Junk science?

artistic environment????

Urban Core Simulation (for UHI effects).

Using selected pictures to come to some type of illogical conclusion is a leftie strategy. I know this one is humorous but really doesn't prove anything.

Why not juxtapose it with a state of the art facility and give a factual accounting of the number of stations and their contributions to data collection.

Personally I don't think the 'science' is settled, however, this image proves nothing!

Stirred, this is just representative of the entire network of "Climate Stations". The VAST MAJORITY rate very poorly against their OWN quality metrics....this is just one of the more hilarious examples. The only things missing are the bbq and the air conditioner in this one....

Stirred, in case you haven't seen it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

10% of the stations surveyed rate as having less than a 1C error in measurement due to siting etc.

69% rate 2C or higher error, and 8% rate a 5C or higher error margin. For the record, a class 4 and 5 (69% of the stations) have:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Now we're talking about 0.5C warming over the past 100 years based on this data??? What are the error bars on that???

Good one speedy.

however, this image proves nothing!
~not stirred enough

It proves to me that the data collection sites, as a whole, are not maintained to a uniform scientific standard.
That is probably why the NOAA/NCDC is trying to hide the locations of their climate stations from public scrutiny.

http://tinyurl.com/yoxxnm

well.. at least the tires aren't on fire.

well.. at least the tires aren't on fire.
~ChrisinMB

Imagine the steady heat produced by the vermin that live in them.

And how much (heat radiated back from the surface of the Earth) is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Reid Bryson -father of the science of modern climatology

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1

not stirred.

This station's measurements are counted toward the slight warming that we have seen in the past century. It is not an isolated case. Trillions of dollars are at stake based on these measurements, not to mention the freedom to travel as one would like and the freedom to drive boats around lakes and the freedom to build a large house to entertain friends. I know these aren't important freedoms like the right to consequence free sex on Main Street, or the freedom to smoke pot in the open, or the freedom to dress with your pants hanging halfway down your butt, or even the freedom to call known terrorists in foreign countries without having your conversations recorded, but they are freedoms, even so.

To take them away, the evidence has to be pretty unimpeachable. You would think there would be budget to send actual scientists out to these sites and do the survey themselves? My bet is they like the data just the way it is and are afraid of the result of such a survey.

The science is settled when it comes to schools, AGW is at full throttle in public education.

this image proves nothing!

I beg to differ, a willingness to accept bad data as valid into any research empirically invalidates the entire data set.

Fillmore was briefly the Utah state capitol back in the 1850's. I haven't stopped there in about 10 years but it looks like it's definitely slid downhill.

Just proves what is happening with climate data.

Garbage In . . . Garbage Out

Come to think of it, the scene at Fillmore is a rather apt metaphor for the AGW cult in general.

This is typical of these environmental idiots. They are so focused on the evil CO2, that they ignore the real pollution and garbage. That site is a rat breeding haven.

Jay-zuz! Is there a kid playin' a banjo on the porch?

Jay-zuz! Is there a kid playin' a banjo on the porch?

He's busy on the internet reading crap posted by bigots.

The 'site' was probably fine, until the morons started dumping their garbage there.
The capability of humans to soil their nest is limitless.
(Which is not to argue jclq, and others, points; clearly "garbage in, garbage out".)

He's busy on the internet reading crap posted by bigots.

You probably oughta stop posting then, huh?

Settled science eh? Try this one for a Canadian twist on our "input" in to GISTemp.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/

Amazing that they believe they can find a valid temp for northern Canada, considering they only accept data from 1 (one) station north of 65th parallel, and dropped over 500 stations from the 1974 peak of 596, to less than 50 since 1991.

Not that the stations are all gone, but with the science settled and all, why include useless info that may just confuse the general public.

Right?

There's also the issue of microclimates, which are local areas where the "climate" can be different from others only a few feet away. Weather observations taken at the base of a large tree would show lower temperatures than out in the open. A brick-lined porch facing the sun in the afternoon would usually be much hotter than on the lawn. And so on.

"junk science"

well done....

Al doesn't like this solution. Wonder why?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html

not stirred

that picture proves that the people there have no, no repect for their dwelling, how can they be expected to do a good job for some one else, like NOAA

it all so proves that NOAA's "methology" (as well as the rest of their functions regarding climate change) is suspect

The reaction to this post might be more significant than the picture. The cultists are roused to defend unsound procedure, and some don't even bother with the issue, they just start shrieking about bigots.
Now, try to keep from laughing, but there was a time when journalists would have enjoyed finding and reporting on these pathetic data collection sites.
I wonder what would have happened if the internet was in full force during the advent of this idiotic theory in the 1980s and it was debunked before it gained momentum and support from the msm

There was an absolutely outrageous interview on Global BC noon news today, in which a mouthpiece for the Suzuki Spin Factory claimed that all skeptics are in the pay of big oil and coal companies, and (despite that) there are no professional skeptics, that everyone "in" climate science shares the concerns of Suzuki and Gore.

These more or less outright fabrications have been peddled ad nauseam on Global BC since about 2003 and no amount of pleading seems capable of changing the one-sided spin, which is always presented pouty-lipped by earnest young ladies who seem to be looking over their shoulders for onrushing angry polar bears.

If only they could relax, safe in the knowledge that the arctic is colder than they could possibly imagine, and pretty much an ideal habitat for said polar bears, and spin doctors too.

this is the worst one yet.

start a tire fire? useless readings.

scavenge the detector 'for valuable metals' (so the urban legend goes) who knows what. possibly one less detector than ideal.

any accountability on who selected these sites?

Heh!! Double-heh to Tim, Speedy and Mojo. Hilarious.

The reality is that the "climate change" spin is so pervasive I had to have a 'come to Jesus' conversation with my better half this weekend. We both worry too much about animals, wild and domestic, but he actually thought polar bears were drowning in droves. To my knowledge, he gets his information primarily from Fox News. Need to sneak home and try to catch him in the act of CNN or the networks.

mojo - you're so bigoted you must be a liberal.

Aww, geeze Bear - Don't go away mad...

Am I a bigot if I hate everyone equally?

bigot -One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Why yes, Indiana Homez, by definition you are.
Unless you hate yourself too, then the definiton doesn't hold if you aren't partial to yourself or the group you belong to, which you probably wouldn't belong to a group, unless it's a mental therapy group.

In that case, if you hate yourself and everyone else, you're merely a hater.
Bigots are special cause they belong to groups!??/
8oD

I think EnviroWackos are bigots, and that's not just my bigoted opinion.
(I like myself)

"Unless you hate yourself too,"

Nope, that would make me a liberal!

Jay-zuz! Is there a kid playin' a banjo on the porch?

Posted by: mojo at October 28, 2009 12:49 PM

He never ever learnt to read and write so well
but he play a guitar jus' like a ringin' a beel

Jay-zuz! Is there a kid playin' a banjo on the porch?

Posted by: mojo at October 28, 2009 12:49 PM

He never ever learnt to read and write so well
but he play a guitar jus' like a ringin' a bell

I don't think "the bear" really knows what bigotry is. The expression of bigotry by a bigot doesn't make the bigot feel low and mean. Quite the opposite, the expression of bigotry gives the bigot a mild frisson of unearned superiority. That is why people like "the bear" do it. It allows them to make stupid little comments, and go away feeling superior without having to engage an argument.

It is the foundation of liberalism, this little bit of emotional re-enforcement that they get from these drive by idiocies that they can't even defend.

I am sure that whoever keeps this yard in this shape is nonetheless meticulous in his record keeping and un-erringly punctual in taking his readings.

I also read a funny analysis putting down conservatives saying that liberals had "higher self esteem". There is a surprise. They get it by putting down everybody who disagrees with them while engaging none of them. In the movie "Don't Mess with the Zohan", even the Israelis and Palestinians could make peace with each other once they discovered their common hatred for rednecks.

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

This probably isn't true. However, due to the logarithmic nature of any effect, we have already seen the majority of the effect of the current increase on its way to doubling. It is likely that a doubling will increase temps by about .6 degrees, IMHO, and since the doubling started 100 yrs ago, we have already seen most of that, and the rest of what we have seen is probably due to natural cycles. It was the depths of the little ice age a couple centuries ago, after all.

I really don't like seeing our side spreading falsehoods either.