quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: You’re, trying to quote Occam’s razor to me? Ok, now that I’ve stopped laughing I will go on.

More proof of your self-righteous sense of inflated superiority causing you to look foolish... since Occam's Razor has no application in what I said or this argument.

We do not have competing theories making the exact same predictions! So show me how Occam's Razor applies!?

That being said...

You blindly ignore the 2009 report that detailed the survey of 860 of the 1221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service/NOAA. A survey conducted by 650 volunteers that found 89 percent of the climate-monitoring stations surveyed failed to meet NWS' own site installation requirements. And you have the balls to post photos of 5 correctly installed stations as proof that the claims of the data being corrupted are bogus.

Take a gander and the report.. with over 100 photos of examples of how the sites are corrupted.

Maybe you'd care to address from the report how changing to latex paint for the Stevenson housings negatively impacted the data collected, causing higher readings.

Or how missing data was filled in by NWS with data from other sources... or how models were used.

But I'm sure you'll just scoff, ignore the report, and go on insulting my and others' intelligence to continue to fill your need for superiority.

Climate-monitoring station survey

"10 July 1913, World Record High Temp

Death Valley: 134º F

In case you missed it, there was a town near Bumfuq, Libya that had claimed the high-temperature record for many years, but it was thrown out last year, leaving Death Valley's 1913 high temperature record of 134º F set on this day a hundred years ago as the world's record.

Normally new records for just about everything get set simply as random variation exceeds the previous limit, but in this case, the world's temperatures probably peaked about a hundred years ago. The Earth's mean temperature follows a regular cycle with a period of several hundred thousand years, so it's difficult to predict exactly where we are on this much larger cycle."

Greg, he start by bringing up websites from some government organization and these will be facts according to him and those reports you have are nothing but bullshyt.

Unfawking unbelievable the mentality of ppl like English, old man and now Stanley.

You 3 stooges are a joke.

Maybe you 3 should just follow Russian e-mails and faux news like old man does.

A near sighted announcer, an old man stuck on stupid and now a 4 hour fuse changer.

Follow the money and blame the government.

Dumb..Dumber....and Dumbest.......

Oh shiott, I can't stop laughing........

Boobjob buys into he hoax master like he bought into Ofailure...

quote:

The Earth's mean temperature follows a regular cycle with a period of several hundred thousand years, so it's difficult to predict exactly where we are on this much larger cycle."

There you go bringing facts and logic into the argument. How dare you?

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:

You blindly ignore the 2009 report that detailed the survey of 860 of the 1221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service/NOAA. A survey conducted by 650 volunteers that found 89 percent of the climate-monitoring stations surveyed failed to meet NWS' own site installation requirements. And you have the balls to post photos of 5 correctly installed stations as proof that the claims of the data being corrupted are bogus.

Take a gander and the report.. with over 100 photos of examples of how the sites are corrupted.

Maybe you'd care to address from the report how changing to latex paint for the Stevenson housings negatively impacted the data collected, causing higher readings.

Or how missing data was filled in by NWS with data from other sources... or how models were used.

But I'm sure you'll just scoff, ignore the report, and go on insulting my and others' intelligence to continue to fill your need for superiority.

Climate-monitoring station survey

Well at last, after two or three years of your incessant frothing at the mouth on this topic it seems you have given me enough specific information in the form of the link you provided to more fully understand what it is you are talking about. Thank you.

So even though you provide me with your “proof” in the form of a single source that is undoubtedly among the most disreputable of all time, the Heartland Institute and there author Andy Watts, I will try and take their offerings at face value.

For those not aware you should remember the Heartland Institute from days gone by as the wonderful group that advocated (ran a disinformation campaign) for the tobacco industry for years and years, in an attempt to delude the public into thinking there is no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer or emphysema as well as a host of other medical conditions, yeah that group. Then what can you say about Andy Watts and his Watts up with that web site, his whole business model is to pump as much highly controversial krap out to drive his site hits up. More site hits means more income for Andy. Is that what you mean by follow the money Mikey?

None the less I read the Heartland opinion piece and have to point out we have been talking about two different but complementary data gathering systems. You are speaking about the old USHCN network (US historic climate network) while I am speaking about and showed you just a few examples of the more than 100 new USCRN "REFERENCE" sites(US climate reference network). The opinion piece by Watts and promulgated by Heartland you linked to, which is what it is an opinion piece (more like disinformation campaign), is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, all that aside, in the body of the text it says this, and the author is speaking,

“I wondered if other researchers had expressed concern about the quality of the U.S. temperature record and found they had. In 2003, NCDC recognized that the existing USHCN network had problems and commissioned the new Climate Reference Network (CRN) to replace the old USHCN network. “

I have to point out that Anthony is conflating the “temperature record” with the “quality of the sites” in the network, they are distinctly different things.

So it is apparent that most everyone involved, that is in the actual science, knew about the problems in siting and started fixing them ten or more years ago. Yet you and other here are still frothing at the mouth over an opinion piece that came out five years after the problems had already been identified and was already being fixed and dealt with in a number of ways.

So now let’s take another step and look at how the older USHCN network is used, after all those facilities are not just going to disappear overnight. One of the things we find on the top page of the USHCN website is this:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl...cn/#menne.et.al.2010

Station siting and U.S. surface temperature trends

Photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the USHCN has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, The Menne et al. (2010) compared trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations using both unadjusted and bias-adjusted data. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years Menne et al. (2009).

Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures.

Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature (see also Fall, S. (2011)). Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). This network was designed with the highest standards for climate monitoring and has none of the siting and instrument exposure problems present in USHCN.

The close correspondence in nationally averaged temperature from these two networks is further evidence that the adjusted USHCN data provide an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.

The Menne et al. (2010) results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data which do not indicate that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

Four sets of USCHN stations were used in the Menne et al. (2010) analysis. Set 1 includes stations identified as having good siting by the volunteers at surfacestations.org. Set 2 is a subset of set 1 consisting of the set 1 stations whose ratings are in general agreement with an independent assessment by NOAA’s National Weather Service. Set 3 are those stations with moderate to poor siting ratings according to surfacestations.org. Set 4 is a subset of set 3 consisting of the set 3 stations whose ratings are in agreement with an independent assessment by NOAA’s National Weather Service. For further information, please see Menne et al. (2010). The set of Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor (MMTS) stations and Cotton Region Shelter (Stevenson Screen) sites used in Menne et al. (2010) are also available (see the "readme.txt" file as described below for a description of the station list format). Access to the unadjusted, time of observation adjusted, and fully adjusted USHCN version 2 temperature data is described below.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...y/menne-etal2010.pdf

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...nne-williams2009.pdf

I mean, who would have guessed that this ignorant passel of hoaxers involved in the world’s largest scientific conspiracy would go to all the bother of actually applying corrections and quality control to sites with known site problems.

While I do not normally include a complete list of reference materials and authors I will this time. I am going to ask these simple questions, are each and every one of these people part of the supposed vast conspiracy to dupe the American public? And, if so, just how the he11 do they keep it so quiet?

Or are you just a credulous buffoon who believes in every conspiracy, concocted by known liars, that comes down the pike.



References
• Alexandersson, H. and A. Moberg, 1997: Homogenization of Swedish temperature data. Part I: Homogeneity test for linear trends. Int. J. Climatol., 17, 25-34.
• Baker, D. G., 1975: Effect of observation time on mean temperature estimation. J. Appl. Meteor., 14, 471-476.
• Durre I., M. J. B.E. Gleason, T. G. Houston, and R. S. Vose, 2010: Comprehensive automated quality assurance of daily surface observations. J. Applied Meteor. and Climatol., 49, 1615-1633. ( PDF Version )
• Easterling, D. R., T. R. Karl, E.H. Mason, P. Y. Hughes, and D. P. Bowman. 1996. United States Historical Climatology Network (U.S. HCN) Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Data. ORNL/CDIAC-87. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Easterling, D. R., T. R. Karl, J. H. Lawrimore, and S. A. Del Greco. 1999. United States Historical Climatology Network Daily Temperature, Precipitation, and Snow Data for 1871-1997. ORNL/CDIAC-118. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. R. Christy, and R. A. Pielke Sr. (2011), Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.
• Hughes, P. Y., E. H. Mason, T. R. Karl, and W. A. Brower. 1992. United States Historical Climatology Network Daily Temperature and Precipitation Data. ORNL/CDIAC-50. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Karl, T. R., C. N. Williams, Jr., and F. T. Quinlan. 1990. United States Historical Climatology Network (HCN) Serial Temperature and Precipitation Data. ORNL/CDIAC-30. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Karl, T.R., H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: its detection and effect in the United States climate record, J. Climate, 1, 1099-1123 (PDF Version) .
• Karl, T.R., C.N. Williams, Jr., P.J. Young, and W.M. Wendland, 1986: A model to estimate the time of observation bias associated with monthly mean maximum, minimum, and mean temperature for the United States, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 145-160.
• Karl, T.R., and C.N. Williams Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744-1763.
• Karl, T.R, H. F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: Its detection and effect in the United States climate record. J. Climate, 1, 10991123. (PDF Version)
• Quayle, R. G., D. R. Easterling, T. R. Karl, and P. Y. Hughes, 1991: Effects of recent thermometer changes in the Cooperative Station Network. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 72, 17181723. (PDF Version)
• Lawrimore, J.H., M.J. Menne, B.E. Gleason, C.N. Williams, D.B. Wuertz, R.S. Vose, and J. Rennie, 2011: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Mean Temperature Dataset, Version 3. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 116, D19121, doi:10.1029/2011JD016187. (PDF Version)
• Lund, R., and J. Reeves, 2002: Detection of undocumented changepoints: a revision of the two-phase regression model. J. Climate, 15, 2547-2554.
• Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr., 2005: Detection of undocumented changepoints using multiple test statistics and composite reference series. J. Climate, 18, 4271-4286 (PDF Version) .
• Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr., 2009: Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, 22, 1700-1717. ( PDF Version )
• Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, and R.S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data - Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 993-1107. (PDF Version)
• Menne, M.J., C.N. Willaims, Jr., and M.A. Palecki, 2010: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record. J. Geophys. Res. , doi:10.1029/2009JD013094, in press. (accepted 7 January 2010). (PDF Version)
• Menne, M.J., I. Durre, R.S. Vose, B.E. Gleason, and T.G. Houston, 2012: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology,, 29, 897-910. ( PDF Version ).
• Quinlan, F. T., T. R. Karl, and C. N. Williams, Jr. 1987. United States Historical Climatology Network (HCN) Serial Temperature and Precipitation Data. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Venema, V. K. C., O. Mestre, E. Aguilar, I. Auer, J.A. Guijarro, P. Domonkos, G. Vertacnik, T. Szentimrey, P. Stepanek, P. Zahradnicek, J. Viarre, G. Müller-Westermeier, M. Lakatos, C.N. Williams, M.J. Menne, R. Lindau, D. Rasol, E. Rustemeier, K. Kolokythas, T. Marinova, L. Andresen, F. Acquaotta, S. Fratianni, S. Cheval, M. Klancar, M. Brunetti, C. Gruber, M. Prohom Duran, T. Likso, P. Esteban, and T. Brandsma, 2012: Benchmarking homogenization algorithms for monthly data. Climates of the Past, 8, 89-115, doi:10.5194/cp-8-89-2012. ( PDF Version)
• Vose, R.S., C.N. Williams, T.C. Peterson, T.R. Karl, and D.R. Easterling, 2003: An evaluation of the time of observation bias adjustment in the US Historical Climatology Network. Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (20), 2046, doi:10.1029/ 2003GL018111.
• Vose, R.S., S. Applequist, M.J. Menne, C.N. Williams and P.W. Thorne: An intercomparison of temperature trends in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and recent atmospheric reanalyses. Geophyical.Research Letters, 39, L10703, doi:10.1029/2012GL051387. ( PDF Version)
• Wang, X.L., 2003: Comments on "Detection of undocumented changepoints: A revision of the two-phase model". J. Climate, 16, 3383-3385.
• Williams, C.N, M.J. Menne and J.H Lawrimore (2012a), Modifications to Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment software to improve run-time efficiency. NOAA Technical Report NCDC No. GHCNM-12-01R
• Williams, C.N, M.J. Menne and J.H Lawrimore (2012b), Modifications to Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment software to address coding errors and improve run-time efficiency. NOAA Technical Report NCDC No. GHCNM-12-02
• Williams, C.N., M.J. Menne, and P.W. Thorne, 2012c: Benchmarking the performance of pairwise homogenization of surface temperatures in the United States. Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres,. 117, D5, doi:10.1029/2011JD016761. ( PDF Version)

See Greg, I nailed it! Thanks Hoaxmaster!

littlemans copy and paste button must be worn out

Larry, you completely blew the theories of English and Stanley out of the water as you can already tell by the 1 liners of the simpletons who responded.

Common sense and having an open mind is something simpletons don't have.

They just blame the Govt. and follow the money as their only response.

English is 1 of those who just sticks his head out the window looking for climate change.

I guess his theory of following the money is linked to his past love encounters.

Lets wait and see if he can come up with a intelligent response.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:

WOW!!!!!

The Arctic summer is the shortest on record, less then half of the usual 90 days above freezing this year and the Arctic ice is already beginning to expand at a record rate!

I don't know where you are getting your data from, but you know what arctic ice extent isn't even at minimum yet. See the nice blue line its still going down, and will be for another month or so. The graphic below is from yesterday. So you know what it appears you are just another ignorant sh1t flinger. Do provide a link to your source of information if you please. Maybe you should call the National Snow and Ice Center in Boulder and let them know something is wrong with there info. Let me know how that works out for you. Oh I forgot they are just another one of the 100's of thousands of scientist in on the big hoax.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Larry Heath,

Probably from the hoax website you do Mr Hoaxmaster!

Well lookey here, if it isn't the old crotch grabber himself, taking a time out from his busy self abuse program, come to bestow his words of wisdom on us. Or is that bestow his witless words on us, the latter me thinks more likely.

Well I will tell you one thing for sure, the information in my posts aren't forcibly pull directly from the personal anal archive like the one BS Billy uses as his primary source of information. Though I wish I worked for an institution like National Snow and Ice Data Center, sadly I don't.

But you have a nice day, living life large I see, in the Land of the Hoax and the Home of the conspiracy, where nary a reality is to be seen.

Bill, look at his post, he wants to work at some of the leading hoaxmasters. Fit right in with all their little fairy tales.

Larry, you completely blew the theories of English and Stanley out of the water as you can already tell by the 1 liners of the simpletons who responded.

Common sense and having an open mind is something simpletons don't have.

They just blame the Govt. and follow the money as their only response.

English is 1 of those who just sticks his head out the window looking for climate change.

I guess his theory of following the money is linked to his past love encounters.

Lets wait and see if he can come up with a intelligent response.

I'd rather have my head out a window than up your Messiah's A S S like you and "Little Larry!"

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Combating FACT with propaganda!

BS Billy and his wingman.

You only have one call that is for sure Billy.

Larry, you completely blew

There goes Blow Job Bob talking about blowing people again

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:


... the world's temperatures probably peaked about a hundred years ago. "

Buddy this statement appears to me to be a big steaming load of Krap. Care to provide some form of evidence to support this assertion? Or are you just using the anal archive like BS Billy seems to be doing?

The graph below shows the Jan to June global average temp back to the 1880’s and it seems to show that a hundred years ago average temps were about 3 degrees cooler. Care to comment?

quote:

Care to comment?

No.

Hoaxking, has to run and find another website that says we are warming so he can post "look at me, I'm right"