Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".


Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts' conclusion
While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?
The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites. These MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device, and are consequently limited by cable length as to how far they can be sited from the building housing the indoor readout device. As a result, they are often located close to heated buildings, paved surfaces, air conditioner exhausts, etc. It turns out that these MMTS thermometers have a flaw that causes them to measure minimum temperatures that are slightly too warm, and maximum temperatures that are considerably too cool, leading to an overall cool bias in measured average temperatures. In contrast, only 30% of the "good" sites used the MMTS sensors. The "good" sites predominantly used Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked. Since the poorly-sites stations were dominantly equipped with MMTS thermometers, they tended to measure temperatures that were too cool, despite their poor siting.


Figure 3. Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 temperatures. Temperatures were adjusted to correct for changes in instrumentation, station relocations, and changes in the time of observation, making the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org. For comparison, the data between 2004 - 2008 taken by the new high-quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN, black dashed line) is shown, and displays excellent agreement for that time period. Image credit: Menne 2010.

Independent verification of recent USHCN annual temperatures
Clearly, the siting of many of the surface stations used to track climate change in the U.S. is not good. To address this issue, in 2004 NOAA created the U.S. Climate Reference Network, a collection of 114 stations in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The stations were sited and instrumented with climate studies in mind, and can provide an extremely high-quality independent check on the old USHCN network. Each of 114 stations at 107 locations (some stations were installed as nearby pairs) is equipped with very accurate instruments in a triplicate configuration so that each measurement can be checked for internal consistency. As shown in Figure 3, the USCRN air temperature departures for 2004 - 2008 are extremely well aligned with those derived from the USHCN version 2 temperature data. For these five years, the the difference between the mean annual temperatures measured by the old USHCN compared to the new USCRN was just 0.03°C, with a mathematical correlation coefficient (r-squared) of 0.997. Menne et al. concluded, "This finding provides independent verification that the USHCN version 2 data are consistent with research-quality measurements taken at pristine locations and do not contain spurious trends during the recent past even if sampled exclusively at poorly sited stations. While admittedly this period of coincident observations between the networks is rather brief, the value of the USCRN as a benchmark for reducing the uncertainty of historic observations from the USHCN and other networks will only increase with time". The authors finally concluded, "we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor siting".

Crediting Anthony Watts
The surfacestations.org effort coordinated by Anthony Watts has made a valuable contribution to science, helping us better understand the nature of the errors in the U.S. historical temperature data set. In his talk last week at the AMS conference, and in the credits of his paper, Dr. Menne had some genuinely grateful comments on the efforts of Anthony Watts and the volunteers of surfacestations.org. However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.

I'll have a new post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1029 - 979

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

1029. bappit
GW is crap-science for people who didn't understand science the first time around in high school.

Let the churches fund GW research from now on...

This sounds like reasonable discussion to me. No argument here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
All of the major churches have released warnings and considerations of climate change.


Even Westboro? Lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. M: Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

Wow, I didn't know that.

So throwing out the ones that didn't or couldn't answer, that would be 11 of 17 PhD-holders in a climate-related science that agreed? Wow. ~65%

That is a big difference to that 99.9% of climate scientists blog you posted a year ago, or so.

Of course, they contacted those that signed this petition and had a small sample size, but, wow. Seems not quite everyone is on board with that consensus...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1024. JeffMasters (Admin)
Quoting Ossqss:


Apparently there are many that disagree with you. LoL

31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs


This is the so-called "Oregon Petition", which I discussed in my "Manufactured Doubt" post:

"As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond".

Jeff Masters
Quoting atmoaggie:
And rate at which they recede being faster or slower than pre-industrial times isn't something we can determine reliably.
Wrong again, see my last post. I'm sure you will study the article now indepth to keep up with the current state of science.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting atmoaggie:
Point is, there have been a lot of glaciers receding in the last 12,000 years...some of which survived to current times and are still doing so.
It seems you missed this item (notation is historic rate)


World's glaciers continue to melt at historic rates

Latest figures show the world's glaciers are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/world-glacier-monitoring-service-figures
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
1021. hydrus
Quoting Floodman:


A Saints paperweight...dem things is sharp!
They will be even sharper if they win the Superbowl.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
atmo, nothing is proven by the glacier pics. what is proven is that folks go to lengthy extents to circumvent good analysis. that's what you'll say of climate scientist conspiring in the hoax, and that's what i'll say of agenda driven denialists who seek to undermine information as a knee jerk reaction they are most often unaware of.

Good wording. That is my point.

And rates at which they recede being faster or slower than pre-industrial times isn't something we can determine reliably.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1016: So WTH took so long to confirm a 1996 anemometer reading?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:

how does that make a point..? something like the two color photos could be 12,000 years apart?
have any of you ever had a child ask a question, and then follow every answer up with a question? do you think that child is trying to learn a whole heck of a lot, or is he/she trying to just bug the hell out of you by the act of some immature game?
should i ask more, find some crutch of yours to expose?
when does it end contrarian?

(You just answered one question with six)

Point is, there have been a lot of glaciers receding in the last 12,000 years...some of which survived to current times and are still doing so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
atmo, nothing is proven by the glacier pics. what is proven is that folks go to lengthy extents to circumvent good analysis. that's what you'll say of climate scientist conspiring in the hoax, and that's what i'll say of agenda driven denialists who seek to undermine information as a knee jerk reaction they are most often unaware of.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
231-mph NH wind gust is no longer world's fastest

First the Old Man, now the Big Wind.

New Hampshire's Mount Washington has lost its distinction as the site of the fastest wind gust ever recorded on Earth, officials at the Mount Washington Observatory said Tuesday.

The concession came three days after the World Meteorological Organization posted a snippet on its Web site saying a panel of experts reviewing extreme weather and climate data turned up a 253 mph gust on Australia's Barrow Island during Cyclone Olivia in 1996.

That tops the 231 mph record set atop Mount Washington on April 12, 1934.

"It's obviously a big disappointment. Having the world record for over six decades was such a part of the soul of this organization and for fans of Mount Washington around the country," said Scot Henley, the observatory's executive director.

The official title at issue is"highest wind gust ever recorded on the surface of the Earth by means of an anemometer." But to most people in New Hampshire, it was simply"the Big Wind," a source of pride in a state that also revered its Old Man of the Mountain, a rock outcropping that appeared to be a man's profile and was featured on the state's quarter.

The Old Man crumbled to bits in 2003, seven years after the wind record apparently toppled.

Henley stressed that Mount Washington still holds the record for the Northern and Western hemispheres, and said it still can claim to be home to some of the world's worst weather given the combination of bitter cold, snow, wind and freezing fog it frequently experiences.

"So the work continues up there, and we'll be ready for the next one," he said.

No one noticed the new record gust at the time, Henley said.

"Somehow it fell through the cracks and the Australians didn't think it was a big deal," he said."We hear that, and it kinds of blows our minds, but of course, we're weather fans and we're tuned into that sort of thing."

Henley first heard about the meteorological organization's conclusion Monday, when someone posted a link to the item on the observatory's forum. He contacted the organization and learned that the information was part of a report being presented at an international conference in Turkey next month.

The panel of experts has shared its research with observatory officials, who plan to review it in the coming weeks.

"There's no reason to believe it's not accurate, but we owe it to this institution and to our state and really to weather fans all over the world to make sure it is indeed accurate," he said.

The Mount Washington Observatory is a private, non-profit organization that maintains a weather station at the summit of the 6,288-foot mountain. On April 12, 1934, there were three crew members, two guests, three cats and five kittens at the observatory, according to observer Alex McKenzie, who later wrote a book about the Big Wind.

According to his account, April 11 started with a brilliant sunrise, but the weather soon turned cloudy. By evening, fog obscured the summit and rime ice formed up to a foot thick. Early the next morning, when observer Wendell Stephenson headed outside to clear ice from the anemometer, the wind knocked him flat on his back as he opened the door. When he accidentally dropped the club he was using to break up the ice, it went flying off into the fog. Gusts were at 150 mph.

"I dropped all other activities and concentrated on observations. Everyone in the house was'mobilized' as during a war attack and assigned a job," observer Sal Pagliuca wrote in a log book.

Gusts grew stronger through the afternoon, until 1:21 p.m., when the 231 mph gust was recorded.

"Many people have wanted to know what we did after that," McKenzie wrote."Did we cheer or open a bottle of champagne, or what? Well, we didn't do anything special for a while, except make more measurements."

Mary Stampone, assistant professor of geography at the University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire State Climatologist, said she had long expected the record to fall.

"As we improve our technology in terms of instrumentation, and we're observing in more locations, we were bound to pick up on something," she said.



from here






from here



Link




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


It was technical. Very much so, they went into the soils.



alright, im looking forward to this article.


sorry to have to leave this wunderful debate, but I have a date tonight, so have a good one, all of you (:
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
never mind
a virtual repeat of something already asked
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Ill find that article later its the one from last night - remember.


ok thanks, I'm intrigued by the science that can prove how fast something melted thousands of years ago.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting atmoaggie:

Do you have any pics of Detroit from, say, 12,000 years ago we can compare to one from today?

how does that make a point..? something like the two color photos could be 12,000 years apart?
have any of you ever had a child ask a question, and then follow every answer up with a question? do you think that child is trying to learn a whole heck of a lot, or is he/she trying to just bug the hell out of you by the act of some immature game?
should i ask more, find some crutch of yours to expose?
when does it end contrarian?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is remarkable that scientist and creationist agree when it comes to climate change.

The Pope: "creation is under threat"
Pope Benedict XVI spoke today on environmental issues, singling out the importance of a September U.N. summit in New York to work on negotiations for an international framework to tackle global warming, preparing for the U.N. Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December.

The Pope said that he wishes "to encourage all the participants in the United Nations summit to enter into their discussions constructively and with generous courage," adding it was incredibly important that "the international community and individual governments send the right signals to their citizens and succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment!"

The pope was not flippant about the current state of global environment. Saying that "creation is under threat," he pointed to recent examples of the large-scale fires in Athens, Greece and water shortages in many parts of the world.

Calling humanity the "guardians of his [the Creator's] creation", the Pope said that a transformation in the global economy to protect the environment and share resources among the poor.

"Together we can build an integral human development beneficial for all peoples, present and future, a development inspired by the values of charity in truth. For this to happen it is essential that the current model of global development be transformed through a greater, and shared, acceptance of responsibility for creation: this is demanded not only by environmental factors, but also by the scandal of hunger and human misery," the Pope told around 3,000 people at his summer papal residence.

He also called on nations to take greater responsibility for the resources they consume: "the economic and social costs of using up shared resources must be recognized with transparency and borne by those who incur them, and not by other peoples or future generations." He added that nations must "use resources in such a way that every individual and community can live with dignity."

This is not the first time Pope Benedict XVI has been outspoken about the environment and climate change. In the past he has called the the fight against climate change a "moral obligation". Often he has linked environmental degradation with materialism, saying that "in a world closed in on its materialism, it is easier for the human being to make himself the dictator of all other creatures and of nature". Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Pope, was elected in 2005; he has arguably been the most vocal Pope ever on environmental issues.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0825-hance_pope.html

Living up to the Pope's words: the Vatican turns to solar power
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1128-hance_pope.html

Pope Benedict XVI says environment has been undervalued by Catholics
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0807-hance_pope.html
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting JFLORIDA:


well thats fine - they are melting unusually fast though, in the presence of man made CO2 enriched atmosphere.


unusually fast compared to what? how fast were they melting thousands of years ago?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting rotarymunkey:

So, at a time when the planet was generally cold, and a great deal of the Northern Hemisphere was uninhabitable due to ice cover, CO2 was lower because CO2-producing organisms had less available land to live on. Are you following me? How long was the previous ice age? How many thousands of years did it take for CO2 levels to fall from the last warm intercine period?

Of COURSE there's more CO2 in the air now; there are hundreds of millions more people and animals living now than 20,000 years ago! If we all lived in caves and burned wood for heat, we'd STILL manage to increase CO2. The livestock necessary to feed our population alone generates a massive amount of CO2 yearly.

BUT... it's still ONLY a trace gas which accounts for just .0004 PERCENT (rounded slightly) of our atmosphere! This is the very definition of the "tail wagging the dog" effect. That's 338 PARTS PER MILLION.

When giant plants once grew in the passes of the Sierra Nevada, now preserved in the fossil record there, it had to be both WARMER and RICHER in CO2 at that point, and it wasn't caused by humans. The massive beds of coal, and reserves of oil laid down due to dead plant matter once had to pull massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to generate the quantities of material we find underground today.

When Vikings once farmed Greenland for generations, leaving their dead buried where there's only permafrost today, it had to be significantly warmer than today.

Then there's the errors of averaging. Canadian and Russian stations in the interior of the continents have been eliminated from the record, while warmer coastal stations' records have been "extrapolated" over 1200 mile averages. This is not a siting error, this is a significant intentional skewing of the data. ESPECIALLY when comparing the NEW record to historical figures which STILL CONTAIN the data from the colder stations.

For example, if I used to take a temperature reading on the trunk of your car just after you'd driven it, and averaged it with the interior temperature where you sit, we'd expect a cool reading compared to an average which included the interior and, oh let's say, the surface of the hood. Sure I could still claim that I was averaging one interior reading and one exterior reading from a car which had been driven, but to claim that the car is now, obviously, far hotter than before due to being driven, is ludicrously false.

