My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by modest

Those places are all extremely rural and none would be affected by an "Urban Heat Island" effect. I looked up two that you listed in google earth and they were literally nothing more than a few buildings surrounded by a hundred miles of farm land.

~modest

Yes, they are listed as rural. I am listed as rural (which is an accurate declaration). However, due to the road improvement on the south border of my property, any weather station temp data would be affected were I to place a station within 60 feet (or potentially more). The term UHI is misleading in that it makes one believe it only happens in metropolis (or gotham city). It happens anywhere you add buildings, tar roads (gravel to a lesser extent), open dirt fields (like happens in spring and fall).

I chose one of the three as a representative of a potentially accurate measuring station, however surface stations notes the shading effect of the trees, and the sprinkler use near the station. That particular station noted no significant warming since between and 2000 (where the data stops at GISS).

The other two are obviously suspect data, and the GISS temp trend (upward) is suspect.

I also added the link to the melborne info in that it also notes the heating effect in small towns. It is an ongoing study.

As far as your links, I did bother to read them, to the extent time allowed.

[Michaelangelica]

More Proof of Global Warming

[belovelife]

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory And The Mystery Of The Missing Sinks

http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=11024158110...GSo2WY_bxDpL0=

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Yes, they are listed as rural. I am listed as rural (which is an accurate declaration). However, due to the road improvement on the south border of my property, any weather station temp data would be affected were I to place a station within 60 feet (or potentially more). The term UHI is misleading in that it makes one believe it only happens in metropolis (or gotham city). It happens anywhere you add buildings, tar roads (gravel to a lesser extent), open dirt fields (like happens in spring and fall).

Indeed. Well, accurately, it would be called a RHI (rural heat island effect).
Nonetheless, as stated many times in this thread, we have data from varied sources that point to the same trend (ice cores, sediment cores, satellites).

I chose one of the three as a representative of a potentially accurate measuring station, however surface stations notes the shading effect of the trees, and the sprinkler use near the station.

Local conditions can be factored into the equation given adequate funding and manpower.
It's defintiely something that needs to be addressed, but I highly doubt that you would see the satisfaction you demand from these results on a global level.

That particular station noted no significant warming since between and 2000 (where the data stops at GISS).

It only takes one station to form a mutiny.

The other two are obviously suspect data, and the GISS temp trend (upward) is suspect.

What, specifically, is suspicious?

I also added the link to the melborne info in that it also notes the heating effect in small towns. It is an ongoing study.

Nobody is denying that small, local climatic effects can not translate to the total global budget. Indeed, we have so much info because of such studies.

As far as your links, I did bother to read them, to the extent time allowed.

I hear you there.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Indeed. Well, accurately, it would be called a RHI (rural heat island effect).
Nonetheless, as stated many times in this thread, we have data from varied sources that point to the same trend (ice cores, sediment cores, satellites).

Its SUPPOSED to warm up during interglacial periods! Its also not uncommon for the earth to be much warmer than it is right now, and the majority of the time of the earth has been warmer than what our averages are now. If I remember correctly, the entire existence of man has been during the low earth temperature spectrum (when looking at the big picture of average climate of the earth).

The conflict (and skeptism) arises when a cloistered group of individuals (note the IPCC does not do research) declare such events as man-made with 95% certainty levels under the guise of "scientifically accurate".

AMS '99: Scientists Present 1998 Temperature Trends

"The resulting time series shows the temperature trend in the lower troposphere is zero for 1979-97. At the same time, the temperature of the lower stratosphere has declined at a rate of -0.6 degrees C per decade. The warm El-Niño/Southern Oscillation of 1998 caused the warmest monthly temperature anomalies of any observed to date, with April and May 1998 near +0.7 C above the base period mean of 1982-91."

*note this is before Bush was elected and stifling science

Originally Posted by freeztar

Local conditions can be factored into the equation given adequate funding and manpower.
It's defintiely something that needs to be addressed, but I highly doubt that you would see the satisfaction you demand from these results on a global level.

Can be is a bunch different than declared with the levels of certainty projected by people who are trying to influence the foundation of our comfort level.

Local conditions (including heat island effects) vary by each location. And I am surprised you would have an issue with demanding quality from science (alleged science) over quantity.

Originally Posted by freeztar

It only takes one station to form a mutiny.

And were it only one station presented in this manner, I would be more skeptical of the impact. However I shall also take the opportunity to point out it only takes one government entity to skew the data for the whole country (or world):

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

Originally Posted by freeztar

What, specifically, is suspicious?

Did you even look at the pictures of the existing data sources? 2 of the 3 absolutely did not meet the minimum standards of measurement for such data gathering sources. Show me a link where you see them dropping the raw data temps in their official declarations of "this is what the temps really were a month ago, a year ago, etc."

Originally Posted by freeztar

Nobody is denying that small, local climatic effects can not translate to the total global budget. Indeed, we have so much info because of such studies.

The IPCC is denying this very thing and minimized its impact which is carried over into every projection they attempt.

Besides, adding more tainted data does not translate into better quality data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...rban3.5_pg.gif

http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/unc...le_issues1.jpg

(marysville California weather data station)

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Its SUPPOSED to warm up during interglacial periods! Its also not uncommon for the earth to be much warmer than it is right now, and the majority of the time of the earth has been warmer than what our averages are now. If I remember correctly, the entire existence of man has been during the low earth temperature spectrum (when looking at the big picture of average climate of the earth).

The conflict (and skeptism) arises when a cloistered group of individuals (note the IPCC does not do research) declare such events as man-made with 95% certainty levels under the guise of "scientifically accurate".....


The IPCC is denying this very thing and minimized its impact which is carried over into every projection they attempt.

Besides, adding more tainted data does not translate into better quality data.

I take it your conclusion is that the information presented by the IPCC is tainted, and should be disregarded because the climatologists from around the world that are contributing to IPCC reports have actually come together with some sort of unscrupulous motivations to fool concerned governments into providing more and more research grants.....

.....and that we would be better off continuing on as we have - business as usual.

Is that a reasonable take on your position?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by REASON

I take it your conclusion is that the information presented by the IPCC is tainted, and should be disregarded because the climatologists from around the world that are contributing to IPCC reports have actually come together with some sort of unscrupulous motivations to fool concerned governments into providing more and more research grants.....

.....and that we would be better off continuing on as we have - business as usual.

Is that a reasonable take on your position?

12 different links posted in the last week regarding temperature data accuracy and you choose to comment on the IPCC?

Thou shalt not deny the reality of the IPU!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1792

[InfiniteNow]

Your links about localized and single inaccuracies does NOT negate the overall global average upward trend of warming. Even if we concede that some errors occurred locally, and that the posts you've made are valid inputs to the dialog, it still does nothing to negate the mountains of supporting information across research modalities that temperatures are on the rise when measured by global annual averages, and which steadfastly reinforce that the primary driver is anthropogenic contributions of CO₂ to the Earths atmosphere. It really is that simple, Cedars.


The gnats on the elephants back really don't effect its weight in any meaningful way.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The gnats on the elephants back really don't effect its weight in any meaningful way.

Even the birds on the elephants back don't....
~

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

12 different links posted in the last week regarding temperature data accuracy and you choose to comment on the IPCC?

Thou shalt not deny the reality of the IPU!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1792

I was attempting to read into what you had posted. I mentioned the IPCC because you have mentioned the IPCC - directly in the post I responded to, and indirectly when you form an argument that the readings used to determine the global average temperature can be either inaccurate or falsified.

The link you provided in the previous post only reinforces what I interpret your position to be, that the information generated by the IPCC is suspect and less convincing than what you are reading from the rejectionist point of view.

It is simply a choice you are making as you consider the information presented by both sides of the argument. I simply wonder what is actually driving your skepticism of a Nobel Prize winning panel of climate scientists, and I wonder whether it is really about the science or politics in your mind.

I'm still curious because your last post sort of avoided addressing my presumption.

Based on clear research of the information provided, do you think we should reject the notion of AGW as informed by the IPCC and continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate or more than we are now?