backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by Thermoguy.. on Feb 18 at 12:11 PM


The new NOAA Climate Portal offers real time data from a wealth of climate monitoring stations and devices (including weather balloons).  (Source: NOAA)

The interactive dashboard is one of the site's most attractive features.
Website should be welcome news to global warming proponents and skeptics alike

One of the common gripes among critics of climate change has been the lack of climate information readily available to the public.  This has become an especially sensitive issue in cases like the UK's Climate Research Unit, where researchers have been accused of falsifying data to make warming look worse than it is.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced some major news that should be welcomed by global warming proponents and skeptics alike.  The U.S. research organization is launching a new website called the NOAA Climate Portal, which will serve as a one-stop site for the NOAA's wealth of climate data, as well as the organization's services.

The site is geared primarily towards delivering data in the friendliest form possible to everyone from policy leaders in the government to scientists, and even to the general public.  Commerce Secretary Gary Locke writes in a statement, "By providing critical planning information that our businesses and our communities need, NOAA Climate Service will help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs."

The services encompassed by the site are almost entirely preexisting, but the site should simplify access.  That's a sensible proposition given that the NOAA already fields millions of requests for data yearly from a diverse set of interests.  

Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator praised the new portal, describing, "Working closely with federal, regional, academic, and other state and local government and private sector partners, the new NOAA Climate Service will build on our success transforming science into usable climate services. NOAA is committed to scientific integrity and transparency; we seek to advance science and strengthen product development and delivery through user engagement."

"More and more individuals—community planners, farmers, public health officials and small business owners—are seeking reliable, user-friendly climate data and information. We envision this climate portal as the first step toward making the wealth of climate information at NOAA available in one easy-to-use resource.""

One fun part of the site for amateur climatologists is the interactive climate dashboard, which features real-time data from the NOAA's weather stations tracking temperature, carbon dioxide concentration and sea level over adjustable time scales.  Another interesting offering is the new ClimateWatch magazine, which discusses the latest happenings in the field of climate change research and climatology.

In short, for even the most hardened climate skeptic, the NOAA's new Portal should provide an interesting and informative diversion.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lol Jason
By Reclaimer77 on 2/9/2010 5:59:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This has become an especially sensitive issue in cases like the UK's Climate Research Unit, where researchers have been accused of falsifying data to make warming look worse than it is.


They weren't accused. They were caught lying. Big difference.




RE: Lol Jason
By hyvonen on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lol Jason
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's your opinion, and can't be proven conclusively either way.


LoL...yeah right cause I would quit my job on an opinion...no it was proven by their own emails and actions.


RE: Lol Jason
By someguy123 on 2/9/2010 6:06:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's not opinion.....they found emails explicitly stating that they intentionally falsified data.


RE: Lol Jason
By wiz220 on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lol Jason
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, that's an incorrect and out of context interpretation of the emails.


You just keep thinking that....


RE: Lol Jason
By wiz220 on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lol Jason
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Lol Jason
By karielash on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lol Jason
By Nik00117 on 2/9/2010 7:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yea um, they are guilty as sin kinda like the guy who

Got caught on 5 different cameras robbing a gas station, left his wallet on the counter several forms of photo id didn't wear a mask (could clearly see his face) his finger prints all over the scene and when he left the car he got in was the same one that he owned

He then pleads not guilty.


RE: Lol Jason
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 11:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
You missed a part:

And then he slips and falls running on the way out hurting his back and John Edwards defends him.


RE: Lol Jason
By juserbogus on 2/11/2010 7:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
now you are lying! show me exactly where they falsified data and please define "falsified".


RE: Lol Jason
By omnicronx on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lol Jason
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 7:14:10 PM , Rating: 5
"Furthermore, the claim has apparently already been refuted."

Do you have a brain filter installed that prevents you from typing the truth? Michael Mann wasn't one of the East Anglia researchers directly involved in the scandal (he was indirectly involved, as he corresponded with them)

Furthermore, Mann was NOT fully cleared. A University committee is still investigating the primary charge:

quote:
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Penn State University said Wednesday it will proceed with an investigation into a leading climate scientist after an internal inquiry into alleged research misconduct stemming from leaked emails at the centre of a controversy over global warming

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/art...


RE: Lol Jason
By juserbogus on 2/11/2010 7:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
they are NOT still researching the primary charge! god, you people can't get anything right it seems.

this is the only thing they are still researhing
quote:
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?


http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inqu...

as for falsifying data... they have found NO substance to that allegation. even so, people and even writers here continue to lie and say he did. (Michael Andrews)


RE: Lol Jason
By MatthiasF on 2/9/2010 7:22:01 PM , Rating: 4
You'll have to excuse us if we don't trust the same peer-review system that has been supporting the behavior.

If any of the emails were altered or fake, then they would have said so by now. Instead they make up excuses for the behavior, even agreeing that some of the behavior was unethical but can't be punished because of an incredibly short statute of limitations.

Every response has been a cop-out, including yours. There was clearly something wrong going on from the data manipulation to the bullying of students coming to different conclusions.

If you can't see it when reading some of the most outrageous emails, then you're too much of an apologist to be bothered.


RE: Lol Jason
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 7:27:41 PM , Rating: 4
Let's also not forget that the 'Climategate' emails were just ONE of the many recent scandals. Another one was the claims made on the latest UN IPCC report, which several claims were found to be coming from these sources, rather than actual scientific studies:

a) one from a presentation from the environmental group WWF.
b) one from a student's term paper
c) one from a story in a popular mountaineering magazine
d) one from no source whatsoever (apparently fabricated entirely).

