Lagging just two years behind the blogosphere, the Washington Examiner reports:
Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.
Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist, and a team of over 650 volunteers, photographically documented 1003 out of 1,221 of the climate monitoring stations managed by the U.S. Weather Service. The results of this survey show that the temperature cited as proof of man-made global warming is laced with false biases in favor of alarmism.
“We found stations located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Watts said. “We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.”
The research team also determined that 89 percent did not measure up to the National Weather Service’s requirement that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating source. This means almost 9 out of every 10 stations are reporting higher temperatures because they are badly sited.
“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.
See for yourself at Surfacestations.org
“Do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have accepted this theory have discounted the roll of the sun?
Do I really have to point out to you, a scientist, that nobody is suggesting that heat is being created by CO2, but trapped?”
Ah, but CO2-driven global warming/climate change is still a theory, and a weak one at best since an increasing number of scientists have begun to poke holes in it. Do you honestly think that our scientists completely understand how our climate system works? Too many unknown variables, both external and internal. Too many relationships between forces within the system that we don’t understand or know about. Is it wise to enforce economic-crippling legislation on account of a theory based on a couple decades of inaccurate data and computer models? Do you honestly believe that these tax schemes the politicians want to enforce are powerful enough to alter the climate?
John wrote:
“Do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have accepted this theory have discounted the roll [sic] of the sun?”
They have done so explicitly — for example, “solar forcing” (their term for “the sun’s causing this heating episode we claim we’re seeing”) is often regarded in the prime literature as being inconsequential. See, for example, the latest IPCC report.
As for the “thousands of scientists” remark, so what? Somewhere above 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition explicitly declaring their scepticism over human-induced global warming, but when those numbers are brought up, suddenly people on your side of the debate start remarking that it’s “not a numbers game.”
That’s correct, it’s not. It’s about verifiable scientific observations that are not open to ambiguous and mutually-exclusive interpretations. Unfortunately, climate science isn’t anywhere close to a real consensus on the scientific issues (as opposed to the faux consensus that is primarily ideologically-driven and conveniently ignores all the evidence against it).
And that’s why this conversation is important. Your dismissive, emotion-laden, anti-scientific response to it is what’s silly.
Garth
Quoting Environment Canada’s chief climatologist hardly makes me a troll. That’s pretty much quoting the nation’s highest authority on the subject. What have you got?
Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 5:43 PM
Are you referring to David Philips there John?
That would be the same expert that predicted a “hot and dry” summer here in the East and we have set all time new record low temperatures for July as well as record amounts of rainfall.
And 2009 is the 2nd year in a row for this sort of prediction screw up from Environment Canada.
As for the Arctic melting…I got my doubts dude…we just had a hi-hoe in to cast out the cattle bedding pack from the winter and there was a foot of ice in the MIDDLE OF JULY on the bottom of it.
“Are you saying that they just wasting their money?”
The govts are self interested. Do you dispute that most left of center govts have a huge economic and power-lust based self interest in global warming to be true?
Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.
[SNIP]
“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.
I’ll translate the above for those who are still pretending the even IS global warming, heat trapped by CO2 or not, anthropogenic or otherwise:
-There IS NO global warming!-
The surface temperature data, which is where the entire idea comes from, is now being recognized as completely useless.
You can climb down off that pulpit now.
Have a nice day.
(8^D)
all this controversy could have been avoided if the ‘authorities’ and ‘decision makers’ and ‘experts’ had taken the goddamn TIME to ensure 90 % of the stations were reporting properly instead of the other way around.
I got issues with those in power. this is the kind of thing that can rear itself up and devour the devotees.
Kate plastered pics of temp station parked outside A/C exhausts, hot tarmac, and all manner of wondrous locales years ago.
like the stand up comedian said about weather forecasts, whotf lives at the airport???
Why most conservatives seem to be denying the claims that are being made about climate change:
1- Most of the claims about climate change are highly suspect if not demonstrably false.
2- Most of the biggest, loudest and most persistant proponents of climate change hysteria are apparently serving their own interests.
3- Most of the public who believe the stuff that comes from those proponents and is being repeated in the MSM are hysterical and ignorant of science.
