http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/21/visualizing-arctic-coverage/
And here is also a nice picture that demonstrates the decline in weather station data: link

Today things look even worse since they have dropped thousands of more stations since 2005.

@Tomas

Quote:

Today things look even worse since they have dropped thousands of more stations since 2005

So what is 'worse'?

The question is first why were the stations removed. Some were removed due to increased error factors of measurements. Eg they were slightly broken. Others were removed as the data was increasingly difficult to get.

To validate your claim one should create a new plot. One that's only removed stations. Then compare the old all stations to the new graph of non-removed stations.

What are those results?
Here's a link that's from Roy Spencer. Roy's a scienist and one who conceives that GW isn't mainly due to man. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/

Spencer has a graph of temp stations since 1901 and notes that it doesn't reflect what is out there today as many stations simply no longer exist. (kinda hard to get blood from a turnip). Spencer's work also indicates there is no statistically significant difference with the removal of these stations.

So, while the non-GW believing scientist sees the 'wrong' is statistically insignificant if you like you can view some work of GW Theory supporting climatologists. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm Again no significant difference. Though do note the 'wrong' is the excluded data here results in a trend that's cooler than the included data set.

Taking a look at this from a political angle the GW Scientists are in reality doing their argument a disservice (you called 'worse') by removing stations as cooler temps and lower warming trend is the result.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-May-2010 at 02:26 PM.

@BrianK
It makes logical sense that less stations means less accuracy. As it is today they might use a station that is 1000km away to figure out the temperatures of a location and this method is clearly flawed.
Take for example arctic and antarctica.. It has very few stations and most if not all is located in areas that currently are experiencing warm anomalies and yet they use these few cherry picked stations to figure out the temperatures of all of the arctic.

Oh and btw... I checked the list of the stations dropped this year and nearly every station i searched up was located in a place where they experienced cold anomalies this winter. Giss is nothing but cherry picking and dont say much about real world global temperatures.

@Tomas

Quote:

Then why not just point me in the direction of real world observations that backs up AGW?

If you recall I did. I asked you to go to a local university and work with a librarian who should be able to help you pull scientific journals and about 15K articles that form the basis.

Your examples indicate you're looking at two different questions. You asked for observations that back up Global Warming. The 4 items you included are not observing causes of Global Warming. Instead they are predicted results of Global Warming. You asked what X backs up Global Warming. These experiments you have Global Warming causing Y. They aren't the same thing.

Now why did the Y not occur? It could be Global Warming is wrong. It also could be that the 'causing' predicted in the experiment is not correctly understood. We'd have to look at each experiment to see where the error is to each. Just because there's an error does not mean the error is the only the GW basis.

Here's a similar example to the issue here. The IPCC predicted a change in the size of the glaciers in India. Turns out the new size doesn't match the predictions. (In this case you are claiming that's because Global Warming is wrong.) In fact when investigated it turns out the initial size of the glaciers was incorrect. We have two starting conditions here glacial size and global warming. The one is error was not global warming it was glacial size. We discard the experiment, not because GW was wrong, but because something else within the experiment was a miss.

@Tomas

Quote:

It makes logical sense that less stations means less accuracy.

I think on the surface it does. To get to what it really means you, (or anyone) needs to do the math and compare the resultants to see how the 'less accuracy' results. In this case the 'less accuracy' results in a case that's worse for the GW scientists as the temps are cooler and the warming is at a lower rate of increase.

If scientists were politically motivated to create the data that would better support their position remove stations was the wrong answer. So why were the stations removed? I look to Roy Spencer, again anti-GW scientist, who indicate many of the stations were taken out of service due to non-use.

You checked all their data? How about providing us a webpage of your findings and a statistical analsys like you saw here showing the results.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: It makes logical sense that less stations means less accuracy. I think on the surface it does. To get to what it really means you, (or anyone) needs to do the math and compare the resultants to see how the 'less accuracy' results. In this case the 'less accuracy' results in a case that's worse for the GW scientists as the temps are cooler and the warming is at a lower rate of increase. If scientists were politically motivated to create the data that would better support their position remove stations was the wrong answer. So why were the stations removed? I look to Roy Spencer, again anti-GW scientist, who indicate many of the stations were taken out of service due to non-use. You checked all their data? How about providing us a webpage of your findings and a statistical analsys like you saw here showing the results.

Nope i did not check all the data as it was thousands of stations that were dropped this year. I am just a regular layman and dont have the time or skills to go through thousands of stations. I am sure there are other people working on this anyways. I basically just checked a few random stations of those dropped and found that most was located in cold anomaly spots. I know this proves nothing though...

@Tomas
Quote:

I am sure there are other people working on this anyways. I basically just checked a few random stations of those dropped and found that most was located in cold anomaly spots. I know this proves nothing though.

Glad to hear that. I think this event is important to note. We should know why a station was dropped. Also, how this drops impact the overall accuracy of events.


@Thread
National Academy of Sciences condemn political attacks on scientists.

This one just cracks me up: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/cause-for-alarm/
And here is one of the many stories linked in that article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2261941/British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html
Quote:

Malcolm Robinson, who studies the phenomenon, said: "Something very bizarre is happening in the skies over the UK." The founder member of Strange Phenomena Investigations, added: "There has been an unusual number of sightings recently. "Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet." Among mysterious flying objects spotted in recent months was a 'glowing' disc spotted above the M5 motorway.

Yep.. Global warming causes anything. It is no wonder that they are losing public support when you have so many illogical, contradicting and exaggerated stories.

@Tomas

Alas nothing like bad press to add to take away from a discussion. Quote:

Some experts believe

-- One might assume they are Global Warming experts. But, that's reading in where there is no evidence. We don't know who the experts are. They may be expert anti-gravity specialists, for example.

UFO's are one big logical fallacy - ad ignoratiam. Now throw in another logical fallacy -- that of the arguement from authority and not just authority but an unknown unproduceable authority that cannot be validated.

Thanks for posting it. It's sad to see what poor journalists do to the conversation. I go back to one of my previous statements that science journalism in our nations is poor. Editors and newspapers wouldn't allow someone unknowledgeable about soccer report on the game. Having an unknowledgeable reporter write about science happens all the time.

@BrianK
Yeah i know, Still those articles are a very entertaining read.

Some of them are backed up by scientists though, but with UFO one experts can mean anything.
Either way such exaggerated/crazy stories do nothing to strengthen the public belief in AGW.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/climate-craziness-of-the-week-denmark-evicting-citizens-to-clear-cut-forests-for-wind-turbines/
The world has gone mad.

But i guess it is okay to ruin environment and peoples life in the name of AGW even if cons outweights the so called pros..

Quote:

The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place. A test centre for the development of offshore windmills is planned to take up 30 km2 of land in the Thy region, near Østerild. This deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emission, the equivalent of the CO2 emission of 100,000 people per year.

Last edited by Tomas on 24-May-2010 at 05:34 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

But i guess it is okay to ruin environment and peoples life in the name of AGW even if cons outweights the so called pros..

This particular case is related to wind power. Though is this unique to AGW? I don't think so.

The reason why is other power plants have seen similar things. Recently here in Minnesota another oil line was built from Canada to the south end of our state. People were forced to sell their land by 'eminent domain' laws to support oil.

A new nuclear plant in Florida needs about 200 miles of new power lines. The private company is buying the land from private citizens. The negotiations are unfair, similar to wind, because the government backs the power utility with eminent domain. If the home owner says no the government can take their land.

I see two questions here. Is the power of eminent domain right or wrong? That one I'm not addressing as this is a thread about global warming. The second question is this because of global warming? I don't think it is directly because other types of power (coal and oil) have set the precedent for such actions. This is an outcropping of a society which is expanding and demanding ever increasing electricity.

@BrianK
That analogy is not comparable at ALL. A conventional power plant takes much less space and is much more effective. Here they are cutting down forests, ruining natural habitats, ruining peoples life, increasing CO2 emissions in the name of saving the climate and lowering CO2 emissions?? How do you fail to see the illogic in that?

Wind power is just not efficient enough and the downsides outweighs the positives. And yes, this is because of the hysteria around global warming/climate change/global cooling"caused by agw" or whatever you want to call it today. If it wasnt for this hysteria then one could have built a more efficient power plant that would take up much less space and not harm the local environment that badly.

Same #### is going on here in Norway. Certain rare bird life has completely vanished in areaas where they have put up wind mills and you often can find dead corpses around these wind mills as well.
Wind mills are nowhere near as effective as they are on paper either and is not even economically feasible without heavy subsides from government. They also can cause a huge strain on power grid and become completely uselss during winters like we had this year.

Only nuclear or thorium plants are feasible today if you really want to lower CO2 emissions.
In denmark it makes even less sense since the country is so tiny that you would have to pretty much cut down every remaining forest and destroy the little nature left just to power the country on windmills.

I stand by my original post.. The world has gone totally nuts!

Last edited by Tomas on 25-May-2010 at 01:35 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

That analogy is not comparable at ALL. .

The analogy is comparible because both cases (classic coal,oil or ecofriendly wind) both are done by the government enforcing eminent domain. So if eminent domain is wrong for 1 it's also wrong for the other. Let's be consistent here.

Quote:

A conventional power plant takes much less space and is much more effective

It may. Though it's myoptic if we only look at the power plant. Coal here in the midwest not only requires building of the plant but building transportation to delivery the coal. Coal requires, something wind does not, the mining of material and disposal of waste, both of which takes land. Let's compare the system as the plant is only part of the system. Does wind plant+power lines take more or less land than coal plant + power lines + transportation + mining + waste disposal -- That is a fairer question.

Quote:

And yes, this is because of the hysteria around global warming

It's not only Global Warming. There's a big push for self sufficency. If the US makes more wind we could conceivably be less reliant on foreign oil. This is another concern wind energy impacts. So GW is not the only impact - self sufficent economies is one other concern.

Quote:

not even economically feasible without heavy subsides from government.

There has NEVER been a nuclear plant in the US built without heavy government subsides. US subsides exist for oil, gas, and coal. I agree it's a good idea for a power source to be self sufficent. Let's cut off the established industry subsides first! Please come back when that's been accomplished.

Quote:

you would have to pretty much cut down every remaining forest and destroy the little nature left just to power the country on windmills

Types of power need to fit the application. If there's no wind in Denmark then yes wind is a bad idea. There's lots of geothermal in Iceland so yes this is a good idea.

Part of this issue is societies are trying to repeat centralized power control. The wind farms are done by power companies so they retain control and profits. Decentralizing comes at a loss of corporate profits and control. This will be an uphill battle. Consider Lousiana. Much of it was destroyed by Katrina. Many new houses are being built with solar panels. These houses will produce up to 3/4 of their own power. Because the panels are on the roof there is no more land required. A new power plant build can be delayed or scrapped.

Plus, decentralizing better protects against terrorism. So, there's another win.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-May-2010 at 05:40 PM.

@BrianK
I dont have time to reply to all of it right now but disagree with most of what you said.
Quote:

It's not only Global Warming. There's a big push for self sufficency. If the US makes more wind we could conceivably be less reliant on foreign oil. This is another concern wind energy impacts. So GW is not the only impact - self sufficent economies is one other concern.

You dont invest in wind power if you want to be self sufficient. Windmills simply dont generate enough power to power a country like USA. It would also not be economically feasible and would most like kill the entire economy even if you had enough free land for windmills.

Wind power is sadly something that only works in theory but not in practice except for in smaller scales.

Another paper on motivations for anti-science beliefs. LINK When presented with scientific evidence contradicting beliefs the person is more likely to discard the science than question the belief. Once people decide that science cannot decide the answer on one item they are more apt to apply this reasoning to other object. Hence, we see things such as the famous anti-evolutionary Discovery Institute now taking up the anti-climatology charge. It's also would explain why anti-evolutionaries, anti-vaccers, and anti-climatologists seem to run in groups.

Of course one study doesn't prove anything by itself. What this shows me is there is some interesting psychology at work that may be worth further research. Especially if it could lead to learning how to approach those previously discarded scientific methods to fairly reanalyze the science.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-May-2010 at 04:14 PM.

@BrianK
I think it more demonstrates how the average AGW believer behaves. Blind AGW believers keep their belief even when real world data completely conflicts with their belief.

But anyways.. Since when was it bad to be a skeptic about something?? I think it is really low how people today scream denialist whenever somoene expresses even slight skepticism for AGW. Scientists are supposed to be open minded and this is not what is seen in climate science these days. Your side have basically made up their mind even before they started researching and anyone who research the possibility of AGW being wrong is autmatically labelled as a evil denialist or someone bribed by oil giants...

Most AGW research is not science anymore and has instead become a new religion....

@Tomas

Quote:

Since when was it bad to be a skeptic about something?? I think it is really low how people today scream denialist whenever somoene expresses even slight skepticism for AGW

I think there's a bigger question here. What is being a skeptic and what is being a denialist.

There's a good [url=http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php] blog [/quote]. That in part answers this sort of question.

My checklist if someone is being a skeptic or a denialist is based on their actions.

Denialists often cite a grand conspiracy where the mass of experts are wrong. Or another example might be citing there's simply no works ever that have shown this. It simply denies the tens of thousands of articles that do exist.

Often denialists cite (often non-peer reviewed) single or a handful of papers which seemingly have the power to disprove the tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles. A good example of this would be posting the Popular Science 700 anti-gw papers. Often they fail understand many of these papers aren't peer reviewed and most have since been disproven.

Citations of fake experts. A good example was done here recently by giving a news article and claiming there was some crediblity to the unamed unfindable 'expert' on UFO and the relation to Global Warming. Another common one is citing the list of a signed petition of experts. Invariably the denialist list is at best a minority of experts in the field. The majority of these lists are people with higher degrees but minimal to no experience.

Sorry short on time.. .Other thoughs are cherry-picking the science. Moving goal posts and other logical fallacies. (Read these threads some of the discussions highlighted when Denialists used this tactic and how it was used.)

Though I might cite lastly and importantly when evidence is disproven the Denialist still holds that evidence as true. Someone that's a true Skeptic follows the discussion or the evidence and discards those disproven items.

I'd argue GW isn't a religion it's built on tens of thousands of articles of scientific evidence. I see your statement as one commenting more on the politics than the science. I'd agree the politics/press can seem to be evengelical in nature.

@BrianK

I'm a little bit surprised that noone commented on the off-shore drilling accident in the Mexican Gulf so far.

It'd be interesting to know if (and in which way) the oil film on the water affects the albedo of the region and so might have an impact on the local climate - aside from the obvious impacts on fauna and flora.

Last edited by Dandy on 02-Jun-2010 at 10:59 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 02-Jun-2010 at 10:57 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

It'd be interesting to know if (and in which way) the oil film on the water affects the albedo of the region and so might have an impact on the local climate - aside from the obvious impacts on fauna and flora

I haven't seen anything related to albedo. Most of the statements are derived from other oil spills where life, both plant and animal, were negatively impacted. Wikipedia has a link for the Exxon Valdez. It has lots of information and links to research articles. A good place to get started.

The Gulf region is entering the hurricane season. Hurricanes happen in warmer water. If the oil has a causal effect is really an unknown. Then there's the question if the oil will be carried farther inland and deposited from a hurricane. Again an unknown. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what occurs then trying to deduce the likely influence.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Jun-2010 at 02:09 PM.