I was laughing so hard when I saw that I farted!

so much for global warming

[Link: iol.co.za]

One freak snowstorm or years of change




[Link: today.reuters.com]

I'll see your arctic warming and raise you 1 antarctic cooling.

[Link: usatoday.com]

It's in USA Today, It's gotta be true.

Remember the rules. If you get caught bluffing, you lose.

In this case, you win; I fold.

Its 56 degrees out in the northern suburbs of Chicago. Its 6/5/07 So much for global warming...... assholes

I was wishing I had a sweatshirt a lunch here in LA... lol

WTF did I miss?

In keeping with the Sarah Silverman theme from the Paris thread, check this out.

follow the money. global warming is a joke.


'Father' of climatology dismisses global warming as 'hooey': 'There is a lot of money to be made in this'...
--------------------[Link: madison.com]

more that global warmimg is bullshit





Helping along global warming



Top Stories


Local Sports
Cabrera relishes Open win
Tiger tamed in second place
Bay's catch saves Bucs
Read All Local Sports
Multimedia
All Multimedia | Penguins
Steelers | Super Bowl XL

National News
Accident kills 6 in charity car show
Space station computers to get last test
Girl dies as flood strikes Texas town
Read All National News
National Sports
Jones sought for questioning in shooting
Edwards snaps 52-race winless streak
Cabrera edges Tiger for U.S. Open title
Read All National Sports
Obituaries
Italian designer Gianfranco Ferre dies
Iraqi Sunni leader dies of heart attack
Pioneer baseball writer Whiteside dies
Obituaries in the news
Read All Obituaries
Strange
Mating hares block Milan airport runways
Woman wins $29,000 for topless stroll
Pa. Zoo's bull elephant sires calf
Read All Strange
Living
'Fantastic Four' rides $57M wave to top
Pirated `Sicko' turns up on the Internet
Italian designer Gianfranco Ferre dies
Read All Top Living
Other Sections
Top 25 College Basketball
NBA
NASCAR
Extreme Weather
Read All Technology
World
Today in History

Tools
Print this article
E-mail this article
Subscribe to this paper
Larger text | Smaller text


By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, June 17, 2007


Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States?
NOAA based that finding - which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" - on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country.

Few people have ever seen or even heard of these small, simple-but-reliable weather stations, which quietly make up what NOAA calls its United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.


story continues below




NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.
But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.

NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report "to reflect revised statistics" and "better address uncertainties in the instrumental record." This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons -- weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc.

NOAA didn't say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels.


Bill Steigerwald is the Trib's associate editor. Call him at (412) 320-7983. E-mail him at: [email protected].

Sure, and Steve Bartman is responsible for the Cubs' collapse in October, 2003. Bill Buckner caused the Red Sox to choke in 1986, Marino Rivera is the reason the Yankees blew a 3 game lead to the Red Sox in 2004. The "tuck rule" is why New England defeated Oakland in 2002, Jerry Kramer was solely responsible throwing the "block of the century" against Jetrhro Pugh in the 1967 "ice bowl" in Green bay.

" A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.................................." Now complete this couplet written by Alexander Pope and start imbibing something other than ethanol.

Alan

I don't believe I am truly an expert in much of anything. Even in my chosen field, compared with the type of programming you do Alan, I am a piker.

But I do have some common sense and when I see scientists and especially reporter types ignoring aspects of stories because they don't fit the desired results I get skeptical.

As ed's post points out, the location of temparature reporting stations is important. Cities are especially difficult to use because of the reasons stated by Professor Bryson's article [Link: madison.com].

Other long term temp averages from large cities:
Tokyo, Japan went from 13 deg C in 1876 to over 16 deg C in 2004, averaged
New York, NY went from 50 deg F in 1822 to over 55 deg F in 2000, averaged
but,
West Point, NY 40 miles north of New York city,has stayed at 51 deg F from 1826 to 2000, averaged and Albany, NY 150 miles north of New York city has dropped 1 degree F during that same time frame.
This information is out there but is not widely reported.

Other temp drops from 1930 to 2000,
Mcgill NV, down 1 degree
Guthrie, OK, down 1/2 degree
Boulder, CO. down 1/2 degree
Truman, MO. down 2 degrees
Greenville, SC. down 1 degree
But these don't make the news.

The above temps are from giss, nasa and the US historical climatology network.

On the other hand, we, as an industry, can save the planet by wearing and requiring our employees to wear these:
[Link: ragazzivegan.com]

I have largely stayed out of this thread because, though I believe global warming is real I have not kept abreast of the facts sufficiently to make a reasoned and reasonable argument. Yet even the main source in Ed's article, Anthony Watt, cautions against taking the leap Ed infers. One of the problems with Science is that it relies on consensus and majorities have been known to be wrong. The Tobacco industry could find some "scientist" to buttress their claim that tobacco was harmless and yet one can find more than a few instances when the lone dissenting voice was in the end the correct voice. I am apt to side with the the scientific consensus, only don't ask me to support this inclination with any evidence in this case. I cannot so I do not dare make an argument. I have beliefs but since they are largely unsupported by any evidence I don't bother to bother to portray my beliefs as anything other than gut instinct colored by ignorance.

Alan

Nicely stated as usual, thank you Alan.