4- The majority of the noise about climate change is being created by people who fall on the political left.
Good enough reasons to NOT believe a damned thing that comes from the camp of the Climate Hysterics.
po’d, what sort of scientist are you exactly?
I’m a geologist, John and a member of APEGGA and APEGGBC. Rocks don’t lie.
“And as for us specks not having an impact on the planet, dude. DUDE. I suggest you move to Chernobyl. Or Love Canal. Or maybe the floating garbage patch in the centre of the Pacific. Or go stare at the Antarctic ozone hole. Or talk to the cod fishermen in NF. Humanity has had a huge impact on natural systems. This conversation is silly.
I believe that we were talking about AGW, not cod fish. Please stay on topic.
I believe that ozone is created in the upper atmosphere by interaction with solar particles. When the earth is tilted away from the sun during the winter months north or south, there is generally less production of ozone, thereby producing a “hole” (less ozone) over the poles. Lots more where that came from, sport. You’re fun!
The following letter is a good read. From a geophysicist. Another scientist.
Any debate about global warming should take place in the scientific arena — not the political one, with sides arguing their points based on nothing more than misguided and speculative information presented as fact.
Global warming is caused by the sun and possible geothermal heat transfer. Greenhouse gases do not warm but are merely passive insulators that reduce the rate of cooling. Clouds provide about 77 per cent of this insulating effect, CO2 provides less than 10 per cent. Water vapour and other atmospheric components provide the remainder.
We should refer to the role of greenhouse gases as reduced global cooling, not global warming.
If we want to debate the role of CO2 in climate change, we must stay within the confines of engineering and geoscience practice. The parameters are quite simple.
The Earth radiates thermal energy approximating a black body with a temperature of 288 K. The CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical, and therefore does not have a permanent dipole moment. This limits it to just a single vibration mode of thermal energy capture that resonates with 14.77 microns.
At the current concentration of 386 p.p.m. by volume for CO2 in the atmosphere, the question for debate is how much of the thermal radiation within the band centred on 14.77 microns that is radiated by the Earth is already captured and how much is left to be captured.
Observational evidence from the notch in the thermal spectrum measured by the Nimbus4 satellite in 1970 demonstrates that over 95 per cent of the possible energy in this band had been captured when the concentration was 325 p.p.m. by volume. Theoretical projections based on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 content and increase in average global atmospheric temperature, using the MODTRANS facility maintained by the University of Chicago, show that at the current concentration of 386 p.p.m. by volume, 99 per cent of the available energy from the Earth has been captured.
Essentially the first 20 p.p.m. by volume provides over 50 per cent of the effect and each subsequent 20-p.p.m.-by-volume increase has a 20 per cent effect on the remaining energy. At 380 p.p.m. by volume, only 0.9 per cent of the energy remains to be captured.
The total greenhouse effect is about 34 C and CO2 is responsible for just 10 per cent of this or 3.4 C.
If we want to have a scientific debate about the effect of CO2 on global temperatures, the debate would be whether the effect of doubling CO2 would be closer to five per cent of 3.4 C or one per cent of 3.4 C.
The engineering debate would therefore be limited to 0.15 C and 0.034 C, and not about model projections of 2 C and 5 C as Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proclaim.
The other part of the global warming debate centres on melting ice from global warming caused by human emissions of CO2.
The sun heats the Earth and the Earth’s surface heats the atmosphere. It is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics for an atmosphere warmed by the surface of the Earth to send this energy back to the surface at a higher level than it was originally sent at.
It is easily demonstrated that changes to the amount of energy from the sun reaching the Earth’s surface can cause changes in the melting of ice during the polar summers. It is not physically possible, however, for changes in the insulating effect of greenhouse gases to add the energy necessary to melt any ice.
If by some chance this were possible (using the same type of premise that allows Superman to fly), it would still be impossible to explain the process that allows the stated changes in the amount of ice that melts from year to year. By its own admission, the IPCC states in the 2001 science report that global warming was 0.006 C per year. By volume the heat capacity of air is about 800 times less than that of ice so it would take 10.66 million cubic metres of air heated by 0.006 C to melt each cubic metre of ice.
