findings are set to cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal.
The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings.
Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
Rising temperatures around the stations, which have been in use for 150 years, could also have been caused by urbanisation, the study claimed. One weather station at Manchester airport, which was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields, is now surrounded by heated buildings.
The IPCC used data from the weather stations to back up claims that greenhouse gases had already caused a 0.7C rise in temperature, and gave warnings that further warming of up to 6C by 2100 could have devastating effects on civilisation and wildlife.
But the panel has been mired in controversy since the leaking of emails from the climate change unit at The University of East Anglia, which appeared to show that data used to bolster the IPCC's claims had been manipulated.
Four major errors have also been uncovered in the second of the panel's four reports on the state of global climate change, published in 2007.
Most embarrasing for the IPCC was the inaccurate claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than other studies suggest - which was not backed up by any research.

UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings - Telegraph

Click to expand...

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.



Read more: EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

I find it to be annoying when idiots change quotes and present them as quotes.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

If you don't want to present your proof, that is alright.

I just don't understand why you are posting if you refuse to post the information that you seem to think is important.

Your choice.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Here are a couple of reasons that the current data presented by AGW cultists are skewed, and the methodology is all wrong...



Now before the progressive liberals whip out 'rules for radicals' and start the predictable attack of fallacy, other news outlets have reported this as well....



The truth is damning to the AGW cultists, but the actual e-mails tell the true story...

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Don't play stupid. I gave proof with the links. :roll:

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

New American sounds like a really credible source.


Btw, aren't buildings and such man made?

Sounds like one more straw being grasped. And didn't I cover emails above?


Btw, from your link:

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, acknowledged that there were problems with the global thermometer record but said these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40 per cent and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings - Telegraph

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

New American sounds like a really credible source.

Click to expand...

Btw, aren't buildings and such man made?

Click to expand...

Btw, from your link:

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Warming is only warming.

Anthropogenic warming assigns a cause.

The warming trend we currently enjoy started when the Little Ice Age cooling stopped and that pre-dates the Industrial Revolution and the resulting rise of CO2 by about about 200 years.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

right on cue....Address the information, rather than attacking the source. BTW, I posted a Telegraph article that said the same thing.



Yes, they are, but you really don't see the inherent dishonesty of placing data gathering devices in places where they know that it would be warmer? Come on....



Yep, I saw that as well, So all that proves is that you have given up any critical thinking on the subject. At the very least it proves that the AGW cultist that go around spewing that the debate is over, are laughably wrong. But I do acknowledge that you are ready to believe statements you agree with...Shocker.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

The blogger took the draft report out of context. That report states that some argue for a mechanism that amplifies solar forcing (a natural factor). However, subsequent paragraphs discount that hypothesis. The closing paragraph of that section of Chapter 7 states:

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that he cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years provides another strong argument agains the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

The draft document also notes in its summary for policymakers, "No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified."

In other words, once one reads the draft report's language in its full context, there is no "game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing." The report does not reflect reduced confidence in AGW.

Click to expand...

13 Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free
14 troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too
15 weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle
16 in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee
17 et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major
18 contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Well, surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....Who'd have thunk it?.....:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

So the question is, why would an international body like the UN be pushing so hard for man made climate change? The answer is in what few know about, called agenda 21.



So you all tell me. I know that those willing, or wanting to mask the "ends" that they are for will attack me for using the Blaze as a source for the secondary piece, but agenda 21 is there for all to read...

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it, and do your own research, but this is probably the clearest sign that the UN is a dangerous to freedom, and needs to be dismantled.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Well, surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....Who'd have thunk it?.....:mrgreen:

So the question is, why would an international body like the UN be pushing so hard for man made climate change? The answer is in what few know about, called agenda 21.



So you all tell me. I know that those willing, or wanting to mask the "ends" that they are for will attack me for using the Blaze as a source for the secondary piece, but agenda 21 is there for all to read...

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it, and do your own research, but this is probably the clearest sign that the UN is a dangerous to freedom, and needs to be dismantled.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Yes I have. Each link specific evidence. You're just trying to find a way to dance round it.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Look, providing the evidence is showing it. :roll:

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

If you don't want to present your proof, that is alright.

I just don't understand why you are posting if you refuse to post the information that you seem to think is important.

Your choice.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Don't play stupid. I gave proof with the links. :roll:

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

And I've given you links that cover that.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

It appears he has no proof. I wonder if he will keep sidestepping.

My first response to this thread is from post #2, not looking at the date and thinking this is an old thread. Excuse me if I am out of touch with previous posts.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

I don't know if he's sidestepping or just unaware of how this works. It's tiresome, though.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

I just jumped into this thread not realizing it's an older one.

If this is about the climategate evidence, saying proof is it was innocent, that is bogus.

Have there been any independent investigations?

All the internal investigation I have seen are like the past, where the catholic churches, covering up child abuse.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

That was a remark. Not evidence.

Click to expand...