One of the scientists responsible for the claims admitted to a reporter he included them purely to put pressure on world political leaders, despite knowing they had no scientific backing.


RE: Lol Jason
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 11:03:50 PM , Rating: 3
And don't forget cherry picking data from temperature monitoring stations, some of which were withdrawn from the data set that showed cooler than average temperatures. Oopsie!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+...


RE: Lol Jason
By MatthiasF on 2/9/2010 11:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
That's not the worst of it. Hansen produced papers in the late 80s suggesting that the urban heat island effect had no baring on the warming, even though later research proved otherwise. During this time, GISS was shutting down stations to save money under a Republican controlled President and Congress. I haven't done the work yet, but I suspect that Hansen and friends manipulated the station selection process to further the warming trends they wanted.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/


RE: Lol Jason
By Nfarce on 2/9/2010 11:25:58 PM , Rating: 5
And I'll raise you one more! Some temp sensors, in the States, were put near such non-biased man-man made things like heat producing air conditioning units.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

It would be hilarious if not so pathetic and dangerously blind in extrapolating data that could affect entire Western freaking ECONOMIES.

But, we all know the Global Walarmists aren't really after the truth - they're just after getting us all into one big Algore fishbowl of junk science Jim Joneseque globalist control


RE: Lol Jason
By knutjb on 2/10/2010 9:19:56 AM , Rating: 3
Don't forget the IPCC and it's scandals too. They are all part of the same idealistic, real science be damned, mind set. They are Climate Change alarmist functioning as a religion.

Once any scientist, particularly one high up in the management like Hansen, pushes for an outcome rather than open analysis we are in for big problems. Don't think that they don't, its part of the bureaucracy system.

Does it get any funnier than NOAA opening up a new "climate change" office in the middle of a series of major blizzards?


RE: Lol Jason
By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 12:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the blatant disregard for historical data that shows that this is a normal global weather cycle, and that the industrial age "start" of the warming is complete crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE


RE: Lol Jason
By MatthiasF on 2/10/2010 2:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
You guys make me so proud. *sniffles*


RE: Lol Jason
By The0ne on 2/10/2010 9:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
couldn't agree more.

btw, hasn't anyone notice the odd title? Release a wealth of information to the public? So does that imply that we didn't get all nor most of the info? :) I could have sworn science wasn't meant to be kept as a secret :D


RE: Lol Jason
By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Proof positive of their lies and deceit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE


Let us hope
By TerranMagistrate on 2/9/2010 5:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
That this new source of data from the NOAA won't be altered to fit any agendas. What am I saying, of course it won't be since we know that U.S. government agencies like NASA have been totally honest in regards to their past climate studies.




RE: Let us hope
By hyvonen on 2/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Let us hope
By Smartless on 2/9/2010 6:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
Or we could look at the irony...

I mean what if NOAA predicted a giant flood and we all build big boats?


RE: Let us hope
By armulyman on 2/10/2010 10:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
This deserves a 6


RE: Let us hope
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm getting scared of the possibility that Al Gore & co. were right, and everyone is just too busy arguing to do anything.


Then your really not looking hard enough into the issue. If they were right then their would not be half the issues with unreliable data nor would almost all the experts be keeping their data sources secret.

I'm sorry, once you do some independent research on it it's painfully obvious that AGW is a scam.

I mean seriously 20K years ago half the Planet was covered in Ice and their was no men to affect the climate. You really think in the last 100 years we could do enough damage to destroy the climate of this Planet with out blowing it up with nukes?


RE: Let us hope
By AnnihilatorX on 2/10/2010 3:38:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sorry, once you do some independent research on it it's painfully obvious that AGW is a scam.


How? And just how the same thing you said yourself about unreliable data doesn't apply to the independent research you mentioned?

quote:
I mean seriously 20K years ago half the Planet was covered in Ice and their was no men to affect the climate. You really think in the last 100 years we could do enough damage to destroy the climate of this Planet with out blowing it up with nukes?


If you calculate in the last 100 years how much black stuff we pumped up from the ground and burnt, you can't say there's absolutely no effect whatsoever. It is not completely wrecking the climate no, but what we are doing is pretty much letting the trend continues. Surely there is *some* reason with the rise of temperature pic of this article that seemingly uncorrelated with sun cycle? Are you claiming all the datapoints from the recent decade all falsified and cherry picked from the NOAA database as well?


RE: Let us hope
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:43:35 AM , Rating: 3
"Surely there is *some* reason with the rise of temperature pic of this article that seemingly uncorrelated with sun cycle? Are you claiming all the datapoints from the recent decade all falsified and cherry picked"

Yes, the sun cycle data is entirely "cherry picked". The incoming watts/m^2 cycle isn't the important factor here, and the NOAA knows it. They purposely and misleadingly pick the wrong solar cycle, show they can display to an ignorant public a graph which appears to refute a solar influence.

The graph that actually matters is solar magnetosphere activity, which affects cloud formation on earth, and in turn having a much larger effect on earth temperatures.


RE: Let us hope
By corduroygt on 2/9/2010 6:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
As long as the ones who want to do something pay for the ones who don't like me, I'm ok with it.


RE: Let us hope
By yxalitis on 2/9/2010 8:49:41 PM , Rating: 3
That's interesting, but overly simplifies the implication of "agrees to do something" the economic costs involved are not to be underestimated.

