Ice

[mnealtx 0]

Try explaining Darwin zero, instead of attacking the messenger.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,689]

Let me put it in more familiar terms :

Car speedometers are pretty primitive instruments.

The speedometer in my car reads 2mph high. That means when I'm going 40mph, it reads 42mph. It does this at all speeds at which I have calibrated it using a far more accurate method of measuring speed.

This is called a systematic error.

Because I know the systematic error, I can actually figure out how fast I am really going by subtracting 2mph from the value indicated on the speedometer.

Pretty easy, really.

The airspeed indicator on my plane is a little trickier because the error is different at different speeds, and the air temperature and altitude also affect the reading. However, Mooney Aircraft Corporation has thoughtfully provided a calibration chart with the airplane, so even in that case I can figure out my true airspeed from the readings on the instruments.


Now, sometimes the accuracy of instruments changes with time: with speedometers, the car's tires wear, in mechanical speedometers the bearings wear, and the spring loses tension. Is this a disaster? No, you just calibrate it periodically and use the new correction factor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

You really ought to learn something about the things you pontificate about.

Next.

As If

[mnealtx 0]

I don't care about analogies, I'd much rather see the explanation for Darwin zero.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Geez, John. As much as I respect your education, I'm not seeing much evidence of it as compared to the quantity and quality of the snide remarks.

Step it up on relevant information, please.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 1,689]

Quote

Geez, John. As much as I respect your education, I'm not seeing much evidence of it as compared to the quantity and quality of the snide remarks.

Step it up on relevant information, please.

Relevant information on handling random and systematic errors already posted. Anyone who has taken a course on experimental methods knows this stuff - it ain't rocket science. Mnealtx is just trying to throw dust in the air.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Some of the errors are not mechanical. Some are systematic errors that are the result fo flawed methodology.

There are often efforts made to factor in corrections to the raw data. These are usually from computer programs meant to correct for such matters as siting errors. Even the climate science community eventually admitted that there were problems but, Eureka! they've got a fix and they know the fix is accurate because they are climate scientists and they know it works and to explain siting issues. Take Eli Rabett, for example.

Quote

Because of this we are developing another step in the processing that will apply a time series discontinuity adjustment scheme described in Peterson and Easterling (1994) and Easterling and Peterson (1995). This methodology does not use station histories and identifies discontinuities in a station's time series using a homogeneous reference series developed from surrounding stations.
Eli will let Tony Watts have the last word, because at least he got it right

But hey, they can "fix" the problem with math and adjustments to the temperature record.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-not-watt-you-think-tony-watts.html

Note that Rabett nicely shows that the adjusted data shows no error. Also note that this issue is only regarding North America and specifically the Detroit Lakes region. But a reconstruction of the data showed that starting 2000, the temperature readings abruptly jumped .8 degrees annually. Obviously a programming error and entry error, because the input of numbers switched from the USHCN adjusted/TOBS version to the USHCN raw version and without time-of-observation adjustment.

Now, this error was pointed out to GISS in August, 2007. Notabel was that GISS used the data to show the warmest year for North America was 1998 and the newly adjusted data brought 1934 in as the warmest. What was interesting, though, is that GISS did not simply keep the pre-200 data and adjust the later data. Rather, they adjusted all the pre-200 data and kept the later data unchanged - ERASING ALL OF THE OLD DATA.

What is interesting is that the changes, if things were accurate, should have only been between post-2000 and pre-2000 rankings. The factoring switched 1998 and 1934 in the rankings.

Also noteworthy was that the GISS leadership utilized the GISS website for posting new data. However, they used realclimate.org (of which Gavin Schmidt is an administrator), where Schmidt wrote a post minimizing it - a this-is-insignificant-there-is-nothing-to-see-here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

Then Hansen posted on his personal website. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070810_LightUpstairs.pdf

Compare Schmidt's admission that 1934 and 1998 switched places and Hansen's denial that they did.

And, importantly, this stuff was put out and the numbers re-crunched by NASA-GISS employees on NASA business and on NASA time - to be posted to two personal websites outside of NASA.

Now - this is an example of a few things. First - errors appear and may be caused by simple mistakes. Second - fixes to these errors and factoring at times do odd things like switch the leaderboard a decade after a winner was announced.

Third - this is not just government business. Hansen and Schmidt both, apparently, have an intense personal interest in maintaining their image. Damage control. Spin. Policy. Press. All of it. Minimize the stuff we don't want and puff up the stuff we want out there.

Much has been stated and not-stated about the climate science. The CRU-Anglica hack was investigated by Parliament, who found some interesting things that absolved Professor Jones but pointed to some serious issues in the "climate science community."

Quote

On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

Hide the decline was a non-issue.
Academic dishonesty was a non-issue.

And this nugget:

Quote

The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-cru-inquiry/

Fundamentally, the report pointed to climate scientists like a clique of frat dicks closely guarding their shit against others, and that the University of East Anglica - who was supposed to be keeping watch on it, either turned a deaf ear to it or assisted them (understandable - the CRU was a great source of pride). The first inquiry identified this culture as a primary reason why they aren't trusted. Mind you, telling people requesting the data that they won't give it to them because "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it" is not exactly consistent with scientific principles. But, these scientists are human and subject to the frustrations and sophomoric attitudes anyone else can find.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf - at page 12

Nevertheless, "But Professor Jones’s failure to handle helpfully requests for data in a field as important and controversial as climate science was bound to be viewed with suspicion. He was obviously frustrated by other workers in the field trying to “undermine” his work, but his actions were inevitably counterproductive." - p. 47

Of course, checking out realclimate, one sees that they think they were vindicated. Little is discussed with regard to the culture.

The Second report (Oxburgh Report) did not find any deliberate scientific malfeasance. However, this report also found that "there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP - p.5

A third report - The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review - was put out last month. Again, the report doesn't find anything intentionally showing malfeasance but points out to errors in the culture of defensiveness and lack of helpfulness with FOI requests.

This report also made a pretty interesting statement: "we find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently, led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009." http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf - at p. 95


So much of this regards human factors. While the climate scientist elite crowd may be busy patting themselves on the back for withstanding these reports, the reports demonstrate a key issue: climate scientists are bringing suspicion on themselves because they are being arrogant pricks. Of course when they are hiding shit people want to know what they are hiding.

The reports also detail other factors. Part of it is the inherent exercise of the subjective in science! This is a factor that most scientists do not like to publicly admit. Said the Oxburgh Report: "With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant. These are all matters of experience and judgement. The potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area.""

Judgment has to be used. This is true of any of these things.

It is this knowledge of the subjective judgment that causes people like me to be cynical. The failure to provide codes and data and such REALLY calls judgment into question.

The GISS error was but an example of how even when an error is found, a campaign is mounted not only to fix it, but also to inform the public that the fix was unimportant and there's nothing to see.

systemic errors. Experimental methods. Judgment. Transparency. Culture. They are all part of the game here, John.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,689]

Quote

Some of the errors are not mechanical. Some are systematic errors that are the result fo flawed methodology.

...

systemic errors. Experimental methods. Judgment. Transparency. Culture. They are all part of the game here, John.

As previously pointed out, systematic errors, once identified, are correctable. Statistics deals with random errors.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Statistics deals with random errors.

Yes. And, as pointed out in the second report, statiticians would have been a very useful resource to be part of the team that would identify the outliers. It would have been an additional protection against selection bias. And it would have further insulated the climate scientists from allegations.

Another problem, however, is in the identification of systemic errors. The issues relating to the climate scientists failing to release data and codes ensures that systemic errors will be much more difficult to identify. It took several years to identify the issue with the post-2000 data in the Detroit Lakes example. Furthermore, the correction itself caused issues. "Why not correct the post-2000 data instead of correcting all of the pre-2000 data? And why did the corrections to pre-2000 data change the results?"

The corrections themselves are subjective in a number of cases. There are assumptions to these things.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in these statements.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hwt 0]

Now, you just have to prove that the siting errors produce random errors in the measurements - so far, the errors all seem to bias toward 'warm' rather than cold.

Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

You really ought to learn something about the things you pontificate about.

Next.
______________________________________________
Read what the Washington times printed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/

[billvon 2,495]

>Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

?? No, they're not. Let's say you know that an instrument has a consistent, systematic error of +/- 5%. The value measured has been 100. What is the actual quantity?

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

So this guy's words were spun. Yes. To suggest that a 30 year pause in warming won't have any effect on the level of warming in 80 years is folly under our present understanding.

Again with the thirty years. Latif refered to decades in the sense of a group of 10 years, not in the sense of "the 80's". He refers to a decade from 2000 to 2010 and a second decade from 2005 to 2015 and compared them to the decade 1994 to 2004, (I'm not sure this is the warmest 10 year period on record, but it does contain 9 of the 15 hottest years on record.

to summarize the key points
1) his decades start in the past
2) they overlap
3) he isn't saying warming isn't occurring, just that its effects on surface temperature will not exceed the record 1994-2004 which was an extremely warm decade
4) we have only 5 years to run in his prediction
5) in aggregate his prediction only covers a total of 15 year

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

So basically, with a lot of up and down and up and down, the fluxuations have now been determined to have returned to zero . . . OK

The whole plot matters, not just the final point.

[kallend 1,689]

Quote

>Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

?? No, they're not. Let's say you know that an instrument has a consistent, systematic error of +/- 5%. The value measured has been 100. What is the actual quantity?

If it's +- it's not systematic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Meso 38]

I'll feel dirty for this, being on the republicans side for once... But I am with them on the stance of global warming, to an extent.

If this thread is implying that global warming is present, sure I can live with that. But if it's implying Global Warming is caused by majority from the industrial sector, I disagree..

Quote

It is the largest Arctic iceberg to calve since 1962, said Prof Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware.

So they're saying there were bigger ones occurring 50 years ago, got it. And this weeks occurrence isn't happening every week. I hardly call it proof or even evidence of global warming, let alone man-made warming.

Quote

Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago, according to two of the world's leading climate research centres.

A whole 100 years!!! That's not a very large sample of data for something where decimals can make a huge difference... If you have 500 000 or so years of accurate data you may be able to get a clearer picture of the causes and cycles of global temperatures.

Now as I said, I won't say the world isn't heating, I won't even say it's not from industrial progression and pollution, but there is definitely not enough evidence to say it is.

Quote

We're in an El Nino year.

What? I'm pretty sure we're actually in a light La Nina, as can be seen by the stretch of lower SSTs in the Eastern Pacific. We're coming off an El Nino, 2010 for the most part was then neutral but has been trending towards La Nina for a while, like NOAA predicting in April or May. Just saying...

______________________________________________________________________________

[Heading slightly off topic and just onto global warming in general]

But personally I think there is more bullshit agenda behind it than there is truth. Since when did politicians really care about saving people's lives.

I speak more from a meteorological and climatological point of view though. The models they are using are algorithm based, as are all weather models. It relies on extremely accurate primary inserts of data to get a correct end result, and even then there are far too many unknowns in the equation to predict such things. Think of it as calculating someones footsteps for a distance of 10 meters, then using that initial motion to predict his whereabouts in 2 years time. Weather models aren't even accurate past 5 days, and these have 150 years of 'solid data' entered into them.

The earth may be warming, it does that from time to time in natural solar cycles. I don't doubt that pollution is a bad thing, and I support efforts to minimize it. But currently it's more of a fashion trend, driving hybrid cars etc

I remember when the whole 'hoo-haa' over Global Warming began, there were talks of increased hurricane activity by 2010, global floods by 2020 and basically the end of the world in 2050, there was even a documentry called "2050" that pushed that idea. And people who support the idea that we're all doomed like to do stupid things like point at 2005 hurricane season to support their thoughts. 2005 was an anomoly, in 1933 we had a similar hurricane season, and since 2005 we have had some of the most quiet hurricane seasons ever, a complete bore for hurricane tracking nuts like me.

I don't have enough access to data to confirm or deny the presence of global warming altogether, I won't pretend to know that which I don't. But I am fairly certain this is more of a scare tactic using lies and over-exaggeration than anything else. And people buy into whatever is told to them without questioning things. "But those scientists said it's true", which ones? The ones that are probably government sponsored.

Lack of accurate data is all I can say...

Do I think it would be good for the earth if people continued to try be a bit more 'greener', absolutely. But I don't believing in misleading them with unreliable information to scare them into doing it.

You can't base a whole theory on a few incidents that support it and then try pass it as fact. Let's look at hurricane activity quick which I touched on, 2005 was like a godsend for global warming nuts, they wrote about it everywhere how it was the beginning of the end. Since then what do we have? Some pussy storms that get sheared by TUTTs and raped by SAL. Water temperatures for the past 4 years in the Atlantic haven't been very high, and the heat content at depth was average at best. This year the seas are very warm, but it will probably go down again next year.

People can start raising the alarms when you see 50 consecutive years with increasing heat and SSTs. Not a blip here and a blip there, granted it may be heating, but it's no doomsday yet, or even close.

Quite frankly, I don't care if the world heats up, I'll be glad to be able to track some more hurricanes...

Once again as I touched on, if you can't trust 150 years 'accurate data' in a model algorithm for a 3 day forecast for weather. How can you trust a long range climate model with sea surface temperatures...

I won't deny or confirm the fact of man made global warming. I'd say that the evidence is not accurate enough to pick a side.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is the largest Arctic iceberg to calve since 1962, said Prof Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So they're saying there were bigger ones occurring 50 years ago, got it. And this weeks occurrence isn't happening every week. I hardly call it proof or even evidence of global warming, let alone man-made warming.

Yep. That's the inference. The biggest since 1962 means, yes, there was a bigger one 50 years ago.

There are a couple of important points with regard to the Greenland Ice Sheet. First - the studies being touted all indicate increased ice melt on the coast of Greenland. There are a couple of problems: (1) comparing the coasts of Greenland is like comparing the coasts of North America or even Hawaii's Big Island (Hilo and Kona are very different climates with regard to precipitation); and (2) they tout ice loss at certain coastal points without referring to ice buildup at the interior of Greenland - where the ice is thickest.

Take a look at this pdf. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Greenland.pdf

That strait in the northwest is where the Petermann Glacier is located. It's the most northerly glacier in the world. This glacier calved in 2008 - a calving that was roughly 1/4 of the size of this event. The Petermann Glacier has, by all accounts, ADVANCED. Much of the issue with glaciers that is pointed out is that the glaciers are receding. Not this one - it's advancing - in excess of a km per year. It isn't receding because the weather up there is cold. Meanwhile, the thing can only advance so far up the fjord. It's bound to break. The bigger it gets, the bigger the break.

Global warming alarmists are now saying, "This is global warming because this glacier is advancing." And "this is global warming because glaciers are receding." They aren't necessarily wrong. Greenland's climate is one where warming will increase ice accretion. The link shows a linear trend of 1-1.5 degrees over the last 60 years. This glacier is located in a place with an average yearly temperature of -15 degrees Celsius. It does not appear that the conditions for significant ice loss are present there. What an increase in temperature WOULD do is increase ice accretion due to increased precipitation (warmer air holds more moisture which condenses).

So could global warming cause this? Yes. By depositing so damned much precipitation on the ice sheet that the creep rate of the coastal glaciers increases. The end result being that Greenland ice, as a whole, is in stasis.

Quote

I'm pretty sure we're actually in a light La Nina, as can be seen by the stretch of lower SSTs in the Eastern Pacific.

It's the end of the El Nino that causes the increase in air temperatures. While the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is not well understood, the general concept is that the equatorial Pacific Ocean at times will store heat and a large patch of warm water will be detectable. This was seen in 1997 where the ENSO temps peaked in December and early January 1998.

1997 wasn't the hot year. 1998 was. It appears that the ENSO stores up this heat and then releases it. In effect, that heat is radiated out to and through the atmosphere. January 1998 showed the ENSO in full swing. By May, 1998 the warm water was almost gone.

All that heat went somewhere - the atmosphere and then radiated into space. The kitchen doesn't really heat up when the oven is turned on. The heat is on when the oven door is opened up.

So it makes sense that the January - July, 2010 temperature measurements are high. All that energy is going somewhere.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Try explaining Darwin zero, instead of attacking the messenger.

Mind if I have a try at this?
General notes
1) fortunately Darwin Australia is not the entire world; the author refers to the maxim "false in one false in all" which is a legal rather than scientific principle

2) evidently in it's history, the Darwin weather station has moved from the post office to the airport, been bombed by the Japanese, gone on and off of daylight savings time, and been converted from English to metric units. In the most recent paper I could find it is rated as a "3" for quality "4" or lower stations are not used in the temperature analysis

Specific to the WUWT (Wattsupwiththat) post:

1) the cooling trend in the raw data is clearly bogus. The data shows a step change of nearly a degree over a period of 1-2 years around 1940 plotting a line through a step change like this clearly not appropriate unless there was a physical reason for such an abrupt change in climate. Especially since the station was moved to the airport in '41

2) the author calculates the temperature anomaly using a reference period of 1880 to calculate anomalies. Although this is an arbitrary choice, 1961-90 or 1951-80 are the IPCC and GIS temp reference periods, respectively. Coincidentally, the 1950-1990 is the region where most of the corrections to the raw data happen, and using standard base period would cause the bulk of the temperature correction to be removed from the data

3) like I said base period for anomaly corrections is arbitrary, and using the 1961-90 base period would make the 1880-1940 period would give a more negative anomaly. But if I wanted to abuse the data to give a false trend, it would be easier to just shift 1880-1940 (post office) data down to match the post 1940 airport data rather than going to the trouble of creating a world wide homgenization program so fiendishly clever that it will undetectably bias a third rate weather station in the middle of no where. The author even says that such a correction would be reasonable (but doesn't do it, since it would wipe out the negative trend in the raw data)

4) The author always shows the correction graph plotted on a different scale and with a different zero than the anomaly data. He also doesn't mention that the correction is to the raw temperature data rather than to the anomaly, both of which tend to be misleading

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Try explaining Darwin zero, instead of attacking the messenger.

Mind if I have a try at this?
General notes
1) fortunately Darwin Australia is not the entire world; the author refers to the maxim "false in one false in all" which is a legal rather than scientific principle

It also shows that the until we know how the program is making the adjustments, that the adjustments cannot be counted on to be correct.

Quote

2) evidently in it's history, the Darwin weather station has moved from the post office to the airport, been bombed by the Japanese, gone on and off of daylight savings time, and been converted from English to metric units. In the most recent paper I could find it is rated as a "3" for quality "4" or lower stations are not used in the temperature analysis

It also has 5 different stations over the course of time, several of which are very close matches in raw data to the Darwin zero station. So why adjust it in the first place?

Quote

Specific to the WUWT (Wattsupwiththat) post:

1) the cooling trend in the raw data is clearly bogus.

How do you figure that?

Quote

The data shows a step change of nearly a degree over a period of 1-2 years around 1940 plotting a line through a step change like this clearly not appropriate unless there was a physical reason for such an abrupt change in climate. Especially since the station was moved to the airport in '41

That is the start of the GHCN "adjustment", evidently.

Quote

2) the author calculates the temperature anomaly using a reference period of 1880 to calculate anomalies. Although this is an arbitrary choice, 1961-90 or 1951-80 are the IPCC and GIS temp reference periods, respectively. Coincidentally, the 1950-1990 is the region where most of the corrections to the raw data happen, and using standard base period would cause the bulk of the temperature correction to be removed from the data

By 'anomaly' you mean 'GHCN adjustment of the record', right?
Regardless, I still disagree - otherwise there would be a negative 'anomaly' shown until around 1930 due to the downward trend in the raw data. Since there is not, he is not 'basing his calculations from an 1880 base period' at all, but showing the delta between the raw data and the GHCN "adjustments".

Quote

3) like I said base period for anomaly corrections is arbitrary, and using the 1961-90 base period would make the 1880-1940 period would give a more negative anomaly. But if I wanted to abuse the data to give a false trend, it would be easier to just shift 1880-1940 (post office) data down to match the post 1940 airport data rather than going to the trouble of creating a world wide homgenization program so fiendishly clever that it will undetectably bias a third rate weather station in the middle of no where. The author even says that such a correction would be reasonable (but doesn't do it, since it would wipe out the negative trend in the raw data)

"so fiendishly clever that it will undetectably bias a third rate weather station in the middle of no where"

The poster didn't make that claim - too bad, since it deprives you of the 'paranoia stick' you were trying to swing.

Again, the author is showing the delta of the adjustments, not any sort of plotted anomaly vs. a base period.

Quote

4) The author always shows the correction graph plotted on a different scale and with a different zero than the anomaly data. He also doesn't mention that the correction is to the raw temperature data rather than to the anomaly, both of which tend to be misleading

Incorrect - zero and scale for the 'adjustments' are on the rh vertical.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,689]

Pinning your denial on one station out of hundreds, especially when its "anomaly" exists in the imagination of the right wing blogosphere, is rather desperate even for you.

Aside - just for those who equate weather with climate: if Chicago hits 80F tomorrow it will break the record for consecutive days above 80 degrees since record keeping began in the 19th Century. The forecast is 90+ through the weekend, so it looks as if the record will fall.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 390]

Mr. Kallend, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this chat room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[kallend 1,689]

Quote

Mr. Kallend, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this chat room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Irony score 10/10

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Pinning your denial on one station out of hundreds, especially when its "anomaly" exists in the imagination of the right wing blogosphere, is rather desperate even for you.

Pinning it? Not at all. Showing it as an example of how fucked up the 'adjustments' by the warmists are? Absolutely.

Your attempts to shoot the messenger show YOUR desperation nicely, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[metalslug 31]

Quote

Irony score 10/10

Pink Floyd lyrics come to mind here:

"Hey teacher, leave them kids alone."

[lawrocket 3]

So, John, I take it that you will join me in rebuking this piece as a piss poor propoganda piece? [Url]http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/extremes/2010-08-11-heatwaveonline_ST_N.htm?csp=34news[/url]

It's got that explicit statement about the east coast because out here in the West it's been really mild. (We average 36 days per year above 100 in Fresno. We've had, by my count, 18 this year. And it doesn't look like we'll even hit 25, being now at two weeks without a 100 degree day and none expected until next week.)

And also that it's been so mild that Los Angeles may have the coolest summer recorded? (When taking heat island into account that's hardcore!)

And also that such a piece doesn't mention last year's east coast summer without a summer?

Please join me in putting this out there as utter shite propaganda.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,689]

From your linked article:

"But can this summer's heat be directly attributed to global warming?

Staudt concedes that it can't, as does Chris Fenimore, a physical scientist at the National Climatic Data Center, who was not part of the study: "It's not really possible to pin a single event on climate change.""



Weather isn't climate. You know that, I know that, mnealtx knows it, and the author of your article clearly knows it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.