Oh well. It’s been a good life.

England’s recent snowfall

Your Atmos. Phys. 101 professor would slap you on the head, your Stats 101 prof too.

You’re playing games; assert, but never substantiate, divert when pressured. I don’t really care if the denial mob believes you. I’ve posted enough links which others can follow. Now I have better things to do than follow you down the garden path, so goodbye.

I don’t believe the midwest, the northeast U.S. nor England’s recent snowfall got the memo. I’m going to visit my family in Bailey, CO this week-end and enjoy boarding from the dumping it’d gotten recently. For the ground is COLD enough for snow to be plentiful. Even in the cities. That’s ‘weird…’.

I used wuwt and other lucid, science fact-filled sites to further display upper atmosphere/ tropospheric data for you to peruse.

‘Hand waving’? Oh, you mean FACTS. Here’s another climatedepot article that furthers the point of climatedata.org being a fringe blog site..

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving–Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice

FTR, what is an ‘denailosphere’? I didn’t ‘forget’ as you alluded to.

As for ‘diverting the issue’ from NOAA, DOE, NCAR et al. Lazar, I WORKED with and for them. It’s all about funding. Funding = Employment.

Your support for ‘buoy’ data is laughable as well. The erroneous, inoperable data and lax stance in troubleshooting/ repairing those sites due to the buoy’s location/ manpower is a sad fact. I wish I could refer you to an NDBC buddy of mine to elaborate.

I’d worked at the South Pole and McMurdo Station during the ’03, ’04 Austral Summers, respectively. I went to remote weather sensors via Twin Otter aircraft when at Pole to dig out a few remote weather stations. For these stations were reading high temperature values, being insulated and all from blowing snow. Some hadn’t been dug out, troubleshot in years..

The difference between absolute values and supposed ‘anomalies’ can be exponential. As was the case for Hansen’s assertions. To write that off and people from RealClimate claiming ‘right on the money’ is scary group think. On Hansen’s anomalies.. that have proven to be inaccurate, is validity for you?

As for ‘RealClimate’, it’s a blog site with some, though not all participants hailing from NCAR, NSF, IPCC and the like. I got to work, understand some of those like-minded folks when at UNC (Northern CO) as a kid. Hmmm.

As for your statistics diatribe, a name that comes to mind is a guy who works on the ‘inside’, Economist and EPA’s Alan Carlin (no relation to the late George Carlin).

The EPA is trying to snuff/ blockade Carlin of further research, reporting his findings but interesting perspective/ approach nonetheless.

Lastly, you said ‘The validity of the data is not the issue here’ – That is the only issue.

I think it’s nonsense, but Gosh Darn! anyway.

accurate technology

There are differences between absolute values and anomalies, and between conjecture based on a photo and actually demonstrating effects on the target variable of global average temperature — you understand that, right? Land stations, marine buoys and satellites are all telling you that the air at the surface is warming, fast. No amount of WUWT hand-waving will change that conclusion.

are well below Hansen’s predictions

Readers can judge for themselves whether temperatures are “well below” Scenario C, or B which is the closer match to forcings. In fact, as RealClimate note, Hansen’s model was bang on the money;

From 1984 to 2006, the trends in the two observational datasets are 0.24+/- 0.07 and 0.21 +/- 0.06 deg C/decade, where the error bars (2[tex]\sigma [/tex]) are the derived from the linear fit. The ‘true’ error bars should be slightly larger given the uncertainty in the annual estimates themselves. For the model simulations, the trends are for Scenario A: 0.39+/-0.05 deg C/decade, Scenario B: 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C/decade and Scenario C: 0.24 +/- 0.05 deg C/decade.

Paul,

From 1998 to present time temperatures have either leveled off or fallen

Statistics say you’re wrong.

Lastly, using a, ‘Michael Moore explained’ in attempting validity to your cause is naivete to the nth power..

Then again, this explains a lot in your opus.

Perhaps you’re unaware of the reference. Under pressure on a televised debate, Michael Moore excused the multiple lies in his documentaries by saying “Hey, this is comedy”. I’m a conservative, an old type, when the term meant something other than dogmatic adherence to 1980s cliches. So I’m not going to follow the right into their anti-science and various fundamentalisms.

Then again, this explains a lot in your opus..

There is NO accurate technology available to get accurate worldwide temperatures.

I worked for the NWS after a military weather stint. Nearly all NWS locations for the pressure, temperature, wind, RVR, precip sensors etc., were on a cement base. Thus, the digital readout in the office was erroneous due to absorption. A *ell of a big deal for weather folks and the pilots we brief. For the convective temperature/ thunderstorm development is always skewed from the more reliable, antiquated sounding data.

These same NWS sensors are often near buildings/ structures. Thus effecting other pertinent data as well.

What’s more frightening is NOAA/NWS has volunteer or ‘co-op’ weather stations. You won’t believe where some of these temperature sensors are located (though most countries practice this B S. I saw much of this misuse when in Burkina Faso, Mali and India)! Example of MANY -

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/junkyard_mmts_org.jpg

As for Hansen’s ’88 report, I’m glad you can ‘look this stuff up’. This way you’re able to absorb Hansen’s overestimation in all 3 counts. Though I’ll focus moreso with Scenario C.

Scenario C, without looking at RealClimate is if worldwide Governments made substantial attempts to limit emissions. NO ACTION, ‘just words’ (Thanks Prez) has been taken and temperatures are well below Hansen’s predictions..

The only thing Hansen/NASA and company have proven is these alarmists are better at setting up computer programs than understanding the myriad of variables effecting the global climate.

I’ll say this in regards to temperatures following the industrial age.

Temperatures were flat or falling from ~1943 – ~1975. Temperatures rose ~1975 – ~1998. From 1998 to present time temperatures have either leveled off or fallen. Dependent upon which venue you turn. (Fed or reality..)

Since you show interest and discussing the subject, albeit skewed, check out wattsupwiththat.com, thechillingeffect.org, scienceblogs.com – These sites provide sun irridiance, troposphere temperature data, et al.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=uah

Lastly, didn’t Obama visit the DOE in Florida last week? Surprisingly this ‘unbiased’ AP article, including the DOE as a contributor is released? Wow, what a coincidence..

Renewable energy sources must be used instead.

Therefore, all motor vehicles MUST be converted to WIND POWER.
SAILS need to be installed on all vehicles, immediately.

Then there’s this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased.

And here’s how the AP made them dance;

Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but “eyeballed” the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years.

Did not do any statistical analysis, but eyeballed the numbers. Is this what they teach in econometrics today? But it was “irony”, a joke, geddit? As Michael Moore explained; this is comedy.

Displaying their findings in Alabama doesn’t change their motivations.

You guys have lost the science debate so much you really do sound like flat-earthers; everyone else just must be lying.

By the way, I found ‘David (W.) Peterson’, his book (the one mentioned in the AP article) has a short bio;

David W. Peterson studied electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin and at Stanford University. Following a stint in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, he joined the Northwestern University Graduate School of Management faculty, from which he migrated to Duke University, where he taught applied statistics for more than twenty years. In 1979 he founded PRI Associates, a statistical consulting and software development firm he headed until it was absorbed into a larger company. He and his wife live in Chatham County, N.C. on a small farm where they grow trees.

And some of his work at Duke, looks interesting.