Here's another one for you:
God is not real, I believe in him, I die and know no different
God is not real, I don't believe in him, I die and know no different
God is real, I believe in him, I am saved
God is real, I don't believe in him, I go to hell for eternity

Of these, only (4) is bad, so therefore, I should believe in God.
I don't, because you can't just over simplify complex arguments like that!


RE: Let us hope
By randomly on 2/10/2010 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot #5
God is real, I believe in god, but it's the wrong god, I got to hell for eternity.

of the thousands of gods man has come up with, which if any is the real one?

For every complex problem there is an answer that is Simple, Clear, and Wrong. - H.L. Mencken


RE: Let us hope
By Solandri on 2/9/2010 9:09:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not doing anything when there is a chance that something should be done sounds like a big risk I wouldn't want to take.

You cannot make risk assessments based on the size of the risk. You have to make them based on the size and probability of the risk. If a dinosaur-killer type asteroid were to hit the Earth tomorrow, mankind is doomed. Therefore the risk is huge, and by your reasoning we should be dumping a significant fraction of the worlds GDP into designing asteroid detection and deflection equipment.

But the probability of an asteroid strike that size is very small, so it doesn't warrant such a huge economic expenditure. That's what all this debate about the science on AGW is about - assessing the probability that it's true.

Boiling it down to "it's a huge risk, so we should do everything we can to prevent it" is just as asinine as sticking your head in the sand and pretending there's no possibility of the risk being true.


RE: Let us hope
By Alexvrb on 2/9/2010 10:16:54 PM , Rating: 5
(The following is said tongue-in-cheek. It is both wrong and comical.)

Solution: Find everyone that firmly believes in CAGW. Shoot them in the head, liquidate all their assets and spend these reclaimed funds planting trees and saving rainforests. They won't be emitting CO2 from their mouths or their (car's) tailpipes, either.

- If they were wrong, we just did the world a favor by shifting all the costs of fighting CAGW onto the CAGW diehards.
- If they were right, we just did the world a favor by offsetting a whole lot of CO2.

It's win-win!


RE: Let us hope
By Shining Arcanine on 2/10/2010 6:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
You should go to mass on Sunday and talk to Jesus about how you feel. That way you are covered no matter what happens.


RE: Let us hope
By knutjb on 2/10/2010 9:25:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm getting scared of the possibility that Al Gore & co. were right, and everyone is just too busy arguing to do anything.

I might consider something Al Gore has spewed out if he would debate his data. He won't because he can't defend it, so he proclaims the debate is over and it's time for action. Pretty weak idealism to blindly follow so Al Gore can become very wealthy off GW, and he has.


RE: Let us hope
By Kurz on 2/10/2010 11:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
Omg... you saw that Youtube Teacher.


RE: Let us hope
By Kurz on 2/10/2010 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Let us hope
By Alexvrb on 2/11/2010 10:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
That dumb bastage is a teacher? God help the children...

I like how he basically says OK lets ignore all the facts (and just as importantly, the LACK of facts and the existence of man-made "facts") and assume man-made global warming is 50% likely. If you're a drooling idiot or someone who only reads pro-CAGW articles, you'd find his argument compelling.


RE: Let us hope
By JediJeb on 2/11/2010 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is one problem with all those assumptions. The plante is going to be ok no matter what, it is just us people that are going to be effected by those choices. The planet is going to be here no matter how hot or cold the climate gets, and it drives me crazy when the econuts and AGW alarmist talk about saving the planet. Noone seems worried about saving people, it's all about the planet and animals and trees for them.

We need to worry less about how much we are changing it and more about how we adapt to the changes because if history is any indicator of what can happen on this planet we are going to have extreme swings in both directions of climate eventually. CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are now and plants and animals have survived that, so I am sure with a little planning humans can survive it too. Plants, animals and humans have also survived ice ages in the past so we can do it again if we plan for it. Trying to make all our plans based on how we want the climate to be is what will wreck our civilizations.


Useless Propaganda
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
Their Data proves nothing other then once again they are trying to push this fabrication of a story i.e. AGW down our throat.

I would not trust their data given the Govt previous hoax called Acid Rain nor do their charts on the website prove anything since they only go back a hundred years.




RE: Useless Propaganda
By wiz220 on 2/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Useless Propaganda
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sad, so what you're saying is that NO amount of evidence from ANY source would sway your opinion?


No what I'm saying is any Govt agency whose budget is based on proving one thing or the other is something I have a hard time believing, since their funding is tied into it.

Also it has been documented that allot of the data is collected is coming from faulty collectors(sensor right on top of exhaust vents or mounted on AC units) or the data is cherry picked.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By SRHelicity on 2/9/2010 7:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
NOAA has been around a long time, and there are a lot of very well-educated scientists who are doing honest work. The idea that this who thing is a giant conspiracy because a bunch of smart, PhD-level researchers want some piece of the funding pie is silly. These folks spend years and years working on things that most people can't comprehend well, and it's done with transparency (peer review, etc.) and honesty. Sure, there IS some shadiness with SOME groups/scientists at times, but there are ALWAYS going to be bad apples in science, just as there are bad apples in every other occupation.

FWIW, some of the "processing" that is done to the data includes removing those sites that have known urban creep. In other words, some datasets REMOVE the data from the sensors that have been unrepresentative of the larger area (e.g. those that are now right next to busy parking lots, etc.). If you look at the climate trends from even the RURAL-only stations, you'll see a very similar picture as you seen in the full dataset. Of course, we needn't limit our scope to temperature trends, since we can look at sea level changes, ice extent changes, land use changes, and other observables that indicate climate change (again, not just limited to temp -- look at precip changes, ice changes, etc.).

You will find very, very few well-educated scientists who disagree with the notion that the earth's climate is changing. The primary point of contention is the degree to which human activity is affecting it.

IMO, one of the worst things to happen to the research area has been the politicization of climate change. As soon as politicians entered the arena, we saw a vast increase in the amount of hyperbole and exaggeration, and many folks decided it was worth their while to make up their minds on the subject solely out of political reasoning without taking the time and effort to examine critically the data. Despite what you hear from Al Gore and some of the "Greenies", the earth is NOT going to start ablaze tomorrow. People need to separate the politics and policy side of this issue from the science side. I couldn't really care less about what notions should adapt what policy changes -- I'm a young scientist interested in the data and the processes behind climate change. How many graduate-level climate/atmospheric science courses do you think many of these "pundits" (Al Gore, but also the other side -- Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc.) have taken? Where can I find their PhD dissertations on this topic? Right -- they are politicians and media pundits who are pushing agendas that are subsequently causing people to think this is an "us" vs. "them" issue. Read at least a few of the hundreds and thousands peer-reviewed articles from reputable journals (those from the AMS, AGU, etc.), and weight the evidence (both that which supports and refutes the hypothesis) before deciding. And remember to separate the MESSAGE from the MESSENGER (e.g. just because the messenger is a wacko nutjob does not necessarily mean that the message being presently is patently incorrect). If nothing else, you should end up with an opinion that is based on PROBABILITY and not some binary choice (e.g. "it is {somewhat, not, highly, very, un-} likely that humans are having a {small, minor, significant, irreversible, negligible} impact on the global climate").


RE: Useless Propaganda
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 7:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
"FWIW, some of the "processing" that is done to the data includes removing those sites that have known urban creep"

If you look at the work of the researchers actually auditing these datasets, you'll find groups like GISS, the NOAA, and East Anglia are doing just the opposite. They're removing the stations in rural areas, leaving only those showing warming trends. In some cases, they're actually giving a positive bias factor to stations in urban areas-- actually artificially increasing the raw temperature readings, and giving no explanation whatsoever as to why this should be done.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By Meat Popcicle on 2/10/2010 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree with SRHelicity in that political and monetary motivations are not an issue for many scientists, though there are obviously some that will let such interests interfere with their work. Peer reviewed journal submissions however, seem unlikely to allow conclusions not supported by data (or more importantly, supported by false/cherry picked data). It is not unheard of for these peer reviewers to check the validity of work they review, some even going as far as setting up their own simulations to try and reproduce results (in the cases of a report on some simulation).

On the other hand, while I do recognize the fact that data can be cherry picked, I have a hard time believing that all of the data has been cherry picked to suit some agenda. Maybe in some specific articles this could happen, but the idea that all of the data could be messed with when so many people have contributed to it just seems to be a bit of a reach. Most importantly, the funding for this research will not just dry up because it doesn't support somebodies stance on global warming; we aren't just going to stop recording weather and climate data. So I fail to see a real strong motivation for falsifying conclusions about this, especially when your scientific career would be extremely damaged should you get caught (which is very likely to happen).

And a further problem with this argument, is where is the evidence of this? Don't want to accuse you of making this up, but where are you getting this info from? (i.e. I am interested in reading about it) Even though it would take longer to sort through, a bunch of journal articles showing such practices would be preferable to some random blog posting (or even a big news companies story on it), at least for me. Now that there is some data to point to, rather than just hand wavy notions of it being invalid, it would be helpful to have hard evidence of this data set manipulation. Otherwise, the debate over the information will just degenerate into a useless mess of accusations thrown back and forth until people get pissed off and start with the personal attacks, as inevitably always happens with these politically charged issues.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Peer reviewed journal submissions however, seem unlikely to allow conclusions not supported by data "

Countless scientists have reported that any research which appears to dispute GW orthodoxy will not make it past peer review these days, period. Many researchers have taken to not explicitly stating their conclusions if they cast doubt on AGW, as they know it will mean automatic rejection from any climate reviewer.

"where are you getting this info from?"

The folks at Climateaudit.org or Surfacestations.org are a good place to start. You can also read the sites, blogs, and public speeches of those scientists who have spoken out against the advocacy that has taken over climate science, people like Richard Lindzen (MIT), Willie Soon (Harvard), William Happer (Princeton) Hendrik Tennekes, Tim Patterson, or many others.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By B166ER on 2/10/2010 12:39:47 PM , Rating: 1
Who do you work for? Its ridiculous. Every life lesson people learn is to err on the side of caution. Your whole argument is that we may be wrong. SO? If we are whats the pain in the ass? Really, what is so bad about being wrong about this? break it down. Give me the numbers. You are poison.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 4
" If we are whats the pain in the ass?"

Are you serious? The cost of being wrong here involves spending hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars (the IPCC recently estimated than meeting just the preliminary carbon reduction goals would cost over $10T). Worse, restricting energy production has a direct result on the standard of living of the entire world population.

The amount of human misery caused by being wrong is incalculable. Right now we have millions of people in Africa dying from a standard of living that involves burning cow dung in a tiny hut for heat and cooking fuel. And we're telling them NOT to build modern power plants-- but instead, to focus on failed "green" solutions that can never provide them the energy they need.

Before the industrial era, the average person worked 12-16 hours a day. Outside, in the fields...in the hot sun. No weekends off, no vacations, no medical care, and no backup plan if drought or famine meant loss of his crops. He and his family simply starved to death. The only thing that let us out of that rat-trap was cheap energy. Energy from hydrocarbons. For the first time in history, man was not bound by what he could accomplish with his own muscle energy.

In rural Asia and Africa, hundreds of millions of people are still in that situation. And you want to keep them there? Do you have no heart? Shame on you. Shame!

The worst part about your entire statement is that, even if you were right -- so what? So the planet warms up from an average of 54F to 57F. Big deal. The Roman Warm Period was warmer than that, and humanity not only survived, but thrived. In fact, some historians believe that falling agricultural yields from the cold that ENDED the RWP led in part of the fall of the Roman Empire.

In summary, it is you who are poison, kid. You and the people who think like you. The people who believe man is a "disease" on the planet, and the world would be better off without us.

Take your sick, diseased, poisonous philosophy elsewhere, and stop bothering decent people with it. In fact, why not end the hypocrisy and start by offing your own self first? The world can do without your carbon consumption, right?


RE: Useless Propaganda
By lightfoot on 2/10/2010 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are assuming that reducing CO2 emissions to the level required to avert AGW would have no costs either economical or social. This is absolutely false. The costs of cutting CO2 to the levels required to halt warming would run into the Trillions of dollars each and every year for at least the next century. These are real resources that you are asking people to commit to a cause that has yet not been proven and which has consequences that cannot be measured. How many people must die in the name of AGW? People are dying today from hunger and disease and lack of clean drinking water. Diverting resources from those causes to attack an unproven phantom does not save lives, it takes them.

You sir, and all the other AGW alarmists, are the poison in our society.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By Meat Popcicle on 2/10/2010 2:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Countless scientists have reported that any research which appears to dispute GW orthodoxy will not make it past peer review these days, period. Many researchers have taken to not explicitly stating their conclusions if they cast doubt on AGW, as they know it will mean automatic rejection from any climate reviewer.


Is a shame if that really is the case. Would seem an opportunity to get some less biased journal started up, though it is somewhat ridiculous for that to even be an issue in the first place with peer reviewed journals. Glad to not have to deal with it personally at least.

And thanks for the links, I look forward to reading through them.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 7:23:36 PM , Rating: 3
" Please explain how NOAA is falsifying and manipulating this raw data, which is provided in REAL TIME..."

Why not learn a little about your subject before attempting to discuss it? Raw temperature data is essentially worthless in climatology. Weather stations move, get shut down or restarted, they are affected by external factors such as UHI (urban heat island) and a thousand other effects. Stations are clustered thick in some areas, very thin in aother, and have to be weighted in result. Sometimes stations are read at differing times of the day. Sometimes analog temperatures are replaced by digital ones, with slightly different error bars, or the station itself can be altered (even changing the formulation of paint on a station housing can change a temperature reading by a half degree). Sometimes stations are assumed to be seriously in error, in which case their readings are removed entirely.

The process by which these millions of readings are converted into a single "global temperature" runs to thousands of correction factors and hundreds of thousands of lines of source code. In short, you can't just look at a bunch of raw data and say "Ahh...the world temperatures is now THIS".

The various groups working with surface temperature datasets all have their own codebases for doing this conversion. All of them get somewhat different values. The controversy comes because the two major groups have both been found to systematically making 'corrections' that intentionally warmed the dataset, rather than attempting to be as neutral as possible. In one case, fully 75% of the raw readings were removed from the data, leaving ONLY stations reporting from areas which were seeing warming trends, all with no explanation being given. In another case, dozens of stations which were in areas experiencing rapid urban growth (and therefore should have received some sort of negative UHI adjustment) instead received a POSITIVE adjustment, artificially increasing their raw reading by several degrees.


RE: Useless Propaganda
By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. Not to mention the ice core data not only proves they are lying about man made warming, and that it is bad, but it shows and *will* show someday that they were lying about what was actually going on with the temperatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE


This is where it SHOULD have started
By InternetGeek on 2/9/2010 6:17:09 PM , Rating: 5
This is the way the entire Climate Change debate should have started. Relevant institutions around the world putting their measurements in a way thats human and machine readable, allowing other people and institutions to perform their own analysis and cross-relation.

That way no studies can be forced to show a particular trend, and can always use the latest information. I can't believe that in this time and age we're not doing things this way.




RE: This is where it SHOULD have started
By AEvangel on 2/9/2010 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That way no studies can be forced to show a particular trend, and can always use the latest information. I can't believe that in this time and age we're not doing things this way.


That is only if you believe you can trust the Govt agencies data whose funding is resting on proving that their is something catastrophic that is going to happen if they aren't their to monitor the temperatures.

You see that is how all this started...I come to you "the Govt" and say the world is in danger and we need to stop it!! You the Govt, say, but what is causing it? I respond I'm not sure but were all going to die unless I can figure it out. Then you the Govt say well what do you need to figure it out and I say well I will need LOTS of money to research it.

Then when you realize that it was all BS and your going to lose all that grant money you fudge the #'s to keep the threat alive and the money flowing.


RE: This is where it SHOULD have started
By InternetGeek on 2/9/2010 7:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that Data Quality coming from an organization with a conflict of interest in proving something would be a problem.

However this is climate data we're talking about. This is data that has been tracked for centuries through manual and automatic means. Most of it is provided real-time these days. You can't mess with that unless you hack into a station or boil water near all the thermometers.

Collecting data is what governments are good for. And this is done beyond the space of research, policy, etc. They are lacking in publishing it in a way we can all take advantage of. Personally I think gov's should stay from everything else, but that's a different debate.


