15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

I understand it fairly well, which is why your statement "the only response possible is warming," is wrong.

As for saying that "responsible people who do, will solve the problem," how is that working out so far? Your side is losing. It appears to me that this group of "experts" is almost as good at PR and policy as they are at data analysis and software development.

Do what no other denier has never done here before. Show us some science that theorizes a different response.

How much is being invested now in obsolete energy? New oil wells? Coal mines? Fossil power plants? Gas guzzler cars?

The debate is over. You have never had any science on your side. Your shut down of Congress has made you virtually unelectable for decades. There term conservative investor is an oxymoron. What exactly are you winning? You still have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on your side?

"Obsolete energy?"

A graph illustrating the fallacy of your claim has already been posted by someone else here:

I generally support alternative energy because it's more sustainable and when properly developed it will be much less expensive and more efficient than fossil fuels. But don't fool yourself into thinking that any of that is going to happen soon.

We determine how rapidly the transition will occur. I agree that there is an economic sweet spot between too rapidly and too slowly. Mostly that will be explored by investors including the taxpayer through government.

The biggest opportunity at the present is just to slow down throwing good energy away for no benefit, just because we remember it as so cheap. Waste is rampant in our obsolete energy system.

 

[skookerasbil]

Do what no other denier has never done here before. Show us some science that theorizes a different response.

How much is being invested now in obsolete energy? New oil wells? Coal mines? Fossil power plants? Gas guzzler cars?

The debate is over. You have never had any science on your side. Your shut down of Congress has made you virtually unelectable for decades. There term conservative investor is an oxymoron. What exactly are you winning? You still have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on your side?

"Obsolete energy?"

A graph illustrating the fallacy of your claim has already been posted by someone else here:

I generally support alternative energy because it's more sustainable and when properly developed it will be much less expensive and more efficient than fossil fuels. But don't fool yourself into thinking that any of that is going to happen soon.

We determine how rapidly the transition will occur. I agree that there is an economic sweet spot between too rapidly and too slowly. Mostly that will be explored by investors including the taxpayer through government.

The biggest opportunity at the present is just to slow down throwing good energy away for no benefit, just because we remember it as so cheap. Waste is rampant in our obsolete energy system.

Fascinating.......guy references Bertrand Russell in his sig and states "we determine how rapidly the transition will occur."


As I have noted many times in this forum, the hyper-progressives never, ever factor "costs" into their thinking on virtually any subject, but most notably on the issue of global warming/energy production. Last year the UN calculated the cost of going green: 71 trillion dollars. Only hyperprogressives look at that number and say "meh".......


Fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades and decades.....100% certainty. The only thing that may change that is a discovery of an energy form we currently do not posses......but anybody who thinks that solar/wind will ever be anything more than a fringe market is somebody who will be on 10 North of the local hospital sooner or later.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you don't understand college level physics and chemistry, there is no way for you to understand what I said.

What's good for the world is that whether you do or not doesn't matter. Responsible people who do, will solve the problem no matter what you know or think.

I understand it fairly well, which is why your statement "the only response possible is warming," is wrong.

As for saying that "responsible people who do, will solve the problem," how is that working out so far? Your side is losing. It appears to me that this group of "experts" is almost as good at PR and policy as they are at data analysis and software development.

Do what no other denier has never done here before. Show us some science that theorizes a different response.

How much is being invested now in obsolete energy? New oil wells? Coal mines? Fossil power plants? Gas guzzler cars?

The debate is over. You have never had any science on your side. Your shut down of Congress has made you virtually unelectable for decades. There term conservative investor is an oxymoron. What exactly are you winning? You still have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on your side?

So, please share your proposed solution to the problem.

 

[skookerasbil]

These assholes don't have a solution that works in the real world......which is why ultimately, nobody takes them seriously. Not my opinion......verified with facts. Just look at the slug-like pace of the growth of solar and wind in the past 10 years ( stats compared to fossil fuels.....not against themselves which is total BS). It laughable......and investment in both have fallen like a stone in water in the past 3 years!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

The more people I have seen that say things such as "the fact of AGW is a scientific given," the more I have come to realize that they never actually took a look at the processes used to glean these trends. Since the raw data from historic GHCN temperature readings are now gone, the fix is in.

Since you claim that "the only response possible is warming," why have there not been record highs every day? Why has the warming paused while the GHG concentrations have shot up continuously?

If you don't understand college level physics and chemistry, there is no way for you to understand what I said.

What's good for the world is that whether you do or not doesn't matter. Responsible people who do, will solve the problem no matter what you know or think.

I understand it fairly well, which is why your statement "the only response possible is warming," is wrong.

No, ass-ism, you don't understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect. You've made that very clear. Your delusion that you do understand it all, even better than the professional scientists too, is a common one among ignorant retards like yourself and it is a product of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

A simple summery of the physics that makes PMZ's statement correct and your delusions wrong.

Greenhouse effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]

 

[RollingThunder]

Since the raw data from historic GHCN temperature readings are now gone, the fix is in.

More delusional BS and crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense.

You don't know that much of the raw data is gone do you? That's not crackpot nonsense, it's fact. That's been my issue for about 10 years now, that the data has not been handled correctly. Even data that is called "raw" is adjusted, averaged, and "homogenized." Raw station data (temperature readings, dates, times, locations) are not available for many time periods and stations.

You don't know much...period. Your denier cult myth about the "raw data" being "thrown out" or "gone" is indeed crackpot nonsense, you poor gullible fool. Your denier cult delusions about how the data has supposedly been mis-handled are also crackpot nonsense. You've been duped by the clever propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry.

My error. I used the term GHCN when I was talking about climate data in general. CRU data is referenced in these articles.

Climate Change Scandal: Raw Data Tossed

Global Warming ate my data ? The Register

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

LOLOLOLOL....oh, ass-ism, you are soooo gullible...

Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data
Media Matters
December 1, 2009
(excerpts)
Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

CRU scientist: "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there." According to an October 14 Greenwire article, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center." The article said that Jones' statement came after the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) "blasted the research unit for the 'suspicious destruction of its original data.' " The article further noted that Jones "said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all" and that "[t]he research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said."

At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies. Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. "When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world." Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

well look at the good side of a "Frozen Alaskla" at least the skaters will never have to worry about falling thru cracked ice and have to fight off those "Shark-Nados".

 

[RollingThunder]

well look at the good side of a "Frozen Alaskla" at least the skaters will never have to worry about falling thru cracked ice and have to fight off those "Shark-Nados".

It won't be long before we're all going to be wishing that Alaska was still frozen...

Study finds permafrost thaw, glacier melt releasing methane
Reuters
By Yereth Rosen
May 21, 2012
(excerpts)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - (Reuters) - Methane from underground reservoirs is streaming from thawing permafrost and receding glaciers, contributing to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere, a study led by scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has found. The study, published online on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first to document leakage of deep geologic methane from warming permafrost and receding glaciers, said its lead author, Katey Walter Anthony. Release of methane into the atmosphere from any source is troubling because methane has far more potent greenhouse powers than carbon dioxide, climate scientists say. Methane has more than 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers said. Scientists have speculated about such methane releases and modeling has predicted that it would happen as the cryosphere - the earth's layer of ice and frozen ground - softens and melts, Walter Anthony said in a telephone news conference on Monday. "But no one had ever shown that it was occurring or that it was a widespread phenomenon," she said. "This paper really is the first time that we see with field evidence that this type of geologic methane is escaping as the cryosphere retreats."

The leaking geologic methane identified by Walter Anthony and her colleagues comes from such sources as underground coal beds and conventional natural gas reservoirs. Those are fossil fuels that energy companies target in drilling operations. It differs from the methane streaming from decaying plant and animal matter at the bottom of warming Alaska lakes, a phenomenon that Walter Anthony has studied for about a decade.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

Next summer will be the second "Warmer Than Usual Summer" test. if they have back to back warmer summers, then we can all buy stock in fans and air-conditioning units.

 

[asterism]

More delusional BS and crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense.

You don't know that much of the raw data is gone do you? That's not crackpot nonsense, it's fact. That's been my issue for about 10 years now, that the data has not been handled correctly. Even data that is called "raw" is adjusted, averaged, and "homogenized." Raw station data (temperature readings, dates, times, locations) are not available for many time periods and stations.

You don't know much...period. Your denier cult myth about the "raw data" being "thrown out" or "gone" is indeed crackpot nonsense, you poor gullible fool. Your denier cult delusions about how the data has supposedly been mis-handled are also crackpot nonsense. You've been duped by the clever propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry.

My error. I used the term GHCN when I was talking about climate data in general. CRU data is referenced in these articles.

Climate Change Scandal: Raw Data Tossed

Global Warming ate my data ? The Register

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

LOLOLOLOL....oh, ass-ism, you are soooo gullible...

Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data
Media Matters
December 1, 2009
(excerpts)
Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

CRU scientist: "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there." According to an October 14 Greenwire article, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center." The article said that Jones' statement came after the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) "blasted the research unit for the 'suspicious destruction of its original data.' " The article further noted that Jones "said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all" and that "[t]he research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said."

At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies. Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. "When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world." Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."

This should be an easy proof.

Post the data. Don't post statements from someone else, post the actual raw data.

 

[RollingThunder]

This should be an easy proof.

Post the data. Don't post statements from someone else, post the actual raw data.

OK, here you go - CRU Data - Temperature

and

Land surface climate station records
Download a subset of the full HadCRUT3 record of global temperatures.

Now we come to the amusing place where we all realize that you wouldn't know what to do with "raw data" if it bit you.

 

[asterism]

This should be an easy proof.

Post the data. Don't post statements from someone else, post the actual raw data.

OK, here you go - CRU Data - Temperature

Now we come to the amusing place where we all realize that you wouldn't know what to do with "raw data" if it bit you.

So explain this:

Temperature station data

Station data file

Header file - as above
Year followed by 12 monthly temperatures in degrees and tenths (with -999 being missing)

Are you aware that a monthly temperature is not raw data, it is in fact some type of average? That's not raw data. As I have posted previously, the methods used are not sound and the raw data doesn't exist.

Show some actual raw data.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

and remember when their version of wal-mart ran out of fans in july?

 

[PMZ]

"Obsolete energy?"

A graph illustrating the fallacy of your claim has already been posted by someone else here:

I generally support alternative energy because it's more sustainable and when properly developed it will be much less expensive and more efficient than fossil fuels. But don't fool yourself into thinking that any of that is going to happen soon.

We determine how rapidly the transition will occur. I agree that there is an economic sweet spot between too rapidly and too slowly. Mostly that will be explored by investors including the taxpayer through government.

The biggest opportunity at the present is just to slow down throwing good energy away for no benefit, just because we remember it as so cheap. Waste is rampant in our obsolete energy system.

Fascinating.......guy references Bertrand Russell in his sig and states "we determine how rapidly the transition will occur."


As I have noted many times in this forum, the hyper-progressives never, ever factor "costs" into their thinking on virtually any subject, but most notably on the issue of global warming/energy production. Last year the UN calculated the cost of going green: 71 trillion dollars. Only hyperprogressives look at that number and say "meh".......


Fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades and decades.....100% certainty. The only thing that may change that is a discovery of an energy form we currently do not posses......but anybody who thinks that solar/wind will ever be anything more than a fringe market is somebody who will be on 10 North of the local hospital sooner or later.

I like the conservative approach to problem solving. Ignore them and believe that that's cheaper than solving them.

 

[Abraham3]

NASA climate modeler: "The original data is curated at the met services where it originated." In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: "No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated."

How long before someone repeats the claim that CRU destroyed data? A week? A day? An hour?

 

[RollingThunder]

You have no idea what you're talking about, ass-ism. You just endlessly parrot long since debunked denier cult myths and misinformation.


OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted
New Scientist
by Andy Coghlan
28 July 2011
(excerpts)
Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public. "We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says Trevor Davies, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we've released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing." The university were ordered to release data by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, following a freedom-of-information request for the raw data from researchers Jonathan Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, UK. Davies says that the university initially refused on the grounds that the data is not owned by the CRU but by the national meteorological organisations that collect the data and share it with the CRU. When the CRU's refusal was overruled by the information commissioner, the UK Met Office was recruited to act as a go-between and obtain permission to release all the data. Poland refused, and the information commissioner overruled Trinidad and Tobago's wish for the data it supplied on latitudes between 30 degrees north and 40 degrees south to be withheld, as it had been specifically requested by Jones and Keiller in their FOI request and previously shared with other academics. The end result is that all the records are there, except for Poland's.

Davies is confident that genuine and proper analysis of the raw data will reproduce the same incontrovertible conclusion – that global temperatures are rising. "The conclusion is very robust," he says, explaining that the CRU's dataset of land temperatures tally with those from other independent research groups around the world, including those generated by the NOAA and NASA. "Should people undertake analyses and come up with different conclusions, the way to present them is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, so we know it's been through scientific quality control," says Davies.

 

[asterism]

Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

The problem is that none of the actual raw data is there. They have all been adjusted, averaged, and normalized.

This archive: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/zip/e/0/station_files.20110720.zip has invidividual files for each of the stations. Inside each of the station files are the entire history for that station expressed only as monthly average anomalies.

That's the problem, most of the "science is settled" crowd hasn't looked at the raw data used to create these average anomalies. They take it as true. As the climategate emails have shown, the programs used to process this data are severely lacking in skill and education on the part of the programmers.

 

[asterism]

You have no idea what you're talking about, ass-ism. You just endlessly parrot long since debunked denier cult myths and misinformation.


OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted
New Scientist
by Andy Coghlan
28 July 2011
(excerpts)
Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public. "We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says Trevor Davies, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we've released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing." The university were ordered to release data by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, following a freedom-of-information request for the raw data from researchers Jonathan Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, UK. Davies says that the university initially refused on the grounds that the data is not owned by the CRU but by the national meteorological organisations that collect the data and share it with the CRU. When the CRU's refusal was overruled by the information commissioner, the UK Met Office was recruited to act as a go-between and obtain permission to release all the data. Poland refused, and the information commissioner overruled Trinidad and Tobago's wish for the data it supplied on latitudes between 30 degrees north and 40 degrees south to be withheld, as it had been specifically requested by Jones and Keiller in their FOI request and previously shared with other academics. The end result is that all the records are there, except for Poland's.

Davies is confident that genuine and proper analysis of the raw data will reproduce the same incontrovertible conclusion – that global temperatures are rising. "The conclusion is very robust," he says, explaining that the CRU's dataset of land temperatures tally with those from other independent research groups around the world, including those generated by the NOAA and NASA. "Should people undertake analyses and come up with different conclusions, the way to present them is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, so we know it's been through scientific quality control," says Davies.

I already found my way there following your other link. There's no raw data there. The data is adjusted and averaged. There are no raw temperature readings in any of those files.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is where the raw data is supposedly kept:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Land surface climate station records - Met Office

The problem is that none of the actual raw data is there. They have all been adjusted, averaged, and normalized.

Actually the raw data is there. You're just too stupid and brainwashed to be competent to recognize it, ass-ism.

As the climategate emails have shown, the programs used to process this data are severely lacking in skill and education on the part of the programmers.

Wrong again. You're just a clueless ignorant f-khead parroting the lies you've been fed by propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry.