The Sound Of Settled Science

I have always said that to prove warming why don't they just show temps for a certain area and pick a date. Say Dec 1 was the date and Resolute was the place, give us the high and low for that day going back as far as records allow and just prove to us that it is warmer now. Now I know why they don't do that.

Five stations for B.C.three of which are right on the coast. One in the northeast (Fort Nelson) and one kinda central but still only 200 km or so off the coast(Smithers). I would think that this is hardly a decent representation of B.C. So what is going on?

Just more evidence the massive fraud. I'll bet CTV and CBC will be right on this, that is right after just a few more articles on alleged tortures of a Taliban prisoner and how prorogation of Parliament by a minority government will lead us further into a "right-wing" dictatorship.

Oh look a ripe cherry!

I could pick five sites within a 5km range in the lower mainland and get five quite different readings. The micro climates here are quite pronounced.

Go out to a 20km range and the climate zones are different.

How easy it would be to deceive.

Doing the MSM's work for them again, eh?

I tells ya, it must be nice to be a MSM reporter, all these people running around collecting everything, all you have to do is sit in an armchair and surf for 20 minutes, then whip out a column that totally ignores everything you've learned from the surfing.

For this they get paid.

Hide the SLIME............Hide the DECLINE!!!!!!!

Who needs thermometors when we have so many trees?

This is another case of lies, damn lies, and statistics. I bet if you asked Mike Mann or Phil Jones about this, they'd refer you to the "average of decades" chart posted above, and say "What are you talking about? In 1949, over 80% of readings were taken at latitudes 55 or south, whereas in 2009, just over 50% of readings were latitudes 55 or south, so clearly, more readings are being taken in the north than previously. This is just one more reason that amateurs shouldn't get involved in the science of climate change, your claims of fraud are slanderous, and just how much are the oil companies paying you anyway?".

It's only when you look at the year by year data that you see how, as the world was clearly shown to be cooling by other data, the northern stations were severely chopped in the last five years. Gotta keep finding ways to hide the decline.

yeah but KevinB.My thermometer in my back bedroom,at 55 north says 68F...whoops...19C,,,,but the one by my oven at 54.99.9N says 125C,,,,,,so if I average....carry the 3....drop the 2....Yup....my house is definitely going through catastrophic AGW.And the roast isn't done yet!!!

No thermometers north of 65? C'mon, what about Alert, Craig Harbour and Resolute, among others? Too widely spaced to be sure, but the exaggeration is a bit silly.

That should have read "Only one thermometer north of 65?" Sorry for the slight exaggeration of the exaggeration.

Along the same lines, I thought you might enjoy this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delh

//Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka.//

Oh dear.
//Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka//

want the temperature TODAY in --
NUNAVUT? 22 choices, 14 above LAT66N http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzrmmb9
NWT 5 choices [above Lat 66 N] http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzb99dh
Yukon 3 choices [above Lat 66 N] http://preview.tinyurl.com/yb7dcek

North Pole Weather Data [drifting station]
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_w​eatherdata.html

International Arctic Buoy Program
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/overview_dep​loymentplans.html
The participants of the IABP work together to maintain a network of drifting buoys in the Arctic Ocean ...

THEN there are various indices What are the Arctic climate indices?
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_bond.html
Then there are satellites, which JOSEPH D’ALEO considers the "most reliable" [when it suits him]

And things are not standing still --
http://arctic-roos.org/
http://iasoa.org/iasoa/index.php?op​tion=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

One would have to really clueless to accept the additional "implication" that the "1 thermometer" gives warmer than warranted results for the whole Canadian arctic.

zog

""", but the exaggeration is a bit silly."""

could have 100 north of the 65, and it still be BS

to study fluid dynamics you need a evenly spaced grid, around the world, and you need to take readings simultaneously, as the "energy" moves with the air currents. How other wise would you know if you are not just measuring the same "energy" repeatedly,

Far-left actor Danny Glover, during an online interview this week, proposed global warming caused the devastating earthquake in Haiti. FNC caught up with the silliness Friday night, as Jim Angle led the “Grapevine” segment:

Actor Danny Glover says the earthquake in Haiti is a result of global warming. Glover told GRITtv that it could have happened to any of the Caribbean island nations, quote: “They are all in peril because of global warming.” Then, he lamented the failure of the climate summit in Copenhagen. As a result of that failure, he says, “this is what happens.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/01/16/actor-danny-glover-blames-global-warming-earthquake-haiti#ixzz0cp1FCKMP

I sorta liked that reference to the longdoliers eating the thermometers.

I suspect the longdoliers are at Environment Canada, still backing the GreenShift of Dijon....

Sorta like the loons over at Justice still cranking out studies showing firearms are carjacking independant of human control........

The most powerful argument for AGW was that ClimateGate represented a conspiracy much too large to be possible.......or does it???

AGW was that ClimateGate represented a conspiracy much too large to be possible.......or does it???
~sasquatch

Since the Normandy Invasion is a fact: Climategate, with everything from governments to an incurious press with a homogeneous Leftist bias boosting the meme and no inside spies until the CRU whistleblower, The D-day Invasion pales in comparison for the level of subterfuge necessary to foist a secret feint on an unskeptical public that has been primed by one trumped-up crisis after another to accept the communist con job.

With all the orchestration and gatekeeping on the part of the MSM employed from the beginning and still ongoing, it will be a wonder if hoaxers don't still succeed in their gambit because so few people know that the science is settled against the AGW hypothesis and grasp the stakes that are involved.

Does anyone here understand the meaning of "stay on topic"???

Brace for deletions....

With due respect, Kate, my now deleted post did talk about reactivating the "killed", ie. taken out and shot, thermometers.

Perhaps you could have just edited it above a certain point?
I apologize for the allowable on topic section being in the minority of my comment.

Hmmm - that graph looks like a reverse hockey stick.

I think the meaning of this story is that only one station north of 65N is now selected for inclusion in some study of "climate change," nobody was claiming that other stations north of 65N had ceased to report. There are about two dozen of those on every six-hourly weather map, and I believe most of them are still reporting hourly in between.

The meaning, then, of this story is that data are being reassembled and massaged to produce desired results. I'm looking into this independently, to see what the actual impact is on the conclusions drawn. It should be obvious (and kept in mind) that they would not be so transparently devious as to offer up a revised grid of actual averages, they would be going for the more oblique change of a revised grid of anomalies.

In doing that, they may have made an inconvenient goof, because actually in the past year, the high arctic anomalies have probably been higher than all the stations they left in. Whoopsie.

Must shoot right.

Syncro

If I deleted an on-topic post, it was by accident. My apologies, but the thread was completely littered with crap, and such are the risks.

The failure of the MSM to report on this is a scandal in itself. Harper appears to be in some trouble and the other parties are promoting cap and trade. I fear the general public will not catch on to this sham until legislation has been passed and it is hitting all of us in the pocket book.

Check out what happened to this farmer in Australia when the Government complied with Kyoto.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/the...-of-australia/

Now have a look at UN Agenda 21 - Rio Declaration

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml

It seems we could be heading towards world goverment - communitarianism

What do you think - Is this the hidden agenda of the left.

Eureka! The Garden Spot of the Arctic! Whoever said that had to be frigging mental! Have you ever been to Eureka??

Abundant vegatation?!? Nothing but gravel and rock.

Triple Bay, you guessed it.

Jim Coleman at KUSI TV in San Diego has a special report in which he shows how the data was manipulated. He is not very complimentary towards Gore or Hansen at NASA.

http://www.kusi.com/ Click on special report , top right of the page.

These guys don't need thermometers. The just make things up.

Plan A- Impliment Cap and Trade

Plan B - Impliment principles of Agenda 21

Jack and Jill pay the bill while the Government, corporations, Carbon Exchanges etc get the benefit. Isn't that a sweet deal. The question is how do we get the MSM and politicians to start talking about this? How do we get the general public involved?

Sorry, impliment should have read implement.

I've been following computer programmer "Chefio" E.M. Smith's analysis of the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) thermometer purge for a while. GHCN is a global temperature database complied by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Peter O'Donnell is correct - Chefio is talking about how Canadian thermometers have been recently removed from that database, not any database maintained by the Canadian government. The thermometers still exist - but for whatever reason, NOAA doesn't include them.

The GHCN database is used in the GIStemp model of the supposed global temperature anomaly - one of three such models that, when run, show the earth is warming. GIStemp is maintained by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which explains the name - short for GISS temperature).

Chefio has painstakingly reviewed the GIStemp source code to try to figure out exactly how it computes its global temperature anomaly. Chefio's basic overview of the program is here and more technical overview of the program is here. FORTRAN programming is WAY above my pay grade - but Chefio explains the GIStemp program in such a way that his explanation should be replicable by any programmer who understands it.

Chefio's main thesis is that - for whatever reason - the GHCN database has been purging thermometers within the past two decades. The "missing" thermometers were supposedly used to construct the baseline against which global warming is measured, but aren't being used today. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the "missing" thermometers are largely at higher elevations and higher latitudes. If there's systemic bias in the thermometer purge, it likely biases the ultimate result.

For example, all Bolivian thermometers have been dropped since the 1990s. Bolivia is a land-locked, largely high-altitude country in the Andes of South America. If Bolivian thermometers are missing from the data, GIStemp will extrapolate the supposed temperature at Bolivia's latitude and longitude from nearby stations. If the nearest stations are near sea level in the Amazon or at the beach (cold, lonely Andean thermometers want to vacation in warmer climates, too!) GIStemp will think the temperature in Bolivia has risen dramatically. And - surprise! Bolivia often shows up as dark red (warming) on GIStemp's anomaly maps.

Like in Canada, the "missing" Bolivian thermometers DO exist. But, according to Chefio, NOAA doesn't include them in the GHCN database because they are compiled after the monthly deadline to be included in it. (So why not add last month's data next month? any logical person would ask.)

Chefio thinks that because GIStemp is comparing apples to oranges in a systemically biased way, it is likely overstating the global temperature anomaly - i.e. the extent of global warming. By how much? I don't think he knows yet worldwide, but he's done estimates in some areas.

John Lewis-

Eureka does indeed call itself "The Garden Spot of the Arctic", as evidenced by this postmarked letter for sale on ebay. No, I haven't been there, but these two photo sites (site 1, site 2) do show that some grass - and even flowers - grow there, and wildlife lives in the vicinity.

Granted, the moniker may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is used.

This be how Gorden Campbell came up with his statement that parts of BC have increased by 6 degrees in temperature. If you take a thermometer in Vancouver and one in Prince George, and average the temperature between them you would likely get a 6 degree increase for Fort St. John.

cinyc // Like in Canada, the "missing" Bolivian thermometers DO exist//

and as in Bolivia, Chefio implies that the location of the "1 thermometer" in the" Garden Spot of the Arctic" gives a warm bias to the results.
His Bolivia post has elicted a comment or two --

ChiefIO [...] contrasts tropical beaches and rainforests – places his audience intuit are hot – with high Andean mountains – cold – to imply that using the former to estimate temperatures for the latter will generate a false warming signal. But GISTEMP is all about anomalies, not temperatures. His post strongly suggests that he either (a) doesn’t understand this, one of the most basic facts about the GISTEMP method and dataset, or (b) does understand it, but is hoping his audience does not.

Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 argues for a 1200km anomaly correlation radius, which has been used in GISTEMP ever since. Maybe the radius is wrong, but nobody seems to be arguing that from evidence. Some people, such as ChiefIO, are arguing it by innuendo. Note that these people have datasets at their fingertips which could be used as strong evidence against a 1200km radius, if such evidence exists
&
This guy is completely clueless, both about the source of the data in the GHCN (it is not chosen by NASA or NOAA), and about the concept of using temperature anomalies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html If Bolivia does not choose to submit CLIMAT summaries, there is nothing NOAA or NASA can do about it. I've suggested before that a citizen science project that uses the more widely available SYNOP and METAR reports to produce coherent anomaly maps would be more constructive than indulging in juvenile rants about the perfidy of GISS

The giss link, which contrasts absolute temperature data with anomalies includes this --
Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/

I believe that HadleyCRU use a smaller correlation radius, which is why their world anomaly charts don't show the arctic [and why they come in a bit cooler]

15 years ago a moved from 1000 sqft house to a 2000 sqft house 10 minutes away from the first house. Both house were built about the same time and insulated the same way, a predicted by heating costs would double, I was wrong. The small house was beside a golf course which used to lowland swamp area, the second bigger house was halfway up a hill. Our heating costs actually dropped. If they are changing locations of weather stations, or using data from fewer stations, their data is totally incorrect and isn't worth the tissue paper they print it on.

mf at

But I'll bet if the heating bill goes up a certain amount in your new house you would have a pretty good idea how much it has gone up for the occupants of your old house, eh?

You would be estimating heating bill anomalies.

Well, ChiefIO's numbers are based on dismantling GHCN code, which is used, a lot. It forms the basis for GISS, NCDC and CRU global numbers, current estimates are between 90 and 95% of the total product comes from there.

From CRU and Mr Jones,

"Comment by Prof. Phil Jones
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/, Director, Climatic
Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
“No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ on the CRU web page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have done. Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php and here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html"

from here, http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1046&filename=1255298593.txt

Try this one from Pielke Snr,

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/

or this one

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/

As the big 3 start with substantially the same data, getting similar results should not shock anyone.

And if you think things didn't move around in GISSTemp, you are kidding yourself, http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/giss-january-temperature-anomaly-up-fron-december/

Now GISSTemp is about to start using a new version of USHCN, should be great.

Here's a look at the new version of the USHCN compared to the old one, for Wisconsin.

http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

how about Illinois

http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm

You can keep track of the changes to GISSTemp global numbers here, http://www.changedetection.com/log/gov/nasa/giss/data/glb2_log.html

Hmm, now why would they need historic temps to move around?