By porkpie on 2/9/2010 8:08:53 PM , Rating: 3
You have to realize that the "data" being given out here by the NOAA isn't raw data. Their global temperature is calculated by taking raw readings through a conversion process involving 100,000+ lines of source code, and countless weights, factors, adjustments, 'corrections', and other changes.

The NOAA also excludes a majority of the temperature stations around the world. Why did they pick the 25% that remain? They won't say themselves, but independent researchers have found the stations eliminated were all those showing a cooling trend. The ones remaining were those in urban areas, or near low-lying coastal regions that were showing warming trends.


RE: This is where it SHOULD have started
By BobT on 2/9/2010 7:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You see that is how all this started...I come to you "the Govt" and say the world is in danger and we need to stop it!! You the Govt, say, but what is causing it? I respond I'm not sure but were all going to die unless I can figure it out. Then you the Govt say well what do you need to figure it out and I say well I will need LOTS of money to research it.


That is a pretty nasty indictment of the American people if what you are implying had any chance of being true. What you are trying to tell me is that this bunch of scientists 200 years ago thought up Global Warming and talked the government into funding research that they have been keeping to themselves until the last few years.

Now I will grant you that from what I have witnessed of many of the politicians in the past 50 years that they tend to be lacking in the common sense department but I highly doubt that you could pull off a 200 year long hoax even on those dimwits.

Look it up. NOAA was formed in 1970 from three existing departments of the government that had been around since the 1800s. One department was created in 1807 which is why NOAA celebrated it's 200th birthday in 2007.


By Jalek on 2/10/2010 3:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
The conspiracy theory I've heard involves Maurice Strong of Canada, who believes the world must be under one government and only through panic and fear will that ever happen. His influence over Gore, and many other politicians, goes back to his large contributions to both American political parties as well as those in Canada.

He proposed limits on the number of children in Canada years ago, and coincidentally, he now lives in Beijing and advises the Chinese government. Of course, he himself has five kids, because anyone demanding limiting others doesn't want to live under their own restrictions.

It goes on and on, I'm sure there are websites about the guy, he was a big part of Kyoto.


By borismkv on 2/10/2010 11:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
All of those organizations' original purpose is very different from the one NOAA is fulfilling in the Global Warming debate. Additionally, NOAA deals with studying all kinds of atmospheric and oceanic anomalies and cycles. The predict and plot the formation and movements of hurricanes (this has actually been their chief role since the combination of those organizations in 1970), track ocean currents, and study all kinds of other things. Temperature measurement is *not* their primary mission. In fact, that role has only taken a slightly more important role since the Global Warming scare started in earnest over the last few decades.

For you to state that they have been studying Global Warming over the past 200 years is just ignorant. We haven't even *had* a method of measuring global temperatures for 150 years. As far back as any reliable, accurately measured data goes is 1880. The greenhouse effect itself was not forwarded as a *hypothesis* until 1824, it wasn't experimentally demonstrated until 1858, and wasn't established as scientifically proven until 1896. Further, those experiments only explained why the Earth isn't 18 degrees below 0 Celsius. The greenhouse effect is absolutely *essential* to the existence of life on this planet. AGW was not forwarded as a hypothesis until *very* recently, and it is an outcropping of an original theory in the late 1800s. And the calculations from that theory are still used without modification in all of these models!!! That means that the mathematics behind global warming is older than manned powered flight !!!

Add all of that to the fact that NOAA (which alternatively stands for No Organization At All) has 0 oversight and is horrendously over-budgeted, and I can't help but argue with their findings.

What do I want them to post? Historical raw temperature readings from *all* of their monitoring stations. That would make me *very* happy.


By InternetGeek on 2/9/2010 9:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
PorkPie,

Climate data is treated in a standard way around the world. These datasets are captured and stored in standardized formats. There's no clean-up or conversion applied to the actuall measurement, however a correction factor is indicated with the reading.

The fact that datasets were removed from the overall study is suspicious enough. There are the computing resources to process all the information without having to drop data 'just because'. Let statistics determine whether a dataset should be dropped or not.

If you ask me other instutions around the planet should be publishing the information they have. A study done this way would give us a complete view of what's going on with the climate. Extreme warming or cooling might be harmful to us as a race.


By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 1:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
*ACTUALLY* this argument shouldn't have ever started because the data that is available PROVE BEYOND DOUBT that we have nothing to do with it and there is nothing we can do about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE

The only reason this is even on the table is because people saw it as a way to create for themselves positions of power and wealth at the cost of the ignorant and stupid.


By glennforum on 2/10/2010 5:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are kidding right?

How come people like Mick (savage liberal) always cherry pick the information in their blog posts?

Maybe you should have reviewed the NOAA report before you make a statement - This is where is SHOULD have started!!!

Unfortunately in the report if you read it carefully you will see that NOAA deliberately eliminated weather collecting stations reporting coolor temperatures around the world. They just decided to take those thousands of weather stations RIGHT OUT OF THE MIX.

They had 6000 stations recording and reporting temperatures around the world...the VAST MAJORITY of them trending cooler temperatures. NOAA's plan...well let's get rid of them and they cherry picked the 1500 stations that were reporting the warmest temperatures.

The changes actually caused the temperature to increase and not drop if the data remained.

Our government along with the rest of the world's are not trustworthy and too many people with progressive agendas have inflitrated our countries and climate change and healthcare are the two cornerstones for the government to completely take over and control you life.


Change is real, what's important is the cause.
By oldscotch on 2/10/2010 1:48:08 AM , Rating: 1
Sad that people are still debating whether climate change is happening or not, if you don't like the numbers, don't use them. There is plenty of plain evidence you can see with your own eyes that climate change is indeed occuring.

Now there is legitimate debate as to whether the change is a result of human interference, but the changes are happening. Denying that is sticking your head in the sand.




By magneticfield on 2/10/2010 7:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
I second that.

The climate is changing, but it's not the man-made CO2 causing it.
Perhaps cutting-down the forests could count and also other human enterprises (such as huge urban areas covered in steel/glass/concrete).
These could be pin-pointed with precision, but nobody cares.

The industry as a whole is responsible for most of the environmental damage, you can't deny it.
But what is the solution ? Selling them "carbon credits" ?
That is ridiculous.


RE: Change is real, what's important is the cause.
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
Clearing a forest does cause climate to change. But calling that change "damage" is fallacious thinking.

Somehow people have gotten into the mindset that ANY change to the earth's environmnet is automatically damaging. Nothing could be further from the truth. Man got where he is today by intentionally modifying the environment to better suit him. And we CANNOT SURVIVE without continuing to do so. We need to remember that.


RE: Change is real, what's important is the cause.
By B166ER on 2/10/2010 12:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Since you put it plainly, I'm going to ask you plainly. Trees eat CO2? But we have waaaaaayyyy less trees (and other fauna, but the point is the same.) And we make waaaayyy more CO2. But this is all ok? Its all fine?


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
"But we have waaaaaayyyy less trees "

There's no need to cry, son. In any case, you seem blisfully unaware that the US is more heavily forested today than it was in 1900. Fact. The agricultural revolution and higher yields means we feed 300 million today on less farmed land than once fed 100 million on.

In fact, if you take out two nations (Brazil and Indonesia) then worldwide , forestation is outpacing deforestation. Fact again.

Saying trees "eat" CO2 is overly simplistic. A tree fixes carbon. But under normal conditions, when that tree reaches maturity, it essentially stops the process...and when it dies, it releases back all the carbon it once held.

The oceans are the great drivers of long-term carbon fixation...countless millions of tons of plankton and related vegetable life, all sinking down to the great depths upon death. Ultimately, this natural carbon fixing and subsequent reduction of CO2 is a very BAD thing for the environment. Plants need CO2 to live...had mankind not come along to boost levels, eventually the planet would have killed itself, by exhausting atmospheric CO2 entirely.

Already, research has proven that plants are growing between 5-25% faster today than they did in 1850, thanks to higher CO2 levels. A further increase to around 500ppm can be nothing but a net positive for mankind.


By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there is no legitimate debate whatsoever. The Ice core data proves without doubt or refute that man has nothing to do with what is going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE

What's actually sad is that people don't bother learning the truth and exposing the lie *or* that people are so stupid that they believe the lie.


By oldscotch on 2/11/2010 12:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
Those charts indicate significant changes over a prolonged period.
There is nothing in them that proves one way or another what the cause of the most recent change is.


By ThePooBurner on 2/11/2010 4:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
You've got to be kidding me. So man is responsible for the warming now which is "horrible and destroying the world" despite being FAR LESS than the warming of the middle ages, but not for the other warming periods which were hotter and didn't destroy the world or mankind? or are you seriously suggesting man cause the warming back then too?

Look at the graphs man! It's an obvious climate pattern that is trackable and is repeated over and over and over again! We humans have NOTHING to do with that pattern.


By oldscotch on 2/12/2010 3:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Where does it say on the graph what caused the changes?

I'm not saying man is responsible for this change, I'm saying we don't know what the cause of the change is. Just becuase it happened before does not mean human interference is not causing it this time.

Or rather, we don't know for certain what caused it before and we don't know for certain what's causing it now. And we don't know that what caused it before is the same thing that's causing it now.

Remember what I said, that it's changing is not (or at least, should not) be debated. It's the cause that's important. Your graph proves nothing other than indicating that changes have happened previously.


Hardly a scam
By McDragon on 2/9/2010 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 1
I believe it's naive to think we can burn off such enormeous amounts of fossil fuel without any consequence. Take a look at the graphs in the picture. That (pretty dramatic) 60ppm rise in CO2 can be easily proved as we know how much oil, coal etc. have been burned in the last 58 years.

Does anyone really believe that altering the atmosphere like that will have no consequence?
I have no idea what the consequences (if any) of GW will be, but it seems clear to me that we are warming as an effect of greenhouse gas emissions.




RE: Hardly a scam
By porkpie on 2/9/2010 11:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
" That (pretty dramatic) 60ppm rise in CO2... "

What caused CO2 levels to rise in the past, sometimes by as much as 200ppm within a couple centuries? The geologic record is clear that CO2 levels rise and fall on their own. In fact, at some points in the earth's past, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today. And life not only survived-- it thrived.

Do you not realize how many gigatonnes of carbon the Earth's atmosphere exchanges naturally? In a single year, an amount equivalent to as much as 25% of all the oil and coal we've burned since the start of the industrial era is processed. A tiny shift in either uptake or outflow rates results in large shifts in the amount of CO2.

" it seems clear to me that we are warming as an effect of greenhouse gas emissions."

So why did over half the warming we've experienced occur BEFORE 1940...in a period in which carbon emissions were negligible compared to today's levels?


RE: Hardly a scam
By cmdrdredd on 2/9/2010 11:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that each and every time you breathe you release CO2 into the atmosphere and your surrounding environment. The simple fact that there's BILLIONS of people here that weren't here before could account for SOME of it.

So I guess I can sue you, CO2 is a poison right? You're breathing right? HOLD YOUR BREATH!


RE: Hardly a scam
By B166ER on 2/10/2010 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that each and every time you drive a car you can become a lethal bullet, able to kill?
So I should just convict you for attempted murder? DON'T DRIVE!


RE: Hardly a scam
By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 1:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it seems clear to me that we are warming as an effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE


Wonderful
By bill3 on 2/9/2010 8:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
How did I know global warming propogandist Mick would be the one posting this pro global warming myth news as soon as I saw the sidebar title?

Next thing you know, the sun will rise in the east, or Mick will post an anti-microsoft or pro piracy article, whichever.

Anyway, pretty amazing that now we are supposed to be glad these "scientists" deign to allow us lowly commoners to see the "data".

Proof number one that climate change mythology isnt science. In real science, sharing the data would never even be a question.

Anyways, my problem would be, I'm not sure I'd trust this data. It's still going through Nasa's filter before it ever gets to you and me. Who knows what theyve done to it.

The only real way to get trustworthy data imo is to have somebody not associated with the pro-global warming myth movement take the actual measurments.




RE: Wonderful
By Jalek on 2/10/2010 3:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between transparent availability to data and restricted access is like the difference between science and religion.

No climate change fearmonger can logically claim to not have a faith-based religion.


Missing Info
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 7:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
There are 2 major things excluded from this data that directly affect the temperature of the planet:

sun luminosity
solar wind

Climate Change 'scientists' have always excluded this data. If they were to actually include the data, another cause could possibly be identified. They just don't want that to happen.

Also, you should notice that they only include data back to 1950. That is not nearly enough data to identify anything. We'd need centuries of data to figure out what's going on.




RE: Missing Info
By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 12:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Tangible
By Uncle on 2/9/2010 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why are we spending so much time and energy on climate change that the majority of mankind can't see touch taste or smell,its not tangible. Try this. Its harder for humanity to grasp and prove or disprove what a few so called specialist are telling us. Perhaps these specialist could focus on the things that humanity can grasp and see for them selves. Such as polluted oceans (dead zones where nothing lives)and fish stocks becoming extinct. Polluted rivers ,streams, lakes. Continue reducing our air pollution. Continue recycling. Focus on what people as individuals can do. I haven't heard one person say to me, tomorrow I'm going to stop global warming.
When are the scientist going to point their finger and go after the industry that creates all the pollution that is causing the global warming. The Industry should lead by example instead of whats convenient for them. Plastic is a prime example. It seems they create it and then the consumer who has no choice when purchasing the item is expected to get rid of it for the industry. I think my point is made without going on and on.




Hopefully now.
By coparofl on 2/9/2010 9:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
People will be more sceptical before believing hype and scare via media, and less willing to hand over freedom and money.

We need less government control over our lives not more.




FYI
By Hieyeck on 2/10/2010 8:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new NOAA Climate Portal offers real time data from a wealth of climate monitoring stations and devices (including weather balloons). (Source: NOAA)

The study is called meteorology, and the stations are called meteorological stations.

Climate is the global meteorological trend. Trends are educated predictions garnered from the extrapolations of applying a healthy understanding of averages and inertia to a healthy number of observations. You can't measure or monitor a prediction, no matter how educated it might be (unless you're the CRU).

Unless it's NOAA actually calling them "climate monitoring stations". Then I'd start questioning the "data" coming out of there.




Breaking News
By pityme on 2/10/2010 11:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
NOAA just reported losing all January 2010 temperature data for US and Europe. Officials note that this is a very small and unimportant data set compared to the huge amounts of data from 1971 onward. Officials mentioned that a runaway dog and eating were involved in this data loss. (Well, it worked in 3rd grade didn't it.)




By ThePooBurner on 2/10/2010 1:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
How convenient that they only post and show the last 100 years of data, perfectly in line with the AGW camp's assertion that man and the industrial age has cause the warming that is present. Without *ALL* data that we have on the subject, from ice core samples, the site is 100% worthless BS propaganda trying to manipulate people into thinking that AGW is real.

The reason they can't, and don't dare, post anything farther back than that is because is disproves their BS theories and would jeopardize their power over the people and the people's money. Let take a look further back at what the ice cor samples have to tell us about our past warming and cooling cycles, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE

AGW is a complete and total lie. A scheme created based on social engineering to steal money from the people and force them into a way of life that the government dictates "to save the planet" or face the consequences.




Education Blind to Temperature
By Thermoguy on 2/18/2010 12:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
The argument on climate change exists because it is blind science that is missing critical data. We design buildings with meteorology data supplied through building codes except code compliance isn't verified.

In finding the cause of urban heat islands and how they use energy, we have more problems than we knew. Weather Stations are no representing buildings being radiated by the same sun's rays that burn our skin. We documented building exteriors over 200 degree F on a 95 F day and the building isn't insulated for those temperatures. Last Christmas, building exteriors were over 120 F on a 23 F day and heating the atmosphere without emissions produced. Here is a link to time-lapsed infrared videos showing how fast buildings become urban heat islands and why people are cooked in their buildings. http://www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html

Air conditioning is refrigeration, a big electrical load and treats a symptom. Paint or shade your building.




LOL
By Soldier1969 on 2/9/2010 7:47:40 PM , Rating: 1
Global Warming believers = EPIC FAIL




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki