We have been gored by Gore!

[lomiller]

You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations.

CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

 

[Sporanox]

Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot.

Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

 

[Sporanox]

CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

That is not the case.

Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.

More likely, it's because the "deniers" haven't invented time travel yet to grab the raw data from one hundred fifty years. That seems to be the time frame we're looking at, as far as I can tell.

 

[Upchurch]

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

Yeaaaah. This.

 

[Sporanox]

Yeaaaah. This.

No, this.

 

[lomiller]

That is not the case.

Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

 

[Dancing David]

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

 

[Sporanox]

Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about? By the way, CRU didn't use "national weather organizations." What they mean by weather stations are things like these:

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

From the OP's article. No, these are not weather stations manned by people that keep individual records.

 

[lomiller]

Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about?

a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

 

[Sporanox]

By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.

A sign of things to come?

 

[Sporanox]

a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. Now please stop talking about things you don't know about. It is clear that there was data that only CRU possessed that was key to their conclusions. Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. The data from those weather stations in China was incorrigibly compromised (and that doesn't even have to do with the other data fiasco).

Obviously CRU is not the keeper of all climate data in the world; just the stuff they based their conclusions on.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

I'm sorry Varwoche, but this clearly shows you have not read the article. The paper being disputed was from 1990. Urban heat islands was really an end of the eighties thing, like the Happy Mondays.

 

[lomiller]

Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

 

[varwoche]

Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.

Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)

 

[varwoche]

I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. ... Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again.

Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

 

[Sporanox]

Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.

Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)

You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that.

Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin?

 

[lomiller]

This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.

Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

 

[Sporanox]

Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

What you don't understand is that your mouth is not made of solid gold. Phil Jones co-published that research paper (referenced in the OP) with a Chinese-American researcher in 1990. Now, for some reason, it's hard to find when his term actually began at CRU - but if it did before 1990, that would be CRU actually taking in raw data from weather stations. Ahem. Perhaps you could be useful for once and find out if that is true or not.

 

[Sporanox]

The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

Oh, by the way...

The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.

2008. Now if you mean that the heat phenomenon is only slightly supposed to affect global warming, then you would be right according to what's come out so far. But it did seem you were implying something else.

 

[Thunder]

just out of curiosity, how to climatalogists adjust temperature readings to factor in various amounts of heat island effect?

a thermometer near grey concrete will have less of a heat island effect than near black asphalt.

wouldn't every single thermometer require a separate and unique heat island adjustment?