There is not enough air in the whole atmosphere to do that, and certainly not in the thin layer of air adjacent to the ice that can transfer this heat. If somehow this actually took place, then all this heat would have been removed from the atmosphere and the global temperature measured would not show the 0.006 C temperature increase.
The most amazing thing about the whole global warming issue is that I can categorically state that it is physically impossible for a doubling of CO2 to have any more than a miniscule effect (far less than 0.1 C). And I can do so without contradicting a single scientific statement made by the IPCC, because it has never stated explicitly that CO2 causes global warming in any of its scientific literature.
All the panel has stated is that its models project 2 C to 5 C of global warming from a doubling of CO2. It never stated this as fact.
The IPCC also stated that if the Greenland ice sheet melted from global warming, there would be a dangerous sea level rise. It never stated that CO2 increases could cause ice to melt because that is physically impossible.
The causal relationship between CO2 and ice melting is nothing more than a political fabrication. It misrepresents the physical facts and enhances its case with well-orchestrated propaganda starring polar bears and hurricane Katrina — neither of which have anything to do with fossil fuel emissions or greenhouse gases.
To any of those who still think that there is a connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature, please visit http://icecap.us and read my Hansen Mars Challenge. Type Hansen in the search engine. You’ll find my contribution midway down the resulting list.
Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph.
Calgary
Reproduced from the Pegg March 2009
It would appear from this letter that CO2 and other GHG gases are actually “good” for the planet by capturing the heat radiated back into space (a cold place), or we would be freezing our butts off if not looking at a frozen wasteland for most of the planet.
Terry, so by your logic, if I find a woman attractive, I should just go and rape her. No subtlties with you I see.
Oz, you’re a Birther! Well my friend, there will be no convincing you of anything, so why not just go and create your own fake birth certificate. Have fun! http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/
Chairman K, true that we don’t fully understand how our climate systems work, BUT safe to say that if the atmosphere normally contains 3000 gigatonnes of CO2, and we add roughly 25 gigatonnes per year through the burning of fossil fuels, and said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you should naturally expect it to have an affect. So should we just sit back and do nothing? I say no, we should not. If we can reduce the amount we generate through regulation and taxation, go for it.
Garth, how I was being “emotional”? Was it saying “dude” twice? Again I ask, do you deny that the Arctic is getting warmer? Or do you accept this, but believe that it’s merely not yet provable that humans are the cause?
Oz, you’re a Birther! Well my friend, there will be no convincing you of anything, blither, pffle,…
~John at August 6, 2009 7:23 PM
John you’re an idiot.
(now that the ad hominems are out of the way)
Barrack Hussein Obama is a Kenyan by dint of the fact that his father was a Kenyan.
The Kenyan is, no doubt, an American too, but how many Americans want to think about someone who has multiple citizenships being POTUS?
hmmmm?
Now, you can prove me wrong, John, about my assessment of your intelligence, by addressing the other points I have made.
And one more time:
-There IS NO global warming!-
That is what the Washington Examiner is reporting, above.
Another obvious truth soon to be reported next:
-There IS NO energy shortage!-
So we won’t need wind turbines, or solar cells, or florescent light bulbs, or hybrid cars….
[Quote]They have done so explicitly — for example, “solar forcing” (their term for “the sun’s causing this heating episode we claim we’re seeing”) is often regarded in the prime literature as being inconsequential. See, for example, the latest IPCC report.[/quote] Garth Wood…
But,But.. they [IPCC) have the AGW “Fairy Farts” that PING PONG and burn the Planet up…Nothing must come close to GHG (Green House Gas) Sarc off
The fraud is blatantly obvious to anyone who has actually been responsible for delivering Mission Critical Systems, on a date certain Schedule…..
Alternate Energy:
Surly someone must think that a SYSTEM turnkey is the only acceptable method for developing a proven technology.. Proof of Performance with ~ 6 months of driving a North American Grid for Wind or Solar.. not that easy
The typical role seems backwards in that everyone is building thier own system (Buy lots of Stuff) before a proven proto type has been defined…
Wait,, thats GE & California & the Gore Group selling Stuff to every idiot..
po’d,
I am aware of the subject we’re talking about. I brought up the other issues to point out how you cannot say with any accuracy that humans have no impact on the natural world. Do you still claim that we do not? (I think you’re fun too!)
As for Ozone, do you deny the ability of CFCs to destroy ozone? It seems that you do. Do you believe any byproducts of industry are dangerous to humans? Would you run a generator in your home with the windows closed? Surely this wouldn’t be harmful, and your death would be a mere coincidence.
As for the letter talking about how CO2 is good for us… clearly it serves an important purpose. But the whole point of this is that if it’s helping to keep us warm now, it can over-insulate us if there is too much. Clearly this is the case being made by climate scientists.
I ask again… do you accept the findings of Environment Canada that the Arctic is warming up?
“The Kenyan is, no doubt, an American too, but how many Americans want to think about someone who has multiple citizenships being POTUS?”
Er… clearly the vast majority who voted for him?
So I guess you refuse to believe the Arctic is warmer as well right?
I gots to split peeps. Been fun, if I complete waste of time for all of us.
So I guess you refuse to believe the Arctic is warmer as well right?
Warmer than what?
The thing about global warming is that it’s G-L-O-B-A-L.
If you want to talk about local temperature you’ll have to wait for a local temperature thread.
“complete waste of time for all of us.”
Yeah, well if you come in here and can’t answer any simple questions, or acknowledge proven factual errors in your arguments, then yes, it was a waste of time. Why don’t you get one of your smart friends in here to debate us? Since all this science talk makes your head woozy.
One wing nut wound up tighter than old broken watch.
John, you responded so quick to po’d in BC there’s no way you read his post.
You’re deliberately being illogical.
But do continue, as this always helps the more rational minded a great view into such irrational thinking now and again.
Colin
It’s a race to the finish line and BO and company have a healthy lead. I predict Cap’nTrade will pass the Senate and that’s the end of it. BO needs this to pass regardless of his health care debacle, and he will spend every cent of political capital he has to get it done. Once the tax is generating revenue for the government it will not matter what the consensus , science or the public says, the sitting government will say “we will not be able to eliminate the NEW tax”. Monster deficits and everything you can imagine will be cited as the reason they cannot revoke the tax. Rest assured though, the government will promise to reduce the tax as is possible; but, will be criticized by whomever the opposition is at the time as reckless, regardless of the temperature.
John
First, since I can assume you’re not a conservative by your comments do you care to comment on the correlation between your political belief system and your support for policy that will INCREASE taxes? Coincidence?
So long as your solution for your imaginary problem consists of a transfer of wealth from Red States to Blue, and from the West to the East(in Canada) you’re conflict of interest makes your position suspect at best. As you’ve stated today, you don’t know if GW or CC is manmade, yet you demand a man made solution.
Second, “You guys gather your info from rightwing sites, which are at least as suspect.” Proof or projection?
Finally, to answer your first question, how about sovereignty? The fact the Russians planted a flag on our land is just a little bit provocative.
I ask again… do you accept the findings of Environment Canada that the Arctic is warming up?
Posted by: John at August 6, 2009 7:42 PM
No sh*t sherlock! Been happening for about 20 thousands years.
E.Can. is packed full of GW’s believers. So is many political parties, like the green party, so what? Their wrong as well. Voting puplic thinks so to, not one seat, not one…
It’s interesting how many posters bring up red herrings such as the Love Canal. This is because the Suzuki’s of this world keep spreading misinformation to the gullible.
Here are some of the results of an incredibly exhaustive study of over 6,000 former residents of the Love Canal area.
“Overall, from 1979 to 1996, Love Canal residents got cancer at about the same rate as people of similar age and sex in both Niagara County and in upstate New York. These comparisons are based on the actual number of cancers among the Love Canal residents (304 cancers) compared to the number of cancers expected if they had the same cancer rates as Niagara County (332) or upstate New York (325). We found that some types of cancer were somewhat higher among former Love Canal residents (e.g. kidney, bladder, and respiratory) compared to upstate New York. Other types of cancer were somewhat lower. Additional comparisons are in the full paper.”
http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/investigations/love_canal/cancer_study_community_report.htm
Okay, one more, because I can’t let this stand…
Idd, if you look at the time stamp on my comment, it was 24 minutes after p’od.
