Global warming is real


#1243

Wildrose, this argument about heat island effect and temperatures…are you claiming that we aren’t seeing global warming?


#1244

Can you show that they have? With so few rural reporting stations before the last half century just exactly how did they do that?

It’s only been since WWII that we even had reliable temperature recordings for about 90% of the planet.


#1245

As I’ve repeatedly stated innumerable times I don’t believe we have enough accurate and reliable data to know how much warming has actually occurred.

We certainly don’t have enough to say definitively how much if any is attributable to AGW/CO2.


#1246

Right. There are exceptions. I was hoping that the participants of this thread would understand that. But … I hoped too much.

Show the definitive science and validation of the technique used to make this “adjustment”. Show that it is correct under all conditions for which the “adjusted” measurement will be used. After that…Show the controls that are used to ensure that the validated “adjustment” technique is performed correctly.


#1247

Ish why can’t these people simply say “we don’t know” and “man may be contributing to global warming but we have no basis for even attempting to say how much”?

Other than money that is of course.


#1248

1/3 of 3 is 1%, not .625%. Basic math.


#1249

Dont you know all those stupid scientists out to get us never even thought about the sun?!


#1250

1/3 of 3 is 33%. @Samm help us out here


#1251

Did you read the cite? It specifically said that in the absence of nearby rural stations the urban station was omitted.


#1252

Dude. I said paved. You said urban. When I look outside my house, I see green and gray.

Sloppy, Wildrose. Very sloppy on your part.


#1253

funny. Another Democrat stating things as a fact with no solid proof. Just more Theory’s


#1254

Adjustments are neither positive nor negative. Scientists adjust data all the time. Hopefully they provide a good rationale and explanation of the method.

I was on a field trial recently and had to use proxy data due to a loss of gauges. The proxy data had to be adjusted since it was not a direct measurement. It worked fine.

Shouldn’t you be asking GISS?


#1255

[/quote]

Anecdotal.

We are talking about a technique that is supposedly being used in every city where temperature data is collected for use in global warming calculations… not your “field trial”.


#1257

GISS is not posting here.

And besides…I’m not as enamored with NASA as you are when we are talking about Earth’s climate.
N …National
A …Aeronautics
S …Space
A…Administration

Smart people, in general. I worked with JPL and even published with them. But there is no C (for climate) or E (for Earth) in NASA.


#1258

Sure it’s anecdotal. I just thought I would share my anecdote.

The pint is he use if adjustments to data is pretty common. If done properly, no big deal.


#1259

Then go find them and ask.


#1260

What does any of this have to do with the science of global warming?


#1262

It doesn’t matter if there’s a billion more planets than stars. Space is so vast the odds of an interaction are minute.


#1263

You don’t get more accuracy by picking and choosing data. That’s how you introduce bias.


#1264

I made that same point.
That IS the point.
That is also the most difficult thing to prove but is done so in reputable research where the results will guide public policy or safety of life issues. I’m not taking it for granted.