The same thing is occuring in climate data today, and as a result, any CURRENT datasets which are being compared to HISTORICAL datasets will ALWAYS find warming.

It is dishonest and deceitful. Dr. Masters I believe is trying to be forthcoming in his posts, but obliquely attacking someone (Watts) who is merely working diligently to confirm raw data, is simply wrong in this case. Watts posts what he finds, whether it confirms or refutes his assumptions. GW acolytes could learn much from his methods.

Also "scientists" who research Global Warming have been provided funding in order to do so. If they suddenly concluded there was no GW, funding would cease, as would cushy jobs at universities, NASA, NOAA, etc. I should think that the "human motivation" to find evidence of GW is rather obvious. Politicians are motivated to seek reelection, and so make promises. Scientists are motivated to produce research, and so they propose new theories. These theories are not "self-funding"; they add nothing to the GNP of the United States, or other countries. They require money for further research, and no matter what, will always require money for further research. Fields and forests are "CO2 sinks". GW research projects are "financial sinks".

I am continually amazed at the low level of education which has produce a population willing to believe almost anything a scientist says, merely because he says it with authority.


You got that wrong. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently closer to 0.04%, not that other number you posted. While it is a trace gas, so is tropospheric ozone, yet it's enough to block out most of the harmful UV rays from the sun. Take all that ozone, condense it to the surface, and you have a layer several milimetres thick. Now, when you have CO2 that comprises a relatively large portion of the atmospheric gases and also blocks out some solar radiation and prevents it from escaping to space, what does that do to our temperatures? Being a trace gas does not make it insignificant, just like the 0.5% of water vapor in our atmosphere is responsible for everything from hurricanes to flash floods. CO2 has often followed temperature in the past, yes, but it can also be the other way around. That's basic, undisputed science. This is also a dangerous positive feedback mechanism because as the temperatures warm, the ocean loses its ability to hold CO2, releasing more into the atmosphere, and causing more warming.

Yes, of course CO2 concentrations have been higher, when humans were not around. But of course, there were also dinosaurs. We are accelerating ourselves into a climate regime not seen in the history of human civilization, in the history of the ice age cycle, and possibly not seen since 55 million years ago.

Scientists get funding, yes, otherwise they'd have no money for their research. But the oil lobbyists and the climate change deniers get even more money, and this money is political. When political ideology trumps science, is there really any point of skepticism any more?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:

look at the picture. that's a glacier. it shrank and the nd picture illustrates the entire region that the glacier receded from, despite ever-so-slightly different perspective. note each feature in the landscape, you will see how the glacier receded to approximately the line of shadow present across the top image. glaciers do not do this kind of shifting on a seasonal basis.

Do you have any pics of Detroit from, say, 12,000 years ago we can compare to one from today?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Chacaltaya is on wiki - that photo is available from a few sources.

(cept it is no more already)


Ok, I do understand they are melting. I'm not arguing that. But what is so special about it? they have been melting for thousands of years. What makes this melting faster than it was then, and how do you prove that?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
1000. Ossqss
The never ending story. Have a good day folks :)

Get ready for ... Amazongate?

More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Pope Benedict: environmental crisis requires review of world's economic model
Pope gives advice on how to move forward at Copenhagen.


Pope Benedict XVI has released a message linking world peace with preserving the environment for the World Day of Peace, which will be held on January 1st 2010. In it Benedict calls for a "long-term review" of the world's current economic model, including "[moving] beyond a purely consumerist mentality" and encouraging a more "sober lifestyle".

The message comes at a politically important time as environmental officials from rich and poor countries around the world struggle to come to agreement over how to combat climate change in Copenhagen.

Entitled If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation, the Pope asks: "Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of 'environmental refugees', people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it - and often their possessions as well - in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement?"

Highlighting that these environmental problems are intricately linked to the world's current economic model, the Pope calls for a "a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications."

One way to achieve this according to the Pope is "to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all."

"Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods; that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future," the Pope writes.

Touching on the current deadlock in Copenhagen over the responsibilities of wealthy countries versus developing countries, the Pope writes that "the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries. Yet the less-developed countries, and emerging countries in particular, are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation, for the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies is incumbent upon all." Nations must lessen their "self-interest" to move ahead together says the Pope.

The Pope concludes by highlighting that not only policymakers have a responsibility towards environmental preservation, but the Catholic Church as well: the church must "protect earth, water and air as gifts of God the Creator meant for everyone, and above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction."

Mankind, writes the Pope, must "renew and strengthen 'that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God'."