Smell that? That’s the smell of John being PWNed by po’ed in AB and it burning so much, so brightly, that in his subsequent posts was unable to address what po’ed said.
Posted by: Indiana Homez at August 6, 2009 7:54 PM
Are you addressing me Indiana Homez?
I think one of two things has happened:
1. You have incorrectly cited “Colin” in your response, when perhaps you intended to address someone else.
2. You have incorrectly interpreted one of my posts above, in which case please point out which one, and I’ll attempt to clarify my point.
In fact, on the political spectrum I am a conservative, tilted heavily towards a libertarian bent.
Colour me confuzzled. ??
*shaking head….no hope there folks, sometimes just have to declare it a lost cause.
*shaking head….no hope there folks, sometimes just have to declare it a lost cause.
Posted by: ldd at August 6, 2009 8:18 PM
Hence, my don’t-feed-the-troll remark back at 5:17.
Roh-roh
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/08/nsidc-20090805.html
Lest we forget…
The theory is about AGW. The use of the term “climate change” is an attempt to save the AGW hypothesis in the face of falsifying evidence.
RIP AGW.
Thanks, po’d, for the great comment (7:18 pm). It is agonizingly frustrating to see how they have taken a tiny bit of valid science – namely that CO2 captures energy – then ignore the fact that this effect is, practically speaking, close to saturation with respect to how much more heat can actually be captured by increasing CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 has pretty much done all it can do as far as heating the earth. Warming from human-produced CO2 is a minor effect and will always be a minor effect. Of course I know that the model-builders assume feedback mechanisms, and start with some formula along the lines of ΔT = ΔTc/(1-f), with f some feedback factor (assumed to be positive and close to unity for religious reasons) but any scientist that has worked in a system this complicated knows how difficult it would be to accurately model the feedback effects. Plus the Earth has a history, if the climate were so unstable we would know it by now.
However, po’d, don’t expect science, reason and logic to change to change the mind of John or others like him. The AGW zealots are fueled by religious emotion, and in many cases greed.
To repeat something that is blatantly obvious…..
From yesterday:
“It’s not about science or facts ….. it’s about creating opportunities for scumbags to fleece the public.”
Posted by: OMMAG at August 5, 2009 7:02 PM
If it was just science there would be little discussion outside of people who actually know and care about science and research.
Since it is about something else entirely …. we have these idiot hysterics to deal with.
Hey Po’d in Ab….. Great commentary along with relevant supporting references.
These moonbat dolts are so stuck on stupid, there’s no hope for them, but there have to be some that aren’t so far gone, that critical thought and reason are still not a foreign concept.
The tide is turning.
Please don’t be a stranger to this site. Regards.
rian: thanks! Unfortunately there are quite a few within my own profession who are convinced somehow, that AGW is real and that “we should do something about it”.
The part that really concerns me is that the “scientific process” has been debased through all this. Political science has replaced real science.
Like the H1N1 flu “pandemic” there is a huge industry out there that feeds off the creation of the “crises”, big egos and large research grants (usually government funded) are at stake. It’s a long climb down from a publicly stated position on AGW.
The unsung heros in the AGW debunking are Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.com) and Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org (debunked the Hockey Stick Graph)and even the unsung researchers at surfacestations.org, who tracked down and photographed thousands of surface temperature stations in the US and worldwide.
Her’s some new info on ice ages:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Okay we all feed the trolls from time to time….
T, John etc have shown themselves to be unarmed men in a battle of wits…..
“There is no honour to be had in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
This year the is little evidence of warming in the arctic…..4 metres of Ice at the North Pole and until recently temps below freezing….
What I always found amusing was the portrayal of Disco Bay, Greenland choked with floating slush, growlers and Ice-bergs was evidence that the GIC was melting…..
Ice bergs ONLY calve from “TIDE-WATER GLACIERS”.
A tide-water glacier is one which moves out into tide-water—to be subjected to tidal forces which inevitably cause fracturing…..
Glaciers only move when they are GROWING….
If the glaciers were receeding there would be no ice-bergs because the terminous of the glaciers would be up on the beach………
A few days past…a loudmouth warmer was holding forth and stated that Antarctica was melting and that reports to the contrary were ficticious because there is no-one there. There is NOTHING at the South Pole—-NOTHING—-(according to that dude…..
Faith is a scary, wonderous thing…..some don explosive belts…..
“Chairman K, true that we don’t fully understand how our climate systems work, BUT safe to say that if the atmosphere normally contains 3000 gigatonnes of CO2, and we add roughly 25 gigatonnes per year through the burning of fossil fuels, and said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you should naturally expect it to have an affect. So should we just sit back and do nothing? I say no, we should not. If we can reduce the amount we generate through regulation and taxation, go for it.”
Then you are a brainwashed fool. To enforce legislation based on an unprovable theory about a system we don’t fully understand is irresponsible and dishonest. Not to mention that these tax schemes being sold to us have nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions but about the redistribution of wealth.
Our climate system isn’t some closed system and the forces influencing it aren’t constant. That’s why it is not safe to say that the CO2 we pump out is responsible for the warming trends. It can’t be proven.
While the troll from BC (J) has disappeared, I won’t allow him to debase this good part of the country with his moonbat ways, there are too many out here anyways for our own good (and Gordo seems to be joining the moonbat legions too, carbon tax, HST “will improve the economy”)………..but I digress.
Yes, Bc just had a nice warm spell, and yes, rsome temp. records were set over a period of three days. Now, temperatures are below normal, go figure!
But the real bit of gravy here, is, statistically speaking, which has more impact upon our recent cliamte/weather…..three days of warm? Or, three months of bitter winter here in BC? Here in Victoria, we had snow on the ground for a month, utterly unheard of here, and in the Nanaimo area, the snow lasted for 7 weeks.
Notice how Johnny boy didn’t want to address the frozen NW passage, or the shipd stuck in it, or those gallant British neophytes that tried to sled to the North Pole and test the thinning ice, only to get frozen out, and be evacuated before they froze to death!
Damn FACTS! They get in the way of fairy stories
after reading all that nonsense from toilet, I have to go to the John!!
sasquatch at August 6, 2009 10:22 PM
Here, since John et al have us talking about local phenomena, is my local anecdotal evidence against the unfounded religious belief in AGW.
After the 3rd flight of Canada geese flew over our house here in the Calgary area today, my wife said, “Well I can’t tell if they’re going South or not.” I says, “It doesn’t matter what direction you see them flying, they fly landing patterns, and they aren’t supposed to be in the area for about another 2 months.”
You see, the geese winter up North and if the Arctic was unseasonably warm, they wouldn’t be 800 miles south at this time of year.
We had frost on August 10th the last 2 years running.
I’ve never seen anything like it.
I predict the same this year, if not earlier.
correction: the geese summer up North
Too much Grey Goose tonight.
sasquatch: those ‘bergs in Disco Bay do come from the glacier (tide water) emptying into the Davis Straits at the town of Illusiat, Greenland, about an hour’s chopper ride to the south (the current flows north up the coast).
That glacier moves at an incredible rate off the main ice cap (about 1.0 meter an hour) out into the ocean. The glacier supplies all the ‘bergs that float north up the Davis Straits and then south past Nfld.
The stuff in Disco Bay are probably grounded ‘bergs. Impressive, as the water is 1200 feet deep right off the shoreline. The ‘berg that sank the Titanic is believed to be from the same glacier. I saw ‘bergs there that had doughnut holes in them that you could fly two Bell 215’s side by side, through the hole with room to spare.
How do I know? Been there, took the pictures.
What surprises me is that even though the arctic was ice free and forests of conifers existed there during the Eocene,approx 45 million years ago.
(http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140125?cookieSet=1&journalCode=earth)
people get so exercised if the same “might” be happening today. If it does, Canadians will get used to a warmer climate than they have today. I doubt that will happen in our life time, as the feeling is that we are into a cooling trend of the cyclic post-glacial warming that has gone on for the last 12,000 years.
Well it all boils down to the Conservative government accepting the Cap and Trade that the US government is going to impose upon their citiczens. Even though it is all fear-mongering, Canadian politicans do not have the backbone to state the scientific facts, such as the data is all wrong because of the location of sensors. I will vote for the first politician that states that Global Warming is just a new religion.
It will never happen though, Harper doesn’t have the will to stick with the facts, Biffy and Chow [good-by] Jack will state that our 2% of carbon imprint is what is causing the world to be destroyed and the Green are just folloewrs of the new religion called Global Warming.
They must hate it when for the past eight years the temp has been getting cooler. We already won … we should actually release more carbon into the air for the plant life to improve and to warm up the weather [if that is even possible.] One would hardly know this is August …. feels more like October.
John:
I’m simply stating that denial of climate change is silly when your lying eyes tell you that it is happening.
Well, I quite agree with the converse. The whole point of the original post is that the temperature stations that are providing the raw data scientists are using (and, for example, there are more of these stations in the US then there are in all of South America) are – please listen, John – SITUATED IN PLACES WHERE THEIR TEMPERATURES ARE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE SOURCES LIKE AIR CONDITIONING EXHAUSTS, ETC. If these stations were often placed 100 yards away from these heat sources, their temperatures would doubtless be much lower. Have you ever stood beside your air conditioner’s outside heat exchanger? Try it, and you’ll see it’s considerably warmer there – and that’s for a home unit, not an industrial size unit cooling a whole building. And most home units are surrounded by grass which provides cooling, while industrial units are surrounded by concrete which absorbs heat and then re-radiates into the environment, again producing inflated readings in the immediate area of the sensor, with much lower readings available just a few meters away. That’s what our “lyin'” eyes see – what do yours see?
Colin from Mission B.C. (but currently in smokey Kelowna
sorry for the late reply.
Yes I was addressing you, but I missed the ? when you said “better late than never?”.
Anyways, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was just saying that I think the horses have left the stable regardless of the science ect…
And don’t worry, nobody will mistake you for a lefter. Sorry for the confusion.
John, regarding seeing the warming with your own eyes, I assume you’re referring to record melts of the arctic ice witnessed in the mid 2000’s. As pointed out several times, the scientists who disagree with the AGW theory believe that the sun is the primary cause of the increased temperatures, as we went through a particularly high-output cycle in the ’90s. As is normally the case with our climate, the effects of the warmth are felt after, not during. Witness summer, which typically has it’s hottest days well after the solstice (usually third week of June). The winter month of February is the coldest here, yet the winter solstice is the third week of December! Even more astounding, Lake Ontario’s water temperature peaks in September, which is even further removed from the solstice. Considering the delay we witness in this heating cycle, is it not conceivable that we likewise see a delay in the effects of the suns’ solar cycles, such that the maximum amount of ice melt occurs after, not during the solar cycle? The ice has been rebounding nicely in the arctic, as witnessed by your own eyes, so are we calling for a new ice age now?
KevinB wrote:
“Well, I quite agree with the converse. The whole point of the original post is that the temperature stations that are providing the raw data scientists are using (and, for example, there are more of these stations in the US then there are in all of South America) are – please listen, John – SITUATED IN PLACES WHERE THEIR TEMPERATURES ARE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE SOURCES LIKE AIR CONDITIONING EXHAUSTS, ETC.”
Not to belabour the point, but if only 11% of the stations are reliable (prior to NOAA bias adjustments for ill-situated stations), we should see a marked difference in the temperature series between those reported throughout the US and those deemed good or best by Mr Watts and his volunteers.
Alas, that is not the case. Instead, both the year-to-year and smoothed data are nearly identical. (See page 3)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
This refutes Mr Watts hypothesis entirely.
I keep writing to tell you guys that Environment Canada has reported a 3C increase over the past 30 years. That the plant mass of the Arctic has more than double. And that northern nations are preparing for an ice free Northwest Passage.
So far the best you can produce to counter this is that it was cold where you live, and that some ships got stuck in the ice. These are isolated incidents, and simply do not counter the trend towards warm weather.
Now, everbody knows that the Arctic was once a warm place, and that it very well might be again in the future. If it took a few thousand years to warm up, human populations could adjust. The concern however is that the warming rate will occur over a century, which will not allow for easy adaptation.
Right now we as a country are experiencing the effects of climate change in many harmful ways. The pine beetle for one. This critter wouldn’t have survived winters 50 years ago, but now it’s spreading slowly across the country, and will cost us tens of billions of dollars. That’s just one example.
Again, I ask you guys. Do you honestly believe that the Arctic is not warmer than it was 30 years ago, despite the fact that numerous scientific bodies + Environment Canada claim that it is?
Payn Attention,
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
FROM
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Why do the data sets from surface temperature stations disagree with the satellite data?
Because the surface temperature data is FUBAR.
What is the entire AGW house of cards built on?
The surface temperature data, that’s what.
-There IS NO global warming!-
Do you honestly believe that the Arctic is not warmer than it was 30 years ago, despite the fact that numerous scientific bodies + Environment Canada claim that it is?
Posted by: John
Again with the local weather, eh John?
Let’s look at the local weather at say….Mars.
The spacecraft also observed a gradual evaporation of carbon dioxide ice in one of Mars’ polar caps, pointing to a slowly changing Mars climate.
“They way these polar pits are retreating is absolutely astounding,” Mustard said.
But like the rockfalls, researchers were unable to account for the gradual climate change.
“Why is Mars warmer today that it was in the past, we really have no way of knowing why,” Malin said.
FROM
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050920_mgs_update.html
John, in your studied opinion, is the current warming on Mars due to the SUVs, the industrial factories the SUVs were built in, or the cow farts?
pete wrote:
“…the scientists who disagree with the AGW theory believe that the sun is the primary cause of the increased temperatures, as we went through a particularly high-output cycle in the ’90s.”
No.
The sun is the primary climate force on the planet, but the output variation in total solar irradiance is only 0.3% between the highs and lows of the 11-year solar cycle.
As the graph shown at http://tinyurl.com/lgrael indicates, the sun was in a solar-minimum phase in approximately 1996, the demarcation of Solar cycles 22 and 23.
Oz,
That article is 12 years old. Here is a recent NASA link:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
“Again with the local weather, eh John?”
Honestly guy. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that because I’m talking about the entire Arctic, I’m focusing on something too local? The Arctic is kinda big you know. Or maybe you think talking about earth is too local?
Speaking of Mars, seeing as all we have of that planet is grainy images, I don’t think you can use it for your argument.
That’s strange, John August 7, 2009 2:05 PM.
I never would have thought that 12 years had passed between September 2005 and July 2009.
My abacus must need new batteries.
I’ll task a pass on that NASA link, John.
As long as NASA employs Hockeystick Hansen they have zero credibility.
NASA was caught fudging their numbers, John.
Are you suggesting that because I’m talking about the entire Arctic, I’m focusing on something too local? The Arctic is kinda big you know.
~John
Yeah, but is the Arctic the globe?
No.
You are therefore talking about a local phenomena, not global warming.
The Antarctic is getting colder, John.
The satellite data says we have stasis, neither warming nor cooling, but if there is any trend, the trend is cooling not warming.
all we have of that planet is grainy images, I don’t think you can use it for your argument.
~John
Yeah, I can use it for my argument.
Do you think that temperature is measured with visual imaging, John?
You’re a funny guy. lol
Mars is getting warmer.
Is it anthropogenic warming, John?
Payn Attention, don’t try and trivialize the variable output of the sun by expressing it as a very small percentage. The average amount of radiation received by our atmosphere’s upper surface is over 1300 Watts per square meter. So your tiny 0.3% amounts to over 4 Watts per square meter. That’s what is received at the outer surface of our atmosphere. What’s the total surface area of our atmosphere receiving this extra 4 Watts per square meter? That’s a lot of extra Watts being pumped into our atmosphere. And that only accounts for the variations in brightness. What about the changes in the solar winds that cause variations in cosmic rays? What about Solar ultra-violet output?