EnviroLink Forum

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Why let something like accuracy get in the way of a good misdirection?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/ ... e.scotland

The future of skiing and snowboarding in Scotland appeared bleak last night after two of the country's five ski resorts were put up for sale after large financial losses.
The owners of Glencoe and Glenshee put the resorts on the market yesterday morning after deciding they could no longer afford to keep them open.

Mild winters and lack of snow in recent years have left the winter sports industry north of the border reeling. Scotland's other three ski areas are also struggling to keep afloat.

With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years. The perilous state of finances in the remaining resorts may reduce even that estimate.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

It is guys like Milton Banana who have delayed meaningful reductions in emissions pollution and sustainable use of resources, to the point of this>>>>>>>
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24402




and another link;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-re ... thors.html
Peer-reviewed papers by Skeptical Science authors
Posted on 5 March 2014 by John Cook

One of the features of Skeptical Science that makes our content robust is our internal "SkS-review" system. Before any blog posts and rebuttals are published, they are critiqued and reviewed by the SkS team. This process identifies and filters out scientific inaccuracies as well as works on communicating the science more clearly and simply.

The Skeptical Science team is a diverse group of scientists and laypeople scattered all over the globe. Their expertise covers climate science, social science, environmental science, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry. If you want to peruse the scholarly papers published by the SkS team, check out the Google Scholar profiles of some of our team members:

Gavin Cawley
John Cook
Kevin Cowtan
Sarah Green
Ari Jokimaki
Dana Nuccitelli
Andrew Skuce
Robert Way

The purpose of Skeptical Science is straightforward: we debunk climate misinformation with peer-reviewed science.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Another station photo. How many photos fence sitters before you begin to seriously question the data presented?


Placed way to close to a cinderblock building. Placed way to close to a concrete pad. Placed way to close to metal boxes that radiate heat. Another fail. Data should be disqualified, but its not.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

The Troposphere warming slower than forecast doesn't necessarily disprove AGW, but it may show that the oceans are more efficient at absorbing heat than modeled. Probably as some form of natural variability from the PDO. Sea Level has rose faster than projected over the last 20 or so years, so the overestimated warming at the surface can be explained by the underestimated rise in Sea Level.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Thus, that's one of the reasons I feel sensitivity is on the lower end of the 1.5-4.5 Degree C consensus. I'd hedge it at between 1.5-2.5 Degrees C. However, Sea Level may rise faster than projected over the 21st Century.

Over 9000 hits fence sitters.

There are clear guidelines published by NOAA as to how these stations are to be properly set up. Here is the link again. The photo of this station clearly violates station guidelines. I would think the reason these guidelines were decided upon was to insure as clear as possible data collection.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm

Why decide upon and issue guidelines for proper station installation, and then ignore them and later fashion a bias correction? How can one correction do for many different stations with many different variables? Would this correction work for the station photographed above the same as the station in California placed on a roof top? Or the station placed next to hot AC exhaust? Or the station placed next to a brick building, or the one right next to an asphalt parking lot? It would be impossible. A bias correction for a temperature reading? Only in the minds of the federal government.

But, I've noticed a curious similarity. Satellites for measuring temperature fall out of calibration from simple orbital decay. Another data bias technique to solve an unforeseen problem? Or an opportunity? Problems with ground and satellite temperature data. Two completely different methods. A bias correction is employed that achieves the same end. Making things purposefully difficult to muddy the waters?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

A few questions for Milton.

One, how do you explain studies like which show an unprecedented decline in Arctic Sea Ice relative to the last 1,450 years?

How do explain how the Earth continues to remain in a positive energy imbalance despite the very low solar activity, as evidenced by continued heat content increase and sea level rise? Heat Content increase has been well documented by and The continued rise in Sea Level while solar activity has been in a slump has been documented by

I'm also assuming that you believe the ECS to be below typical accepted values of 1.5-4.5 K? If so, how do you explain the large fluctuations in paleoclimate? Such large fluctuations with that low of a sensitivity would need a huge forcing, much larger than known orbital forcing, a forcing that has not been documented.

Lastly, how do you explain the pattern of warming, such ? In all of the studies I've seen that try and attribute stratospheric cooling, they nearly all attribute it to some combination of , and a .

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.