Elected in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI has been increasingly outspoken on environmental issues. He had called the fight against climate change a "moral obligation". Among the Pope's new seven sins, announced last year, are destruction of the environment, excessive wealth, and the creation of poverty.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1215-hance_benedict.html
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting tornadodude:
Lafayette, Purdue University Airport
Lat: 40.43 Lon: -86.93 Elev: 623
Last Update on Jan 26, 4:54 pm EST

Light Snow

21 °F
(-6 °C)
Humidity: 68 %
Wind Speed: W 15 G 23 MPH
Barometer: 30.02" (1017.6 mb)
Dewpoint: 12 °F (-11 °C)
Wind Chill: 8 °F (-13 °C)
Visibility: 8.00 mi


Man, is it safe to say "Good Afternoon"! And I read a few posts, and I dare NOT ask how everyone is doing, they're too busy in a "heated discussion"!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


the bottom picture is taken from farther away, and also, what are the dates that both of these were taken?

look at the picture. that's a glacier. it shrank and the nd picture illustrates the entire region that the glacier receded from, despite ever-so-slightly different perspective. note each feature in the landscape, you will see how the glacier receded to approximately the line of shadow present across the top image. glaciers do not do this kind of shifting on a seasonal basis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


for real???? omg!


obviously,

but they dont change in size when its summer or winter?

also, can I have a reference that I asked for on multiple posts above? thanks!

I was going to say "well, not at the equator, they don't". But even that is not true, depending on the movements of, and amount of convergence associated with, the ITCZ.

And, in some places, it is certainly cold enough year-round, with precip being the variable of interest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Lafayette, Purdue University Airport
Lat: 40.43 Lon: -86.93 Elev: 623
Last Update on Jan 26, 4:54 pm EST

Light Snow

21 °F
(-6 °C)
Humidity: 68 %
Wind Speed: W 15 G 23 MPH
Barometer: 30.02" (1017.6 mb)
Dewpoint: 12 °F (-11 °C)
Wind Chill: 8 °F (-13 °C)
Visibility: 8.00 mi
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
I am continually amazed at the low level of education which has produce a population willing to believe almost anything a scientist says, merely because he says it with authority.

yes, but people believe Tony the Tiger when he says those frosted flakes are Grrrrrrrrrrrreat! So, GW isn't much of a stretch....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaneWarning:
Earth is warming - We can all agree on that probably.

The reason for the warming is the cause for controversy.


There's the point: if we can do anything to slow the progress of the warming, then we should, right?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


You get a snow blanket perhaps - they remain elevated from their surroundings.


so, how do you tell what is a snow blanket and what isnt? can you point out the differences on the pictures you posted?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting divdog:
is there an archive of Dr masters blogs ?? my son is trying to write an article about the cold snap in early jan 2010. thanks in advance for any help


Simply go here and look through the collection: Link

In short, an unusual strong negative Arctic Oscillation forced cold air and snow into North America, Europe, East Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Farther south in those places, the result has been flooding and heavy fog. The negative phase of AO has also forced the Gulf Stream west of Greenland for the first time in history, and it's currently west of Greenland pointing toward Jakobshavn Isbrae.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Its a glacer?!?


for real???? omg!


obviously,

but they dont change in size when its summer or winter?

also, can I have a reference that I asked for on multiple posts above? thanks!
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting Ossqss:


Jan 26, 2010
Global warming ranks last as a top priority: Pew survey


During the economic crisis, public concern over global warming dwindled. Now that the economy is recovering and global warming is getting worse, public concern still stands at a low. Canada's prime minister is taking this to his advantage and proroguing parliament for more than two months, focusing on the economy while ignoring concerns about the environment, threatening the very basis of our democracy in Canada.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:

Quoting atmoaggie:

Hmmm, you aren't going to make any friends like that...a bunch of contrarians in here and at least 2 pro-AGW act-now'ers that do the above all the time.


Listen you do this all the time when I ask for a valid reference.

That was uncalled for and untrue.

Um, I wasn't going to single you out, but you do have a way of, well, [self-snip].

No need to go further.

And, sources? References? See above (or below, depending on how you orient the posts). I reference much of what I write here...unless it is really basic or from a course I took and not really debatable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
is there an archive of Dr masters blogs ?? my son is trying to write an article about the cold snap in early jan 2010. thanks in advance for any help
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I meant a date like for month, season?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Alright her is the one:



Evidence from a website that tries to refute global warming. Clearly the longer-term trends are important as well. Good job.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1029 - 979

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
32 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron