I think those guys got peer reviewed out of business. But the way those guys talk it's hard to tell.
I think those guys got peer reviewed out of business. But the way those guys talk it's hard to tell.
The topic isn't dead, but all the arguments are. And, to be blatantly frank, my actions one way or the other are completely irrelevant and ineffective. The answer to whether the climate is changing due to human actions will never affect me, nor can I effect the outcome, so it's hard for me to care. The only real fact is that we don't know and won't live long enough to know.
They do have a study published recently. No they were not mentioned in the aforementioned article. The original report cited in the article is attached also.I think those guys got peer reviewed out of business. But the way those guys talk it's hard to tell.
Yes, I think your right. Just to many variables to get good results from stations.They do have a study published recently. No they were not mentioned in the aforementioned article. The original report cited in the article is attached also.
But, my concern is the undue additional influences to some of the reporting stations as seen in the attached study. They almost have inspected all the stations. Last report was 82 or so percent.
As far as me, do I believe there is climate change? Sure. I don't believe it's to the extent agreed upon by an international committee. The earth is way too big and the number of probes are way too small. Then the installations have problems. Naturally we can "adjust" or more appropriately, "guess" what the correction is, and "guess" to fill in the "blank" data from others. I can tell you a young watchstander taking readings could be sent to Non-Judicial punishment if they gun-decked an official document, like the weather form sent to NOAA monthly. When I was a young watchstander, we had that shed with the wet bulb and dry bulb about 100 feet from the building in the Aleutians. There was plenty of missed readings when you couldn't see 1 foot in front of you.
I've also had the wind blowing so hard that 1 cup of the three cup anemometer broke off. It reported a lower wind, about 10 kts when the flags on the flag pole showed over 25 kts. Of course my guy who went to climb a 90 foot tower to fix a bad connection was hanging on when I spotted him and made him get the hell off that tower. I told him if the winds were less than 15 kts he could climb to fix the connection, the radio room showed 10 kts. He was only about halfway up when I caught him.
Yes I get skeptical, and for dam good reasons.
I've also pondered on the resolutions and accuracies of their data collection systems as well being that just locally there can be a huge variation in the weather from where I live to just 10 miles away from me. It can be pouring buckets in town 10 miles north of me while I am kicking up a dust storm baling hay or the reverse. Same with temperature variations as well. The local forecasts can say 90F today for the Minot area and at my house its only 81 or it could be 98!I've read somewhere, that the CRN stations data represents about 100 square miles. Look at any weather channel and look at their reporting stations. There could be large discrepancies in that 100 square miles.
I suspect the satellites are very good and could be fairly easily calibrated by someone with the budget of NASA.The problem with satellites, unless they are geostationary, there is an orbit. I highly doubt even the satellites would cover the whole earth, over 294 million square miles. What is the calibration frequency on satellite sensors? I don't know, but I do know nothing lasts forever ... ok, maybe Voyager does.
I've read somewhere, that the CRN stations data represents about 100 square miles. Look at any weather channel and look at their reporting stations. There could be large discrepancies in that 100 square miles.
Here's the three weather reporting stations in near me. Note the discrepancy within a half mile on the two on the left. There could be a finely defined heat line causing the discrepancy.
That certainly is one possibly to be wary. It may have happened with upgrading some of the older stations. I haven't found a record of decommissioning or commissioning stations, if one exists. I'll just keep on reading and waiting to see if some of the past and present predictions come true. I don't expect to be here at the end of the century for people to say "I told you so" or me uttering those words.The larger problem (I think) is if something changes and no one notices.
No. It's a power and money problem.It's really just a measurement problem....
So you don't think it's any warmer now than when New York was covered in ice?No. It's a power and money problem.
New York has both been colder and warmer than it is today, on each of an annual, historical, and prehistorical basis. If you've got a point, make it.So you don't think it's any warmer now than when New York was covered in ice?
The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.New York has both been colder and warmer than it is today, on each of an annual, historical, and prehistorical basis. If you've got a point, make it.
At this point, the 'historical' temperature record has been revised, corrected, distorted, and corrupted to such an extent that I don't think anyone knows for certain what the temperature was before yesterday.The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.
Is the temperature record from 50,000 years ago stored in the archives at Alexandria? Where is Dr Indiana Jones when you need him? Maybe Archimedes' lifted it from the library when he visited Alexandria.The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.
What good would that do? If I recall my mythology correctly Zeus and all of the ancient gods and goddesses were bigger liars than any politicians we have alive today.The actual record is at Mount Olympus in Zeus' personal library.
I agree, but as I implied that will only postpone the inevitable, unless the problem we solve is our numbers. If we could actually hold a level - maybe one that grows slightly as we learn how to handle more - then we might avoid the fate of the bacteria. But the world population has doubled in my lifetime and I see little reason to think humans will contain themselves.Good post, @wayneh, except for the last 'drown in our own waste' part. Unlike bacteria, (a few) men have minds that can think and solve problems.
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz
by Jeff Child
by Jake Hertz