Quote:

---

Actually the plateau since 1998 is more likely just the result of more accurate temperature measurement by NOAA and other temperature monitoring groups. As a result of the hysteria about global warming, NOAA decided that they needed an overall review of their monitoring stations so they could collect more accurate temperatures to show the progression of climate change. These reviews lead to the discovery that up to 60% of their stations didn’t meet their standards for monitoring temperature change. It wasn’t that there was anything wrong with the equipment, it was that in the years since the equipment was installed, housing and commercial development had encroached on the permissible boundaries for accurate temperature collection. The problem being that the data from a station that once sat in the middle of a vacant field can’t be used now because that same station now sits next to a 10 acre asphalt parking lot.

One thing many do not understand is the difference between accuracy and precision, the stations were precisely recording temperatures and temperature differences the entire time, but the data is worthless because monitoring conditions changed affecting the accuracy of the overall data. It would be just fine if all of the monitoring stations were exactly 50 feet South West of 10 acres of asphalt, but the fact that some were and others were not is what makes the past data questionable. The data collected after 1998 is most likely just the first accurate data we’ve collected in a long time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Actually the plateau since 1998 is more likely just the result of more accurate temperature measurement by NOAA and other temperature monitoring groups. As a result of the hysteria about global warming, NOAA decided that they needed an overall review of their monitoring stations so they could collect more accurate temperatures to show the progression of climate change. These reviews lead to the discovery that up to 60% of their stations didn’t meet their standards for monitoring temperature change. It wasn’t that there was anything wrong with the equipment, it was that in the years since the equipment was installed, housing and commercial development had encroached on the permissible boundaries for accurate temperature collection. The problem being that the data from a station that once sat in the middle of a vacant field can’t be used now because that same station now sits next to a 10 acre asphalt parking lot.

One thing many do not understand is the difference between accuracy and precision, the stations were precisely recording temperatures and temperature differences the entire time, but the data is worthless because monitoring conditions changed affecting the accuracy of the overall data. It would be just fine if all of the monitoring stations were exactly 50 feet South West of 10 acres of asphalt, but the fact that some were and others were not is what makes the past data questionable. The data collected after 1998 is most likely just the first accurate data we’ve collected in a long time.

---

Ooh. That's a good explanation. The El Nino thing is just what I heard recently.

Though, how come we're still around 0.4 degrees Celsius higher than in the 1950s, even with the plateau? If it was fixed, wouldn't we see it drop back down?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

I don’t deny the existence of global warming, there is some evidence that it exists. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s primarily a result of human and bovine made CO2. California was 4 degrees hotter eighteen thousand years ago than it is today, I don’t know why exactly and anyone that says they do is a liar or a pseudo scientist. The whole global warming fiasco is a result of bad science pushed by “scientists” with a monetary motivation and a ends justifies the means mentality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

I don’t deny the existence of global warming, there is some evidence that it exists. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s primarily a result of human and bovine made CO2. California was 4 degrees hotter eighteen thousand years ago than it is today, I don’t know why exactly and anyone that says they do is a liar or a pseudo scientist. The whole global warming fiasco is a result of bad science pushed by “scientists” with a monetary motivation and a ends justifies the means mentality.

---

Kirkules,

Do you bother to do any actual learning before you opine? (and opine is all it is - you are spouting BS) If you did try to actually learn something, you might have noticed that 18,000 years ago California (along with the rest of North America), not only wasn't "4 degrees warmer" , as you absurdly argue, it was still wrapped up in the recent glacial maximum. It was on average 4 degrees (Celsius - you don't even define your units) colder. 5,000 years later the place warmed up enough that humans invaded North America from Asia. It might have happened a bit earlier by current evidence, but not 18,000 years ago.

Sir, you do not know what the hell you are talking about. And you would be well advised not to flout your ignorance, because there are plenty of people here on this board who are much better informed than you and will call you on such garbage posts. Ignorant people such as yourself really shouldn't try to argue facts that they don't understand. It really doesn't work. But education can be a lifelong process. You might want to try it.

perfessergee

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um. We're just talking, professor, just talk. Anyway, all Kirkules said was he doesn't think global warming is man made. I don't agree with him, but throwing around words like "ignorant" is part of the reason why scientists are pushing normal people away from this issue.

---

Quote:

---

Kirkules: Oh wait, you mean the medieval warming period. I think? Yeah, none of us have any idea. It might be agriculture related, there's some theories that there was a similar occurrence about 10,000 years ago where we should have had a cold period but ice cores say we didn't. Corresponds pretty well with the invention of agriculture, and in the medieval ages, agriculture was a well-oiled machine. Lots of tree felling in Europe at the time too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
S'wenyways, Kirkules

I think I stumbled across the source of one of your facts - that somehow re-siting thermometers 'stopped' the progress of global warming.

That is not true.

"WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8, 2009, press release, the World Meterological Organization reported that "[t]he decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989)."

NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record." On December 8, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, "[t]he 2000 - 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."

Met Office data also shows 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. Bloomberg reported on December 8 that "[o]f the 10 hottest years on record, nine occurred in the 2000s, according to the Met Office, which said it expected temperatures to keep rising as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions." The article further noted that, "Global temperatures are expressed by the Met Office as an 'anomaly' from the long-term average. The 2000s were about 0.4 of a degree warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, eclipsing the record 0.23-degree temperature anomaly of the 1990s, it said.""


If I were you, next time I used that source, I would validate their facts before I used them.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Kirk, what point are you unsure about? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide levels have increased? Are you in doubt that this is due to human activity? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Are you in doubt that increased carbon dioxide levels warm the atmosphere? All of these are fact... Physics 101, if you will. (There is a high school experiment in which you seal extra carbon dioxide into an aquarium with a thermometer, and compare it to an aquarium sealed with average air. The temperature difference is measurable; the physics of IR absorption - by CO2, methane and other molecules-is so well-known that it is actually used to measure the amount in the atmo.)

The earth's temperature has its own ups and downs. That is also fact. But so what? All that means is that the earth is subject to various driving forces... insolation, volcanism, biology. About 750 million years ago the earth was a snowball; the albedo was so high it was unlikely that the earth would EVER unfreeze. But the fate of life was rescued by massive volcanic events which released… you guessed it… carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Saying that the situation is complex, and using that complexity to deny basic, well-proven fact is a cop-out. Reality doesn’t conform to your ideology… or mine, for that matter… but to deny fact for ideology is folly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules

What you posted was this: "Actually the plateau since 1998 ..."

There is no plateau. Globally, temperatures have gone up. Therefore, you are wrong.

FURTHERMORE - you are mistaking GLOBAL temperature measurements for US measurements, and implying that the only temperature measurements that go into GLOBAL temperature calculations come from US sites. Therefore, you are once again wrong to conclude that GLOBAL measurements are faulty.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
A typo ??????

A FUCKING TYPO ?????????!!! Something that the COPY EDITOR (you know, those people whose JOB it is to check for those things) should have caught ?

It's not that their calculations were wrong. It's not that their science was wrong. It's not that their conclusions were wrong.
OOOhhhh NNNNnnnooooo. YOU have to pick on a FUCKING TYPO to say their SCIENCE is bad !!!

---

Quote:

---

I have nothing further to say to you ...

---