Question:

Shouldn't we demand that serious questions be asked of the AGW Alarmists? Can the data be that bad?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

"Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems. The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. All of the most egregious violations observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded

 Tags:

   Report

12 ANSWERS


  1. I was wondering why Al Gore refuses to seriously debate GW with anyone that questions the validity of his alarmism.


  2. G'day BeeBee !........Auzziegob's stuff iz removed on a daily basis, because of wowser godgobbers !

    Auzziegob sends eeeeeeeeeeeeerz cheeeeeeeeeeerz to BeeBee for showing no fears of TheAnswers Moronic Moralistic MINORITY Mob !

    Auzziegob PissStop.,.,. the whole violation caper on this site is mindless pathetic power tripping !

  3. We should demand that they know enough to drop the qualifiers like "probably", "could", "might", "think", "may", from their statement, as these just show they're guessing.

    There's no doubt that the data is bad, and that this is a political agenda.

    Not one of the dire predictions have ever come true, from the increased number of hurricanes, to the thawing of the permafrost releasing tons of methane, to wide spread diseases, to positive feedback from melting poles.

    It's time to start cutting back on the research money.

    Clearly the data from NASA shows there is no warming.  The climate temperatures are flat or declining.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

  4. Your complaint is invalid.

    'Good' stations (red, CRN12) vs. 'bad' stations (green, CRN5):

    http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/...

    Lower troposphere satellite data confirming the accuracy of the surface station data:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/w...

    A discussion of surfacestations.org data and deception:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/s...

    And a discussion of the mistaken assumptions in questioning the surface station data courtesy of RealClimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

    Watts' argument consists of - "look, this temperature station is next to a garbage can. That must be bad!"  He ignores the fact that NASA and the other surface temperature data compilers correct for any urban heat island effects or other errors.

    Look, I know you want global warming to just go away, but ignoring the data isn't doing anybody any good.  We need to deal with the problem, not pretend it doesn't exist.

  5. Studies showing the affect of UHI and urbanization:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007......

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract...

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-b...

    Excerpt from the conclusion--

    “In an ideal setting, a well sited station results in recorded temperature values that are free of bias and

    representative of the broader region. However, the presence of bias in temperature observations has long been recognized. While troublesome, it is still possible to analyze climate variability and assess climate change if the site and locality of a station remain unchanged, and the bias is stationary over time. Collectively, our analyses of temperature data from 12 COOP stations (including two that are part of the USHCN) show complex patterns of pairwise temperature variability and suggest the influence of multiple sources of bias that are nonstationary over different timescales."

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q663...

    https://commerce.metapress.com/content/y...

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur....

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v42...

    "More importantly, although a single urban region may not result in a large impact on global climate, the collective impact of all urban regions on the global climate system is as yet unknown and unstudied. Jin et al. (2005a) show that zonal mean UHI has 1–3 degree warming over the Northern Hemisphere latitudes, implying that the collective UHI may be a significant contributing factor in the overall global warming signal.”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/20...

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/20...

    "We find evidence of local human effects (“urban warming”) even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records"

    Urbanization and land use changes, specifically anthropogenic non-GHG, have more of an affect than some would lead you to believe

    Effect of land use changes and urbanization on troposhere:

    http://www.knmi.nl/~laatdej/2006joc1292....

  6. You should start with the poor folks in the mid west. Maybe they will agree with you that the record floods,rain,and snow, are just a hoax! The ever widening parameters of weather records are the direct consequence of climate change due to global warming. How deep of flood waters is too deep? How much snow is too much?  How hot is too hot?

  7. If Anthony Watts points are valid, he should submit them to a journal where the peer-review process is open for all to see (see note below).  Then, people like you would be able to see the bias against his work and how it was rejected for completely arbitrary reasons.  However, he won't because he would get savaged intellectually and exposed as scientifically inept.  

    See, the game of science isn't rigged, but if you want to play with the pros you have got to have some skills.  Watts ain't got the chops to run with the big dogs.  If he did, he would, and he doesn't, so he won't.  

    (note 1:  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, published by the European Geophysical Union, has a completely public peer-review system, where reviews, rebuttals, and comments on the review process, are open for the world to see.  

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/p...

    You'll never see Watts name there.)

  8. NO - We should Demand the all OUR tax dollars be cut off from the UN and those with an political agenda that use twisted research & LIES to publish Alarmists and LWLs (left wing loons) "Research" with all their qualifiers - maybe, might, etc..

    Another example from:

    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/Morn...

    "That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set." + "So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!"

  9. It will be kind of hard to "demand serious questions" to the alarmists because a vast majority of the news media will not pick up on it, ignore it and refuse to air it because they go along with "that crowd".

  10. Glad to answer it again.

    No, the data isn't that bad.  Scientists have always considered this issue.

    They know how to evaluate data, and they've done so.  The green bars in this chart indicate the error bounds for global temperature.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    (Note that this is the full dataset.  Jello gives you only a tiny part of it, that suits his argument.  It's called "cherry picking" in the scientific community, and is a sign of a political argument, not science.  The swindle video plays the same trick.)

    Watts has nothing more than some pictures.  Actual studies of the data have proved him wrong.  (His "problem" sites are overwhelmingly urban sites.)

    T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959

    David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895 

  11. I like it warm...........

  12. Watts own web-sites says his specialty is "weather presentation technology".  That translates to "he has a good voice and knows how to use a green screen to entertain viewers".  Calling him a "veteran meteorologist", as if that qualifies him as an expert on climate science, is a classic logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

    So if the temperature really isn't warming (inferred by your bogus assertion that the temperature instrumentation network is flawed beyond use), then how do you explain:

    1) Satellite temperature measurements agree with surface warming trend

    2) Worldwide glacier mass is in decline

    3) Arctic sea ice is trending negative (both in volume and surface area)

    4) Plants are blooming earlier each spring

    5) Accelerated sea-level rise

    and my favorite

    6) How come the measured warming is greatest in the northern latitudes where the weather stations are clearly not effected by any imagined urban heat island effect?

    Bad data can easily be filtered out from good data using long established (in multiple fields) statistical and numerical analysis techniques.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 12 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Unanswered Questions