No global warming since 1995?

[GreNME]

Glad you found the links interesting. I know how they plan on getting the system to work in places like Hawaii and Israel, but I'm less sure in how they plan on making the program work (feasibly) in places like Ontario or even the San Francisco area. I suppose that getting the capital up-front and building up infrastructure that's dealing with low margins to start off will be used to convince others to build infrastructure, or at least that's the hope. I'm of the opinion that the plan as it's moving forward will see more success in Israel and in Hawaii first. The cars and the underlying technology really aren't the huge hurdle that needs to be overcome at this point, it's the infrastructure that stands in the way. The only way to promote changes to the infrastructure would be to make it seem profitable or at least tax deductible, and so far the incentives versus the up-front costs have been out of balance in the direction against sweeping changes. But who knows-- maybe programs like this will begin to shift the balance.

 

[BeAChooser]

oh...so we should expect to see the Arctic and Antarctic pack ice to start growing again? the glaciers at Glacier National Park will be returning? Greenland's ice will start to return?

No more than we should expect the pack ice and glaciers to return to their extent 20000 years ago?

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9902/03/antarctic.ice.sheet/

But all is not lost:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.

... snip ...

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. "

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

 

[easycruise]

First, who is going to do the work those 7 are doing?
Second, are you going to UPS the station to it's site?
Third, when the station gets buried under the snow (say, in the second week after deployment) who is going to dig them out?
Fourth, during the long, long winter, who is going to maintain the station?
Fifth, how are they going to reach it?
Sixth, whose toes are you stepping on when deploying the stations.

The Arctic ice moves around, Antarctica is strictly managed by international agreement.



And who is going to do the work of those 160 climatologists?



So your problem is politics mixed with a lack of understanding of how science works. You seem to be under the impression that science is run with abundant funds, and that everyone that gets a degree has a cushy place waiting for them, and are thus expendable.

Maybe that's how it works in the US, but I doubt it. It is not even close to what goes on in Europe.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If you have 1,600 climatologists on the payroll, there are obviously "abundant funds". And will you actually miss a mere 7 of them? Very doubtful. I even doubt you will miss 10% of them. Corporations downsize all the time, as technology replaces people. You would think that will also happen in science circles. Prioritize the projects they are working on now, and cancel the ones at the bottom of the list. All in the justifiable pursuit of actually having REAL temperature readings.

Third, when the station gets buried under the snow (say, in the second week after deployment) who is going to dig them out?""

""How much does it snow in Antarctica?
# Precipitation, nearly all as snow, occurs frequently over much of Antarctica, but is light.
# The total fall varies considerably from year to year. The scantiness of the snowfall is evident on the polar plateau, where over large areas annual amounts are less than 3 centimeters (water-equivalent).
# Annual snow accumulation on Ross Island averages 17.6 centimeters in water equivalent, but accumulation over the polar plateau to the west of the Dry Valleys is considerably less.""

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/science/meteorology.shtml

""Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.""

""Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.""

"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs""

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231

More shenaningans, Upchurch!

 

[easycruise]

This was discussed a while back on JREF and I recall challenging any of the local Warmers to actually use the raw data to argue from.

None took this challenge, and I see that here, Upchurch argues ad hominem.

Standard Warmer practice.

And their alarmism is losing them the debate as well...

""In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.""

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

 

[Megalodon]

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. If you have 1,600 climatologists on the payroll, there are obviously "abundant funds".

Not at all. It only means that you have 1600 climatologists in the payroll.

And will you actually miss a mere 7 of them? Very doubtful. I even doubt you will miss 10% of them.

You are not talking about janitors or pencil-pushers. You are talking about highly specialized professionals. You would miss the 7.

Corporations downsize all the time, as technology replaces people. You would think that will also happen in science circles.

Academia is not a corporation and it's not run like a corporation. In academia or scientific institutions, scientists bring external funding that a lot of times is above the value of their paycheck. that's how science advances, from project to project. It's much more likely to raise the funding for extra weather stations by having those 7 writing a proposal than by firing them.

But then, the funding agencies will have to accept the project.

Prioritize the projects they are working on now, and cancel the ones at the bottom of the list.

I doubt it works like this there, and it definitely doesn't work like this here. a project is a project. Either you meet the deadlines, or you jeopardize your future funding.

All in the justifiable pursuit of actually having REAL temperature readings.

We have real temperature readings. The fact that they can be improved doesn't justify anything, because a network of sensors can always be improved.

""Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.""

"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs""

So NOAA eliminated 75% of the world's stations? Really?

 

[BeAChooser]

So NOAA eliminated 75% of the world's stations? Really?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/

EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature data

… snip ...

The list of problems central to the global warming fraud just doesn't seem to end. As if hiding and losing data, the numerous errors in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the suppression of academic research that disagrees with global warming weren't bad enough, now comes word that basic ground-based temperature data may have been biased towards incorrectly showing temperature increases.

Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org, are well-known and well-respected scientists. On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Watts provide some amazing graphs showing that the jumps in measured global temperature occurred just when the number of weather stations was cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Unfortunately, all three terrestrial global-temperature data sets (by NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of East Anglia) really rely on the same measures of surface temperatures.

… snip …

The findings by Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Watts also explain some puzzles that have bothered researchers. For example, land-based temperatures have been rising while satellite-based measures haven't shown the same increase since 1990. Their answer is that at that point in time, the elimination of weather stations produced a false measured increase in temperatures that didn't affect the satellite readings.

 

[lomiller]

Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org, are well-known and well-respected scientists.

In fact they are not. Neither has ever published a paper in a peer reviewed journal on the topic of climate.

D’Aleo does press releases for icecap, a special interest group funded by the energy to fight action on climate change.

Watts is a retired TV weatherman. In fact his 3 year degree doesn’t even qualify him for the American Meteorological Societies current accreditation. (He does hold their retired accreditation which they do still honor, they just won’t issue any new accreditations under it because they found the standard insufficient.)

 

[BeAChooser]

Neither has ever published a paper in a peer reviewed journal on the topic of climate.

Gee, I wonder if that might have something to do with the Global Warming scientists who were boasting about pressuring journals to not publish articles by anyone challenging global warming.

And are you really trying to claim that the number of climate measuring stations hasn't gone from 6000 to 1500?

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

 

[Skeptic]

The problem with both sides quoting scientists is that science doesn't work that way. It's no good quoting scientist A vs. scientist B on anything. What matters is what the scientific community -- the result of many, many discussions between scientists of differnet opinions -- thinks. It, too, of course, can be wrong, but that's another issue.