Search for “Global Warming Timeline” (American Institute of Physics) to see a quick list of major AGW discoveries. It’s been known since at least 1859 (John Tyndall) that CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas, (It is not a “serious” GH gas.The absorption range in the IR window is very small) despite its relatively small quantities. It took well over a century for the issue to reach the forefront, and some people predictably responded with willful ignorance. (The warmists willful ignorance of it’s known weak GH effect) Your ilk never gave CO2 much thought except to study the foam in beer, (That is because it was known to be a minor GH gas.Not much to get excited over.Water Vapor dominates the GH effects in the climate system) then suddenly you became counter “experts.” (Not hard to counter.When you have so little evidence to work with) Interesting how that goes.(After all these years.We still see little of the claimed powerful warm forcing capability showing up.It has been 150 years.And still nothing out of the ordinary is happening) CTS

Unless you can prove that: A) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, (Most Skeptics do believe it is a greenhouse gas) and B) Man isn’t raising CO2 levels far beyond nature’s in modern times,(Most Skeptics believe that CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising sharply) your only case rests on conspiracy theories and cherry-picking what you determine is valid science. The same thing was tried with the ozone hole, (It has since then.Been shown to be much less of a concern.Than it originally was) acid rain, (A 10 year study was published in 1990.That shows Acid Rain to be a very minor effect) asbestos, (It depends on the type of Asbestos) cigarettes and a number of other issues. Said conspiracy theories fall into these general categories:

1) The scientists are incompetent in their data gathering. (usually is their lack statistical skills that is the problem) Richard Muller (Berkeley Earth project) recently tried to prove that, (He failed) but reached the opposite conclusion. Now, he’s considered sort of a traitor among deniers. (We have known for many years.That he is a warmist.He was NEVER a skeptic) CTS

2) The scientists are in it for grant money, (Generally true) which is clearly far more enriching than oil money. (So little oil money are given to Skeptics.They have also given money to warmists) Enough said. (Skeptics have heard about it too many times now.Warmists are still wrong) CTS

3) There has been a massive conspiracy (starting in 1859?) to make it seem like CO2 is a big deal. (No only a small group of discredited warmists.Who are making a big deal of it.The effect is very small) CTS

Yeah, sure. Liars. (Warmist!) CTS

(It appears that you are not much of a science reader.Too bad that you make these comments the way you do here) CTS

Report this

01

Jim; Try reading the Skeptic’s Handbook first — then tell us what evidence we are “denying”.

p.s., Starting out with insults is a good way to have everything you say ignored — the folks who sent you here would be disappointed.

Report this

10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSiyujaDkfY (watch the whole thing)

Precisely WHAT evidence are you Nimrods waiting for? A proclamation from Rush Limbaugh that he’s erred in judgment all these years? You sure don’t respect anything real scientists say. You know, people who’ve EARNED the right to explain what’s going on, vs. those who just spew the same feel-good stories over and over.

There’s a reason the word “denial” has been in the dictionary for centuries.

[REPLY: Oi Jim. The EVIDENCE the vid shows is mixing up cause and effect, or is cherry picking recent disasters, when a long history shows the events this year are no worse than what has gone before. The real deniers ignore solar magnetic evidence, and long term records .... but it does show that even cultist fools can produce neat propaganda. ]

Report this

03

Report this

10

Report this

10

Report this

11

Report this

10

There are lots of small weather station networks around the place, my feeling is what really needs to be done is come up with a system that makes it easy to pass the data around and aggregate it in a way that preserves traceability of the process. Hopefully something reasonably efficient and secure.

Most importantly, the data format and transfer mechanism should be a public standard — so that independent implementations can be compatible. What seems to be happening at the moment is that each little group make their own standard and then they can’t / won’t interface with other groups. It all gets bogged down.

Might be a good place to start by building a list of all the existing private weather station networks out there and making some notes on what formats they are using. Maybe ask them what their policy is on sharing that data.

Report this

20

[Courtney] demonstrated that nearly all measured increases in temperatures have occurred in regions, for example Siberia, where data are sparse and not continuous, and are therefore doubtful. He speculated that the remote stations may be less well-maintained than the regularly checked stations in the U.S. and Western Europe. [13]

Marion seemed to be getting the text from here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney

Their link [13] is broken, so the actual original can be found here:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2000/Dec16.htm

What makes this a bit more interesting than just one man’s opinion is that Courtney’s comment came out in 2000, but a decade later the Russian IEA have followed up and come to the same conclusion, with additional information available to them about the original Siberian weather station data.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2409190/posts

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

I believe this demonstrates that Richard was right on the nail, back in 2000, and there is more than enough reason to start a complete audit of the data from ground level up. When you put this together with the various adjustments added by the homogenisation process we would have to accept at least a few degrees of error in the final result.

Report this

20

On the temperature project. I have been a bit scattered and have not developed a formal protocol. I think the best starting point is the following.

1. The people who are interested need to identify themselves: Name, email address, location (GPS coordinates if possible), and altitude.
2. Identify the temperature measuring device: type, reading resolution, reading range
Alternatively, how much you can afford to spend on one.
3. Determine a one point calibration by creating a distilled water ice slush and determine the reading of your temperature measuring device when dipped in the slush for approximately five minutes. The distilled water ice slush will be 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F. The reading should be close.

If there are no objections, I can be the central repository for the information. Send the accumulated information to arh@dslextreme.com

I can then use the information to see what kind of experiments we can perform with the equipment we have on hands.

The goal is to do some meaningful work with simple inexpensive equipment. It will be a pilot project to get us in the habit of doing actual science. The primary cost will be time and attention to nit picking detail.

Lionell, I’m interested in this project! I too feel it would be of interest to see what we can conclude. Accuracies are of utmost importance as much as the basic guidelines.

1. What do you recommend in instruments to be used, digital or glass tube with Mercury??? I have a pocket digital I used in HVAC testing. Haven’t used it in a while. The Distilled use of Water as a calibration is very good. Usually digitals are within +-1 to 3 degrees of accuracy…My pocket is a 1 I believe.

2. Recommendations of conditions to occur for such testing will be needed for those to have a consistent reading. Parameters have to be established on locations and heights of such measurements to be taken.

3. A “basic” log in writing and/or on Computer to be sent to you!!! Will you make one up with weather comments or keep a basic time frame and day record? Also when a measurement should be taken?? Morning, noon, afternoon. If you work during the day, then what? Especially if you are 20 some miles away from your station….

4. 24 Hr access to you, Lionell in case of questions or problems in sending data!! This is probably NOT a problem but should be brought up out of due respect towards those who partake this research. Maybe even a number to call you in case the Internet is down..Thoughts???

Thanks Lionell, My situation is this…unless I find a job within in say 6 months or even less, I will lose my home to forclosure..Don’t know where I will be afterwards…Do you still want me to do this??? Of course, if I get hired then we will take it from there…if the Bank will refinance me…

I will appreciate and wait for your comments on this and anything else I might have missed…

Thanks,
Denny

Report this

00